PTX Pepfar Cfta

Michigan 7 Wk Jrs CHPS
Politics – PEPFAR/Colombia FTA
Politics – PEPFAR and Colombia FTA

There are three politics files you will need to use:
- politics internal links file
- politics links file
- politics scenarios file
There are a bunch of different Colombia FTA bad scenarios you can read in the 1nc – you should change the 1nc scenario depending
on the aff.
GENERIC UNIQUENESS DEBATE

Politics – PEPFAR and Colombia FTA.............................................................................................................. ...................1
Generic Uniqueness – Political Capital............................................................................................................. ..................3
Generic Uniqueness – No Political Capital.................................................................................................... .......................4
Generic Uniqueness – Concessions Now........................................................................................................ ......................5
Generic Uniqueness – No Concessions Now............................................................................................ ............................6
PEPFAR – 1NC Shell – 1/2............................................................................................................................................ .......7
PEPFAR – 1NC Shell – 2/2............................................................................................................................................ .......8
PEPFAR – Will Pass.................................................................................................................................. ...........................9
PEPFAR – Will Pass............................................................................................................................... ............................10
PEPFAR – Will Pass........................................................................................................................................................ ....11
PEPFAR – Bush Pushing........................................................................................................................ ............................12
PEPFAR – Political Capital Key.................................................................................................................... .....................13
PEPFAR – Political Capital Key.................................................................................................................... .....................14
PEPFAR – Solves AIDS.............................................................................................................................................. ........15
PEPFAR – Solves AIDS.............................................................................................................................................. ........16
PEPFAR – AT: Drugs Inaccessible......................................................................................................................... .............17
AIDS Impacts................................................................................................................................................................. .....18
AIDS Impacts................................................................................................................................................................. .....19
Malaria Impacts................................................................................................................................................................ ...20
Pepfar – Soft Power................................................................................................................................ ............................21
PEPFAR – Impact - Leadership......................................................................................................................................... ..22
Soft Power Solves AIDS............................................................................................................................... ......................23
PEPFAR – Impact – G8 Cred................................................................................................................................. .............24
PEPFAR – Timeframe............................................................................................................................................ .............25
Aff- PEPFAR – Won’t Pass.................................................................................................................................... .............26
Aff - PEPFAR – Won’t Pass.................................................................................................................................. ..............27
Aff - PEPFAR – Won’t Pass.................................................................................................................................. ..............28
Aff - PEPFAR – Bush not pushing....................................................................................................................... ...............29
Aff – PEPFAR – AT: Solves Malaria............................................................................................................................ .......30
Aff – PEPFAR – AT: Solves Malaria............................................................................................................................ .......31
Aff - PEPFAR – Aff AT AIDS................................................................................................................................ .............32
Aff – AIDS Impacts Takeouts............................................................................................................................................. .33
Colombia FTA – 1NC – 1/2.............................................................................................................................................. ...34
Colombia FTA – 1NC - 2/2............................................................................................................................ .....................35
Colombia FTA – Bush Pushing...................................................................................................................... .....................36
Colombia FTA – Won’t Pass..................................................................................................................... ..........................37
Colombia FTA – Won’t Pass - Pelosi.................................................................................................................................. .38
Colombia FTA – Internal Links - Pelosi.................................................................................................................. ............39
Colombia FTA Bad – Drugs Ext. – Kill biodiversity.................................................................................................. .........40
Colombia FTA Bad - Drugs Ext. – Hotspots key to biodiversity............................................................................. ............41
Colombia FTA Bad – Drugs Ext. – AT: Species not key.................................................................................................... ..42
Colombia FTA Bad – Free Trade – 2nc – 1/2................................................................................................... ...................43
Colombia FTA Bad – Free Trade – 2nc – 2/2................................................................................................... ...................44
1
Colombia FTA Bad – Ext – Panama Canal Impact – Nuclear Conflict.............................................................................. ..45
Colombia FTA Bad – Ext – Panama Canal Impact – Power Projection......................................................................... ......46
Colombia FTA Bad – Amazon – 2nc – 1/2............................................................................................................ ..............47
Colombia FTA Bad – Amazon – 2nc – 2/2............................................................................................................ ..............48
Colombia FTA Bad – Empower Narco-Traffickers....................................................................................... .....................49
Colombia FTA Bad – Democracy....................................................................................................................................... .50
Colombia FTA Bad –Colombian Agriculture................................................................................................ ......................51
Colombia FTA Bad–Colombian Agriculture................................................................................................. ......................52
Colombia FTA Bad –Colombian Agriculture................................................................................................ ......................53
Colombia FTA Bad– Colombian Instability Spills Over........................................................................ ............................54
Colombia FTA Bad–Econ................................................................................................................................................... .55
Colombia FTA Bad –Human Rights Cred....................................................................................................... ....................56
AT: Colombia FTA Solves Terrorism – Impact Takeouts.................................................................................................... .57
Colombia FTA – Will Pass............................................................................................................................. .....................58
Colombia FTA – Will Pass............................................................................................................................. .....................59
Colombia FTA – Bush Not Pushing............................................................................................................ ........................60
Colombia FTA – AT: Concessions Key to Passage.................................................................................................... ..........61
Colombia FTA Good – Chavez – Impact Module -1/2....................................................................................... .................62
Colombia FTA Good – Chavez Impact Module – 2/2............................................................................... ..........................63
Colombia FTA Good – Chavez Ext – Key to Check Influence....................................................................................... .....64
Colombia FTA Good – Chavez Ext – Key to Check Influence....................................................................................... .....65
Colombia FTA Good – Democracy Promotion – Impact Module....................................................................................... .66
Colombia FTA Good – Democracy Ext – COLOMBIA FTA Key................................................................................... ....67
Colombia FTA Good – Narco-traffickers (FARC)– Impact Module................................................................................ ....68
Colombia FTA Good – Narco-traffickers (FARC)– Impact Module................................................................................ ....69
Colombia FTA Good – FARC Ext – COLOMBIA FTA Key....................................................................................... ........70
Colombia FTA Good – Solves Drug Production..................................................................................... ............................73
Colombia FTA Good – Competitiveness – Impact Module – 1/3........................................................................ ................74
Colombia FTA Good – Competitiveness Ext. – COLOMBIA FTA Key............................................................................ ..78
Colombia FTA Good – Free Trade – Impact Module.................................................................................... ......................79
Colombia FTA Good – Free Trade Ext. – COLOMBIA FTA Key............................................................................. ..........80
Colombia FTA Good – Soft Power – Impact Module...................................................................................................... ....81
Colombia FTA Good – Soft Power Ext – Colombia FTA Key.................................................................. ..........................82
Colombia FTA Good – Terrorism – Impact Module.................................................................................................. ..........83
Colombia FTA Good – U.S.-Latin American Relations.................................................................................................... ...84
Colombia FTA Good – US Economy............................................................................................................... ...................85
Colombia FTA Good – US Economy............................................................................................................... ...................86
Colombia FTA Good – Solves Ag/Econ............................................................................................................... ...............88
Colombia FTA Good – AT: Human rights abuses and violence............................................................................... ...........89
AT: Colombia FTA Causes Species Loss – Impact Takeouts...................................................................................... .........90
AT: Colombia FTA Causes Species Loss – Impact Takeouts...................................................................................... .........91
AT: Colombia FTA Hurts Biodiversity – Impact Takeouts.............................................................................. ....................92
2
Generic Uniqueness – Political Capital

Bush’s use of the veto pen has generated political capital
Los Angeles Times 6-30-8 (Johanna Neuman, “Bush thinks polls about him are wrong,” http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/06/bush-thinks-
pol.html)
But President Bush senses less hostility out on the road lately, according to U.S. News & World Report, and has told aides he senses
an uptick in popularity that is not yet reflected in the polls. One senior advisor, saying the president feels less "antipathy" from crowds
along motorcade routes, put it this way: "He feels there has been a shift in attitudes out there that's not reflected in polling data."
The White House also believes that the president's recent use of the veto pen -- on legislation such as the farm bill -- has given him
some leverage with Congress. "It's a mistake to underestimate the institutional power of the president and he has utilized that power
intelligently," the aide told the magazine.
Bush still has capabilities to get his agenda passed

Bersia – 6-21-2008 (John C., Pulitzer Prize winner in editorial writing for the Orlando Sentinel in 2000, is the special assistant
to the president for global perspectives at the University of Central Florida, Don't write off the Bush administration yet, OnlineAthens,
http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/062108/opinion_20080621001.shtml)
Some critics have described President Bush's just-concluded swing through Europe as irrelevant, contending that the region essentially
disregards him. Moreover, the critics continue, his visit bordered on delusional. After years of tension, how could Bush possibly have
had the nerve to walk the streets of European capitals with such confidence and toss out bold, foreign-policy goals for the near future?
Well, let us not too hastily jump to conclusions about the trip, the Bush administration's remaining possibilities and the president's
legacy.
For all the shortcomings of his time in office, Bush is neither irrelevant nor delusional. In fact, he might well have signaled the
flowering of U.S.-European relations, even though that will not happen on his watch. Whether the winner in November's presidential
election is Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic candidate, or his Republican counterpart, Sen. John McCain of
Arizona, America's ties with Europe are likely to improve. For that matter, so are U.S. connections with the rest of the world.
In addition, the door has not yet closed on the Bush White House. In a half-year's time, much could happen. A lame-duck president is
not without capability.
Consider, for example, Bush's promise to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East before he leaves office. Skeptics dismiss that
idea as foolhardy, but former President Clinton had a similar objective during his last year as chief executive. Although his bid for an
Israeli-Palestinian settlement eventually unraveled, Clinton came surprisingly close to success.
The possibility also exists for Bush to face unexpected developments, which takes me back to his first campaign for president. At that
time - including during a lengthy foreign-policy discussion shortly before he assumed the presidency - Bush held views on various
global issues that appeared unchangeable. As two examples, he described China as a strategic competitor and underscored his aversion
to nation-building.
3
Generic Uniqueness – No Political Capital

Bush Has No Political Capital
Smith – 6-24-8 (Barry, Jackson Daily News, “Bush won’t get much support on gas” June 24, 2008,
http://www.jdnews.com/opinion/president_57709___article.html/oil_energy.html)
I'm not very optimistic that Congress will heed the president's call and allow for the drilling to begin. This is an election year, and the
president doesn't have much of the political capital that he boasted about when he was re-elected four years ago left.
Some might even say that the president is bankrupt when it comes to political capital. It's really a shame when a president gets near the end of his term
and he can't persuade Congress to help out a nation filled with motorists that are hurting every time they pump gasoline into cars.
The president will need a lot of help if he's to get Congress to pass anything this year. That help will have to come from a grassroots effort. It won't
come from inside the District of Columbia.
Bush has no Political Capital

Poulos, 6-6-8 (James, The Guardian, “Double Trouble” Friday June 6, 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/06/uselections2008.johnmccain)
Among the many lessons the right must re-learn this year is which risks are worth taking and which are not. Given the amount of political capital Bush has
blown, the tendency among Republicans may be to dig deeper into their pockets or seek an ideological bailout from Democratic
creditors. Instead, taking a cue from the typical Republican voter, they should entrepreneurially seek new sources of income. Even if Obama wins fair and square, and
that risk fails to pay off in the short term, the longer-term dividends will help prevent the Republican party from finding itself out on the street.
Bush has no political capital- India Nuclear deal proves

The Hindu News Service,6-27- 8 (“Government weighing options on Nuclear Deal” June 27, 2008,
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200806270326.htm)
A senior minister, who is in favour of the deal, sounded a note of caution on the government going ahead with the deal. Speaking on
condition of anonymity, he said there are various processes involved in operationalisation of the deal even after signing the agreement with IAEA.
US President George W Bush, the minister felt, did not have the political capital to push the deal through at the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers
Group and wondered what the government would gain at the end of all this if the deal does not go through.
Bush has no political capital- even with foreign policy

Brinkley, 6-22-8- a professor of journalism at Stanford University and a former foreign policy correspondent for the New York Times
(Joel, “Allies in Middle East ignore lame-duck Bush” June 22, 2008, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/21/INNS11BMML.DTL)
If ever the world needed a clear demonstration that the Bush administration has reached its inglorious end, no one need look beyond President Bush's
visit to Germany earlier this month, when protesters decided it wasn't even worth their time to demonstrate against him. That certainly pleased
those who cannot wait for Inauguration Day in January. But several recent turns of events in the Middle East made the same point in spades - while also setting
worrisome precedents for the next president, no matter whether it is Barack Obama or John McCain.
Put simply, several important American allies are stiff-arming Washington and making deals with nations and groups Washington
describes as terrorists - despite pleas and warnings from the White House.
4
Generic Uniqueness – Concessions Now
Democrats won a concession on July 1st : proves the link is non-unique.

Los Angeles Times 08 (Richard Simon, 7-1-2008, “Bush signs emergency war spending measure,” http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-
warfunding1-2008jul01,0,3648405.story) // THK
Congress approved the measure after Democrats dropped efforts to impose timelines for troop withdrawals from Iraq in the face of a
White House veto threat. They did, however, win concessions on their priorities to modernize the World War II-era GI Bill, which
provides educational opportunities for millions of veterans, and to extend unemployment benefits.
5
Generic Uniqueness – No Concessions Now

Democrats are getting their bills blocked: no concessions in status quo, they don’t have necessary votes to counter a filibuster,
The Washington Times, 08 (Sean Lengell, “Tax relief blocked again Measure 8 votes shy of final decision,” 6-18-2008) // THK
Senate Republicans on Tuesday again blocked a Democratic measure that called for an extension of expiring renewable energy
credits and tax breaks, arguing the cuts would have been offset by new taxes elsewhere.
It was the second time in a week the minority party stymied consideration of the bill, which proposed more than $54 billion in tax relief for
individuals and businesses.
"Just as they have done with every opportunity to strengthen our weakening economy and lower record gas prices, Republicans
today said no to helping businesses invest in renewable energy," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat. "Instead,
Republicans chose to defend a status quo that has brought us $4-a-gallon gas and $140-a-barrel oil."
The bill failed on a vote of 52-44, with 60 needed to end a filibuster and proceed to final vote. Five Republicans voted for the measure
and no Democrats initially supported it, although Mr. Reid switched his vote to "no" on a procedural move that will allow his party to reintroduce the measure in
the future.
6
PEPFAR – 1NC Shell – 1/2

A. PEPFAR bill will pass due to agreement with conservatives and Bush is pushing
AP 7-1-08 (Associated Press, “Senate reaches an agreement on global AIDS bill”,
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080701/GJLIFESTYLES/825930787/-1/SANNEWS)
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Senate negotiators said Wednesday they had reached a tentative agreement on a key obstacle to one of the
most ambitious federal health initiatives ever, a $50 billion act to combat AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in Africa and other
countries hard-hit by those diseases.The agreement sets the stage for the Senate to vote in the near future on the five-year bill that
would more than triple the size of the $15 billion global AIDS bill that Congress, at the urging of President Bush, passed in 2003. The current act expires at the
end of September.Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said they had an "agreement in principle" with several Republican senators,
led by Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who had voiced opposition to aspects of the bill.With that agreement, Reid said, "we
should be able to do this quickly and easily and it should be done before President Bush goes to the G-8 Summit next week.
That would send an important message to the world that our country's commitment to fight HIV/AIDS has not wavered."Reid said his preference was to pass
the bill this week, but others involved in the negotiations said it was more likely the Senate would take it up after returning from the July 4 recess.Coburn, a
medical doctor who has treated AIDS patients, held up the bill over his demands that a fixed percentage of funding go to treatment programs. The 2003 bill
stipulated that 55 percent of funds go to treatment, but that figure was taken out of the bill that overwhelmingly passed the House last April.Writers of the new
bill argued that caregivers on the ground would be better able to determine how to allocate money on prevention and treatment programs, but Coburn said there
was a danger of money being diverted into unrelated development and poverty programs.Under the tentative agreement, "more than half" of bilateral AIDS
funding would be spent on treatment."I'm encouraged the Bush administration and congressional leaders decided to restore much of this key provision that has
been so integral to PEPFAR's success," Coburn said, referring to the acronym for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.The tentative deal also
requires that drugs procured by PEPFAR be approved by the Food and Drug Administration or a stringent regulator authority and prevents funding for more
wealthy countries such as Russia and China.Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, D-Del., who negotiated the deal with ranking
Republican Richard Lugar of Indiana and the top Republican on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Michael Enzi of Wyoming, welcomed
the deal, saying HIV/AIDS alone claimed 2 million lives last year and "it is our moral obligation to lead the effort to fight these diseases."David Bryden,
spokesman for the Global AIDS Alliance, said they were carefully reviewing the compromise but were concerned that amounts set aside for treatment could
limit funding for other programs such as those helping children orphaned by AIDS. "We will be forced to oppose this bill if it compromises the effectiveness of
the AIDS program," he said.The current PEPFAR act, operating mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, has been one of the major successes of the Bush administration's
foreign policy, supporting anti-retroviral treatment for about 1.5 million. It is on target to prevent 7 million new infections and provide care for 10 million,
including orphans and vulnerable children.The new and expanded bill has been promoted by the White House, which actively engaged
in the negotiations, and supported by presumed presidential nominees Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and John McCain, R-Ariz.
B. Bush’s political capital is key to PEPFAR passage

NYT ‘8 (“A Global AIDS Campaign Stalled”, New York Times, 6-21-08, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/opinion/21sat1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)
A handful of Republican senators is blocking action on a bill that would greatly increase American funding to combat AIDS, tuberculosis
and malaria around the world. If their delaying tactics succeed, the United States will lose considerable leverage in trying to persuade other advanced nations to
contribute substantially more money to fight against global disease at the upcoming meeting of the Group of 8 industrial nations. That will undermine the Bush
administration’s leadership in combating the global scourge of AIDS. It is long past time for President Bush himself to get engaged in breaking this
legislative impasse. He should press the Republican leadership and seven recalcitrant Republican senators to cooperate in an orderly
and expeditious vote, unencumbered by a filibuster or the introduction of myriad amendments designed to eat up time.
C. Plan costs political capital
(insert link)
7
PEPFAR – 1NC Shell – 2/2
D. PEPFAR has saved millions of lives from HIV/AIDS and malaria in Africa
Loconte – Senior Fellow at Pepperdine University’s School of Public Policy – 2-20-08

[Joseph, The Weekly Standard, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=14766&R=1395C146A]
PRESIDENT BUSH AND THE First Lady are in Africa this week, visiting five countries--Benin, Ghana, Liberia, Rwanda, and Tanzania--that have benefited from his
$15 billion initiative to combat HIV/AIDS. There is something to be said for a program that confounds liberals, libertarians, and radical Islamists.
"Too many nations continue to follow either the paternalistic notion that treats African countries as charity cases, or a model of exploitation that seeks only to buy up
their resources," Bush told an audience at the National Museum of African Art last week. "America rejects both approaches." Sometimes the gulf between the rhetoric
of U.S. foreign policy and the reality on the ground is monstrously wide. But not with regards to the Bush administration and Africa.
Consider the fact that before the Bush effort, barely 50,000 people were receiving U.S. assistance for HIV/AIDS treatment. Today, five years
after launching the initiative, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has treated nearly 1.5 million people scattered across
15 countries in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean. It is likely that U.S.-funded anti-retroviral drugs have prevented more than 10 million
new cases of mother-to-child HIV transmission. The administration has expanded its initiative to tackle malaria--an entirely
preventable disease--which nevertheless kills millions every year, most of them young children. The $1.2 billion program buys
mosquito nets, drugs, and indoor spraying. The president's goal, to cut malaria deaths in 15 African states by half, now seems
achievable. In Tanzania, for example, the number of people treated for malaria plummeted from 500,000 in 2004 to 10,000 in 2007. In
two years the program has reached 25 million people.
And, AIDS will spread globally and cause extinction

Muchiri 2k [Michael Kibaara Staff Member at Ministry of Education in Nairobi, “Will Annan finally put out Africa’s fires?” Jakarta Post, March 6, LN]
The executive director of UNAIDS, Peter Piot, estimated that Africa would annually need between $ 1 billion to $ 3 billion to combat the disease, but currently
receives only $ 160 million a year in official assistance. World Bank President James Wolfensohn lamented that Africa was losing teachers faster than they could be
replaced, and that AIDS was now more effective than war in destabilizing African countries. Statistics show that AIDS is the leading killer in sub-
Saharan Africa, surpassing people killed in warfare. In 1998, 200,000 people died from armed conflicts compared to 2.2 million from
AIDS. Some 33.6 million people have HIV around the world, 70 percent of them in Africa, thereby robbing countries of their most
productive members and decimating entire villages. About 13 million of the 16 million people who have died of AIDS are in Africa, according to the UN.
What barometer is used to proclaim a holocaust if this number is not a sure measure? There is no doubt that AIDS is the most serious threat to
humankind, more serious than hurricanes, earthquakes, economic crises, capital crashes or floods. It has no cure yet. We are watching a
whole continent degenerate into ghostly skeletons that finally succumb to a most excruciating, dehumanizing death. Gore said that his new
initiative, if approved by the U.S. Congress, would bring U.S. contributions to fighting AIDS and other infectious diseases to $ 325 million. Does this mean that the UN
Security Council and the U.S. in particular have at last decided to remember Africa? Suddenly, AIDS was seen as threat to world peace, and Gore would ask the
congress to set up millions of dollars on this case. The hope is that Gore does not intend to make political capital out of this by painting the usually disagreeable
Republican-controlled Congress as the bad guy and hope the buck stops on the whole of current and future U.S. governments' conscience. Maybe there is nothing left to
salvage in Africa after all and this talk is about the African-American vote in November's U.S. presidential vote. Although the UN and the Security Council cannot
solve all African problems, the AIDS challenge is a fundamental one in that it threatens to wipe out man. The challenge is not one of a single continent
alone because Africa cannot be quarantined. The trouble is that AIDS has no cure -- and thus even the West has stakes in the AIDS challenge. Once sub-
Saharan Africa is wiped out, it shall not be long before another continent is on the brink of extinction. Sure as death, Africa's time has
run out, signaling the beginning of the end of the black race and maybe the human race.
8
PEPFAR – Will Pass

PEPFAR will pass- Even if Republicans hate cost, a new resolution means it’ll pass
Buffalo News ‘8 (“Pass disease-control plan: Congress should put finishing touches on funding to fight AIDS, TB, malaria”, Buffalo News, 6-29-08,
http://www.buffalonews.com/149/story/381177.html)
An “agreement in principle” reached late last week could lead to a welcome and needed expansion of one of the best international programs
launched by the Bush administration — a global fight against disease that has, for a change, earned America some leadership credit. The agreement
could lead to congressional approval soon — perhaps, as the White House hopes before President Bush departs for a G8 summit — for the
reauthorization and expansion of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), set to expire in September. So far, the House of
Representatives has approved bipartisan legislation that would authorize $50 billion for global AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria programs
over the next five years. A group of Senate Republicans balked at the cost and funding distribution provisions, but Wednesday a
tentative resolution cleared the way for reconsideration. The Senate, as the House eventually did, should focus on saving lives and support a program with
a proven track record. Religious leaders including Archbishop Desmond Tutu have urged Congress to take action. Advocacy groups and
presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain have joined in the support for this bill.
PEPFAR will pass- support is strong, but it will be a tough fight

Indy Star ‘8 (“Holding health hostage, making millions wait”, Indy Star, 6-26-08,
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080626/OPINION08/806260310/1291/OPINION08)
It is a shining foreign policy achievement for the Bush administration, it has saved hundreds of thousands of African lives, it has broad
bipartisan support in Congress and it could trigger a huge humanitarian effort by other governments. No wonder supporters of the President's
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) have had such high hopes for its renewal and expansion. Those hopes have become clouded since the
House passed a five-year reauthorization of the original five-year program, raising its $15 billion funding to $50 billion. Senate support, led by Sen. Richard Lugar,
R-Ind., is likewise strong. However, seven senators this week were exercising their prerogative to hold up a vote. They have cited not
only the bill's cost, but the spending priorities within it, along with cultural issues such as contraception and sexual abstinence.
PEPFAR will pass, but it will be a fight
Kaiser Network ‘8 (“Sen. Reid Says He Will Try To Bring PEPFAR Legislation to Senate Floor on Wednesday”, Kaiser Network, Africa: Daily HIV/Aids Report,
AllAfrica, 6-25-08, http://allafrica.com/stories/200806260046.html)
The Senate version of the PEPFAR reauthorization bill passed the Foreign Relations Committee in March, and the House version was approved 308-116 in April. Both
the Senate and House versions of the bill would reauthorize PEPFAR at $50 billion over five years. However, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and six other
Republican senators are blocking the legislation because they are opposed to the legislation's cost and "mission creep" into health and
development efforts. In addition, they want language inserted into the measure that would guarantee that 55% of PEPFAR funding goes
toward treatment, including antiretroviral drugs (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 6/20). Some Senate aides say they have resolved the
treatment issue with language that would increase the targeted number of people treated and direct more than half of funding to
"treatment and care," according to CQ Today. However, the aides said that objections from other senators, including objections over the
cost of the bill, would continue. Sen. Richard Burr (R-S.C.), who is one of the seven blocking the legislation, said, "We have a verbal
agreement," adding, "The devil is always in the details."
9

Will pass with Democrat support- but it will be a tough fight
A request for floor time for the bill was sent last month by 14 Republicans, including Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.). The letter "suggested that,
with the support of Democrats, the measure would have the support needed to overcome any tests that require 60 votes," CQ Today
reports. If successful, however, Reid would need to secure an agreement to limit amendments to prevent a prohibitively long debate. According
to CQ Today, a crowded Senate schedule means that Democrats and Republicans could reach an agreement this week but decide to forgo
floor action until after the July 4 recess. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, "I doubt if it's going to be done this week" (CQ Today, 6/24).
PEPFAR will pass – can overcome the senators who are blocking
IPS 6-18-08 (Inter Press Service, “U.S.: ACTIVISTS URGE SENATE TO PASS AIDS BILL BEFORE G-8 SUMMIT”, lexis)
The bill, however, is supported both by Bush himself and by the two major presumptive presidential candidates in the November elections, Democratic
Sen. Barack Obama, who co-sponsored the legislation, and his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, who told a Philadelphia audience last week
that he would "be glad to assist" in overcoming opposition from the Coburn group.
"Negotiations are underway now," according to Paul Zeitz, who directs the Global AIDS Alliance. Zeitz added that McCain could play a key role in
breaking the impasse. "It's in the interests of the United States and the Democratic Congress that Bush go to the G-8 with this
legislation in hand," he said.
PEPFAR, which Bush announced on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, has been widely recognized as perhaps the most successful and least
controversial foreign policy initiative of his presidency, both because of the bipartisan support that it has enjoyed and because of the unprecedented magnitude of
funding it has provided to the fight against infectious diseases that continue to kill millions of people each year, particularly in Africa. The program has mainly targeted
sub-Saharan countries, but substantial funding has also gone to several Caribbean nations and Vietnam.
Among other achievements, the program is estimated to have provided treatment for approximately 2 million people, prevented some 7 million new infections and
provided care to another 10 million people, including several million AIDS orphans. PEPFAR, along with the President's Malaria Initiative, a project designed to cut
malaria deaths in 15 African countries by 50 percent through 2011, has also provided millions of bed nets and related supplies to the continent. In his State of the Union
Address in January, Bush asked Congress to authorize $30 billion to expand PEPFAR over the next five years, but the House of Representatives voted 306 to 116 to
increase the total to $50 billion in April. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the House version in an 18-3 vote the following month.
As drafted, the bill amounts to a compromise between Democratic lawmakers, who generally championed the big boost in funding, and Republicans, who insisted on
adding certain restrictions on how the money could be spent.
Under the bill, for example, none of the funding can be provided to family planning clinics or groups that perform abortions or even lobbied for relaxing anti-abortion
laws in their home countries or that decline to explicitly denounce "prostitution and human trafficking."
The bill also requires that the program's administrators ensure that abstinence and fidelity strategies to prevent the spread of the disease -- strategies that many public
health experts believe are generally not as effective as condom distribution -- "are implemented and funded in a meaningful and equitable way."
The bill would provide a total of nearly $31 billion for bilateral programs aimed at treating 3 million AIDS victims, preventing 12 million HIV new infections and
caring for another 12 million victims, including 5 million orphans.
In addition, it would provide $10 billion -- or $2 billion a year -- to the cash-strapped Global Fund, which works in many more countries than those covered by
PEPFAR and with fewer restrictions on how its funding can be spent.
About $4 billion would be spent on fighting tuberculosis, the leading cause of death among people who are infected with HIV, and $5 billion more would be earmarked
for malaria. The remainder would be roughly split between AIDS research and developing capacity for indigenous health systems and personnel in target countries.
The Senate's rules make it possible for a small minority to tie up the chamber's work through filibusters and amendments. Because its calendar until the July 4 recess is
already quite full, both the Democratic and Republican leadership are reportedly worried that placing the AIDS bill on the agenda without
reaching an agreement with the dissenters could result in stalling other major legislation. If, however, the legislation does not pass by
the recess, there will be no other opportunity to vote on it before the G-8 Summit.
As a result, pressure is mounting on both the Senate leadership and on Coburn to strike an acceptable compromise, according to the
activists. Fourteen Republican senators have called on McConnell to move the legislation, while Democrats are pressing Majority
Leader Harry Reid to do the same. On Wednesday, visiting Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga and South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu both called for
the bill's passage.
"Passing this bill will be a signal to the [G-8] countries that the U.S. is fully committed and that they should also move forward boldly with their own commitments,"
said Joanne Carter, associate executive director of RESULTS, a development group in Washington.
10

Bush is pushing PEPFAR – can get the necessary votes for passage
Africa News 6-25-08 (“HIV-Aids and STDs; Daily HIV/Aids Report”, lexis)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said that he will attempt to bring legislation that would reauthorize the President's
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief to the Senate floor on Wednesday, CQ Today reports (Graham-Silverman, CQ Today, 6/24).
Reid last week set a Tuesday deadline for negotiators to come to an agreement on the reauthorization measures (HR 5501, S 2731) (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report,
6/20). However, he decided to move the deadline to Wednesday after Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Joseph Biden (D-Del.) asked for one more day to
finalize the deal. Reid said he will now try to get unanimous consent to move the legislation, regardless of whether a deal is secure (CQ Today, 6/24).
The Senate version of the PEPFAR reauthorization bill passed the Foreign Relations Committee in March, and the House version was
approved 308-116 in April. Both the Senate and House versions of the bill would reauthorize PEPFAR at $50 billion over five years.
However, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and six other Republican senators are blocking the legislation because they are opposed to the
legislation's cost and "mission creep" into health and development efforts. In addition, they want language inserted into the measure that would
guarantee that 55% of PEPFAR funding goes toward treatment, including antiretroviral drugs (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 6/20).
Some Senate aides say they have resolved the treatment issue with language that would increase the targeted number of people treated and direct more than half of
funding to "treatment and care," according to CQ Today. However, the aides said that objections from other senators, including objections over the cost of the bill,
would continue. Sen. Richard Burr (R-S.C.), who is one of the seven blocking the legislation, said, "We have a verbal agreement," adding, "The devil is always in the
details."
The Group of Eight industrialized nations summit, which begins on July 7 in Japan, is "putting pressure on all sides to complete the
negotiations," according to CQ Today. President Bush has said that he supports the reauthorization legislation and that he would like it
to pass in Congress so he can use it at the summit to call for increased contributions from other countries. According to Reid, Bush
"said he wants it. Now we've got to get folks on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, to join with the president on this."
A request for floor time for the bill was sent last month by 14 Republicans, including Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.). The letter "suggested
that, with the support of Democrats, the measure would have the support needed to overcome any tests that require 60 votes," CQ Today
reports. If successful, however, Reid would need to secure an agreement to limit amendments to prevent a prohibitively long debate. According to CQ Today, a
crowded Senate schedule means that Democrats and Republicans could reach an agreement this week but decide to forgo floor action
until after the July 4 recess. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, "I doubt if it's going to be done this week" (CQ Today, 6/24).
PEPFAR will pass -- compromise

Reid 6-19-08 (Harry, Senate Majority Leader, “REID SETS TUESDAY DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF GLOBAL AIDS FUNDING NEGOTIATIONS”,
lexis)
"It is confounding and indefensible that a small group of Republican Senators have placed a hold on this legislation, preventing us
from moving forward. They should have followed the lead of President Bush, Members of Congress from both parties, and a diverse
group of world health organizations and nonprofits. They should have abandoned their obstruction long ago.
"That is why, several months ago, I asked Chairman Biden and Ranking Member Lugar to negotiate a compromise that would end these
Republican holds. They have worked tirelessly on this challenge and I thank them for all of their hard work.
"These negotiations are ongoing and we are all hopeful that we will soon have a compromise agreement. Given the importance of this
legislation, I have set a deadline of next Tuesday for all parties to reach a final agreement. I want to be clear that I am committed to
getting this legislation completed."
11
PEPFAR – Bush Pushing
Bush is pushing for PEPFAR

Reuters – 7-2-2008 (Bush Urges Congress to Pass AIDS Bill, http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN02345870)
WASHINGTON, July 2 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush urged Congress on Wednesday to approve funds to fight AIDS in Africa
and other countries, and said the issue was high on his agenda for a Group of Eight summit in Japan next week.
Members of the U.S. Senate sought last week to pass legislation to more than triple funds to fight AIDS, but some Republicans vowed
to block it because of its cost.
The House of Representatives has approved its version of the measure which proposes $50 billion in U.S. funds over five years to
fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
"It's very important that Congress reauthorize this plan," Bush said to reporters ahead of the trip to the July 7-9 G8 summit.
Bush, who has been praised for leading efforts on funding for fighting AIDS in the developing world, said he would press G8
countries as well.
"One of my really important agenda items is going to ... rally our partners to make commitments and meet commitments," Bush said.
12
PEPFAR – Political Capital Key

Bush is pushing PEPFAR – his political capital is key to passage
The Group of Eight industrialized nations summit, which begins on July 7 in Japan, is "putting pressure on all sides to complete the
negotiations," according to CQ Today. President Bush has said that he supports the reauthorization legislation and that he would like it to pass
in Congress so he can use it at the summit to call for increased contributions from other countries. According to Reid, Bush "said he
wants it. Now we've got to get folks on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, to join with the president on this."
Bush political capital key to passage

The Oregonian 08 (“Keep, expand Bush AIDS initiative to help Africa”, June 10, lexis)
The administration and apparently heavy majorities in both Senate and House have agreed to continue and expand this program, with compromises that steer around the
culture wars that tend to erupt over AIDS. The bill passed the House by a vote of 308-116, rolled through the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee and --in a phrase becoming a D.C. cliche these days --is being blocked by a small group of hard-line conservative senators.
Pushing past them should be a bipartisan mandate.
The Lantos-Hyde Act --the House named the expansion to honor the past two Foreign Affairs Committee chairmen, one Democrat, one Republican --would spend $50
billion over the next five years. It would increase flexibility for different situations in different countries, and expands efforts on tuberculosis --which kills large
numbers of HIV-positive Africans, and as an airborne infector, is only a plane ride away from exploding into other areas.
Conservative and Republican support for the bill has been widespread. "Opposition is harder to justify when a program has recently saved more than a
million lives," wrote Michael Gerson, President Bush's former chief speechwriter. "In this case, there is little distinction between stinginess and cruelty."
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., perhaps the leading House budget hawk, warned not only of the threat to Africa but the prospect of rising infection in China, India and Eastern
Europe, and told the House, "You know, every so often in this place, we have an opportunity to do something for humanity and serve the American people --and this is
such a time."
Fourteen Republican senators, including Oregon's Gordon Smith, have urged the Senate leadership to push the bill harder. They and
the leadership should redouble their efforts --and managing it before the July G-8 economic summit would send a powerful message to
the rest of the world.
Besides, the legacy of George W. Bush can use all the help it can get.
So can sub-Saharan Africa.
13
PEPFAR – Political Capital Key

Political capital is key to influence conservatives who are blocking
Washington Post 7-1-08 (“The AIDS Blockade; Overcoming the last GOP obstacles to a lifesaving program”, lexis)
The question now is how to deal with the holdouts, who -- it bears repeating -- are preventing the Senate from even voting on a
measure that a bipartisan majority would approve if given the chance. With Congress on its Fourth of July break and with little time left to
deal with housing, counterterrorism surveillance and other issues before the August recess, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) had hoped
the Senate would debate a limited number of amendments and vote on PEPFAR within a day. That won't happen unless
someone gets Mr. DeMint and company to change their minds. Given the Democrats' flexibility with Mr. Coburn, it is up to the Senate
Republican leadership and, especially, the White House, to take the lead. If they fail, however, Mr. Reid simply must find the
time to pass PEPFAR, even if it means a longer process than he and his colleagues would like. If the price of saving lives is a few lost
vacation days for Congress, we say: Pay it.
14
PEPFAR – Solves AIDS

PEPFAR key to preventing 5 million systemic deaths a year
Buffalo News ‘8 (“Pass disease-control plan: Congress should put finishing touches on funding to fight AIDS, TB, malaria”, Buffalo News, 6-29-08,
http://www.buffalonews.com/149/story/381177.html)
The initiative was launched by the president in 2003, with funding set at $15 billion. This year the White House sought an expansion to $30 billion, but Congress
increased that to $50 billion with most of the extra money targeted on malaria and tuberculosis programs. The need remains urgent. The
diseases take 5 million lives a year — 2 million from AIDS, an equal number from TB and another million from malaria. Many of
these deaths are preventable, but the diseases rage in countries that can’t afford the scale of prevention and treatment programs that are
needed to curtail the death toll. If an effective effort can be mounted with U. S. leadership in action as well as words, and if other
countries join in expanding that effort, these diseases of mass destruction can be controlled.
PEPFAR key to solve AIDS

Wall Street Journal ‘8 (“Coburn of Africa”, Wall Street Journal, 6-28-08, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121460665479612081.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
In fighting HIV/AIDS in Africa, the United States has an unparalleled success in Pepfar, aka the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Since
President Bush announced it in 2003, Pepfar has provided antiretroviral drugs to nearly 1.4 million infected patients in its target countries,
turning the wasted shells of condemned human beings into vital, productive citizens again. How many more people will be brought back to life is now
up to Congress, and until this week the prognosis was not so good. The original five-year, $15 billion plan expires in September. With the
President's support, reauthorization bills passed in the House and percolating in the Senate would spend $50 billion to continue it for
another five years.
PEPFAR is key to prevent AIDS and 7 million systemic deaths

Contra Costa Times ‘8 (“Congress must renew Bush’s AIDS relief plan”, MediaNews editorial, Contra Costa Times, 6-26-08,
http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_9714159)
It was launched by President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, in which he surprised almost everyone by vowing to substantially increase United States support
for the fight against HIV/AIDS. It became the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a five-year, $15 billion initiative against AIDS,
malaria and tuberculosis that has by almost any measure been tremendously successful. In sub-Saharan Africa, now at the heart of the HIV/AIDS
pandemic, the program is credited with bringing life-saving medical care and medications to 1.5 million people with AIDS. It's also
projected to prevent 7 million new infections and provide care for 10 million people, many of them women, children and orphans. Bush
credits it with "preventing HIV infections in infants and easing suffering and bringing dying communities back to life."
We have a moral obligation to fight AIDS- PEPFAR is key

Seattle Post ‘8 (“Hiv/aids Legislation: A moral obligation”, Seattle Post, Intelligencer Editorial Board, 6-16-08,
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/367225_uned.html)
The U.S. Senate should promptly pass an expansion of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, including a strong, new anti-TB commitment.
As U.N. discussions in New York last week underlined, TB causes about one-third of deaths among HIV-infected people in some areas.
Speaking at a U.N. parliamentary briefing, Rep. Jim McDermott praised U.S. efforts and called for more, including a removal of fear-based
provisions that deny HIV-infected individuals U.S. entry. McDermott said, "I believe the United States has the moral responsibility to
lead all nations in this war" (against AIDS). Congress can help President Bush in that effort by passing PEPFAR before next month's G-8 summit.
15
PEPFAR – Solves AIDS

PEPFAR empirically solves – HIV is declining rapidly in most PEPFAR countries
Dybul, 07 (Mark, U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, Testimony before the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, 3/1,
http://www.pepfar.gov/press/81275.htm)
Of the countless developments taking place in the global fight against the pandemic, perhaps the
single most important in recent years is the growing
number of nations in which there is clear evidence of declining HIV prevalence as a result of changes in sexual behavior. In addition
to earlier dramatic declines in HIV infection in Uganda, there is growing evidence of similar trends in other nations, including
Botswana, Ethiopia, Haiti, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. While the causes for decline of HIV prevalence are undoubtedly complex, these
countries have demonstrated broad reductions in sexual risk behavior, suggesting that behavior change can play a key role in reversing
the course of HIV/AIDS epidemics. The Emergency Plan supports the most comprehensive, evidence-based prevention program in
the world, targeting interventions based on the epidemiology of HIV infection in each country. PEPFAR supports prevention activities
that focus on sexual transmission, mother-to-child transmission, the transmission of HIV through unsafe blood and medical injections,
and greater HIV awareness through counseling and testing. The Emergency Plan will integrate new prevention methods and
technologies, including the recently validated intervention of male circumcision and hopefully others such as microbicides, as evidence is accumulated and
normative guidance is provided.
16
PEPFAR – AT: Drugs Inaccessible

Their arguments that drugs aren’t accessible are wrong- PEPFAR channels money to specific targets
Wall Street Journal ‘8 (“Coburn of Africa”, Wall Street Journal, 6-28-08, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121460665479612081.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
Some activists opposed the treatment directive because, they argued, local administrators might deem AIDS prevention efforts, or orphan
care, more important. Another argument is that the lower cost of antiretroviral drugs and the difficulty of reaching patients in remote
areas mean it will be difficult to spend all the money on treatment. Not often said out loud is that administering drugs to sick people is largely a task for
medical professionals. Paying for that work leaves less money for NGOs. Yet Pepfar has succeeded precisely because it is one foreign-aid program
that channels money toward specific targets. The statistics are astounding: Since 2004, the program has provided counseling and testing for
more than 33 million people, and administered care to nearly seven million, including more than 2.7 million children and orphans.
Pepfar programs for millions of pregnant women have prevented an estimated 157,000 babies from being born with the HIV virus. Add 33,000
service outlets; 100,000 medical personnel trained; and 57 million people reached by prevention messages last year alone.
17
AIDS Impacts
HIV/AIDS will kill more people in Africa then all wars combined and devastate the entire continent.
Brown, 2006 (Lester, Former International Agricultural Analyst for U.S. Department of Agriculture and President of Worldwatch Institute, Earth Policy Institute,
Plan B 2.0 – Rescuing A Planet Under Stress And A Civilization In Trouble, Chapter Six, http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB2/PB2ch6_ss3.htm)
Although diseases such as malaria and cholera exact a heavy toll, there is no precedent for the number of lives affected by the HIV epidemic. To find
anything similar to such a potentially devastating loss of life, we have to go back to the smallpox decimation of Native American communities in the sixteenth century
or to the bubonic plague that took roughly a fourth of Europe’s population during the fourteenth century. HIV should be seen for what it is—an epidemic of
epic proportions that, if not checked soon, could take more lives during this century than were claimed by all the wars of the last
century. 17 Since the human immunodeficiency virus was identified in 1981, this infection has spread worldwide. By 1990, an estimated 10 million people were
infected with the virus. By the end of 2004, the number who had been infected climbed to 78 million. Of this total, 38 million have died; 39 million are living with the
virus. Twenty-five million HIV-positive people today live in sub-Saharan Africa, but only 500,000 or so are being treated with anti-
retroviral drugs. Seven million live in South and Southeast Asia, with over 5 million of them in India alone. 18 Infection rates are climbing. In the
absence of effective treatment, the parts of sub-Saharan Africa with the highest infection rates face a staggering loss of life. Adding the
heavy mortality from the epidemic to the normal mortality of older adults means that countries like Botswana and Zimbabwe will lose
half of their adult populations within a decade. 19 The HIV epidemic is not an isolated phenomenon. It is affecting every facet of life and every sector of the
economy. Food production per person, already lagging in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa, is now falling fast as the number of field workers
shrinks. As food production falls, hunger intensifies among the dependent groups of children and the elderly. The downward spiral in family
welfare typically begins when the first adult falls victim to the illness—a development that is doubly disruptive because for each person who is sick and unable to work,
another adult must care for that person. 20 The massive loss of young adults to AIDS is already beginning to cut into economic activity. Rising worker health
insurance costs in industry are shrinking or even eliminating company profit margins, forcing some firms into the red. In addition,
companies are facing increased sick leave, decreased productivity, and the burden of recruiting and training replacements when
employees die. 21 Education is also affected. The ranks of teachers are being decimated by the virus. In 2001, for instance, Zambia lost
815 primary school teachers to AIDS, the equivalent of 45 percent of new teachers trained that year. With students, when one or both parents
die, more children are forced to stay home simply because there is not enough money to buy books and to pay school fees. Universities are
also feeling the effects. At the University of Durbin in South Africa, for example, 25 percent of the student body is HIV-positive. 22 The effects on health care are
equally devastating. In many hospitals in eastern and southern Africa, a majority of the beds are now occupied by AIDS victims, leaving
less space for those with other illnesses. Already overworked doctors and nurses are often stretched to the breaking point. With health
care systems now unable to provide even basic care, the toll of traditional disease is also rising. Life expectancy is dropping not only
because of AIDS, but also because of the deterioration in health care. 23 The epidemic is leaving millions of orphans in its wake. Sub-Saharan
Africa is expected to have 18.4 million “AIDS orphans” by 2010—children who have lost at least one parent to the disease. There is no
precedent for millions of street children in Africa. The extended family, once capable of absorbing orphaned children, is now itself being decimated by the loss of
adults, leaving children, often small ones, to take care of themselves. For some girls, the only option is what has come to be known as “survival
sex.” Michael Grunwald of the Washington Post writes from Swaziland, “In the countryside, teenage Swazi girls are selling sex—and spreading HIV—for $5 an
encounter, exactly what it costs to hire oxen for a day of plowing.” 24 The HIV epidemic in Africa is now a development problem, a matter of whether a society can
continue to function as needed to support its people. It is a food security problem. It is a national security problem. It is an educational system problem. And it is a
foreign investment problem. Stephen Lewis, the U.N. Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, says that the epidemic can be curbed and the infection trends can be
reversed, but it will take help from the international community. The failure to fully fund the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, he says, is “mass
murder” by complacency. 25 Writing in the New York Times, Alex de Waal, an adviser to the U.N. Economic Commission for Africa and to UNICEF, sums up the
effects of the epidemic well: “Just as HIV destroys the body’s immune system, the epidemic of HIV and AIDS has disabled the body politic.
As a result of HIV, the worst hit African countries have undergone a social breakdown that is now reaching a new level: African
societies’ capacity to resist famine is fast eroding. Hunger and disease have begun reinforcing each other. As daunting as the prospect
is, we will have to fight them together, or we will succeed against neither.”
We must solve AIDS – prevents extinction

Spignesi in ’04 (Stephen, “Catastrophe! The 100 Greatest Disasters of All Time”, p. 12)
Regardless of the means of transmission of the HIV virus or the societal groups most affected, the reality is that AIDS is one of the worst
pandemics ever to strike mankind. If the virus happens to mutate and become airborne contagious, AIDS could very easily wipe out
life on earth. The need for a vaccine and a cure is paramount, since we cannot be sure that AIDS will burn itself out, as did the Black
Death and influenza.
18
AIDS Impacts
AIDS is the single greatest threat to human kind—6,000 Africans die every day.
Mathiu, 7/15/2000 (Mutuma, Daily Nation, “Special Report: AIDS: Devastation,”AFRICA NEWS, July 15, 2000,
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:6tm_9OIp4c8J:www.healtoronto.com/mbeki/Kommentare.rtf+Every+age+has+its+killer.+But+Aids+is+without+precedent.+It+i
s+comparable+only+to+the+Black+Death+of+the+Middle+Ages+in+the+terror+it+evokes+and+the+graves+it+fills.+But+unlike+the+plague,+Aids+does+not+come+
at+a+time+of+scientific&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)
Every age has its killer. But Aids is without precedent. It is comparable only to the Black Death of the Middle Ages in the terror it evokes and the graves it
fills. But unlike the plague, Aids does not come at a time of scientific innocence: It flies in the face of space exploration, the manipulation of genes and the mapping of
the human genome. The Black Death - the plague, today easily cured by antibiotics and prevented by vaccines - killed a full 40 million Europeans, a quarter of the
population of Europe, between 1347 and 1352. But it was a death that could be avoided by the simple expedient of changing addresses and whose vector could be seen
and exterminated. With Aids, the vector is humanity itself, the nice person in the next seat in the bus. There is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. Every human
being who expresses the innate desire to preserve the human genetic pool through the natural mechanism of reproduction is potentially at risk. And whereas death
by plague was a merciful five days of agony, HIV is not satisfied until years of stigma and excruciating torture have been wrought on its victim.
The plague toll of tens of millions in two decades was a veritable holocaust, but it will be nothing compared to the viral holocaust: So far, 18.8 million people
are already dead; 43.3 million infected worldwide (24.5 million of them Africans) carry the seeds of their inevitable demise - unwilling
participants in a March of the Damned. Last year alone, 2.8 million lives went down the drain, 85 per cent of them African; as a matter of fact,
6,000 Africans will die today. The daily toll in Kenya is 500. There has never been fought a war on these shores that was so wanton in its thirst for human blood.
During the First World War, more than a million lives were lost at the Battle of the Somme alone, setting a trend that was to become fairly common, in which generals
would use soldiers as cannon fodder; the lives of 10 million young men were sacrificed for a cause that was judged to be more worthwhile than the dreams - even the
mere living out of a lifetime - of a generation. But there was proffered an explanation: It was the honour of bathing a battlefield with young blood, patriotism or simply
racial pride. Aids, on the other hand, is a holocaust without even a lame or bigoted justification. It is simply a waste. It is death contracted not in the battlefield but in
bedrooms and other venues of furtive intimacy. It is difficult to remember any time in history when the survival of the human race was so
hopelessly in jeopardy. From the 35,000 Aids orphans of Homa Bay to the abandoned infants of Nyumbani Children's Home, the Aids
calamity is a cloud whose silver lining, if it exists, is well concealed.
19
Malaria Impacts
Even low estimates show over a million African children die from Malaria annually
Breman in ’01
(Joel G., Senior Scientific Advisor @ Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes for Health, American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, “The ears
of the hippopotamus: manifestations, determinants, and estimates of the malaria burden”, v. 64, p. 1-11, http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/reprint/64/1_suppl/1-c)
Worldwide estimates of the number of patients with acute febrile illness due to malaria have varied from 10 to 500
million annually. These estimates are imprecise, misleading, and low because of inadequate diagnosis and incomplete reporting. Some authors have tried
to approximate the number of febrile patients who might be parasitemic, an exercise that is difficult and has limited operational importance in malarious areas without
diagnostic capacity. Others have designated 5,000–10,000 parasites or another threshold level for a malaria diagnosis in partially immune patients living in endemic
areas, a criterion that has some epidemiological but no clinical relevance. It is paradoxical and regrettable that for many years Africa was not included in WHO
reporting of malaria morbidity and mortality because of poor surveillance and lack of parasitologic diagnosis, yet there is universal agreement that close to
90% of cases globally occur in Africa (Figure 4), and virtually all are caused by P. falciparum. Early estimations of African malaria deaths were based on the
autopsy study by Bruce-Chwatt in Lagos, Nigeria;46 he concluded that approximately 1 million African children died from malaria each year. Recent,
more precise estimations of malaria mortality have remained surprisingly close to this number, varying between 700,000 and 2.7 million, with well over 75% of
deaths occurring in African children (Figure 5). It has not been appreciated that malaria-related anemia, hypoglycemia, respiratory distress, low
birth weight, and other manifestations are not usually included in defining the burden, and including these may double the current estimates.
Indeed, anemia and low birth weight may contribute to 50% of the overall malaria morbidity and mortality in children under 5 yr of age in Africa. The acute and
repeated effects of malaria on the brain and their sequelae remain to be quantified fully.
Malaria kills over a million children in Sub-Saharan Africa annually

World Health Organization in ’05 (World Malaria Report 2005 conducted by UNICEF and the WHO http://rbm.who.int/wmr2005/index.html)
Africa remains the region that has the greatest burden of malaria cases and deaths in the world. In 2000, malaria was the principal
cause of around 18%— 803 000 (uncertainty range 710 000–896 000)—of deaths of children under 5 years of age in Africa south of the Sahara.
During the 1980s and the early 1990s, malaria mortality in rural Africa increased considerably, probably as a result of increasing resistance to chloroquine. Malaria is
also a significant indirect cause of death: malaria-related maternal anaemia in pregnancy, low birth weight and premature delivery are
estimated to cause 75 000–200 000 infant deaths per year in Africa south of the Sahara. Malaria epidemics result in an estimated up to 12 million
malaria episodes and up to 310 000 deaths per year in Africa. In contrast to the endemic countries in Africa south of the Sahara, Egypt and Morocco have only residual
malaria transmission and occasional imported cases. Their goal in controlling malaria is to eliminate the few remaining foci of transmission by 2006. The remainder of
this section focuses on countries in Africa south of the Sahara.
20
Pepfar – Soft Power

A. PEPFAR is vital to U.S. soft power
Morrison et al, 07 (J. Stephen, Director of the Africa Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “Advancing U.S. Leadership on Global
HIV/AIDS Opportunities in the PEPFAR Reauthorization Process”, May, http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/070504_pepfar.pdf)
The moral, political, economic, and security stakes associated with the global HIV/AIDS pandemic have steadily increased. Moral
obligations to those whose lives are sustained through U.S. action have become a durable feature of U.S. foreign policy. As
instruments of U.S. global soft power become ever more important, PEPFAR provides a source of goodwill by helping to stabilize
disease- shattered economies and by reducing the security threats that typically accompany economic and political instability. Further,
it is a domestic issue around which genuine bipartisan consensus can be reached. For all the good that PEPFAR has generated, programmatic and
operational challenges on the ground continue to demand adjustments in the U.S. approach and underline the critical need for ongoing applied
research. Knowledge of what approach is most effective in confronting the pandemic is developing rapidly, and that knowledge must be applied aggressively and
consistently in the field. The growing body of knowledge on how to improve global cooperation in the international response also must be
consistently applied. In sum, the first three and a half years of PEPFAR have been a period of relative success in winning rapid, substantial gains. There is
enthusiasm and momentum, both in the field and among policymakers at home. The United States is positioned to build on that momentum, early and
systematically, to assure continuing progress. The time to move forward is 2007.
B. The collapse of U.S. soft power will shatter global cooperation – making nuclear proliferation, environmental destruction,
failed states and diseases inevitable
Reiffel – Visiting Fellow at the Global Economy and Development Center of the Brookings Institution – 2005 (Lex, The Brookings Institution, Reaching Out:
Americans Serving Overseas, 12-27-2005, www.brookings.edu/views/papers/20051207rieffel.pdf)
I. Introduction: Overseas Service as a Soft Instrument of Power

The United States is struggling to define a new role for itself in the post-Cold War world that protects its vital self interests without making the rest of the world
uncomfortable.
In retrospect, the decade of the 1990s was a cakewalk. Together with its Cold War allies Americans focused on helping the transition countries in Eastern and Central
Europe and the former Soviet Union build functioning democratic political systems and growing market economies. The USA met this immense challenge successfully,
by and large, and it gained friends in the process.
By contrast, the first five years of the new millennium have been mostly downhill for the USA. The terrorist attacks on 9/11/01 changed the national mood in a matter
of hours from gloating to a level of fear unknown since the Depression of the 1930s. They also pushed sympathy for the USA among people in the rest of the world to
new heights. However, the feeling of global solidarity quickly dissipated after the military intervention in Iraq by a narrow US-led
coalition. A major poll measuring the attitudes of foreigners toward the USA found a sharp shift in opinion in the negative direction between 2002 and 2003, which
has only partially recovered since then.1
The devastation of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina at the end of August 2005 was another blow to American self-confidence as well as to its image in the rest of the
world. It cracked the veneer of the society reflected in the American movies and TV programs that flood the world. It exposed weaknesses in government institutions
that had been promoted for decades as models for other countries.
Internal pressure to turn America’s back on the rest of the world is likely to intensify as the country focuses attention on domestic
problems such as the growing number of Americans without health insurance, educational performance that is declining relative to other countries, deteriorating
infrastructure, and increased dependence on foreign supplies of oil and gas. A more isolationist sentiment would reduce the ability of the USA to use
its overwhelming military power to promote peaceful change in the developing countries that hold two-thirds of the world’s
population and pose the gravest threats to global stability. Isolationism might heighten the sense of security in the short run, but it would put the
USA at the mercy of external forces in the long run.
Accordingly, one of the great challenges for the USA today is to build a broad coalition of like-minded nations and a set of
international institutions capable of maintaining order and addressing global problems such as nuclear proliferation, epidemics like
HIV/AIDS and avian flu, failed states like Somalia and Myanmar, and environmental degradation. The costs of acting alone or in small coalitions are now more clearly
seen to be unsustainable. The limitations of “hard” instruments of foreign policy have been amply demonstrated in Iraq. Military power can
dislodge a tyrant with great efficiency but cannot build stable and prosperous nations. Appropriately, the appointment of Karen Hughes as Under Secretary of
State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs suggests that the Bush Administration is gearing up to rely more on “soft” instruments.2
21
PEPFAR – Impact - Leadership

PEPFAR passage is key to leadership
Johnson and Kasper 08 (Wendy and Jennifer, MD, both worked in Mozambique for Health Alliance International, scaling up HIV treatment programs
in the public health system “Reauthorize our pledge to fight AIDS”, May 29, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/365104_pepfar30.html)
PEPFAR is one of the few positive faces of the U.S. in the world and arguably the United States' most effective foreign policy
in the past seven years. Before the critical G8 meeting in July, the Senate must reauthorize the program at the $50 billion
funding level necessary to redouble our efforts to prevent the 7,000 new AIDS infections and 6,000 deaths occurring every day.
Those heroic health care professionals so valiantly working under the harshest conditions must be particularly supported. Our global leadership is at
stake.
PEPFAR key to leadership – sends a message of American compassion

Huffington Post 6-10-08 (“Saving Lives Costs Money”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/natasha-f-bilimoria/saving-lives-costs-money_b_106273.html)
We should celebrate today's treatment announcement and the stories told through Access to Life, but it is also a moment to recommit ourselves to
do even more in the fight against AIDS, TB and malaria. This summer Congress will work to renew the PEPFAR program,
which includes continued support of the Global Fund over the next five years. PEPFAR has been a powerful demonstration of
U.S. leadership and compassion around the world and its investments are paying major dividends. The bill, which
overwhelming passed with bipartisan support in the House, must do the same in the Senate -- not only to ensure that this
lifesaving work continues into future - but also to send a clear message to countries around the world that the U.S. is fully
committed to continuing these programs around the world. The Global Fund's vision is to invest the world's money to save the lives of those
affected by AIDS, TB and malaria. This is making a real and dramatic difference. While the U.S. provides nearly one-third of all Global Fund financing, we
in the U.S (almost more importantly) take a vital, leadership role with this commitment. We need to remember that now, more
than ever, is a critical time in this fight against some of the greatest global health challenges of our time.
PEPFAR key to soft power

Washington Post 08 (“Senate Roadblock; Partisan concerns and side issues must not stop a key U.S. HIV-AIDS initiative”, June 1, lexis)
THE PRESIDENT'S Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is American "soft power" at its life-saving best. Since 2003, PEPFAR has
supported HIV testing and counseling for more than 33 million people and care for more than 6.6 million (including more than 2.7 million
orphans and other children infected and affected by HIV). The program has funded medicine for about 1.5 million men, women and children worldwide, the vast
majority of them in sub-Saharan Africa. Even President Bush's harshest critics concede that PEPFAR, which has cost $15 billion so far, is one
of his best accomplishments.
22
Soft Power Solves AIDS

US leadership is key to a sustained international AIDS commitment.
Kazatchkine, 06 (Michel, Ambassador from France for HIV/AIDS and transmittable diseases, “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership on HIV/AIDS”, CSIS
Conference of the CSIS Task Force on HIV/AIDS, 7/16, http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/uploaded_files/0171306_csis_future_transcript.pdf)
Now before I go more specifically about the funding let me first reiterate what I said yesterday evening, and that the honorable Minister from Mozambique also stated
earlier, if this meeting is about U.S. leadership I’d like to state that U.S. leadership has been absolutely remarkable in the last five years, both
within the framework of the bilateral program focused on the 15 countries but also within the framework of contributing to the
Global Fund. Of course there will be no sustained effort internationally on HIV/AIDS if that leadership from the U.S. is not to be
sustained. Now that discussion on sustainability is of course timely and necessary as we move now to the fifth year of the Global Fund and to the second part of the
PEPFAR 15 country focus initiative. We all face the tension between the emergency response that was our primary focus five years ago when we started from nothing
in terms of providing prevention at large scale and treatment to the people in the developing world to the mid and long-term sustainable effort that we need to consider
now. Sustainability is necessary because as people have said the epidemic is still growing and spreading and therefore requires
sustainability of prevention, and because people who are on treatment cannot discontinue treatment and because more and more
people will need to be in treatment. Therefore treatment requires sustainability.
23
PEPFAR – Impact – G8 Cred

Passage of PEPFAR is key to US credibility with the G-8
The Senate's rules make it possible for a small minority to tie up the chamber's work through filibusters and amendments. Because
its calendar until the July 4
recess is already quite full, both the Democratic and Republican leadership are reportedly worried that placing the AIDS bill on the
agenda without reaching an agreement with the dissenters could result in stalling other major legislation. If, however, the legislation
does not pass by the recess, there will be no other opportunity to vote on it before the G-8 Summit.
As a result, pressure is mounting on both the Senate leadership and on Coburn to strike an acceptable compromise, according to the activists. Fourteen Republican
senators have called on McConnell to move the legislation, while Democrats are pressing Majority Leader Harry Reid to do the same. On Wednesday, visiting Kenyan
Prime Minister Raila Odinga and South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu both called for the bill's passage.
"Passing this bill will be a signal to the [G-8] countries that the U.S. is fully committed and that they should also move forward boldly
with their own commitments," said Joanne Carter, associate executive director of RESULTS, a development group in Washington.
PEPFAR key to soft power and G-8 cooperation

Capitol Hill Press Release 08 (“LUGAR, REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES URGE CONSIDERATION OF PEPFAR”, May 22, lexis)
Since its inception, PEPFAR has enjoyed broad bipartisan support and strong cooperation between the Executive and Legislative
branches. PEPFAR also has served as a powerful demonstration of U.S. leadership and compassion throughout the world. As the
President witnessed during his recent trip to Africa, U.S. investments in PEPFAR are paying major dividends both by creating a more
positive global perception of the United States and by bringing stability and hope to strategic regions across the globe.
By passing this legislation soon, we will enable the President to take this commitment to the G-8 meeting in Japan in early July and to
use it to leverage additional commitments from our international partners. Moreover, we need to act now in order to send a clear
message to PEPFAR recipients that the United States is fully committed to continuing the success of this program and to expanding
our efforts to fight the pandemics of AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
Thank you for your consideration, and we hope that you will act swiftly to bring this critically important piece of legislation to the floor.
24
PEPFAR – Timeframe
The timeframe is quick- PEPFAR must pass before the G8 summit
Indy Star ‘8 (“Holding health hostage, making millions wait”, Indy Star, 6-26-08,
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080626/OPINION08/806260310/1291/OPINION08)
Time is critical. Other industrialized nations are poised to raise their contributions to the AIDS/tuberculosis battle by tens of billions.
Consensus has it that if President Bush arrives at the G-8 summit in Japan in early July with PEPFAR in hand, his counterparts will feel
compelled to up their own shares. Waiting, in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the Far East and especially Africa, are an estimated 33 million people
with HIV, and each year another 2.5 million become infected. For 2 million a year, death has ended the wait. TB, malaria and hunger
have stacked the odds against survival even higher.
25
Aff- PEPFAR – Won’t Pass
Republicans are blocking PEPFAR from coming up for a vote

AP 6-19-08 (“US Senate still deadlocked over $50B global AIDS bill”, lexis)
At the White House on Thursday, President George W, Bush awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to two people behind a triumph of
his administration, a program to fight the global AIDS pandemic. In Congress, a few Republican senators continued to block what
would be a major expansion of that program.
Five years ago, at the urging of Bush, Congress approved $15 billion to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in Africa and other afflicted parts of the world.
The acclaimed program now supports anti-retroviral treatment for about 1.5 million and is on target to prevent 7 million new infections and provide care for 10 million,
including orphans and vulnerable children.
The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief "has reached millions of people, preventing HIV infections in infants and easing suffering and bringing dying
communities back to life," Bush said in presenting the Medal of Freedom to Dr. Anthony Fauci, a leading AIDS physician, and the late Rep. Tom Lantos, a Democrat
and a chief sponsor of both the 2003 AIDS legislation and the bill now before Congress.
Another big supporter of the AIDS act, which is known as PEPFAR, is Sen. Tom Coburn, a Republican a medical doctor who speaks of his own experiences in treating
AIDS patients.
"There is no question that PEPFAR has been the most successful foreign aid program since the Marshall Plan," Coburn said in a recent speech, referring to the U.S.'
post-World War II program to rebuild Europe.
But Coburn is also the leader of a group of seven conservative Republicans who have blocked Senate action on a bill, supported by the
White House, that would more than triple funding for the program to $50 billion over the next five years.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the bill in March, and the House overwhelmingly passed a similar bill in early April, but
resistance from the
seven senators has effectively kept it off the Senate floor. The current act expires at the end of September.
Opponents have questioned the big increase in spending, but they also have policy differences. The current act requires that 55 percent
of the money go to treatment programs, but writers of the new bill, arguing that people on the ground can better determine what
programs are most effective, removed that obligation.
Coburn wants it restored. He says that without it there is danger of money getting diverted into unrelated development and poverty programs. "Will we turn
PEPFAR into just another bloated, unmeasured and unmeasurable foreign aid program with no accountability and no real impact?" he
said.
Won’t pass- Republicans are blocking it because of cost

LA Times ‘8 (“The Senate’s foreign aid fight”, LA Times, 6-27-08, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-aid27-2008jun27,0,4200135.story)
Seven GOP senators have been blocking progress on a reauthorization bill for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which may be
President Bush's proudest legacy. The bill sets aside $50 billion over five years to combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in developing
countries; it passed the House in April by nearly a 3-1 margin and was expected to sail through the Senate. But the record-setting price
tag of the disease-fighting effort caused some conservatives to balk. A flurry of negotiations this week seems to have satisfied some of the
holdouts, but there was still enough opposition as of Thursday to keep it off the Senate floor. If it doesn't get through before the Senate
adjourns today for its July recess, an important opportunity will have been lost.
Won’t pass – being blocked

NYT 6-21-08 (“A Global AIDS Campaign Stalled”, lexis)
Unfortunately, the Senate's version of the bill, which was approved by the Foreign Relations Committee in a 18-to-3 vote, has bogged
down in procedural uncertainties. A group of seven Republican senators, led by Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, has placed a hold on the
bill unless their concerns are met. They contend that the $50 billion spending level is irresponsible, and they object to the elimination
of a previous requirement that 55 percent of the AIDS money be spent on treatment as opposed to prevention or other services.
These objections are unpersuasive. Even a $50 billion American contribution over five years matched by substantial contributions from other industrialized nations
would not finance all the treatment and prevention programs needed to quell the epidemic. The real issue is how wisely the money is spent. Mr. Coburn wants to ensure
that the bulk of the American money goes for treatments that will save lives. But earmarking a specific percentage of funds to be spent on particular activities hampers
the flexibility and effectiveness of the program, according to both the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and the Government Accountability
Office. One of the most promising prevention measures, circumcision of males, is apt to be very expensive, and it would be a shame if it got insufficient support simply
because an arbitrary percentage of the program's budget had to be spent on treatments.
The bill is currently stalled because Senate leaders seem reluctant to bring it to the floor absent an agreement that would limit debate
and expedite a vote. Some advocacy groups that don't like specific provisions would prefer to wait for a new president and Congress.
But no one can be sure that, in a faltering economy, there will still be bipartisan support for a $50 billion bill next year. It would be best to
pass the bill in time to strengthen the president's hand at the G-8 summit in early July.
26
Aff - PEPFAR – Won’t Pass

PEPFAR won’t pass- Coburn is blocking it
RH Reality Check ‘8 (Scott Swenson, “Coburn, Complicit Dems Threaten Women, Girls, PEPFAR”, RH Reality Check, 6-26-08,
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/06/26/sen-coburn-threatens-women-girls-pepfar-democrats-complicit)
Continuing PEPFAR at current levels to get a vastly improved bill in the new Congress, and forcing social conservatives to defend their positions
against proven public health prevention methods, will do far less harm than amendments currently being promoted. Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK),
Sam Brownback (R-KS) are leading a final charge for social conservative amendments that will undermine the bill's effectiveness -- and
these amendments are being tacitly approved by some complicit Democrats to avoid confrontation. Depending upon the insider you talk to,
either these are Coburn's last minute efforts at grandstanding to save face with his more righteous-wing supporters, or deft political gamesmanship. If it is the latter, we
won't know until it is too late to do anything about it. Not the most comfortable negotiating position.
PEPFAR wont pass – senators are blocking

Johnson and Kasper 08 (Wendy and Jennifer, MD, both worked in Mozambique for Health Alliance International, scaling up HIV treatment programs
in the public health system “Reauthorize our pledge to fight AIDS”, May 29, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/365104_pepfar30.html)
Yet this is exactly the decision before Congress. The new PEPFAR must reaffirm our commitment, not just to the 2 million people already on treatment, but to
the millions more who are dying right now from lack of access to care. But just seven senators are currently blocking a floor vote on the
legislation, jeopardizing our ability to reach those millions in need just when they are starting to believe that AIDS is not a
death sentence. The seven conservative Republicans are critical of the program's higher spending level and prevention
programs that include condom promotion.
PEPFAR wont pass – republicans blocking

AIDS and global health activists are calling on the U.S. Senate leadership to urgently approve a record five-year, $50 billion bill to
fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, primarily in Africa.
The matter is urgent because the activists want President George W. Bush to be able to take the bill with him when he meets with other western leaders at next month's
Group of Eight (G-8) summit in Japan.
The activists believe that congressional approval of the package will give Bush greater leverage in persuading his counterparts from Europe and Japan to commit
substantially more of their own money to the same cause.
The bill, an extension of Bush's own five-year, $15 billion President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), enjoys strong bipartisan
support. But it is opposed in its present form by a handful of right-wing Republican lawmakers who have placed a hold on the
legislation and hinted that they are prepared to tie up the Senate with procedural maneuvers if the leadership sends it to the floor.
The group's leader, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, has demanded that the bill require that at least 55 percent of the money be spent on the
treatment of AIDS victims, a demand that proponents of the bill insist would deny local authorities the flexibility they need to decide
what strategies, including prevention, would be most effective to fight spread of the disease.
But the same group of senators has also said they object to the total amount of the bill and to the fact that $10 billion of the total would
be routed through the multilateral Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, over which Washington exercises less
control. The senators have alleged that the bill's provisions would support or permit "morally questionable activities," such as needle distribution to drug users.
The bill represents "the height of irresponsibility in the middle of a war and surging debts," said Sen. Jim DeMint, one of seven
signatories of a letter of opposition to the bill sent in April to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.
27
Aff - PEPFAR – Won’t Pass

PEPFAR won’t pass – senators blocking
Washington Post 08 (“Senate Roadblock; Partisan concerns and side issues must not stop a key U.S. HIV-AIDS initiative”, June 1, lexis)
When Mr. Bush asked Congress to authorize a five-year, $30 billion extension, Democratic lawmakers in both houses raised the proposed funding
level to $50 billion, and legislation sailed through with bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee.
Then it stopped: Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and six other Republicans have exercised their prerogative to keep it off the Senate
floor. Mr. Coburn wants to mandate that 55 percent of PEPFAR's money go to treating those who are already sick with AIDS -- as opposed to preventing new cases
and other purposes. That was the rule during PEPFAR's first five years. And Mr. Coburn has a point: As the program grows to include tuberculosis and
malaria and as the definition of HIV-AIDS prevention work expands, PEPFAR risks mutating into all-purpose development aid or
taking on goals -- such as changing traditional attitudes toward gender -- which are not only culturally sensitive but hard to measure in terms of progress.
Yet history does not support Mr. Coburn's broader argument for mandated spending targets. In fact, drug prices dropped so much over the past five years that PEPFAR
met its treatment goals for less than 55 percent of its budget each year. In devising the next five-year plan, the White House assumed that this positive trend would
continue. The epidemic does not follow predictable patterns. In some countries, it is a generalized problem; in others, it is concentrated in a particular region or
population subgroup. Last year, the Institute of Medicine, a unit of the National Academy of Sciences, told Congress that it should eliminate fixed directives for
PEPFAR. Better to let individual country teams tailor programs to fit their particular needs, the institute said. Last month, the Government Accountability Office
reported on a survey of 22 international HIV-AIDS experts, most of whom backed a more flexible approach. The GAO report raised particular questions about the
efficacy of a requirement, inserted in the current PEPFAR law by conservative Republicans, that requires 33 percent of all prevention funds to be spent teaching
abstinence and fidelity.
Both the House and Senate bills remove rigid mandates for treatment and prevention spending. But, avoiding a new culture war, they meet conservatives'
concerns, requiring that PEPFAR recipients promise to stay out of prostitution and that country teams tell Congress if abstinence and
fidelity programs fall to less than half of their prevention spending. This is compromise legislation that expands and modernizes America's signature
global health initiative. Properly implemented under careful congressional oversight, it could add to PEPFAR's proud record. Mr. Coburn and his colleagues should get
out of the way.
PEPFAR won’t pass – Republicans will block it due to spending

All Africa 08 (“US AIDS FUNDING METHODS QUESTIONED”, May 19, lexis)
Seven Republican Senators are also planning to block a bill that would help HIV/Aids patients in target countries benefiting from
PEPFAR, and could postpone the bill's passage until next year.
The bill reauthorizes and expands on previous legislation to fight HIV/Aids, under which PEPFAR was established. The new bill, which authorizes $50 Billion in
spending over the next five years, passed the House of Representatives on April 2 by a vote of 308-116. In order to become law, it must now pass the
Senate and be signed by President Bush.
However, the seven senators object to the removal of a requirement that a minimum of 55 percent of spending should be directed to the
treatment of HIV/Aids patients, AllAfrica reported on Sunday.
They have apparently signed a hold letter, which will postpone a vote on the bill indefinitely.
The formal title of the bill is the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of
2008. It is named for two prominent U.S. congressmen, Lantos a Democrat and Hyde a Republican, who died recently.
Senator Richard Burr (Republican-North Carolina), one of the seven senators blocking the legislation, told a press briefing on Capitol Hill in Washington DC Tuesday:
"The focus is not on delivering medicine, it is not on treatment, it is not on addressing the population of individuals with HIV/Aids in Pepfar countries. It is focused on
what was politically accommodating. There are no hard targets."
"What we know is treatment is prevention," added Senator Tom Coburn (Republican-Oklahoma), another senator blocking the bill.
The move has several critics, including John Bradshaw, director of the Washington office of Physicians for Human Rights, who said in a statement to AllAfrica that the
Pepfar program must be "flexible and respond to what is needed in each country - and people on the ground are in the best position to make those decisions, not senators
in Washington dictating artificial, numerical targets."
The senators blocking the bill even have critics within the Republican Party. Michael Gerson, a former member of the Bush administration who played a key role in the
first Pepfar bill, wrote in an op-ed published today in the Washington Post that the actions of the seven Republican senators are "destructive."
"The 55 percent treatment floor would force the program to waste money in pursuit of an arbitrary, nonsensical spending target - the
worst kind of congressional earmark," Gerson wrote. He accused the senators of insisting on a minimum figure for treatment as a means
of discouraging what they saw as "feckless or morally dubious" spending which might promote abortion or the purchase of needles for
drug addicts.
28
Aff - PEPFAR – Bush not pushing

Bush is not pushing PEPFAR – it won’t get to a vote
All Africa 08 (“US AIDS FUNDING METHODS QUESTIONED”, May 19, lexis)
Gerson, however, accused Coburn of "undermining the bill." He reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat-Nevada), who schedules floor time
in the Senate, supports the bill but will not introduce it if it leads to a long, drawn-out quarrel. Gerson added that President George W. Bush is
not making the bill his top legislative priority.
"Given these obstacles, supporters of Pepfar reauthorization now estimate a 50 percent chance it will shelve until next year," Gerson
wrote.
Coburn seemed to agree with this prediction, telling reporters that the bill was still in an early stage of Senate processes.
29
Aff – PEPFAR – AT: Solves Malaria

Spread of Malaria is inevitable
a. Global Warming
Investor’s Business Daily ’07 (6/24, “DDT and Global Swarming, Lexis)
In Kenya's western highlands, Sanders wrote, "maximum annual temperatures over the last 20 years are up
about 1.8 degrees." This has caused the "emergence of malaria" in towns like Thangathi, which Sanders calls
"one of the new fronts in the global struggle with a changing climate." Industrialized nations, "including the United States," account
for "the vast majority of carbon emissions," we are told, while "poorer countries, particularly in Africa, are the most vulnerable to its effects." Get it? Every time
you drive your SUV to Wal-Mart, you're spreading malaria in Kenya. Sanders isn't alone. At the U.N.'s global
warming summit last November in Nairobi, the Associated Press cited Kenya as an example of how "a warmer world
tends to be a sicker world." The article said warming was disrupting Kenya's climate and that "malaria
epidemics have occurred in highland areas where cooler weather historically has kept down populations of the
disease-bearing mosquitoes."
b. poverty
Action for Nature Medicine, 1-2006 (“Malaria Circular Letter”)
Poverty causes malaria because:
Individuals and families spend little on bed-nets, or grids on doors and windows. Perhaps the children are even malnourished, and
therefore have little immunity to disease. Countries spend little on bed-nets, insecticides, control programmes and the health service in
general.
Malaria outbreaks are beyond human control, they are dictated by the environment
Basu 2K
(Sanjay, Rhodes Scholar, Human Behavior an Health Specialist at MIT, “Eradicating Malaria in Poor Nations: The Potential of Vector Control Measures and Vaccine
Development” http://home.att.net/~africantech/MalariaHTML.htm)
Malaria is clearly a global challenge in need of an immediate and sustained solution. Unlike AIDS, dysentery,
or other diseases affecting the tropics,
malaria cannot be totally controlled by behavioral changes or education. Rather, the disease is determined by climate and ecology--
malaria risk is geographically specific to tropical and subtropical zones, primarily because its pathological vector is the mosquito. And
while it is true that most malarial countries are also poor countries, several wealthy nations, such as the United Arab Emirates and Oman, face serious malaria problems.
30
Aff – PEPFAR – AT: Solves Malaria
A cure for malaria is almost unreachable – growing drug resistance and lack of health
services/infrastructure further exacerbate the disease
The Standard, 2005 ("Scientists on the warpath as malaria fights back,"

http://www.eastandard.net/archives/cl/hm_news/news.php?articleid=22595, June 12)
Emergence of new mosquito species, coupled with the viruses’ resistance to drugs, has researchers worried. The search for a lasting
solution to the malaria menace has run into headwinds with the discovery of new malaria-causing mosquito species. This is
compounded by cost of treatment across Africa, which has become very expensive. Things are not going to be easy, experts say, thanks
to increased environmental pollution and a growing drug resistance, which threaten to undo the gains made in fighting its spread. Prof
Benson Estambale, the director of the Institute of Tropical and Infectious Diseases at the University of Nairobi (UNITID), said the number of malaria-causing
species of mosquitoes resistant to current drugs in the market is on the rise across Africa. Out of every 100 Kenyans, 40 are unlikely to
respond to the available malaria treatment because they have developed resistance to the drugs. Malaria, a parasitic disease found within the
tropics, mostly warm climatic conditions that support its reproduction, has developed more dangerous strains and survival instincts, making its cure
expensive and beyond the reach of many. A new line of treatment based on an artemecin derivative and the coartem cocktails, which are now being
recommended, is proving to be too expensive with the prices ranging from Sh400 to Sh600 a dose. "How are people going to access these drugs?"
posed Estambale. "Resistance to malaria drugs is a big problem. The resistance started with chloroquine in the Far East, spreading through Africa. The
malaria parasite has enzymes which adopt to the drugs used to treat the infection." Scientists are now vouching for the return of old malaria
treatment methods to counter renewed drug resistance and the resurgence of the disease partly due to change of climate, which has created an enabling environment for
their survival. The parasite in the mosquito was discovered to degrade the active chemicals in the chloroquine, rendering the drug useless
and forcing scientists to look for new methods and new combinations of drugs to manage the leading killer disease in developing
countries. Scientists say the high level of drug resistance is worrying given that most of the drugs developed to tackle the disease are
rendered useless faster than scientists are able to develop a new combination. "The insurgence of malaria is due to the breakdown in
the provision of health services," said Estambale. Doctors working in Nairobi say the level of drug resistance has been fuelled by carelessness in
drug use. "It is a global trend because resistance to drugs has developed over the last 20 to 30 years," concurred Dr Ndwiga Njue Mwachandi, a Nairobi-based
consultant paediatrician. He explained: "Our first mode of treatment was the quinine, then we moved to chloroquine but resistance to these drugs developed very fast
and we shifted to using a combination of drugs known as chamoquine, which is made up of fansidar and metakelfin, but these have also been knocked down by the
resistant strains." The complex nature of the mosquito parasite is seen in its very complex development and survival tactics, especially the malaria-causing type, the
female anopheles mosquito. Scientists have counted up to 60 different types of mosquito species and innumerable sub-species in Africa. "There are quite a number of
mosquitoes, the most complex one is the anopheles Gambie; it has six sub-species and is the most efficient. It is strictly a human-biting species and usually bites people
in the house," said Estambale. He said the species has the potential to cause severe bleeding and can also spread deadly tropical diseases such as the dreaded Ebola and
Marburg viruses, which killed 300 people in Angola. "Mosquitoes cannot cause haemolysis — bleeding from all orifices after a major internal bleeding — but they can
carry agents or diseases which cause haemorregic fevers," Estambale said in an interview at his Kenyatta National Hospital office. "The malaria causing parasite
became resistant to these due to the misuse of the drugs. People take a dose to suppress the germs, once the level goes down, they stop using it, this makes the mosquito
parasite to develop resistance," Dr Mwachandi elaborated. The high rate of drug resistance, a result of over-the-counter treatment methods that focus on suppressing the
plasmodium, the germ that causes the killer disease, is to blame for the increasing drug resistance, he said. "With time, you have an enemy and you need multiple doses
to reduce its load but since the parasite has been used to being kept dizzy, even the new treatment mode finds it too resistant because the germ develops techniques to
overcome the medicine," he said. Medicines developed to attack the parasite are specifically modelled to fight a particular strain, which
makes its elimination nearly impossible, the researchers say. But Mwachandi explained the current combination of drugs mainly grouped under the name
Coartem — a combination of lumefantiae and artemesisaia — as being very effective in fighting the parasite. "These drugs can interfere with the vital enzymes making
it impossible for the parasite to survive. Some of these drugs, which combat malaria, prevent the organism from surviving," he reiterated. The complex treatment
process, which involves a combination of expensive drugs, scientists fear, may render the control of malaria impossible due to the high
poverty levels across the country.
31
Aff - PEPFAR – Aff AT AIDS

Pepfar bill removes the requirement for AIDS spending – destroys any positive impact of the bill
Drug Week 6-20-08 (“HIV/AIDS; WHO Report Says 9.7 Million at Risk of Death from AIDS Today; AHF Renews Call for US Congress to Commit to Scale up
Treatment to Seven Million Lives”, lexis)
"This World Health Organization report notes that almost ten million of the 33 million people worldwide living with HIV/AIDS today are in immediate need of
treatment, and an additional two to three million people are expected to join their ranks in urgent need of treatment in each coming year," said Michael Weinstein,
President of AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the largest AIDS organization in the US and which currently provides medical care or services to more than 70,000
individuals in 22 countries worldwide in the US, Africa, Latin America/Caribbean and Asia. "Without aggressive, immediate and widespread scale up of
the delivery of ART, we believe this trend will quickly erase any treatment gains WHO and other global leaders have claimed over the
past year. During the past several months, AHF has been urging Congress to preserve the requirement for a priority on treatment in
PEPFAR."
The current PEPFAR legislation, which is up for re-authorization by Congress, requires that a minimum of 55% of the funds be spent on care
and treatment, a provision that has AHF believes has been key to PEPFAR's success to date. However, despite a tripling of funds to
$50 billion in the reauthorization bill, Congress has unfortunately removed a requirement that any money be spent on treatment.
Over the past two months, delegations of AIDS Healthcare Foundation doctors and AIDS treatment clients from Africa traveled to Washington to speak out firsthand
about the importance of lifesaving antiretroviral AIDS treatment as part of an effort to ensure that AIDS care and treatment remain a priority in PEPFAR, the successful
US global AIDS program. The African delegations met with Senators, Congress Members and staffers in more than 40 legislators' offices in May to tell their stories of
treating those with HIV/AIDS in Uganda, South Africa and Rwanda or of living well with HIV/AIDS thanks to their own access to antiretroviral treatment. One African
delegation took part in a press conference with Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) and Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) during which the legislators' announced their
intention to place a 'hold' on the bill to reauthorize PEPFAR to ensure a treatment funding floor remains in the bill.
Prevention of AIDS has not increased – millions still getting AIDS

Washington Post – 2-20-08
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/20/ST2008022000118.html
But in the worst-hit areas, clustered mainly on Africa's southern tip, the tide has decidedly not turned. The epidemic continues to spread
at a torrid pace that shows little sign of easing, with people contracting HIV much faster than sick ones can be put on crucial
antiretroviral drugs, research shows.
Bush's initiative, the President's Emergency Program for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, has not found a way to prevent a significant number of the
estimated 1.7 million new cases of HIV each year in Africa. Nearly half of today's 15-year-olds in South Africa, one of the biggest
beneficiaries of the program, will contract the virus in their lifetimes at current infection rates, estimates show.
"They've turned the treatment tide in a fundamental way," said Francois Venter, president of the Southern African HIV Clinicians Society, who works
on several programs that receive PEPFAR funding, referring to administration officials. "In terms of prevention, they haven't. . . . It's quite clear that
[South Africa's] prevention programs have failed completely."
PEPFAR won’t help alleviate HIV/AIDS

Morning Star – 2-15
[Feature - Bush's Africa swansong; Eve Bachrach assesses George Bush's record on Africa, lexis]
This week, President Bush sets out on his second state visit to Africa. The six-day trip will take him to Benin, Ghana, Liberia, Rwanda and Tanzania.
Yet it is far from clear what the people of Africa stand to gain from the visit. A lame-duck president with a hostile Congress at home, Bush has little to
offer the continent but platitudes.
He has used his presidency to make a succession of grand statements on human rights and democracy, which he has then followed by returning to his own reactionary
agenda. The man who campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" has, in fact, governed with a callous disregard for human life.
There was nothing compassionate about his invasion and subsequent abandonment of Afghanistan. And nothing compassionate about launching a second war in Iraq
designed to make multinational corporations rich and test out neoliberal ideas of pre-emptive war and "exporting" democracy.
And so, on the eve of his Africa trip, it's worth exploring exactly what policies he intends to implement when he makes rosy promises to the African continent. Since his
January State of the Union address to Congress, much of the focus of Bush's visit has been on the promises that he made regarding HIV/Aids prevention and treatment
in Africa.
The president's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief promises $30 billion (£15.3 billion) over five years for the prevention and treatment of HIV/Aids. But one-third of
that is required to go to "abstinence-only" education - programmes popular with Bush's base back home but proven ineffectual time
and again. It also makes outreach work with sex workers, a key constituency in the fight against Aids, nearly impossible.
The multibillion-dollar initiative is dressed up to sound like a compassionate plan to help the millions of Africans who are affected by Aids, but, in fact, it sacrifices
the suffering of millions to right-wing talking points. Helping those in need is never as important as throwing a bone to Bush's
political base - extreme rightwingers and big business.
When it comes to alleviating the crushing poverty faced by so many Africans, he is guided by the same twisted priorities.
32
Aff – AIDS Impacts Takeouts

AIDS won’t cause extinction
The New Republic in ‘95
(Malcolm Gladwell, “Plague Year, July, L/N)
Some of the blame for this transformation clearly belongs with aids, the epidemic that has more or less shattered the public's confidence in the power of science. But
aids has never been seen as a threat to the entire species. In fact, aids is exactly the opposite of the kind of
random, uncontrollable epidemic that seems to have now seized the popular imagination. The truth is that it is very hard to
find an adequate explanation for the current American obsession. Joshua Lederberg's comment that we are worse off today than a century ago is proof only that he is a
better student of microbiology than of history.
AIDS won’t kill everyone – it can’t even kill Africa

Caldwell in ‘3
(Joseph George, PhD, “The End of the World, and the New World Order”, 3-6, http://www.foundationwebsite.org/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm)
Disease could wipe out mankind. It is clear that HIV/AIDS will not accomplish this – it is not even having a
significant impact on slowing the population explosion in Africa, where prevalence rates reach over thirty
percent in some countries. But a real killer plague could certainly wipe out mankind. The interesting thing about plagues, however, is that they
never seem to kill everyone – historically, the mortality rate is never 100 per cent (from disease alone). Based on
historical evidence, it would appear that, while plagues may certainly reduce human population, they are not
likely to wipe it out entirely. This notwithstanding, the gross intermingling of human beings and other species that accompanies globalization
nevertheless increases the likelihood of global diseases to high levels.
AIDS will evolve reduced virulence over time

Levin in '96
(Bruce R., Emory University, "The Evolution and Maintenance of Virulence in Microparasites" Emerging Infectious Diseases v. 2
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol2no2/levin.htm)
The predictions that can be made on the basis of the current view of the evolution of virulence differ from predictions that might follow conventional wisdom because
the new view allows for natural selection in the parasite population to favor the evolution and maintenance of some level of virulence. Moreover, even
when there is a positive association between a parasite’s virulence and its transmissibility, under the conditions described in the following paragraph, the predictions of
new methods can still converge with those of conventional wisdom.
If the density of the sensitive host population is regulated by the parasite, an extension of the enlightened theory predicts that natural selection in the micro parasite
population can lead to continuous declines in the level of virulence, possibly to immeasurable values. Although not stated in this general way, the same conclusion about
declining virulence can be drawn from models of the epidemiology of HIV/AIDS. During the epidemic phase of a micro parasitic infection, when the
host population is composed primarily of susceptible hosts, selection favors parasites with high transmission rates and thus high virulence. As the
epidemic spreads, the proportion of infected and immune hosts increases and the density of susceptible hosts declines. As a result, the capacity for
infectious transmission becomes progressively less important to the parasite’s Darwinian fitness and persistence in the host population. Selection now
favors less virulent parasites that take longer to kill their host and, for that reason, are maintained in the host population for more extensive periods.
Analogous arguments have been made for the latent period of a bacteriophage infection, the evolution of lysogeny, the tradeoff between vertical and horizontal
transmission, and the advantages of micro parasite latency in general.
33
Colombia FTA – 1NC – 1/2

A. Bush is pushing Colombia FTA but opposition is preventing passage
Wasilewski 6-29 2008 – Journalist for NewsBlaze

(Krzys. “America Must Defend Freedom, says Bush” June 29. http://newsblaze.com/story/20080606121336krzy.nb/topstory.html) //ZE
In a gently veiled attack at Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, President Bush
urged Congress to end a political spectacle and pass the Columbia
free trade agreement. Pelosi, supported by several Democrats and Republicans, has waged a strong opposition to the treaty that the
Bush Administration hoped would have taken effect late last year. "Congress has an opportunity to strengthen these efforts, and I
strongly urge them to send a clear and sound message to the people of Colombia and the region that we stand with them by passing the
Colombia free trade agreement," said the president.
B. Concession to Democrats is key to garner support for passage of the Colombia FTA
Inside U.S. Trade 3-14
[Erik Wasson, “Pelosi Links TAA To Colombia FTA; Business Nervous About Forcing Vote,” Lexis]
But aDemocratic lobbyist cast doubt that the speaker has outlined a trade-off between TAA passage and support for the Colombia FTA. He said that it is
unlikely the TAA bill would be sufficient to sway Democrats to vote for the Colombia FTA, and said the White House would have to
offer concessions far more meaningful to Democrats to strike a deal. But any such concession would unlikely be acceptable to Republican members, he speculated.
Pelosi did not insist that the administration accept the comprehensive House passed bill, which it threatened to veto last year, but said Democrats could work with the administration on the
exact terms of a bill. "It would have to be robust, addressing not only income and health and other considerations,"she said. Pelosi was reacting to the announcement by Schwab on March 12
that the Bush administration plans to send up the final implementing bill for the FTA shortly after the Easter recess even if the congressional leadership does not agree. But Pelosi expressed
doubt that the administration would carry out that threat. "I don't think it's going to happen, but there have been soundings coming from the administration that they are going to send this bill
over," she said. "And I would say this: we have a consultation process that I think should be honored." Business supporters of the Colombia FTA make the point that despite Schwab's
announcement, there has been no formal White House decision signed off by President Bush to actually send the implementing bill to Congress over the objection of the House leadership. This
may be partially due to the fact that the high-level outreach by the administration to Pelosi by cabinet-level officials such as Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has only gone on for four weeks,
which some see as too short to bear fruit, one lobbyist said. Pelosi met with Paulson on March 5, roughly three weeks after she met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Feb. 13. In the
meeting with Paulson, Pelosi said she would discuss the Colombia FTA with House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) who has been hospitalized in New York.
She also said she wanted to discuss the issue with members of the caucus, but her spokesman said that would not necessarily mean a formal caucus meeting. As of mid-week, anti-FTA
Democrats said they had not been approached by Pelosi on the Colombia FTA, according to House aides. In addition, Reps. Betty Sutton (D-OH), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Mike Michaud (D-
ME) and Phil Hare (D-IL) may call for a caucus meeting to debate the issue if there is any sign from Pelosi that she would consider allowing a vote, they said. Hare called on the leadership in a
March 12 statement to use "all the tools in its power to ensure the flawed Colombia FTA is not enacted." The Change to Win federation issued a March 12 statement and print ad urging
Congress to vote down the Co-lombia agreement. A labor source said that the unions will use the FTA vote in close House races in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and New York. The issue
could help unseat vulnerable House Republicans like Reps. Thomas Reynolds (R-NY), Phil English (R-PA) and elect a Democrat to the seat of retiring Rep. James Walsh (R-NY), he said. The
labor source said that traditionally pro-free trade Democrats Reps. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) and Adam Smith (D-WA) will not face negative consequences from a no vote on Colombia given
their overall record. Given that Demo-crats are in the majority, such members will not face a reduction in business contributions, he said. Schwab and Deputy USTR John Veroneau emphasized
this week that their threat of sending up the bill was meant to foster a negotiation with the leadership. "We have not yet had a negotiation that we would like to have with the con-gressional
leadership that lays out a path forward to facilitate that vote," Veroneau said in a March 12 press briefing at the White House. One pro-FTA source called Schwab's announcement on forcing a
vote a "big mistake," saying that it could stiffen opposition instead of leading to negotiations, possibly endangering the entire trade agenda. The administration seems to assume that once the
bill is submitted and a vote is certain, supporters will be able to
generate sufficient votes for passage. Supporters of the FTA estimate that they need
between 30 and 40 Democrats to support the deal, depending on how many Republicans will vote for it.
C. Link – Plan is a Concession

(INSERT LINK)
D. Colombia FTA would spark renewed drug production and violence in Colombia
Witness for Peace accessed 8
[“STOP THE US-COLOMBIA FTA BEFORE IT STARTS,” http://www.witnessforpeace.org/campaigns/US-Colombia_FTA.html]
The Bush administration recently signed a free trade agreement with President Uribe of Colombia. It is a continuation of the failed neoliberal policies of
NAFTA and CAFTA that spur the “race to the bottom” in labor rights and environmental standards, and would undermine the sovereignty of the Colombian
government. The Administration claims that this FTA will promote democracy, further US national security, and reduce the drug trade. Far from it, if ratified by
Congress the US-Colombia FTA would: Weaken workers’ rights, eroding important gains made by labor activists. Labor conditions in Colombia are a serious
concern and unions there have protested heavily against a NAFTA-style agreement with the US. Colombian trade unionists are not just threatened but regularly
abducted and murdered for fighting for workers’ rights. Even the State Department, in its 2004 Reports on Human Rights Practices, has documented assassinations and
attempted assassinations of unionists in Colombia, and detailed the dire situation of labor activists and human rights defenders. Put small farmers out of business,
forcing them into cities to compete for jobs. The trade agreement would create a massive influx of inexpensive, subsidized crops from the US, making it impossible for
small farmers to compete with US imports. The Colombian Ministry of Agriculture estimates that if tariffs on agricultural imports from the US were eliminated by such
an FTA, overall income for farmers of key crops, such as rice, corn, cotton, and poultry would drop by more than half. Fuel Colombia’s brutal armed conflict
by increasing drug production. The flood of cheap US agricultural goods would put alternative development efforts at risk and push
farmers into coca production, reversing any advancement in halting the violence fueled by the drug trade. This upsurge in drug
production not only would be disastrous for peace and human rights in Colombia, but also would present a serious risk to America’s national security
interests.
34
Colombia FTA – 1NC - 2/2
And, Expanded drug production in Columbia will devastate Andean rainforests and biodiversity
Gustavo Bell Lemus 2003, former vice president of Colombia, Colombia: A story to be told, Senlis Council, Security and Development Policy Group, Oct 23
I would like to call your attention to two of the negative effects illegal plantations have had for Colombia, because they are important not only for
Colombia but for the whole international community. I refer to the destruction of the tropical and Andean rainforests with their biodiversity,
and the degradation of many indigenous communities who have been involved in drug trafficking or whose numbers have been reduced by the drug-producers.
Whenever we mention the environmental costs implied by the destruction of coca plantations through chemical, we usually forget the damage produced to
the environment by far the worst in the process of planting. In other words, the greatest harm has already been done to the ecosystems before fumigation, and it
is usually irreversible. It is calculated in Colombia that for every hectare cultivated with coca, four of rainforest and Andean forest are destroyed,
two and a half per hectare of poppy and one and a half per hectare of marihuana. This means that all along these years Colombia has destroyed more
than one million hectares of tropical rainforest, cloud forest and paramo. And if the damage to the flora, fauna and biodiversity in general as well as river
and water resources contamination were to be calculated there would be nothing in the world that could compensate for it. Those forests, located on
Colombian territory are a world heritage. In the case of indigenous communities, they have been strongly affected because they live in the
poppy growing areas. With the arrival of such a profitable business many indigenous families have become involved with it by planting poppy
on their own lands alongside their traditional crops. This put them at risk from losing their legal crops during fumigations, and even of losing their lives in the
violence that accompanies the business. Worse, the relatively high income of these families renders some of its members susceptible to alcoholism,
drug abuse and the loss of the traditional cohesion and ties with their communities. In the multicultural world of the post-modern age this is something worth our
attention.
Andes habitats are a critical biodiversity hotspot

Butler 5 – Founder of Mongabay.com
[Rhett, “Andes of South America are world's biodiversity champion says news study,” August 18, http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0818-hotspots.html]
Currently there are three "competitive" maps of the world's biodiversity hotspots based on different criteria: areas rich in species
diversity in general; threatened species specifically; and endemic species, which have a limited habitat. A new study, based on bird distribution and
detailed below, found that these three maps share only 2.5% of their total area, thus adding confusion to what hotspots should be priorities
for conservation efforts. The overlap all occurs in the Andean region of South America, implying that this area is the world's
biodiversity champion when it comes to birds. South America is home to more than 3400 of the world's 10,000 bird species.
Environmental hotspots are key to life on the planet

Kunich 01, Associate Professor of Law at Roger Williams University School of Law [John Charles, Hastings Law Journal, August, 52 Hastings L.J. 1149, LN] bg
It is rather well known, even beyond the scientific community, that many of the world's species have either gone extinct or are on the road to
extinction. It is much less well known, but equally important, that enormous numbers of these species are confined to a few
"hotspots" of biodiversity, far beyond the norm for the average region of comparable size. These hotspots are the key to the future of
life on this planet. To understand why, we must first examine the degree of risk to which earth's biodiversity is exposed today.
35
Colombia FTA – Bush Pushing
Bush is pushing for Colombia FTA

Bush – 6-26-08 [President George W., Statement by the President on the Legislative Agenda, Business Wire, 6-26, lexis]
And finally,
the Congress needs to act when it comes to the Colombia free trade agreement. This is a good deal for our economy. It will
help our economy grow and to strong -- support our friend and ally in the neighborhood, Colombia.
36
Colombia FTA – Won’t Pass

Colombia FTA won’t pass – Democrats are concerned with the domestic economy
Killian, 6/29/08
(Linda, Public Policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “Taking the Bloom Off the Free Trade Rose.”
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/29/taking_the_bloom_off_the_free_trade_rose/)//ZE
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats have put the brakes on consideration of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Pelosi has
said domestic economic issues must be addressed before the trade agreement can be taken up, and she maintains that concerns about
the effects of past trade agreements on the US economy are driving her decision to go slow. The Democrats have also raised concerns
about the treatment of trade unionists in Colombia, but mostly this seems like an effort to score political points with voters and organized labor in this
country. Colombian-produced goods like roses can enter the United States duty free, while American manufactured and agricultural goods exported to that country face
stiff tariffs. The agreement under consideration would eliminate the tariffs on most US goods entering Colombia, and so ratification of the agreement should be a good
thing for US businesses. But with the American economy souring and voters in a somber mood, trade seems to be a dirty word.
Democrats stall Bush’s push for Colombia FTA
Canteberra Times, June 14, 2008 (“Democrats threat to free trade, Cheney says” June 14, 2008, Pg. 17, Lexis-Nexis Academic)
Vice-President Dick Cheney slammed Democrats in Congress and running for president for opposing free-trade agreements and leading the
country down a "very destructive path" to protectionism. In a speech before the United States Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors in Washington, Mr Cheney
said Democratic lawmakers, by refusing to bring the US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement to a vote, were dealing a "tremendous
setback" to a close US ally and causing "severe damage to our nation's credibility in the region." Led by Democrats, the House of Representatives in
April delayed a vote on the trade pact in a snub to the White House that analysts said may have effectively mothballed the deal until
after the November presidential and congressional elections.
Without mentioning Democrat White House hopeful Barack Obama by name, Mr Cheney complained that the "candidates for the presidency
spoke the language of protectionism."
"Some politicians seem determined to unravel the bipartisan consensus on free trade a consensus epitomised by the North American Free Trade Agreement," Mr Cheney
said, in direct reference to Senator Obama's stated intention of renegotiating the 1994 pact between United States, Canada and Mexico if he is elected to the White
House.
Colombia FTA won’t pass, Democrats don’t want to lose Union support during an election year
LA Times, May 28, 2008 (Los Angeles Times, “Colombia disconnect; President Uribe has tried hard to placate Democrats in Washington. He deserves a trade
deal” May 28, 2008, Pg. 18, Lexis-Nexis Academic)
Democrats are ostensibly holding up a vote on the Colombia free trade pact because Bogota hasn't done enough to protect union
leaders, who have been targeted by the paramilitaries. If the extradition of a large group of paramilitary leaders doesn't placate them, it's hard to
imagine what will. Moreover, the trade pact would boost jobs in both the U.S. and Colombia during an economic downturn and cement Colombia as a firm U.S.
ally in a region teeming with anti-American sentiment. It looks increasingly as though the real reason Democratic leaders won't vote on the Colombia
deal is that they don't want to alienate their organized-labor backers during an election year.
Congress refuses to pass Colombia FTA despite ant-terrorism cooperation

Christian Science Monitor, 8 (“Terror in Retreat” June 13, 2008, Pg. 8, Lexis-Nexis Academic)
Much of the credit, however, goes to President Alvaro Uribe. Elected in 2002, he retains high popularity for a smart campaign against FARC - and
against violent, right-wing groups. After years of war in which tens of thousands of civilians have been killed, FARC has recently suffered losses in its
leadership and through mass defections. Its numbers may be down to 8,000 from more than 16,000. Ten years ago, the guerrillas were on the capital's doorstep.
This successful bilateral cooperation against regional terrorism makes it all the more puzzling why the US Congress refuses to pass a
free-trade agreement with Colombia. US allies against terrorism need such economic support, as did US allies during the cold war.
37
Colombia FTA – Won’t Pass - Pelosi

Pelosi is blocking Colombia FTA
Farzad, May 19, 2008 (Roben, Business Week, “Cheap Shots Over Free Trade; Pointless politics threatens a pact with Colombia that would aid U.S.
Manufacturers” May 19, 2008, Pg. 76, Lexis-Nexis Academic)
Indeed, last month, Pelosi spearheaded a procedural blockage of the free-trade pact, which the White House sent down for ratification. Her
argument: The U.S. cannot reward a regime that countenances the killing of labor activists. In a supportive Apr. 14 op-ed, AFL-CIO chief John Sweeney alleged that the
administration of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe (which enjoys 70% approval) has overseen the extrajudicial and military killings of more than 400 unionists. But
break down that number and you can't help but wonder whether the argument is less about antiunion violence than about regaining clout in the free-trade debate. In fact,
homicides in Colombia have fallen 40% since Uribe came to power in 2002; union killings fell from 186 in 2002 to 39 last year--a 79% drop.
The Columbia FTA is being blocked by Pelosi

Pallesen, 8 -- vice president of the Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers (Gregory A, “OP-ED: Columbia Free Trade Bad for America”
http://colombiaemb.org/dev_1_0/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=220&Itemid=172) // DCM
<The fateof the Colombia Free Trade Agreement today rests in the hands of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. While acknowledging the human
rights concerns implicit in the agreement, the Speaker has repeatedly pronounced her willingness to negotiate with the Bush
administration over allowing it to the floor.>
38
Colombia FTA – Internal Links - Pelosi

Concessions to Pelosi is key to passage – she is willing to negotiate
The Washington Post, 8 (“Colombia’s Case; The intellectual pverty of a free-trade deal’s opponents” April 20, 2008, Pg. B06, Lexis-Nexis Academic)
HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says the Bush administration's free-trade agreement with Colombia may not be dead, even though
she has postponed a vote on it indefinitely. If the White House doesn't "jam it down the throat of Congress," she said, she might negotiate. Ms. Pelosi wants an
"economic agenda that gives some sense of security to American workers and businesses . . . that somebody is looking out for them" -- though
she was vague as to what that entails. Nor did she specify how anyone could "jam" through a measure on which the administration has
already briefed Congress many, many times.
Concessions on domestic policies to Pelosi will result in Colombia FTA passage
Inside U.S. Trade, 8 (“Administration Eyes Lame Duck Session For Potential Colombia Vote” June 27, 2008, Lexis-Nexis Academic)
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson raised the need for a vote on the Colombia FTA with the usual administration arguments in a June
26 meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) which focused on energy policy in developing countries, according to an informed
source. Pelosi raised the need for domestic economic measures to help Americans hurt by the economic downturn, the source said.
39
Colombia FTA Bad – Drugs Ext. – Kill biodiversity

Drug production causes deforestation and kills biodiversity—Andean region is critical
Schaefer 97, Brett D, Trade and Environment Database Case Studies, Mandala Projects, American University, Case Study 136- Coca Trade,
http://www.american.edu/ted/colcoca.htm, Jan 11
The Andean region is among the most ecologically diverse and sensitive areas of the Earth and it has been subjected
to increasingly stressful abuse in recent years as a result of drug crop cultivation. There are three primary environmental
consequences of coca and poppy cultivation: deforestation and the destruction of the habitat, soil erosion, and
pollution of both air and water.
Additionally, the processing of the raw drug crops into their refined forms also has a destructive environmental consequence.
Easily the most visible environmentally destructive effect of coca and poppy cultivation is deforestation. During a fifteen year period beginning in the 1970þs,
700,000 hectares of rain forest in the Amazon basin was destroyed to clear land for coca growth. The immediate effect of
deforestation is the reduction of natural habitat and subsequent reduction in the bio-diversity of the region. A
secondary effect of the deforestation derives from the typical method of preparing an area for cultivation through a slash and burn
procedure. This burning is the major source of air pollution in the jungle. Though these consequences are significant, the most critical effect of
deforestation is that it leads to soil erosion. Due to the illegality of coca and poppy growth the farmers place their
fields on hillsides, which are more difficult for the government agents to reach than fields located on the valley floors. Because
the government does pursue an active eradication campaign, the farmers rarely expect to enjoy long-term cultivation of their fields and, consequently, rarely
employ soil conservation techniques. The coca fields are planted along the contours of the land with little terracing and the fields are
kept bare of plants except for the coca or poppy plants. These methods, in combination with the steep slopes, serve to strip away topsoil with every
strong wind and heavy rain, very quickly making the fields infertile not only for further cultivation but for jungle plant life as well. Recent
observers over-flying the jungle describe it as a patchwork quilt of green broken by patches of gray desolation. In addition to causing soil infertility,
the topsoil runoff fills waterways and rivers with sediment changing their courses, causing flooding, and killing fish and aquatic
plant life by lowering the oxygen content of the water and smothering the river bottoms. Locals who used to depend on the large fish in the rivers
for food, no longer find any fish large enough to eat.
Illicit drug trade in Colombia leads to deforestation and kills biodiversity

Farrar 05, Jonathan D. Farrar, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Statement before the House International
Relations Committee, http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/rm/46214.htm, may 11
The scientific evidence of the safety of aerial spraying stands in stark contrast to the environmental devastation caused by
illicit cultivation and drug processing. I have flown over huge tracts of land in Colombia, including National Parks, that are
simply barren from the erosion caused by illicit cultivation. Environmental degradation does not end there. Over seventy
chemicals, including many that have been given the highest toxicity rating by the EPA, are routinely used in the cultivation
and processing of illicit narcotics without regard to the manufacturer’s instructions, EPA product warnings, or safe environmental practices. These chemicals
destroy the land and pollute waterways. Illicit cultivation and drug processing--very sadly--are quickly destroying
some of the richest and most varied biodiversity in the world. In a little over a decade, it is estimated that illicit cultivation of
drugs in Colombia has destroyed almost three million acres of rain and cloud forest. If we do not stop this now,
the destruction will continue.
40
Colombia FTA Bad - Drugs Ext. – Hotspots key to biodiversity

Hotspots are key to global biodiversity
Kunich 01, Associate Professor of Law at Roger Williams University School of Law [John Charles, Hastings Law Journal, August, 52 Hastings L.J.
1149, LN] bg
Many of the unknown species, as well as many of the ones previously identified, are widely believed to be
concentrated in what has been termed "biodiversity hotspots," or, more simply, "hotspots." These hotspots are pockets of nature that
contain multitudinous species, including many rare and endangered species found nowhere else. Norman Myers
introduced the biodiversity hotspots concept in two groundbreaking papers published in 1988 and 1990. Myers recognized that a modest number of hotspot
regions which occupied only a small total land area - most often in tropical forest areas - accounted for an exceedingly high percentage of
global biodiversity and an amazing degree of species endemism.
Preserving the ecological integrity of hotspots is critical to sustain global biodiversity

1149, LN] bg
The first step is to identify the black boxes. What are the regions that contain the most previously-identified species and may contain the most
unidentified species? Regardless of whether or to what extent these ecosystems/ecosystem networks or any of the species living within them are currently in danger of
destruction, theseare the places that shelter the greatest abundance of diverse life forms. If these areas can be
identified and protected, there is a very good chance that we will also succeed in saving a large portion of the
planet's biodiversity. The hotspots are the black boxes. These relatively few, often geographically small regions
are the mother lode of life on earth. The hotspots account for over 60% of the planet's biodiversity, but only 1.44% of
the land surface. n269 This is a phenomenal density of living things and an unparalleled target of opportunity for
conservation efforts. It makes sense, from an efficiency standpoint, to focus the effort to preserve biodiversity on the hotspots, at least initially. The number of
different species, and the number of individuals from each species, would be much higher than in most other ecosystems. Given [*1214] limited conservation
resources, both financial and political, it is prudent and rational to devote these resources to the places where they will do the greatest good for the greatest number. This
is particularly important for the unknown species. The
best available scientific evidence is that a large majority of the
unidentified species reside in the hotspots, just as do most of the species we have already named. If in fact there are millions - perhaps
many millions - of unknown species currently living beyond the outer limits of human scrutiny in the hotspots, the
only feasible way to protect them is to protect the black boxes that conceal them. Save the black boxes, and we will also, in the
blind, save the bountiful yet mysterious biodiversity hiding within them. It is impossible to list these species individually, as required under the ESA, for the very good
reason that we do not know they exist. They might share the need for critical habitat with some listed species, but this is mostly a matter of happenstance. Moreover,
most of the hotspots are outside the United States, where the ESA does not provide for critical habitat designation. VEPA is certainly needed to save the unknown
species overseas, but even within the United States an ecosystem focus would avert many of the flaws in the ESA approach. n270
Hotspots are critical to biodiversity because they contain a plethora of unknown species
1149, LN] bg
Hotspots are of prime importance as sanctuaries for populations as well as entire species. Populations and
species that may not exist anywhere else reside within these treasure troves of biodiversity. Yet, under the ESA, there have
been no listings of "distinct population [*1202] segments" in any of the hotspots for the multitudinous species already identified in them. Obviously, the same is true
for the plethora of unknown species and populations residing in hotspots beneath the radar of human awareness.
41
Colombia FTA Bad – Drugs Ext. – AT: Species not key

Science can’t determine the ecological function of every species—makes preservation of each one key
1149, LN] bg
The species that are less ostentatious about their value to people, moreover, may be even less fortunate. In some cases, for example, it is not even known
which species of insects pollinate which useful [*1166] plants, or which species are depended on by birds, fish,
and other creatures for their sustenance, so humans may destroy or allow the destruction of these insects without
realizing the consequences.
Preserving the maximum number of species is essential to global biodiversity. Even unknown species
could be key.
1149, LN] bg
From a global biodiversity perspective, it is far more important to preserve the greatest number of species, and the
greatest number of members of each species. It is actually irrelevant, for this purpose, whether humans have ever laid
eyes on the species. We may not have identified a particular species; it may not have a name by which we would call it; we may not
know what it is if it walked, crawled, flew, swam, or slithered in front of our face. No matter. What matters is its place within its ecosystem,
the niche it occupies there, and the potential benefits it carries within its phenotype and genotype for human
beings and for the natural environment now and in the future.
Insignificant species are critical to counter future threats to humanity

1149, LN] bg
One other point deserves explanation. The variable for practical value of all species within hotspots encompasses both identified and unidentified species. It also
includes both currently known uses and those that still wait to be discovered or needed. It
may be centuries before we learn about certain
benefits we could derive from a particular species' genotype or phenotype. Plus, new diseases, new environmental
stressors, changed atmospheric conditions, and other unpredictable future events could be many years away at
present, but someday they may confront us, and a previously "insignificant" species could suddenly take on
great value by offering the solution. We could have designed the table with separate columns for current and future value of species, and/or for known
and unknown species, but this would have complicated the table without real gain in utility. Our decisions as to hotspot preservation would not be altered much, if at all,
by separating the categories of species value in this manner, so we have placed them in one variable. Let us explain the bad news outcomes first. A "serious error" is a
failure to protect hotspots when there is in fact a major extinction risk in general for the species therein but the tangible value of those species overall is low. This is a
serious error because presumably some species will go extinct due to our inaction, and they will have intangible value. If there are many unknown species, this value is
multiplied greatly, resulting in a "first order serious error," while if that number is actually low, we have a low multiplier effect and a "second order serious error."
Similarly, a
"grave error" is a failure to protect hotspots when there is in fact both a major extinction risk for
whatever number of [*1245] species live therein and high actual tangible value for those species. This is a grave error
because some species will die out that could have provided people or the planet with great benefits, such as cures for
disease, valuable genes, ecosystem services, new sources of nutrition, etc.
42
Colombia FTA Bad – Free Trade – 2nc – 1/2

Unchecked Columbian drug production will narcoize the state and trigger a takeover of the Panama
Canal that destroys the global economy and draws the U.S. into a war
Messing and Thompson 2 – Executive Director; and Research Assistant at National Defense Council Foundation
[F. Andy and Ken, “Imperatives of the Colombian Drug War,” Washington Times, May 3, Lexis]
But the trouble in Colombia today is not comparable to the problems of Latin America of the '80s. Colombia is not only a national security issue but also a
health and safety issue. In Washington, New York City, Los Angeles and Baltimore, heroin and cocaine were responsible for the combined deaths of 2,461 people in the
year 2000. Asa Hutchinson, administrator of the Drug and Enforcement Agency, recently said, "The drug supply undermines families and erodes democracies." He
knows that 90 percent of the cocaine and 75 percent of the heroin used in these deaths came from Colombia. The money from the sale of narcotics funds narco-guerrilla
groups such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National Liberation Army (ELN) and extragovernmental paramilitaries. These renegade
groups have been fighting the Colombian government in a 40-year civil war that threatens the Latin America's oldest democracy. "Narcoizing" Colombia
could bring similar fates to neighboring Panama and Venezuela through a domino effect. It would be, among other things, an
economic nightmare if the Panama Canal and approximately 23 percent of Americas' total imported oil from the Andean
region fell into these narco-terrorist hands. It is recognized that Colombia's problems did not receive adequate attention during the Clinton
administration. U.S. policies on Colombia were tainted by efforts to bifurcate the relationship between drug traffickers and guerrillas. This was done because ignoring
the hard problems was easier than doing something about them. However, if nothing is done about Colombian narco-terrorism now, the
guerrillas will succeed and add unwarranted credibility and further economic muscle to their ugly activities. One option for the
Bush "43" administration is to continue with the Clinton legacy and pay Colombia lip service while the narco-guerrillas take over. President Bush may be able to
ignore Colombia for one term, but eventually the problems will be unavoidable. America may be so far behind the power
curve that access to Colombian oil, agri-products and other resources will require appeasement of a Colombian narco-
state. A signal that the administration may be prepared to get tough with narco-guerrillas came last Tuesday when a federal grand jury in Washington indicted the
FARC organization and six of its members on murder and other charges. An alternative option is to focus on reducing the demand for drugs domestically. Some may
believe we can avoid getting involved in Colombia if drug-related deaths are reduced through drug treatment. A problem with this option is that while drug treatment
saves lives, an increase in the volume of drugs entering the U.S. ultimately will result in more drug deaths. By ignoring the supply side, we prevent traction on the
demand side of the problem. Another option is to simply militarize our war on drugs. America can give the Colombian government all the resources it needs to suppress
the guerrilla and paramilitary forces. This one-dimensional approach is fundamentally flawed because it does not acknowledge the problems related to economic and
sociopolitical factors that ignited the imbroglio 40 years ago. The war on drugs cannot be fought only on the demand side, on the supply side or only through military
strategies. It is a multidimensional conflict, and must be fought accordingly. If the Bush administration fails to realize that Colombia poses not
merely a security problem, the U.S. may find itself in a protracted conflict, similar to Vietnam.
Attack on the Panama Canal will shut down global trade

Wagner 5 – Senior Vice President of Country Risk at GE's Energy Financial Services
[Daniel, “Achieving Security in the Global Supply Chain,” October, http://www.irmi.com/expert/Articles/2005/Wagner10.aspx]
If that is not enough food for thought, consider

the implications of a successful terrorist attack on any of the key choke points in global
shipping, such as the Panama Canal, Suez Canal, Strait of Hormuz, or Strait of Malacca. If operation of either canal were stopped as a result of a ship
being sunk, for example, global trade could be disrupted for months. Ships would be forced to endure lengthy detours around
Africa and South America to get to their destinations, with serious consequences for time sensitive deliveries. In some respects, it is truly surprising
that no such attacks have yet occurred. Part of the reason for this is a generally heightened awareness of terrorism, but also, thankfully, a lack of sophistication on the
part of terrorist organizations.
43
Colombia FTA Bad – Free Trade – 2nc – 2/2
Free trade is key to avert nuclear annihilation

Copley News Service 99
[Dec 1, LN]
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of
nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in
Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity,
but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war
for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or
anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global
government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand
Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and other
war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and
bombs. As
long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they
have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to the United
States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-
trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain
wrong. First of all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a growing number of
jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle,
many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic
product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers. Growing
global prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter.
Nations of the world are learning to live and work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined.
Those who care about world peace shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.
44
Colombia FTA Bad – Ext – Panama Canal Impact – Nuclear Conflict

Panama Canal is a critical SLOC – unrestricted access is vital to ensure stability in the Mid East, project
military power, and deter nuclear conflicts around the globe
Peele 97 – Lieutenant Colonel in U.S. Marine Corps
[Reynolds B., “he Importance of Maritime Chokepoints,” Parameters, Summer, http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/97summer/peele.htm]
The inescapable connection between commerce and warmaking continues to shape US policy toward open access to the world's oceans and seas. The economic growth
of the United States is closely linked to the world economy as a whole, and most of that trade is carried on and over the world's oceans;[19] seaborne commerce exceeds
3.5 billion tons annually and accounts for over 80 percent of trade among nations.[20] Virtually every aspect of the daily lives of most people is touched by goods and
services that are ultimately connected to free trade by sea.[21] At the same time, sea lines of communication directly affect the US ability to get forces, equipment, and
supplies to crisis areas. The issues associated with sea lines of communication (SLOCs) and chokepoints include unimpeded transit on, under, and over these areas.
Eight international regions--called the "US Lifelines and Transit Regions" by the Department of Defense--contain chokepoints that require our
attention:[22] • the Gulf of Mexico-Caribbean Sea with the Panama Canal • the North Sea-Baltic Sea with several channels and straits • the
Mediterranean-Black Sea with the Strait of Gibraltar and access to Middle Eastern areas • the Western Indian Ocean with the Suez Canal, Bab el Mandeb, the Strait of
Hormuz, and around South Africa to the Mozambique Channel • the Southeast Asian Seas with the Malacca and Lombok Straits among others, and SLOCs passing the
Spratly Islands • the Northeast Asian Seas with SLOCs important for access to Japan, Korea, China, and Russia • the Southwest Pacific with important SLOC access to
Australia • the Arctic Ocean with the Bering Strait Economic and military issues alike are important in shaping US strategy toward
unobstructed passage of these eight major SLOCs and the associated chokepoints. According to the American Petroleum Institute, 1994 marked the first year that more than half the oil used in the United States
was imported. The largest supplier, Saudi Arabia, provides 18.5 percent of the United States' petroleum needs. Any Saudi oil reaching the United States has to travel more than 8000 sea miles via the SLOCs in the regions of the Western Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean-
Black Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico-Caribbean Sea. Disruption of this movement can affect not only the United States but the global economy as well, as was demonstrated during the 1980-1988 "tanker war" between Iran and Iraq. US interest during that period of
Middle East conflict was to insure the safe passage of non-belligerent ships moving petroleum from the Persian Gulf to Western economies, including the United States. This eight-year conflict produced 543 attacks on ships, with approximately 200 merchant sailors
killed. Fifty-three American lives were lost as a result of attacks on US military vessels in the region. It is important to note that most of the ships that were attacked flew flags of nations not associated with the conflict between Iran and Iraq. More than 80 of these ships
were sunk or declared a total loss, resulting in more than $2 billion in direct losses to cargo and hulls. This in turn caused worldwide hull insurance rates to increase 200 percent, which was passed on to consumers in higher prices for petroleum products. Fears that the
tanker war would result in serious disruption of available oil supplies helped to push the price of crude oil from approximately $13 to $31 per barrel;[23] the net cost to the world economy of these price increases has been estimated at more than $200 billion.[24] Heavy
US dependence on Persian Gulf oil, currently in the vicinity of 9.8 million barrels per day, may be irreversible. With the odds in favor of that part of the world remaining unstable and potentially volatile, US national security strategy will undoubtedly continue to focus
on free access to crude oil from the region. Measured by the sheer volume of merchant shipping transiting it, the region that includes the Southeast Asian Seas and the Straits of Malacca, Sunda, and Lombok is the most prominent of all the eight regions. The region also
encompasses the SLOC in the South China Sea past the Spratly Islands. These sea lanes carry almost half the world's merchant shipping and large percentages of Asian trade through a few key straits. In 1993, over half the world's merchant fleet capacity and more than
one-third of the world's ships sailed through the Straits of Malacca, Sunda, or Lombok, or sailed past the Spratly Islands.[25<P255BJ0> Shipping traffic through Malacca is several times greater than the traffic through either the Suez or Panama canals.[26] The
aggregate numbers portray the significance of this region to ocean-borne commerce. More than one-half trillion dollars ($568 billion) of long haul interregional seaborne shipments passed through these chokepoints in 1993,[27] representing over 15 percent of all the
world's cross-border trade, excluding trade within the region. More than 40 percent of the trade from Japan, Australia, and the nations of Southeast Asia, as well as one quarter of the imports of the Newly Industrialized Economies of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South
Korea, pass through these chokepoints.[28] The economic strength of these countries and their trading partners depends on unimpeded passage in the region. In 1993, the United States was third in terms of owned "capacity ships" passing through the Strait of Malacca,
behind Japan and Greece in the number of such ships transiting the region. The volume of merchant shipping in the area and the associated significance of these SLOCs can be summarized as follows: Over half of all interregional tonnage passing through Malacca is
either coming from or going to the Arab Gulf (Western Indian Ocean Region). About half of interregional tonnage through Malacca is either coming from or going to Southeast Asia. Over a third of [the] tonnage is going to or coming from Japan, and next in shipping
volume are the Newly Industrialized Economies (NIEs) of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea.[29] In 1993, US maritime exports--valued at $15 billion and exceeding 11 million tons--represented 3.3 percent of the tonnage that traversed the SLOCs in this
region.[30] The region is not without security concerns that may affect the SLOCs. Several nations claim part or all of the Spratly Islands and, by extension, rights over the waters adjacent to the islands.[31] China, Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam have
garrisons on some of the atolls and have claimed sovereignty over the adjacent waters. Indonesia is one of 17 states declaring sovereignty over the waters and SLOCs which are enclosed within its archipelagic state; it has considered seeking control of shipping among
its islands under a doctrine of "archipelagic sea lines." The straits in the Indonesian Archipelago are important for direct and cost-effective maritime activity, as they link the Pacific and Indian oceans. Finally, because of oil spills associated with accidents in the Strait of
Malacca, the international community has considered regulating shipping for environmental concerns and maritime safety.[32] There is no way to separate commerce from the defense of US interests in the South China Sea and nearby waters. Recent events in North
Korea, Haiti, Rwanda, Iraq, and the Balkans remind us how dangerous and uncertain it can be to consider trade apart from national security strategy. In National Security and the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the US Department of Defense identifies the following
post-Cold War threats to US interests and world order relative to these countries:[33] • Ethnic rivalry and separatist violence within and without national borders • Regional tensions in areas such as the Middle East and Northeast Asia • Humanitarian crises of natural or
other origin resulting in starvation, strife, or mass migration patterns • Conflict over mineral and living resources including those that straddle territorial or maritime zones • Terrorist attacks and piracy against US persons, property, or shipping overseas or on the high
seas The end of the Cold War did not alter the fact that the United States remains a maritime nation with global security concerns. These concerns oblige the United States to maintain the capacity to project and sustain its forces throughout the world in defense of its
own interests and those of its allies. US responses to threats must be unobstructed and rapid; our 1994 deployment of troops and equipment in response to saber-rattling by Iraq is but one example of the need to be able to deploy efficiently in response to such threats.
Other examples in the DOD document include:[34] • Before and during the Persian Gulf War, the United States and other coalition naval and air forces traversed the straits of Hormuz and Bab el Mandeb, both key chokepoints. In preparation for Operation Desert
Storm, 3.4 million tons of dry cargo and 6.6 million tons of fuel had to be transported to US and allied forces in the Gulf. Ninety-five percent of the cargo moved by ship through the straits. • If prevented from passing the Indonesian Archipelago and the Malacca Straits,
a naval battle group transiting from Yokosuka, Japan, to Bahrain would have to reroute around Australia. Assuming an average speed of 15 knots, the six-ship battle group (all consuming conventional fuel) would require an additional 15 days to transit an additional
5800 nautical miles. Additional fuel cost would be approximately $7 million. The United States considers it important that SLOCs remain open, not merely because passage is essential for implementing the national security strategy, but as a matter of international
right.[35] The United States does not want to see passage through the SLOCs become contingent upon approval by coastal or island nations.[36] Suc h impediments to global mobility through key
chokepoints could delay response in crises; transit time from the US east coast to the Persian Gulf is 20 days via the Suez Canal, 26 days via South
Africa. The United States can ill afford a strategy that fails to ensure unobstructed passage over, under, and through key SLOCs. The
examples also suggest that costs associated with the loss of access to key chokepoints--time, fuel, and opportunity costs--could be unacceptable. These are matters that
must be attended to; they cannot be allowed to accumulate until a crisis forces their resolution. There are presently six significant regional economic and
military concerns that require constant strategic focus on free access to sea lines of communication. • In the Middle East,
Saddam Hussein's hegemonic activities remain a threat to regional economic and political stability. State-sponsored terrorism originating in Libya
and Iran contributes to concerns about regional, as well as European, stability. • In Northeast Asia, North Korea's pursuit of a
nuclear capability exacerbates regional tension. For nearly 50
years, the United States has been committed to the defense of South Korea, helping to maintain the balance of power and
stability on the Korean peninsula. Also, the growth of Asia as a trading partner requires the United States to discourage prospective regional hegemons.[37]
• Stability within the Western Hemisphere is an enduring concern. Examples include the need for stable democracies in Haiti and Cuba, while stability remains
important if El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala are to emerge from recent insurgencies with reasonable prospects for economic growth. Problems posed by the
international drug trade are addressed below. • Unrest in Bosnia and elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia continues to disrupt regional stability. The
United States remains committed to ongoing peacekeeping operations in the search for peace in the Balkans. • Interventions in Africa to prevent or end genocide
(Rwanda and Somalia), support of UN efforts to reduce tensions between warring states (Angola and Mozambique), and efforts to calm civil strife (South Africa and
Namibia) can preclude second- or third-order effects of massive population shifts that have plagued the region for nearly a decade. SLOCs are important if the United
States is to shape favorable outcomes in such circumstances. • The United States remains concerned about the regional dispute over the
Spratly Islands. While it seems unlikely at present that a direct threat to free access to the regional SLOCs will emerge, the statistics above demonstrate the
importance of the South China Sea to our own trade as well as that of our allies and trading partners. The foregoing list of US security and economic foreign policy
interests is neither exhaustive nor prioritized. The underpinning in each statement is an immediate or potential requirement to deploy and
sustain substantial military force in the interest of free access to SLOCs or in response to threats to US interests or those of its allies. The
effects of disruptions within the associated SLOCs range from significant in the Middle East and Southeast Asia to minimal around the coastal areas of Africa.
However, all six would likely require the movement of land or naval forces and equipment to crisis areas along key SLOCs to ensure that US security and economic
interests can be protected.
45
Colombia FTA Bad – Ext – Panama Canal Impact – Power Projection

Shutdown of the Panama Canal would destroy the U.S.’s ability to project naval power
Olmsted 3 – former major in U.S. Army
[Andrew, “Remember the Navy,” April 7, http://andrewolmsted.com/archives/2003_04.html]
The Navy is intended to control the seas just as the Air Force controls the skies. More precisely, the Navy is intended to maintain control of the littorals. The
oceans
are vast, but the most important parts of them are those parts closest to land. Choke points, in particular, are critical to ensuring trade
continues, as well as allowing America to project her power anywhere in the world. Without control of places like the Straits of
Hormuz, the Suez Canal, or the Panama Canal, America would find it very difficult to project her power anywhere in the world. While the
Air Force can transport men anywhere in the world, the heavy equipment required to win major wars can only be effectively moved by
sea. It is the strength of the United States Navy that ensures the United States can project power as necessary.
Sea power is essential to U.S. power projection

Commander Patch, naval intelligence officer assigned to the U.S. Central Command, October 2003, Proceedings
Recent transformation debates have ignored or discounted the requirement for sea control away from the littoral. Some theorists even claim that the need for
sea control is gone, arguing that the shift of the strategic paradigm toward land spells the end of the blue-water threat.1 Beyond the waning former-Soviet
maritime threat, though, what has really changed? The Russian naval order of battle has dwindled, but many of the weapons specifically designed to sink U.S.
capital ships still are afloat in large numbers. Similarly, the Russian international arms bazaar took in more than $4 billion in 2002. Russian weapons research
and development and the proliferation of "shipkiller" ordnance continue apace, with regular sales to states such as China and India. In addition, the logic that it
takes a large blue-water fleet to threaten a large blue-water fleet seems to discount the asymmetric threat.2 Some recent arguments even appear to equate the
terms "asymmetric" and "terrorist," ignoring the possibility that a state might effectively target U.S. sea-control vulnerabilities with unexpected or unorthodox
means. Even without a significant maritime challenger, sea control still is a requirement. For instance, maritime interception operations (MIO) have been
ongoing since the inception of United Nations sanctions against Iraq. A similar effort occurred during the 1999 NATO campaign against Yugoslavia. These
open-ocean sea-control efforts enforced maritime embargos but required persistent coalition maritime presence-usually three to four combatants at a time.
Similarly, every freedom of navigation operation also can be considered a sea-control effort, albeit with deterrence and presence facets. Last, the high seas
remain the primary medium of global commerce and the key to economic health; protecting shipping will remain a recurring
mission. Indeed, sea-control requirements were by no means obviated by the Soviet demise. A portion of the fleet still will be needed to handle these less-
glamorous missions in the decades to come. An examination of the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan cements the fact that sea control
remains critical to war fighting. Imagine the closing of the Suez Canal and the subsequent impact on war materiel and logistics
brought into the theater by the combat logistics force and the merchant sea bridge. Although no such challenges occurred in either recent conflict, both states
had the wherewithal to marginally threaten coalition sea control with asymmetric methods. The critical nature of sea lines of control became conspicuous when
the 4th Infantry Division was denied transit through Turkey, forcing vessels to make a detour to Kuwait through the Suez Canal. The maritime power
projection during both conflicts would have been impossible without sea control. Imagine an Afghanistan-style war where carrier battle groups
could not support a campaign because of insecure operating areas. Access and overflight issues were core to both wars, and any
arguments that U.S. air supremacy will preclude any naval threats to U.S. shipping in the future are questionable in light of the
challenges faced in these areas. In addition, coalition vessels in both conflicts handled many of the sea-control missions, such as MIO, leadership
interception, mine countermeasures, and escort. If coalition partners are absent or their vessels unavailable in the future, the U.S. Navy will be hard-pressed to
accomplish all these "secondary" missions alone. During OIF, even more combatants were required for escort through choke points and threat areas to defeat
the marginal Iraqi maritime threat, and to protect the vast armada of amphibious, combat logistics force, and merchant shipping into Kuwait to support the
ground war.
US leadership is essential to avert global nuclear war

Khalilzad 95 – US Ambassador to Afghanistan and Former Defense Analyst at RAND
[Zalmay, “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War,” Washington Quarterly, Spring, LN]
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite
future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a
world in which the
United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American
values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the
world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and
low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United
States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S.
leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
46
Colombia FTA Bad – Amazon – 2nc – 1/2

The Colombian FTA destroys the Amazon
Citizens Trade Campaign, 7 (“Rolling Back Environmental Protection in the Earth’s Most Biodiverse Area,”
http://www.citizenstrade.org/pdf/ctc_Colombia_Environment_04102008.pdf) // DCM
<•The Colombia FTA – just like NAFTA and CAFTA – acts as an incentive to pollute in a corporate race to the basement. Under this FTA,
Colombia can promote that it has fewer environmental regulations, and lure in U.S. companies looking to produce cheaper goods and
services.
• It’s cheaper when a company can use harmful pesticides and dangerous chemicals not allowed in the United States, and recklessly dispose of pollutants without legal
consequences or financial repercussions.
• Dozens of environmental groups have joined together to actively oppose the Colombia FTA, including
Amazon Watch, American Lands Alliance Forest Campaign, Forest Ethics, Greenpeace USA and the
Rainforest Action Network. Not one environmental group has endorsed the Colombia FTA.
• The Colombia FTA includes virtually the same foreign investor rights found in NAFTA and CAFTA,
allowing outside corporations to privately enforce an extreme set of investor rights by directly suing the
United States. This text and language has proven to be the worst threat to sound environmental policy.
Foreign Investor Rights = Loss of Environmental Protection
• The United States has spent millions of dollars in legal costs to defend against attacks on toxic bans,
responsible mining practices and environmental protections. Similar NAFTA provisions resulted in nearly 50 hallenges to federal and state laws, leading to over $36
million in taxpayer funds paid to corporations.
• Foreign investors based in Colombia can challenge our U.S. state and local laws in foreign courts, and
demand compensation if our laws undermine corporate profits. This allows foreign companies, for example, to challenge progressive environmental
state laws and local ordinances.
• NAFTA has already generated "regulatory takings" cases against responsible land use decisions,
environmental safety initiatives, and public health policies. These adverse rulings would not have been
possible in U.S. courts.
• Even worse, by expanding the definition of “investment” to specifically include contracts for natural resource extraction, this FTA actually extends foreign investor
rights beyond what was contained in NAFTA to establish new rights for foreign logging, mining and oil companies to skirt domestic courts and laws.
• The U.S.- Australia FTA excluded investor-state enforcement, proving this vital fix was not only possible, but was previously accomplished. It is appalling that this
severe problem, which environmental groups have drawn attention to for over a decade, was not fixed.
• New language in the Colombia FTA does not address basic NAFTA-style foreign limits on domestic
procurement policy. Environmental, consumer and labor groups argued these provisions would need to be
removed to avoid opposition to these trade agreements.
• This new language still allows foreign investors to demand taxpayer-funded compensation for any
governmental action – including a virtually limitless range of common policies used to protect the
environment – which could affect an investor’s expected future profits.
• The Colombia FTA encourages corporate rollbacks of common procurement policies that local governments use to encourage
sustainable environmental practices. These include rules governing recycled content, forest stewardship certifications, renewable energy and other basic
environmental incentives.
• The newly inserted provisions dealing with labor and environmental issues are positive steps forward, but are also entirely dependent upon President Bush and the
Executive Branch for enforcement.
• Some members of Congress still remain concerned that these improved environmental standards will be made part of virtual side deals, which have historically been
ignored.
• The Colombia FTA text ignores limits on imported food safety and inspection, and still contains language
requiring the United States to accept imported food that does not meet our safety standards. The foreign
investor provisions are almost word-for-word identical to the language found in CAFTA.
• Such private enforcement rights for the most predatory multinational corporations tilt the balance badly
against the environment, and will chill reforms desperately needed to protect the upper Amazon Basin. >
47
Colombia FTA Bad – Amazon – 2nc – 2/2
Amazon collapse risks extinction

Takacs, 1996 - teaches environmental humanities (history, ethics, justice, politics) in the Institute for Earth Systems Science and Policy at California State
(David, “The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise,” 1996, pg. 200-201)
So biodiversity keeps the world running. It has value and of itself, as well as for us. Raven, Erwin, and Wilson oblige us to think about the value of
biodiversity for our own lives. The Ehrlichs’ rivet-popper trope makes this same point; by eliminating rivets, we play Russian roulette with global ecology and human
futures: “It
is likely that destruction of the rich complex of species in the Amazon basin could trigger rapid changes
in global climate patterns. Agriculture remains heavily dependent on stable climate, and human beings remain
heavily dependent on food. By the end of the century the extinction of perhaps a million species in the Amazon basin could
have entrained famines in which a billion human beings perished. And if our species is very unlucky, the famines could lead
to a thermonuclear war, which could extinguish civilization.” 13 Elsewhere Ehrlich uses different particulars with no less drama:
What then will happen if the current decimation of organic diversity continues? Crop yields will be more difficult to maintain in the face of climatic change,
soil erosion, loss of dependable water supplies, decline of pollinators, and ever more serious assaults by pests. Conversion of productive land to wasteland
will accelerate; deserts will continue their seemingly inexorable expansion. Air pollution will increase, and local climates will become harsher. Humanity
will have to forgo many of the direct economic benefits it might have withdrawn from Earth's wellstocked genetic library. It might, for example, miss out on
a cure for cancer; but that will make little difference. As ecosystem services falter, mortality from respiratory and epidemic disease, natural disasters, and
especially famine will lower life expectancies to the point where cancer (largely a disease of the elderly) will be unimportant. Humanity will bring
upon itself consequences depressingly similar to those expected from a nuclear winter. Barring a nuclear conflict, it
appears that civilization will disappear some time before the end of the next century - not with a bang but a whimper.14
48
Colombia FTA Bad – Empower Narco-Traffickers

The Columbia FTA will allow Uribe to assist nacroterrorists in gaining power and result in Latin America instability
Gonzalez 07, foreign policy analyst (Jose, “Colombia to US: Give Me Money, Watch Me Run!” Scoop independent news 06-05-7
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print.html?path=HL0706/S00039.htm) // DCM
<Uribe, who famously fought against the extradition of his crony, drug lord Pablo Escobar, has sponsored legislation in Colombia to limit the sentences
of confessed paramilitary narco-terrorists to a maximum of five to eight years. This means that, thanks to Uribe (and considering time served) some
unreconstructed death squad killers will be out in 22 months, free to re-enter Colombian society, enjoy their piled-up wealth, join the
FTA and launch political careers! This virtually insures that the U.S. flag-bearer in Latin America will be a country rife with entrenched corruption, terrorism,
guerrilla warfare and booming narco-traffic.
Uribe, of course, has a fictional version of history that he hopes to turn into a best seller. He piously declares that he had nothing to do with, the narco-terrorists
paramilitaries. He goes further to claim that Colombia was a disaster in 2002 and that he put it back on its feet. But the facts demolish Uribe’s cooked numbers, leaving
only his cosmetics. Uribe blames terrorism for the downward spiral of events in Colombia, but in reality everything points to him. Under
his administration, claims for transparency and the healing of social wounds are ignored. Requests for accountability, protection for
workers, a stop to the closing of hospitals and universities, pleas for land and legal crops for peasants – all have been brushed out or
remain crippling. The Colombian people don’t want terrorism, but neither do they want to sacrifice their social development on the altar of solidarity with Uribe’s
failing war policies.
Uribe’s “popularity” is the result of the thousands of dollars he spends in media promotion. He holds well-publicized community meetings where
he distributes blizzards of checks to the faithful. He demands prime time national TV coverage of his routine interviews and speeches. Meanwhile, he uses his
power to cover his tracks and erase all traces of his connection to the paramilitaries. While quietly wiretapping the opposition, a la Nixon (and
Bush?) Uribe desperately hopes that the flawed U.S. FTA can be disguised as a populist tool to ensure him and his political apparatus
future reelections.
Who is Uribe really? As Jesus put it, “by their deeds you will know them”.
Uribe’s choice to head the Colombian Police is a general whose brother was just convicted of narco trafficking in Germany. Colombia leads the world in the number of
union leaders murdered. It comes in fourth in the number of journalists. The government has completely investigated 2% of the union deaths -- an excellent record
compared to investigations of the killing of journalists, which amounted to exactly zero. In 2002, fresh in power, Uribe proposed to Congress an amendment
modifying the Public Order Law to decriminalize the right-wing paramilitaries. His novel judicial thesis: if criminals help the government, they
can’t really be criminals. At the same time Uribe declared that the leftist FARC guerrillas were not politically motivated, but exclusively
criminal. The transparent goal of both these measures was not public order, but to legalize and strengthen the paramilitaries. In 2003
Uribe went further, introducing the Penal Alternative Law, which initially specified no jail term for paramilitaries. With modifications that law -- the Justice and Peace
Law -- now establishes a maximum jail term between 5 to 8 years. A couple of weeks ago Mr. Uribe introduced a project to soften the law even further by freeing
anyone not actually present at acts of torture, dismemberment and massacre by the paramilitaries. There may be no smoking gun linking Uribe to the paramilitaries, but
is it really necessary? When ministers, governors, senators and public servants close to Uribe are jailed for dealing with paramilitaries, is it possible that the president
does not know his friends he has endorsed? At the beginning of his first term, prominent paramilitaries praised Uribe in the press and described him as “the best
president we have ever had.” Recently, the accidental finding of a narco-paramilitary leader’s laptop gave Colombians an early hint of Uribe’s parapolitics. Had it not
been for this discovery, and the shocking disclosures it led to, Uribe might have succeeded in keeping his parapolitics hidden. Uribe uses the paramilitary slogan
“exterminate the guerrillas”, to project his power indefinitely. He does nothing effective to stop narco-trafficking or to dismantle corruption. Instead
his war on FARC subversives has distorted domestic policies. By sacrificing social progress to total war on FARC, Uribe has only
succeeded in spreading the insurgency. This development is not just ominous for Colombia, but for its neighbors. The vietcongization of
Amazonia is growing day by day.>
FTA will empower narco-traffickers and inflame violence in Colombia

Gonzalez 7 – political analyst devoted to U.S. foreign policy
[José María Rodríguez, “Colombia’s FTA: Monkey Business for U.S.,” March 29,
http://www.ert2k.com/josema_rodriguezg/downloads/articles/Colombias_FTA_Monkey_Business_for_U.S.pdf]
The Free Trade Agreement (FTA) appears to offer a fair deal. It promises to open U.S. markets to Colombia in exchange for opening the Colombian market to the
U.S. But in reality it is
a Trojan horse in a minefield. Colombia is pursuing this FTA as its way to push itself to the free and global market. It’s a very
worthy aspiration -- if only the country wasn’t overrun by packs of domestic economic hyenas, seasoned speculators and
corrupt middle men, not to mention the narco traffickers who have infiltrated the current government. This unsavory band
is slavering to use the FTA for their advantage, but the unexpected beneficiaries of FTA are likely to be the resilient
guerrillas, FARC (Colombia’s Revolutionary Arm Forces). The FARC have been in existence for over four decades, and are badly in
need of a new cause to revive their anti-imperialist ardor and inflame patriotic feeling in Colombia.
49
Colombia FTA Bad – Democracy

Colombia FTA kills democracy – gives more power to corrupt leaders
ASFC 06 (American Friends Service Committee, “The U.S.-Colombia FTA: Fuels the Fires of the Conflict”, September 18, http://www.afsc.org/trade-matters/trade-
agreements/Colombia/statement.htm)
Negotiations for the proposed U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (U.S.-Colombia FTA)1 were completed on February 27, 2006. The text was not released
to the public until May 2006, three months later.
The U.S.-Colombia FTA and its links to militarization is yet another manifestation of the “one-size-fits-all” model that does not live up to the interfaith
principles and the AFSC working party document entitled “Putting Dignity at the Heart of the Global Economy”. In addition, given the state of war and largely
U.S. funded militarization in Colombia, a new principle is provided that states, “International trade and investment systems should be designed to diminish the
likelihood and longevity of violent conflicts”.2 Examples that the FTA does not measure up to the principles are highlighted below.
1) International trade and investment systems should be designed to diminish the likelihood and longevity of violent conflict.
We observe: The conflict in Colombia is deeply rooted in economic, social, and political inequalities. Wealth and land remain
concentrated in the hands of a few and Colombia’s political system neglects the needs of the majority of the population—
especially Afro-Colombians and Indigenous peoples. The government and those in power respond with violent repression to
those who attempt to change the unequal situation.
Agriculture is the third most important sector in terms of employment in Colombia, with 22.7 percent (almost double the figures for
employment in the industrial sector, which generates 13.5 percent), and provides 11.4 percent of GDP.3 Given that 12 years of NAFTA and the resulting flood
of low-cost corn, wheat and beef imports from the U.S. that has been a major contributor to the displacement of 1.7 million small scale Mexican farmers, the
potential negative impact on Colombian peasants, indigenous and Afro-Colombians is real. Since opening Colombia’s market to
compete with the U.S. will actually lead to more human insecurity, U.S. trade policy in Colombia is inconsistent with the stated goals of the U.S. government’s
drug war policy.
Political and economic marginalization has already stoked widespread protests and political insecurity. However, dissent has been
met with harsh repression. For example, on May 15, 2006 a national summit was called by Afro-Colombians andIndigenous leaders
across fourteen provinces in Colombia to protest against the FTA and militarization. Tens of thousands of people who came out
were met with severe repression, resulting in many deaths. As President Alvaro Uribe pushes the FTA through the Colombian
Constitutional Court and legislature, voices of dissent will continue to be repressed, fueling the violence already felt in these
communities of peaceful resistance.
2) International trade and investment systems should respect and support the dignity of the human person, the integrity of creation, and our common humanity.
We observe: Colombia continues to be the most violent place in the world for trade unionists. According to the National Labor School (ENS) in Colombia, 70 trade unionists were murdered in 2005.
The Colombian government has consistently failed to investigate and charge those responsible for the murders of Colombian trade unionists. According to a new study released by the AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center,
of the 3,000 murders of trade unionist between 1986 and 2002, only 376 were even investigated by the government, and only five of those cases resulted in guilty verdicts.4
Wages and working conditions in all countries will be hurt if trade pacts continue to encourage corporations to race to the bottom in workers’ rights. The U.S.-Colombia FTA lacks meaningful provisions to
strengthen human rights protections. With regard to labor rights, the FTA only requires countries to effectively enforce their own labor laws, with no incentive to bring weak laws and enforcement up to the
International Labor Organisation (ILO) core labor standards. Just like CAFTA, the enforcement and penalty mechanisms in the labor chapter of the U.S.-Colombia FTA are so weak that they provide no credible
influence over the multinational corporations or Colombian government.
3) International trade and investment activities should advance the common good and be evaluated in the light of their impact on those who are most vulnerable.
We observe: A significant push behind the Colombian government’s desire to have an FTA with the U.S. was to maintain access to the U.S. market granted to them through the Trade Preference and Drug
Eradication Act (ATPA-DEA) since 1991. Reciprocity is a stated goal in U.S. trade policy, ending the era of preferences for countries of geo-political interest. In order to keep these preferences, Colombia made
significant concessions which could disproportionately affect the resource poor and vulnerable populations—especially the Afro-Colombian and Indigenous people—who make up the majority of the three million
displaced peoples in Colombia.
Under the ATPA-DEA preference scheme, the goals were for Colombia to increase employment and new exports to the U.S. and decrease drug production. But the results have shown export diversification through
the Act created little employment and the jobs that were created, were located outside coca growing zones.5 In addition ATPA-DEA and other U.S. policies had no effect on drug production. In April 2006, the U.S.
government announced that coca cultivation in Colombia last year totaled 144,000 hectares, a level not seen since 2002 and exceeds the measures grown in 1999, the year before Plan Colombia began (122,500
hectares).6
Fifteen years with the ATPA-DEA failed to lift Colombia out of its economic, social and political crisis. Now with major concessions in the areas of intellectual property rights and agriculture the poor and
vulnerable are likely to not only see few benefits from the deal, but actually be harmed.
4) International trade and investment policies and decisions should be transparent and should involve the meaningful participation of the most vulnerable stakeholders.
We observe: Once again, the U.S.-Colombia FTA negotiating text was never available to civil society until months after the negotiations were completed. This is despite Colombian constitutional law that dictates
such text must be published. In fact, in December 2005 in the province of Cundinamarca, a court ruled that the government should abstain from subscribing to negotiations and signing any accord that would be
harmful to collective rights or any other right that would be linked to these collective rights.7 The court stated that permitting the patenting of living beings, animals or plants that belong to the Colombian
environment, as well as allowing the importation of grains that are highly subsidized in the U.S., would be harmful to the collective rights. This ruling was overturned by the Colombian State Council in August
2006 claiming the trial was being pursued by the plaintiff (The Network Action on Trade - RECALCA) with the sole “desire” to have the Constitutional Court of Colombia declare the trade agreement
unconstitutional. More importantly, the State Council also decided to void the legal process by which the formal complaint was made, that is, to remove the mechanism of “popular actions” which was established
primarily to check the power of Colombia’s executive branch around collective rights and its role in the judicial system. The role of President Uribe in pressuring the State Council to repeal the complaint is also
being questioned. And the expectation is that the trade pact will be sent to Congress for a vote in September, 2006.
In attempt to reclaim some meaningful participation in the process, Colombian leaders from the Nasa indigenous community organized a referendum on the FTA in the province of Cauca in which 51,330 out of
68,448 registered voters participated and 98 percent voted “no.” Not only were the results ignored and discredited, organizers of this referendum were accused of being organized by “dark forces of terrorism” by
President Uribe.
5) International trade and investment systems should respect the legitimate role of government, in collaboration with civil society, to set policies regarding the development and welfare of its people.
We observe: The “one-size-fits-all” approach to U.S. trade policy with negotiations conducted in secret undermines the role of
citizens in shaping their economic futures. Colombia is a unique case because the democratic institutions are currently weak
and civil society groups, including indigenous and Afro-Colombians, face severe repression.
In the best of circumstances, this type of trade liberalization prevents the Colombian government from using the very same
policies used by the U.S. to develop. These include subsidies, tariffs for protecting infant industries, and public provision of essential services such as
education, water and healthcare. But in the case of Colombia, the agreement restricts future generations from charting their own
development path—violating their national sovereignty.
50
Colombia FTA Bad –Colombian Agriculture

US farmers are subsidized by the government- Colombian farmers can’t compete- and the result is more drugs and conflict
Witness for Peace, 8 (“Colombia: Where U.S Policy Kills” April 3, 2008, http://www.witnessforpe ace.org/pdf/Col_FTA_factsheet.pdf
Colombian farmers are not able to compete with U.S. agricultural goods due to, among other factors, U.S. government subsidies. The
U.S. government subsidizes farmers to the tune of $24 billion a year, meaning that they can produce at below the cost of production, thus
making it impossible for Colombian agricultural to compete on a level playing field. Colombian farmers also often lack technology,
infrastructure, and/ or physical access to markets. Without protections against U.S. agricultural goods, many Colombians will lose
their livelihood. Without alternatives for feeding their families, many Colombian farmers have no choice but to grow illicit crops, such
as coca (the raw material for cocaine), join an illegal armed group, or leave their farm and become another of Colombia’s already nearly four
million internally displaced individuals.
Colombia FTA will create more poverty in Colombia because Colombian farmers won’t be able to compete- and this causes
increased drug trade and conflict
Rusu, 8 (Laura, Oxam America, “US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Bad Deal for Development and National Security” April 8, 2008,
http://www.oxfamamerica.org/news ndpublication s/press_releases/us-colombia-free-trade-agreement-bad-deal-for-development-and-national-security
“In a country plagued by armed conflict, reducing poverty in rural areas would be the best way to address our security concerns, but this trade
deal will do just the opposite,” said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. “Although the deal is billed to help in the fight against drug
trafficking, poor farmers who cannot compete with US exports to sell their food crops, such as corn and rice, will have few other options
but to grow coca to survive.”
Poverty and inequality in rural areas has fueled Colombia’s armed conflict for more than four decades and led to an expansion of illicit
coca cultivation. If passed, the Colombia trade deal will threaten the livelihoods of small and medium-scale farmers who produce food
for the domestic market, deepening poverty and inequality among the country’s 12 million rural inhabitants. The trade deal forces
Colombia to fully open its market to the US while providing substantially no new US market access for Colombia beyond that granted by
the Andean trade preference program since 1991. Agriculture accounts for 22% of employment in Colombia, nearly twice the level of employment in the
manufacturing industry, and in the country’s poorest regions most farmers who cultivate grains and livestock for local markets will be unable to
compete with subsidized US exports.
In addition, the trade deal is no fix to the continued environment of intimidation and impunity in Colombia that limits the ability of human rights, labor and community
leaders to effectively carry out their work. Just over the last month, a series of death threats from para-military groups together with public accusations by government
officials have contributed to continued acts of violence against human rights defenders, including the murder of three trade unionists and two community leaders that
remain in impunity.
“In the current context of intimidation, violence and impunity, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement could only make matters worse by
increasing tensions that result from greater poverty and inequality,” said Offenheiser. “Trade can only be an engine for poverty reduction if trade rules
bring benefits to vulnerable populations, but the Colombia Free Trade Agreement fails this test.”
51
Colombia FTA Bad–Colombian Agriculture

Columbia FTA would destroy the Columbian agricultural market, displacing small farmers – this would lead to increased
violence and drug production
Washington Office on Latin America, 7 (“Peru and Columbia FTAs Projected to Increase Drug Trafficing, Violence, and Instabilit in the Andes” 06-25
http://www.tradewatch.org/documents/ACF7E37.pdf) // DCM
<The Peru and Colombia FTAs Agriculture Provisions Will Devastate Millions of Peru and Colombia’s Small Farmers: Nearly one third of
Peru’s population1 and over twenty percent of Colombian workers2 depend on agriculture for their livelihood. The Peru and Colombia “Free Trade Agreements”
(FTAs) require those nations to cut tariffs on many basic agricultural goods, opening up their markets to imports of the same
commodities from subsidized U.S. agribusiness. CONVEAGRO, a major Peruvian farmers group estimates that approximately 1.7 million Peruvian
families will be immediately affected by these provisions.3 In Colombia, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs conducted a study of the effects of liberalization
on nine primary agricultural products and found that full liberalization would lead to a 35 per cent decrease in employment. Experts Warn that the Colombia
and Peru FTAs Will Lead to Increased Drug Production and Violence: Colombia and Peru are the top two producers of cocaine in the
world, with Colombian cocaine representing two-thirds of the world’s supply.5 The Washington Post editorial board warned in February 2006 that
the “rural dislocation that would follow from ending all protection for Colombian farmers could undermine the government’s efforts to pacify the countryside. If
farmers can’t grow rice, they are more likely to grow coca.”6 As Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz noted, the upheaval that
such agreements will have on rural livelihoods is a self-defeating course that will mean “there will be more violence and the U.S. will have to spend
more on coca eradication.”7 In the words of Archbishop Pedro Barreto, the President of the Episcopal Commission for Social Action of the Catholic Church in
Peru, “We are certain that the trade agreement will increase the cultivation of coca, which brings along with it a series of negative
consequences including drug trafficking, terrorism and violence.”8 Increased Drug Production is Linked to Past NAFTA-style
Agricultural Trade Policies on Which the Peru and Colombia FTAs are Based: We do not need to rely on experts’ opinions regarding how the
proposed FTAs will lead to increases in drug production. Unfortunately, there is a factual record demonstrating the phenomena. After NAFTA drove down
commodity prices in Mexico and eventually 1.3 million Mexican campesinos were driven out of the business of growing corn and
beans, many Mexican farmers turned to illegal drugs to compensate for lost income. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office reports that
in NAFTA’s first decade, marijuana seizures doubled at the U.S.-Mexico border.9 Peru and Colombia’s neighbor Bolivia provides
another stark example; after Bolivia underwent significant trade liberalization in the 1980s, many poor farmers were unable to earn sufficient income from legal
crops and cocaine production rose 13 percent each year for the first three years of this policy.10 Peru experienced a similar trend when the liberalization of the coffee
market depressed prices, with the result that “[peasant farmers] started to re-activate their abandoned coca fields and coca cultivation again rose in Peru.”11
The Colombia FTA Could Exacerbate Colombia’s Ongoing Civil Conflict: Colombia remains embroiled in a war between left-leaning guerillas,
right-wing paramilitaries and the government. Colombia is wracked with some of the worst violence in the world: in 2005 alone there were
over 17,331 homicides.12 Given the rural displacement and further impoverishment the Colombia FTA is projected to cause, the
Colombian Ministry of Agriculture concluded that the FTA would give small farmers little choice but “migration to the cities or other
countries (especially the United States), working in drug cultivation zones, or affiliating with illegal armed groups.”13 2 The Peru FTA
Threatens Progress on Development and Security Made Since the End of Peru’s Bloody Civil War: Peru is still recovering from a decades-long war that left 69,280
people dead. The war was primarily fought in the very rural areas that the FTA’s agricultural rules are projected to hit hardest. In 2000, Peru established a Truth and
Reconciliation Commission. Among its primary recommendations for building a lasting peace was emphasizing programs that would encourage “employment and
income generation”14 in devastated regions – an objective that will be undermined by the Peru FTA, which is projected to decrease income generation among the rural
poor.15 The situation is especially volatile given the revival of Shining Path activity; in 2005 they conducted around 150 violent acts and are building strength as “both
international and domestic drug traffickers in Peru have hired the Shining Path to protect their lucrative plantations of coca leaf and opium poppies,”16 according to
the Center for Security Studies.17 >
52
Colombia FTA Bad –Colombian Agriculture

Colombia FTA hurts Colombian agriculture – cheaper US goods crowd out locals
Marketplace 08 (“Many miss benefits of free trade”, April 17, http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/04/17/colombia_free_trade/)
LISA NAPOLI: The president of Colombia says it would be incomprehensible if the United States rejects a free trade deal with his country. But, it doesn't look
like Democrats on Capitol Hill will budge on the matter. Colombia bought nearly $7 billion of U.S. goods last year. And President Bush wants to fast-track a
free trade agreement with the fourth largest country in South America. Economics correspondent Chris Farrell weighs in on the debate.
CHRIS FARRELL: Well, there's a lot of politics going on. But let's take a step back and just actually look at the agreement itself. There's a trade agreement
with Colombia, and basically, it changes very little, especially on the U.S. side. And here's the reason why: Colombia goods, they already come into the U.S.
freely, except for, and you could probably guess, agriculture. Because that's our most protected industry. But basically what we're saying to Colombia is, "Your
goods are coming in free. You know what? We're just gonna make that permanent."
NAPOLI: But, so what is the bigger picture here? Why is everybody going to all this trouble to get it passed, if there really isn't anything at issue?
FARRELL: Well, the deeper issue with the politics is, look, we know, and I think economists have made a good case, that the benefits of free trade are real.
And you can use whatever number you want. In recent history, it's benefited our economy to $500 billion to a trillion dollars. But, we ignore the losers, and the
losers are saying -- they're not really losers; they're the average American -- and so they're saying, "Wait a minute. There's some downside here. Why is it in
our system that if someone loses their job because of international competition from Mexico or Colombia or China, their family loses their health care?" Or,
maybe it's the technological upheaval. I don't know. But those are the real discussions about how do you create a safety net for people who lose out to free
trade. But by and large, the benefits of free trade are real. But it's much simpler to sort of yell and scream about Colombia than it is to actually deal with health
care.
NAPOLI: Do you know what is the reaction? Here, it's divisive. Is it divisive in Colombia, too? Are there two factions?
FARRELL: Oh, it is divisive in Colombia, and one sector that is very fearful is the agricultural sector in Colombia and for good
reason. They fear that they're going to have more cheap U.S. agriculture flood their market and that will hurt their farmers. I
mean, it's essentially, oh if you want to use a code word, a pro-business policy being pushed by a pro-business administration. The
agricultural sector is particularly worried, and they do have some good reasons to worry, because remember, our agricultural
sector is among the most protected sectors in our economy.
53
Colombia FTA Bad– Colombian Instability Spills Over

Conflicts in Columbia spill over into all of Latin America
Trei, 1 -- CISAC center's public affairs manager, worked at Stanford News Service for more than a decade (Lisa, Stanford Report, “Experts say conflict in Colombia
threatens all of northern Latin America” 05-7-2001, http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/march7/colombconf-37.html) // DCM
<During the last decade in Colombia, 35,000 people have been murdered for political reasons -- an average of about 10 killings a day. Most of
the killings are attributed to right-wing paramilitary groups. Journalists, Protestant clergy, small town mayors and politicians are prime death targets, but civilians are
slaughtered as well. It costs about $200 to order a contract killing and an estimated 97 percent of murders go unpunished. Two million Colombians have been
displaced internally and 3 million more have fled to neighboring Venezuela. Thousands of people are kidnapped each year.
These facts, discussion about the ongoing civil war involving guerrillas, paramilitaries, the military and national police, and the consequences of $1.3 billion in U.S.
military assistance designed to counter a burgeoning cocaine trade provided the backdrop for a recent two-day conference on Colombia. Presented by the Center for
Latin American Studies, the Feb. 27-28 meeting invited scholars, policy analysts, journalists and peace negotiators to discuss the escalating turmoil in what one
participant, Colombian reporter Clara Ines Rueda, described as "one of the most dangerous countries in the world."
One of the conference organizers, Amy Upgren, said representatives from the armed groups were not invited in order to allow participants, some of whom live in
Colombia, to speak freely. One speaker, journalist Ignacio Gomez, a Neiman Fellow at Harvard this year, has received 40 death threats since he started reporting on the
conflict 16 years ago.
Panels included "The Culture of Violence," "Conflict Resolution," "Press Freedom," "War and Economy" and "Drugs, Human Rights and U.S. Policy."
Political science Professor Terry Karl, director of the Center for Latin American Studies, opened the conference by explaining the origins of the conflict and placing it in
a regional perspective.
Most Latin American countries are worse off today than 10 years ago, she said. The late 1980s witnessed a period of euphoria that saw the end of military regimes and
an economic upswing that was supposed to translate into stability and a better standard of living. The United States, the largest source of external capital, promised to
open its markets to Latin American trade.
"Things didn't work out that way," Karl said. Debilitating economic crises hit the region, which saw economic growth rates drop 40 percent between the first and second
parts of the 1990s. "In this context, setbacks to democracy were even more serious," she said, "not just 'bumps in the road,' as U.S. government officials have said."
According to Karl, the issue that is most likely to cause a breach in U.S.-Latin American relations is last year's increase in U.S. military assistance under Plan Colombia.
"Every Latin American country has recognized the seriousness of Colombia's situation," she said. Plan Colombia is a broad initiative designed to promote the peace
process, combat the narcotics industry, revive the economy and support democracy. Under it, the United States is supporting training of army counter-narcotics
battalions and equipping them with helicopters.
"There is a fear that the military funds will lead to a bigger war that will spill over the borders in Latin America and the Caribbean,"
Karl said. "The U.S. stands largely alone in funding the military aspect of Plan Colombia."
Rafael Pardo, a former peace counselor and defense minister in the Colombian government, said that just as in Northern Ireland, a military solution will not end the
conflict. "There is no point in spending more on the military," he said. "With 60 additional helicopters we get from the U.S., we won't see any change in the conflict. It
will only be solved by political means."
Karl pointed to how the war is already having ramifications in Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, Mexico and the Caribbean.
"When we talk about the future of Colombia, we are talking about the entire northern part of Latin America," she said. "When a
conflict is a regional conflict, it is incumbent upon us to understand it." >
54
Colombia FTA Bad–Econ

Colombia FTA will destroy Colombian unions and cause unemployment in the US
Cohen, 8 – President of the Communication Workers of America (Larry, “New Bill Would Require Review of Trade Pacts” June 4, 2008 http://www.iue-
cwa.org/news/tradebill.html?printfriendly)
<The proposed Colombia Free Trade Agreement is a new low, even for hard core free traders. This is a country where workers who
stand up for collective bargaining rights are routinely killed. So far this year, more than 23 unionists have been killed, that's a rate of one worker per
week and far worse than last year. Since 1986, more than 2,500 unionists have been killed, yet the Aribe government continues to insist that these crimes are unrelated
to union activity. Recently, the president of the bank workers union was murdered – that act was deemed a "crime of passion."
As I learned in my visit to Colombia earlier this year and in meetings last month with very brave union Colombia union leaders, death threats are common. As
courageous union leaders told me, "they are killing our unions too."
The Colombian government's "blind eye" to collective bargaining rights and the murder of unionists has resulted in the destruction of
workers rights in Colombia and the destruction of the unions that are necessary to support working families. The overwhelming majority of
workers in Colombia have no employee status, they are classified as contractors who can and are fired over and over again.
Columbia leads the world in excluding workers who can have the right to bargaining collectively. Simply by labeling workers contractors, self-
employed, cooperatives, when these workers are employed by major corporations, Columbia has left 85% of its 18 million workers stripped of any possibility of
gaining collective bargaining rights. This trend exists in the USA, but in Columbia we seen the end point with no corporate responsibility and the highest disparity
between the wage earner and the economic elite.
This is the nation that the Bush administration seeks to do business with, a trading partner that will cost even more U.S jobs and
hardship for the Colombian people.>
55
Colombia FTA Bad –Human Rights Cred

Colombia FTA destroys US human rights credibility
US Fed News 08 (“COLOMBIA FTA IS A BAD DEAL FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED”, April 9, lexis)
Rep. Phil Hare, D-Ill. (17th CD), issued the following column:
If we had been born in Colombia, we would probably be dead.
That's right. As members of our respective labor unions, the fight for higher wages, better working conditions, and a secure pension could have cost us our
lives.
Thirty nine trade unionists were murdered in Colombia in 2007, and they are being killed at a rate of over one per week this year.
Of the more than 2,500 murders in that nation since 1986, only 68 cases - around 3 percent - have resulted in convictions. However, many of these criminals
were convicted in absentia - meaning they may still be at large and continuing to terrorize workers.
Yet inexplicably, President Bush and some Members of Congress want to reward Colombia with a free trade agreement.
Not on our watch. The right to organize and bargain collectively is essential to human freedom. We believe passage of the U.S.-
Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) would greatly diminish our nation's reputation as a leader in the fight to end human
rights abuses worldwide.
Despite President Alvaro Uribe's claim that the Colombian government has cleaned up its act, signs of trouble continue to
persist.
Colombia's chief federal prosecutor's office has a backlog of over 1,300 cases of murders, threats, and intimidation involving
trade unionists.
Last month, the Colombian government removed a highly respected member of a three-judge panel tasked with reducing this backlog.
56
AT: Colombia FTA Solves Terrorism – Impact Takeouts

No risk of a terrorist attack- the threat is exaggerated, Islamists have given up on the use of force, and
groups won’t carry out apocalyptic attacks because of backlash from other jihadist factions
Mueller 06 Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University
[John “Is There Still A Terrorist Threat?” Foreign Affairs, September/October (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060901facomment85501/john-mueller/is-there-still-a-
terrorist-threat.html?mode=print)]
the absence of results in the United States has less to do with terrorists'
The results of policing activity overseas suggest that
cleverness or with investigative incompetence than with the possibility that few, if any, terrorists exist in the
country. It also suggests that al Qaeda's ubiquity and capacity to do damage may have, as with so many
perceived threats, been exaggerated. Just because some terrorists may wish to do great harm does not mean that
they are able to. Gerges argues that mainstream Islamists -- who make up the vast majority of the Islamist political movement -- gave up on
the use of force before 9/11, except perhaps against Israel, and that the jihadists still committed to violence constitute a
tiny minority. Even this small group primarily focuses on various "infidel" Muslim regimes and considers
jihadists who carry out violence against the "far enemy" -- mainly Europe and the United States -- to be irresponsible, reckless
adventurers who endanger the survival of the whole movement. In this view, 9/11 was a sign of al Qaeda's
desperation, isolation, fragmentation, and decline, not of its strength.
Terrorist groups are too afraid of potential backlash to attempt large scale attacks
Mueller 06 Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University
[John “Is There Still A Terrorist Threat?” Foreign Affairs, September/October
(http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060901facomment85501/john-mueller/is-there-still-a-terrorist-
threat.html?mode=print)]
One reason al Qaeda and "al Qaeda types" seem not to be trying very hard to repeat 9/11 may be that that dramatic
act of destruction itself proved counterproductive by massively heightening concerns about terrorism around the
world. No matter how much they might disagree on other issues (most notably on the war in Iraq), there is a compelling incentive for states --
even ones such as Iran, Libya, Sudan, and Syria -- to cooperate in cracking down on al Qaeda, because they
know that they could easily be among its victims. The FBI may not have uncovered much of anything within the United States since 9/11, but
thousands of apparent terrorists have been rounded, or rolled, up overseas with U.S. aid and encouragement.
Although some Arabs and Muslims took pleasure in the suffering inflicted on 9/11 -- Schadenfreude in German, shamateh in
Arabic -- the most common response among jihadists and religious nationalists was a vehement rejection of al
Qaeda's strategy and methods. When Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan in 1979, there were calls for jihad everywhere in Arab and Muslim lands, and
tens of thousands flocked to the country to fight the invaders. In stark contrast, when the U.S. military invaded in 2001 to topple an Islamist regime, there was, as the
political scientist Fawaz Gerges points out, a "deafening silence" from the Muslim world, and only a trickle of jihadists went to fight the Americans. Other jihadists
The post-9/11 willingness of
publicly blamed al Qaeda for their post-9/11 problems and held the attacks to be shortsighted and hugely miscalculated.
governments around the world to take on international terrorists has been much reinforced and amplified by
subsequent, if scattered, terrorist activity outside the United States. Thus, a terrorist bombing in Bali in 2002 galvanized the Indonesian
government into action. Extensive arrests and convictions -- including of leaders who had previously enjoyed some degree of local fame and political popularity -- seem
to have severely degraded the capacity of the chief jihadist group in Indonesia, Jemaah Islamiyah. After terrorists attacked Saudis in Saudi Arabia in 2003, that country,
very much for self-interested reasons, became considerably more serious about dealing with domestic terrorism; it soon clamped down on radical clerics and preachers.
Some rather inept terrorist bombings in Casablanca in 2003 inspired a similarly determined crackdown by Moroccan authorities. And the 2005 bombing in Jordan of a
wedding at a hotel (an unbelievably stupid target for the terrorists) succeeded mainly in outraging the Jordanians: according to a Pew poll, the percentage of the
population expressing a lot of confidence in bin Laden to "do the right thing" dropped from 25 percent to less than one percent after the attack.
57
Colombia FTA – Will Pass

Colubmia FTA will pass – optimism in House and Senate proves
Reuters, 8 (Doug Palmer, “Columbia Still Sees Chance US will OK Trade Deal,” 06-10-2008,
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN10369661) // DCM
Colombia still sees a chance the U.S. Congress will approve a bilateral free trade agreement caught up in an election-year fight between
President George W. Bush and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Colombian officials said on Tuesday.
"When I go back and report to Colombia, I'll probably tell them ... the mood seemed optimistic," even though no firms dates were offered for a
vote or even a congressional hearing on the trade pact, Colombia Trade Minister Luis Guillermo Plata said.
"I think the agreement could have been killed, you know, a month, two months ago and it wasn't. I think we're still optimistic ... this is alive and very much alive
and it could become a reality hopefully in the near future," Plata said.
He spoke with reporters after two days of meetings with senior Bush administration officials and Republican and Democratic staff
members of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, which have jurisdiction over trade
agreements.
Separately, a Colombian newspaper reported on Tuesday that Republican presidential candidate John McCain was planning a trip to Colombia in early July.
A spokesman for McCain declined to comment and a spokeswoman for the Colombian embassy said she could not confirm the report.
McCain favors approval of the free trade agreement, which would lock in Colombia's current duty-free access to the U.S. market while eliminating barriers to U.S.
exports and making other business-friendly reforms.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has argued, like many other Democrats, that Colombia needs to reduce violence and murders of union members
before Congress votes on the free trade pact.
Plata conceded Colombia has more work to do to stop killings and put murderers in jails. But union member homicides have already declined to 26 in 2007, from 196 in
2002 while the successful prosecution of those cases have risen, he said.
"How good is good enough?" Plata said, expressing doubt that an even lower number of union member homicides in 2007 would have persuaded critics to support the
pact.
In April, Bush ignored Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's advice and submitted the Colombia agreement to Congress under longstanding "fast track"
procedures requiring it to be approved or rejected within 90 days.
Pelosi responded by pushing through a rule change that allowed her to indefinitely delay action on the pact.
Since then, the Bush administration has accused Pelosi of effectively killing an agreement with one of the United States' staunchest allies in Latin America unless she
schedules a straight up-or-down vote on the pact.
Pelosi has not completely ruled out a vote this year but has said that would only be possible after Congress takes action to help U.S. workers struggling with the impact
of the housing crisis and high oil and food prices.
Colombian Ambassador Carolina Barco told reporters she was optimistic negotiations between the White House and Congress on
domestic economic concerns could produce the "appropriate" environment for a House vote on the trade pact.
Colombia concluded a free trade deal with Canada over the weekend and -- with Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador -- is negotiating another free trade agreement with the
European Union.
In addition to probing Colombia's progress on reducing violence, congressional aides asked detailed question about market access provisions of the Canadian agreement
that could disadvantage U.S. exports, Plata said.
58
Colombia FTA – Will Pass

Columbia FTA will pass – Democrats are willing to vote for it
Investor’s Business Daily, 8 (“Breaking a Logjam?” 06-10-08, http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=297991355321042 ) // DCM
In a release on Colombia's presidential Web site, Trade Minister Luis Guillermo Plata said U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson advised him that efforts to
persuade congressional Democrats to hold a vote on the long-stalled pact were starting to look up. Such a vote could be held as soon as
the interim between November's election and the inauguration of the next president.
Paulson has been working the Hill almost weekly selling the virtues of free trade, and it might finally be bearing fruit. Spokeswoman Brooke McLaughlin said "he
conveyed (to Plata) how hard he was working to make progress in Congress."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly, noted Pelosi has a solid working relationship with Paulson, and both were trying to
strike a deal. But any vote still hinges on a package for trade adjustment assistance, unemployment insurance and aid to states that both sides could agree on, he said.
While we're not fans of more government spending, it's a lot better than the false moralizing we've heard in the past from some Democratic quarters about Colombia not
being virtuous enough for us to let it slash tariffs on goods we sell there — something that unambiguously helps U.S. companies.
As November's elections beckon, practical concerns may be coming to the fore. A vote held after the election but before the next leader comes into office wouldn't
affect a President John McCain much. But it would spare a President Barack Obama from having to keep an ill-thought campaign vow to isolate Colombia. It also
would give him a stronger hand in the region to negotiate with tyrants, including Venezuela's strongman, Hugo Chavez, as he's said he'd do.
But Pelosi ought to consider moving even faster than that.
McCain thinks Colombia is a big campaign issue, and is heading there in July for a showy tour to call for free trade. He'll be able to show the country's improved
security and economic progress.
There'll be crowds from barrios who'll loudly cheer McCain as a champion of the poor. Pelosi might consider how that will play with the hotly contested U.S. Latino
vote if the trade pact stalls.
She should consider the U.S. economy, too.
Plata called Canada's passage of its own Colombia free trade pact — concluded last Saturday — "a factor" that was getting Democrats'
attention. As we noted last week, Canadians will eat our lunch with their own tariff-free goods, while American companies sit on the sidelines paying $1 billion a year
in levies and lose business.
Let's not even bring up that Colombian companies selling in the U.S. already don't pay tariffs at all due to prior agreements — it's another thorn Congress can correct
with a vote right away.
Two-way trade between the U.S. and Colombia today is $18 billion. The same between Canada and Colombia is $1.14 billion.
But because the U.S. and Canadian economies export similar goods — chemicals, grains, cars, car parts, petroleum products, plastics, and machinery — it's a slam-
dunk that tariff-free Canadian goods will be an easy switch for Colombian buyers, losing American companies their markets.
Since the start of the year, the U.S. economy has barely kept its head above water, growing a measly 0.9% in the first quarter. That was almost entirely due to U.S.
exports. There's little doubt that a free-trade-phobic Congress could be hurting one of the few parts of the economy that has kept us out of recession.
U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab on Tuesday laid down the economic reality: "Open markets create higher paying jobs and help support the prosperity of
American workers, farmers and entrepreneurs," she said. "Congress has the power to level the trade playing field for Americans in three key markets — Colombia,
Panama and South Korea. All Congress has to do is approve our free trade agreements with these nations, and virtually all of their tariffs and other trade barriers on U.S.
goods and services will be lifted."
We hope Plata is correct — that Democrats are starting to see free trade as a benefit, not a curse, and realize it'll help them win votes. Despite
what they think, stalling on free trade buys them nothing.
59
Colombia FTA – Bush Not Pushing

Bush is not pushing Colombia FTA – vote won’t happen until after the November elections
Inside U.S. Trade, June 27, 2008 (“Administration Eyes Lame Duck Session For Potential Colombia Vote” June 27, 2008, Lexis-Nexis Academic)
President Bush yesterday (June 26) called on Congress to pass the U.S.- Colombia free trade agreement after the July recess as one of three priorities, but pro-FTA
lobbyists say that behind the scenes, Bush administration officials have recognized a vote can only happen after the November elections, in
a
possible lame-duck session.
Lobbyists said this recognition is one of the reasons why the administration seems to have backed away from its confrontational strategy to
pressure congressional Democrats in the hope of a quick vote. They said Bush considers a vote on the Colombia FTA, and possibly a vote
on the U.S.-Panama FTA, as priorities for a lame-duck session.
But these sources said the administration appears to be waiting for that vote rather than actively laying the groundwork for it.
One source speculated the Bush administration may be reluctant to make a deal with Democrats on their domestic economic priorities for
fear that they will pocket the gains and fail to proceed to a vote on the Colombia FTA. Another pro-FTA lobbyist said the
administration's apparent paralysis on the issue is due to an internal division on the extent to which it should offer concessions to
congressional Democrats in order to advance the FTA.
60
Colombia FTA – AT: Concessions Key to Passage
Plan is not the necessary concession – lack of TAA passage and other bills means Pelosi will not give in on Colombia
FTA
Inside U.S. Trade, 8 (“Administration Eyes Lame Duck Session For Potential Colombia Vote” June 27, 2008, Lexis-Nexis Academic)
Some of the domestic economic initiatives Pelosi had outlined as necessary before tackling the FTA are moving through Congress,
including an extension of unemployment benefits in the war supplemental bill and a bill to help homeowners facing foreclosures.
But one informed source said that Pelosi

would want to address other issues, such as infrastructure improvements and aid to states,
before moving forward on the FTA. The House may try to tackle such broader measures in a second stimulus bill, after Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) backed such a measure this month.
In addition, both Pelosi and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) have insisted on legislation that expands Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) before considering the Colombia FTA. The Bush administration has threatened to veto the
House-passed TAA bill, and efforts to forge a compromise TAA bill in the Senate Finance Committee have stalled.
Concessions won’t get the Columbia FTA passed – Dems are determined to deny Bush a legislative victory
Herald News 2-10-08
[Miguel Perez, “Colombia pact makes economic, political sense,” Lexis]
The Bush administration, typically late in taking action, now is

trying to persuade Congress to approve the free trade deal. As part of an
"unprecedented campaign," Cabinet members have been leading congressional delegations to Colombia. "It would be a very big sign ... for
the people of Colombia, not to mention the people of the region, that you do dif-ficult things, you work hard, you bring your country back from the brink, and the
United States doesn't deliver," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as she visited Colombia last week with a group of nine Democratic lawmakers. But many
Democrats have been reluctant to ratify the agreement. They must realize that the deal is good for U.S. interests, but they just don't
want to give Bush any kind of legislative victory. The problem is that this is a good idea that unfortunately is being promoted by an
unpopular and lame-duck administration. And just because President Bush is pushing it, regardless of how much sense it makes, the
Democrats are opposing it. What can you expect from a Congress that can't even agree on an urgently needed economic stimulus package? Our government
is gridlocked because too many decisions are being based solely on politics, instead of logic. This is just one more of them. As an
excuse for dragging their feet, some Democrats are claiming that the Uribe government (which nearly has performed miracles) has not done
enough to protect Colombian workers from violence. This is not just a lame excuse; it's absurd.
61
Colombia FTA Good – Chavez – Impact Module -1/2

Colombia FTA is vital check Chavez’s influence
US Fed News 8
[“REP. MACK: PASSAGE OF COLOMBIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT VITAL TO WESTERN HEMISPHERE STABILITY,” March 11, Lexis]
Congressman Connie Mack (FL-14), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, today said passage of the Colombia Free
Trade Agreement is a core component of preserving stability in the Western Hemisphere and thwarting the ever-growing
influence of Hugo Chavez in Latin America. Mack said: "Colombia is one of America's strongest friends and allies in the Western Hemisphere.
The people of Colombia believe in the ideals of freedom and democracy and they are committed to protecting their national and economic security. "It is
imperative that the United States demonstrates to Colombia and all of Latin America that we are committed to expanding
those good relations by bolstering trade between our countries. "What's more, in light of the events that have taken place over the past week,
adoption of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement will help bolster the critical and fragile stability that is vital to the Andean
region and indeed the entire Western Hemisphere. "I would hope the House Democratic Leadership understands that free trade with
Colombia will help strengthen the bonds between Colombia and the United States and will help thwart the ever-growing
influence of Hugo Chavez in Latin America.
Unchecked Chavez will foment a global socialist revolution that destroys capitalism
Nyquist 3 – WorldNetDaily contributing editor and a renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations
[Jeffrey R., “LATIN AMERICA'S RED AXIS,” Global Analysis, January 7, http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2003/0107.html]
In Venezuela it has been alleged that Chavez, who once dubbed himself a “Maoist,” has stashed $4.5 billion in Chinese banks. By common report Chavez
is
heavily involved in illicit arms and drug trafficking in support of communist revolutionaries. “China has invested more in
Venezuela than any other Latin American country,” explained Connor. And there is a relationship between Chavez and
Moscow that deserves special attention as well. Even more interesting is a statement by Chavez’s education minister, Hector Navarro. When he opened the
country’s leading university, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Navarro talked of Chavez’s “Bolivarian principles” which are in solidarity with “Algeria, Cuba, Iran
and North Korea.” What does one say to this kind of radicalism? “The men of integrity have left Chavez in protest,” explained Connor. (5) According to Army Brigadier
General Rene Sericia Garcia, “I know the Chavez government from the inside. This government is a leftist totalitarian dictatorship.” Air Force Brigadier General Pedro
Antonio Pereira Olivares said, “Chavez is not just a threat to his own people, but to the stability of the entire region. He openly finances terrorism in other countries, and
has expressed his hatred for the democratic Western way of life.” Further clarifying the reasons to resist Chavez, National Guard Brigadier General Angel
Sanchez Velasco said to his fellow citizens, “Wake up. Chavez has smuggled a dictatorship in through the back door. But together, we can
give the country a better future and put a brake on Chavez’s subversive Castro-Communist project.” (6) “These are decent guys,” explained Connor. “They want the
president to be forced out legally. They’ve got two-dozen cases pending against Chavez because of his unconstitutional acts. But he has neutralized the courts. They are
daring him to resign or hold an election now, but Chavez is not planning to leave office until 2013.” The dictator would consolidate his power. He
would unite with Castro. He would support Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. The main objective is to bring the United States
to its knees, to break up capitalism. The labor strike against him therefore has its positive side. “We will burn wood as long as we have to,” Chavez has
declared. After all, the United States is going to suffer too. The U.S. economy is going to take a hit. Because of this strike there will be
unemployment in North America. Capitalism will be blamed. In the end, this lack of fuel serves to fuel a global
revolution. “There’s no other place in which the threads of the world’s revolutionary net show up as clearly as in Latin America,” explained Brazilian philosopher
Olavo de Carvalho in a recent e-mail. If things are bad in Venezuela they will be bad in Brazil, if not worse. President Lula da Silva has appointed Eduardo Soares to be
the National Secretary for Public Security in Brazil. Carvalho describes Soares as a “typical Latin American pseudo-intellectual … full of moralizing platitudes against
the evils of capitalism. Nobody could represent the new government’s mentality better than him.” It seems that Soares, like a good anti-capitalist, supports the Zapatista
guerrillas in Mexico, the FARC guerrillas in Colombia, Fidel Castro in Cuba and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Carvalho asks us if it is a coincidence that all these people
“share the same cause”? And what is that cause? Well, the cause is communism; and in support of this cause -- opposed by the brave men in the Plaza Altamira -- Russia
has sent an oil tanker; Cuba has sent security experts; Algeria has sent oil workers. No doubt Brazil’s president will follow suit. The entire anti-American bloc will fret
in sympathy. The truth is, communism didn’t die in 1991. It merely changed its fighting formation. One might even say it “shape-shifted.” In this regard, the North
Americans have been very slow to realize the encirclement that has been progressing against them. Yes, Latin America has
been penetrated and subverted to a great degree. Colombia is fighting for its freedom against a Communist insurgency.
Venezuela, Cuba and Brazil have formed into Hugo Chavez’s so-called “axis of the good” -- which is merely a western
extension of the “axis of evil.”
62
Colombia FTA Good – Chavez Impact Module – 2/2

Capitalism is vital to preventing extinction and ensuring value to life
Rockwell 2
(Llewellyn H., President of the Mises Institute, The Free Market, “Why They Attack Capitalism”, Volume 20, Number 10, October,
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=418&sortorder-articledate)
If you think about it, this hysteria is astonishing, even terrifying. The
market economy has created unfathomable prosperity and,
decade by decade, for centuries and centuries, miraculous feats of innovation, production, distribution, and
social coordination.
To the free market, we owe all material prosperity, all our leisure time, our health and longevity, our huge and
growing population, nearly everything we call life itself. Capitalism and capitalism alone has rescued the human
race from degrading poverty, rampant sickness, and early death.
In the absence of the capitalist economy, and all its underlying institutions, the world’s population would, over time, shrink
to a fraction of its current size, in a holocaust of unimaginable scale, and whatever remained of the human race
would be systematically reduced to subsistence, eating only what can be hunted or gathered.
And this is only to mention its economic benefits. Capitalism is also an expression of freedom. It is not so much a social system but the de facto
result in a society where individual rights are respected, where businesses, families, and every form of association are
permitted to flourish in the absence of coercion, theft, war, and aggression.
Capitalism protects the weak against the strong, granting choice and opportunity to the masses who once had no
choice but to live in a state of dependency on the politically connected and their enforcers. The high value
placed on women, children, the disabled, and the aged— unknown in the ancient world—owes so much to capitalism’s
productivity and distribution of power.
Must we compare the record of capitalism with that of the state, which, looking at the sweep of this past century
alone, has killed hundreds of millions of people in wars, famines, camps, and deliberate starvation campaigns?
And the record of central planning of the type now being urged on American enterprise is perfectly abysmal.
63
Colombia FTA Good – Chavez Ext – Key to Check Influence

Colombia FTA is key to counteract Chavez’s influence
Herald News 8
[Miguel Perez, “Colombia pact makes economic, political sense,” February 10, Lexis]
But for us - for U.S. interests - there are even more important political considerations. If
Congress fails to pass the pending U.S.-Colombia free trade
agreement, which was first signed in 2006, we would be turning our backs on one of the only true allies we have left in Latin
America. We would be pulling out of one of the only bastions of democracy and freedom in the region thus clearing the way for the expansion of
an alliance of anti-American, leftist regimes, led by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. If only to counteract Chavez, who is using
Venezuela's oil wealth to buy allies all over the Americas, we should have already approved the free trade deal with Colombia. The government
of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has made tremendous progress in curtailing the number of murders and kidnappings conducted by terrorists inside his country,
and consequently the Colombian economy is stronger than it has been in decades. Collaborating with U.S. authorities in fighting both drug traffickers and criminal
rebels, Uribe has stood firm as a friend of America. Because of his close relations with the United States, Uribe has become the target of Chavez's trash-talking insults,
to the point that Chavez now has sided with the Colombian rebels. Because Chavez obviously is itching for a confrontation with the United States, he
even has suggested that Colombia is preparing to invade Venezuela with the backing of the United States. Under these circumstances, if we reject free trade with
Colombia, we might as well let Chavez turn the rest of our hemisphere into U.S.-enemy territory.
Rejecting the Colombia FTA will empower Chavez’s regime and undermine U.S. influence
Chicago Tribune 8
[“Bush: Colombia trade deal crucial,” March 13, Lexis]
President Bush warned Congress on Wednesday that failing to approve a trade deal with Colombia would fuel the anti-American
regime of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and cast the United States as untrustworthy and impotent across South America. "If Congress
were to reject the agreement with Colombia, we would validate antagonists in Latin America, who would say that America cannot be
trusted to stand by its friends," Bush said in a speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. "We would cripple our influence in the region and
make other nations less likely to cooperate with us in the future," the president said.
Colombia FTA is key to counter Chavez’s influence

Orlando Sentinel 8
[“Strengthen ties,” February 14, Lexis]
President George W. Bush has been stepping up his campaign lately for Congress to pass a free-trade agreement with Colombia. He
deserves an enthusiastic assist from Florida's delegation. Trade supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in the state, and Florida accounted for almost a quarter of U.S.
ex-ports to Colombia in 2006 -- $1.6 billion worth. History suggests a free-trade deal would boost the total. Florida's exports to Chile shot up 73 percent in the three
years after a free-trade pact with that country took effect. The trade deal with Colombia also would serve the broader national interest. It
would put U.S. businesses and their workers, and U.S. farmers, on an equal footing with their Colombian counterparts, who have been given duty-free access to the
U.S. market for years. It would strengthen ties with Colombia and enhance U.S. influence in Latin America at a time when it is
being aggressively challenged by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez.
The Colombia FTA is key to defeat Hugo Chavez, the FARC, nacroterrorists, and drug trafficking
Roberts, 8 - Research Fellow for Economic Freedom and Growth in the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation.
(James, The Heritage Foundation, “The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Strengthening a Good Friend in a Rough Neighborhood” April 30, 2008,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAi d/bg2129.cfm)
If Congress votes down the Colombia FTA, it will deliver a major psychological victory to Hugo Chávez, the FARC, and the
narcotraffickers that the U.S. has battled for decades in Colombia. It will also seriously jeopardize the progress and momentum made
by the Plan Colombia war on drugs on which the U.S. has spent hundreds of millions of dollars since the Clinton Administration.
A defeated FTA might also force Colombia reluctantly into closer ties with a very eager and suddenly conciliatory Hugo Chávez.
Venezuela is already Colombia’s second-largest export market after the U.S., and Colombia cannot afford to ignore it. Chávez’s dangling of petroleum carrots
will not be ignored by the Colombians. If Colombia is spurned by the U.S., it will continue to seek trade agreements with many other
countries (e.g., Canada and Mexico) and trading blocs, such as the European Union, the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), and MERCOSUR (Southern
Common Market). This would only further isolate the U.S.
64
Colombia FTA Good – Chavez Ext – Key to Check Influence
Colombia FTA key to stop Chavez
Daily News, 8 ( “No Way To Treat an Ally” May 16, 2008, Pg. 30, Lexis-Nexis Academic)
Among the points here is not only that

Chavez is increasingly a dangerous man, but also that U.S. ally Uribe is increasingly a vital bulwark
against the spread of Chavez's depredations throughout the hemisphere. It thus behooves Washington to stand steadfast behind Uribe
on all fronts.
Which is why it would be good of congressional Democrats to abandon their deplorable campaign to torpedo a free-trade pact with
Colombia.
That agreement would significantly strengthen Uribe's hand in dealing with his difficult neighbor - but opponents keep inventing excuses to
stall it, most recently throwing around charges that Uribe has been protecting Colombian drug traffickers from extradition to the U.S.
Rejecting Colombia FTA would play into the hands of Chavez and cause a confidence crisis in the multilateral trading system
Parkinson, 8 (Tony, The Age, “If the smooth talk turns to action, Obama will give free trade a rough ride” June 17, 2008, Pg. 12, Lexis-Nexis Academic)
In contrast,
if Congress rejects the Colombian deal, this would play directly into the hands of the strident anti-US camp in Latin
America, led by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. As Colombian President Alvaro Uribe warns, any departure from America's commitment to free trade
"would be devastating for the good relationship between the United States and our region". And the ripple effect could extend well
beyond the American hemisphere. The Doha Round of global trade liberalisation talks are already on life support, stalled by
bottlenecks within the World Trade Organisation. Without sturdy American leadership, there is simply no prospect of the round
succeeding.
The consequences of a US president bringing a protectionist tilt to the Doha negotiations would be dramatic and immediate. If the
world's leading economy signalled it was looking to throw up the shutters to foreign exports, it would invite Europe and Japan to do
the same.The result could be a crisis of confidence in the multilateral trading system.
The Colombia FTA would prevent Chavez from spreading communism throughout Columbia
Despite the FARC's brutal terrorist acts and inhumane exploitation of hostage situations, its strategists are convinced that they have earned the right to shoot their way
into the democratic game in the 2010 Colombian elections. Chávez makes no secret of his desire to use the FARC to topple Uribe and democracy
in Colombia so that he can dominate the entire Andean region and fulfill his dream to mimic (falsely) his hero Simón Bolívar. President
Uribe and President George W. Bush want to avert this possibility. One of the main weapons in their "arsenal" of democracy and
economic freedom is the U.S.-Colombia FTA that the two governments signed in November 2006. The U.S.-Colombia FTA is much more than
just a simple trade agreement. It would help the United States to complete a contiguous free trade zone along the Pacific Rim from
Canada to Chile and to increase U.S. exports to Colombia. More important in the short term, it would also seal a deep partnership
between two nations that are long-time friends and great defenders of market-based democracy. The FTA would fortify a bulwark
against the rising tide of Chávism that nearly surrounds Colombia and threatens to undermine U.S. hemispheric interests.
65
Colombia FTA Good – Democracy Promotion – Impact Module

Colombia FTA is key to democracy promotion in Latin America
Business Wire 8
[“Fact Sheet: U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Essential To Our National Security,” March 12, Lexis]
.The U.S.-Colombia free tradeagreement will advance our national security by strengthening a key democratic ally and sending a clear
message to the region. A free trade agreement with Colombia would bring increased economic opportunity to the people of Colombia through sustained
economic growth, new employment opportunities, and increased investment. This trade agreement will reinforce democracy by fighting
corruption, increasing transparency, and fostering accountability and the rule of law. The agreement would bolster one of
our closest friends in the hemisphere and rebut the antagonists in Latin America who say the United States cannot be trusted to keep its
word.
Latin American democracy is key to global democracy

Fauriol and Weintraub, 95 - director of the CSIS Americas program and professor of Public Affairs at the University of Texas (Georges and Sidney,
The Washington Quarterly, “U.S. Policy, Brazil, and the Southern Cone”, lexis)
The democracy theme also carries much force in the hemisphere today. The State Department regularly parades the fact that all
countries in the hemisphere, save one, now have democratically elected governments. True enough, as long as the definition of democracy is flexible, but these
countries turned to democracy mostly of their own volition. It is hard to determine if the United States is using the democracy theme as a club in the hemisphere (hold
elections or be excluded) or promoting it as a goal. If as a club, its efficacy is limited to this hemisphere, as the 1994 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
meeting in Indonesia demonstrated in its call for free trade in that region, replete with nondemocratic nations, by 2020. Following that meeting, Latin
Americans are somewhat cynical as to whether the United States really cares deeply about promoting
democracy if this conflicts with expanding exports. Yet this triad of objectives -- economic liberalization and
free trade, democratization, and sustainable development/ alleviation of poverty -- is generally accepted in the
hemisphere. The commitment to the latter two varies by country, but all three are taken as valid. All three are also themes expounded widely
by the United States, but with more vigor in this hemisphere than anywhere else in the developing world. Thus,
failure to advance on all three in Latin America will compromise progress elsewhere in the world.
Democracy is critical to prevent extinction – it prevents war, terrorism, and environmental destruction
Diamond 95 – Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution
[Larry, "Promoting Democracy in the 1990s: Actors and Instruments, Issues and Imperatives," A Report to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict,
December, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm]
This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the
stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common
cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons
continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these
new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its
provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that
govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to
aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much
less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction
to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better
and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens,
who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations
and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil
liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international
security and prosperity can be built.
66
Colombia FTA Good – Democracy Ext – COLOMBIA FTA Key

Approval of the Colombia FTA is key to democracy in the region
Griswold and Hidalgo 8 – Director of Center for Trade Policy Studies at Cato Institute; and Project Coordinator for Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity
at Cato Institute
[Daniel and Juan Carlos, “Colombia FTA: Prosperity & Democracy,” Latin Business Chronicle, February 25,
http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/app/article.aspx?id=2094]
A comprehensive trade agreement would also benefit Colombia by opening its market to more import competition, encouraging more foreign investment, and
strengthening its ties to the world’s largest economy. If Congress were to reject such an agreement, it would inflict real pain on the
Colombian economy and workers. A recent study by the University of Antioquia shows that not approving the FTA would
decrease investment by 4.5 percent in Colombia. Furthermore, it would increase unemployment by 1.8 percentage points, representing a net loss of
460,000 jobs. GDP would go down 4.5 percent, and the poverty level would rise by 1.4 points. It is not in the U.S. interest to inflict this kind of
economic punishment on an ally in the Andean region. Left-wing populism is fueled by poverty and lack of opportunities,
as can be easily seen in neighboring Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia. Strong democratic institutions rely heavily on economic development.
The United States should promote it. This is very clear to Colombians. Sergio Fajardo, the popular mayor of Medellin, has said, "What do we have friends for? To make
the problems worse? Our friends should help us to make things better." Then we also have the political significance of rejecting the FTA, which has already been
approved by the Colombian Congress and is supported by a majority of Colombians. President Uribe has already made it clear that the relationship with the United
States would be affected if the FTA is rejected. On a recent visit to Washington, he said that his country will not be part of "a relationship wherein the United States is
master and Colombia is a slave republic." It is difficult to interpret the real meaning of Uribe’s words, but it is clear that the United States would find a less cooperative
Colombian president if the FTA is rejected. One more point to consider is the institutional implications of such a decision. One of the major mistakes of U.S. foreign
policy in the last 60 years is reducing bilateral relations with nations to personal relations with a specific leader. When that leader is gone, the diplomatic relation with
that country starts anew, in some cases for the worse. There is a strong risk that the United States is making the same mistake in Colombia with President Uribe. After
he is gone, nobody knows who will come and what his or her attitudes toward Washington will be. It is therefore imperative that the United States institutionalize its
relations with Colombia through a bilateral commercial agreement that locks both countries into permanent economic ties. Colombia has been a strong ally of the
United States in recent years. It has also been a nation torn by civil conflict and vicious violence. However, under the leadership of President Álvaro Uribe, the country
has gone through remarkable improvements in most socioeconomic indicators. President Uribe has invested a lot of his political capital in reaching an FTA with
Colombia’s closest ally. However, spurred by the opposition of organized labor in the United States, the Democratic leadership in Congress has threatened to thwart the
approval of the agreement under complaints that Colombia is the world’s most dangerous country for organized labor. Though true, Democrats fail to acknowledge that
Colombia is a violent country in general and that killings of union members have been significantly reduced under President Uribe’s watch. Blinded by narrow
parochial concerns, the Democratic leadership in Congress also fails to understand the importance of Colombia in a region where left-leaning anti-American leaders are
coming to power under populist agendas, like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. As the Wall Street Journal’s Mary O’Grady has written, "Either the Democrats have very poor
foreign policy judgment or they have sympathy for the devil." However, not all Democrats share the same miscalculations. An open letter by prominent Clinton
administration officials and former Democratic members of Congress states that "it would be the height of irony were we to talk of ‘losing’ Latin America while
refusing to take actions that would directly support fundamental relationships and interests in the region." Canada’s prime minister Stephen Harper offered friendly and
wise advice when he stated, "If the U.S. turns its back on Colombia, it will set us back more than any Latin American dictator could hope to achieve." In a
comprehensive study last November, the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington concluded that the government and people of Colombia have
more than merely avoided a disaster under President Uribe: They have rolled back the influence of the paramilitaries and insurgents, established a state presence in
every municipality of the country for the first time in history, sharply reversed levels of violence and criminality, improved the observance of human rights, enhanced
the capacity of the state to govern more democratically, and set the economy moving in a very positive direction. Approving a free trade agreement with
Colombia is about supporting a market democracy in a region where liberal values are under attack. It is about being a reliable partner
in turbulent times. It is also about building long-lasting institutions for economic prosperity and democracy for millions of
Colombians.
67
Colombia FTA Good – Narco-traffickers (FARC)– Impact Module

Colombia FTA is critical to combat FARC and narco-terrorists
Fisk 8 – Director of Western Hemisphere Affairs for the National Security Council
[Dan, “Press Briefing by Ambassador John Veroneau, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, Dan Fisk, Director of Western Hemisphere Affairs for the National Security
Council, and Chris Padilla, Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade,” Business Wire, March 12, Lexis]
The good news today is that through determined Colombian leadership and strong bipartisan support from the United States, Colombia has experienced
impressive progress. For the first time, legitimate state authority exists in all of Colombia's municipalities, its 1,099 municipalities. Violent crime is down
significantly -- again, whether it's murders; again, less than 10 years ago, more than 25,000 Colombians were killed a year; or kidnappings -- again, go back less than 10
years ago, roughly 3,200 Colombians were kidnapped. That's eight a day. Today, violent crime of all sorts is down significantly. Colombia saw the
emergence of a paramilitary movement that, like the FARC and the ELN, got involved in the drug trade. The paramilitaries have been demobilized.
Roughly 30,000 paramilitary fighters have been demobilized at this point. And there is an aggressive effort to rid the Colombian political system of their influence, and to hold people accountable for what happened over the last 10 years. Human rights observance, on
every level and every indicator, has been strengthened. And there are now more -- there are larger and more effective programs in place to protect the citizens, especially citizens who may feel themselves particularly vulnerable to some kind of act against them for their
but there is a side to this reality that this news and the situation in
political views. And there has also been a corresponding reduction in poverty, and improvements in providing social services. This is the good news,
Colombia today is not irreversible. The free trade agreement, in our view, is critical to helping Colombia address the continuing
threats it faces. First and foremost is the threat of the Revolutionary Armed Forces, the FARC. It continues -- the FARC continues its assault on Colombian
democracy, and its assault against the Colombian people. It holds currently upwards of 700 hostages, including three Americans. It monopolizes the illegal drug
trade in Co-lombia. It violates the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Colombia's neighbors, and equally threatens the citizens of those neighboring
countries. For example, we know that the FARC has kidnapped Venezuelan citizens and may cur-rently hold 100 or more Venezuelans hostage. The FARC's
involvement in the drug trade is also a threat to the region and to us. It's not just a matter that is inter-nal to Colombia. As the President noted in
his speech today, added to this, added to the FARC threat, is the FARC's relationship with Venezuelan officials. It's our view that the most effective and the best
thing we can do to help Colombia consolidate the progress that is made -- whether it's in reducing violence, increasing social
services, reducing poverty, restoring the public's confidence in its institutions and in the country itself, and protecting the region and ourselves -- is to
approve, have Congress approve the Colombia free trade agreement. In fact, if there's one argument, I think, that is paramount in this is that we know that
the main recruitment ground for terrorists, for guerillas or drug traffickers is poverty. The best way to get out of poverty is
to create more and more opportunities for Colombians. That's what President Uribe and the Colombian government is trying to do. That's what
the Colombia free trade agreement will do. That is the best way to address what we see as a threat to the region, and put Colombia's future on -- or keep
Colombia's future and our own national security on the right track.
Narcoization of Colombia will trigger a takeover of the Panama Canal and destroys the global economy
Messing and Thompson 2 – Executive Director; and Research Assistant at National Defense Council Foundation
[F. Andy and Ken, “Imperatives of the Colombian Drug War,” Washington Times, May 3, Lexis]
But the trouble in Colombia today is not comparable to the problems of Latin America of the '80s. Colombia is not only a national security issue but also a
health and safety issue. In Washington, New York City, Los Angeles and Baltimore, heroin and cocaine were responsible for the combined deaths of 2,461 people in the
year 2000. Asa Hutchinson, administrator of the Drug and Enforcement Agency, recently said, "The drug supply undermines families and erodes democracies." He
knows that 90 percent of the cocaine and 75 percent of the heroin used in these deaths came from Colombia. The money from the sale of narcotics funds narco-guerrilla
groups such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National Liberation Army (ELN) and extragovernmental paramilitaries. These renegade
groups have been fighting the Colombian government in a 40-year civil war that threatens the Latin America's oldest democracy. "Narcoizing" Colombia
could bring similar fates to neighboring Panama and Venezuela through a domino effect. It would be, among other things, an
economic nightmare if the Panama Canal and approximately 23 percent of Americas' total imported oil from the Andean
region fell into these narco-terrorist hands. It is recognized that Colombia's problems did not receive adequate attention during the Clinton
administration. U.S. policies on Colombia were tainted by efforts to bifurcate the relationship between drug traffickers and guerrillas. This was done because ignoring
the hard problems was easier than doing something about them. However, if nothing is done about Colombian narco-terrorism now, the
guerrillas will succeed and add unwarranted credibility and further economic muscle to their ugly activities. One option for the
Bush "43" administration is to continue with the Clinton legacy and pay Colombia lip service while the narco-guerrillas take over. President Bush may be able to
ignore Colombia for one term, but eventually the problems will be unavoidable. America may be so far behind the power
curve that access to Colombian oil, agri-products and other resources will require appeasement of a Colombian narco-
state. A signal that the administration may be prepared to get tough with narco-guerrillas came last Tuesday when a federal grand jury in Washington indicted the
FARC organization and six of its members on murder and other charges. An alternative option is to focus on reducing the demand for drugs domestically. Some may
believe we can avoid getting involved in Colombia if drug-related deaths are reduced through drug treatment. A problem with this option is that while drug treatment
saves lives, an increase in the volume of drugs entering the U.S. ultimately will result in more drug deaths. By ignoring the supply side, we prevent traction on the
demand side of the problem. Another option is to simply militarize our war on drugs. America can give the Colombian government all the resources it needs to suppress
the guerrilla and paramilitary forces. This one-dimensional approach is fundamentally flawed because it does not acknowledge the problems related to economic and
sociopolitical factors that ignited the imbroglio 40 years ago. The war on drugs cannot be fought only on the demand side, on the supply side or only through military
strategies. It is a multidimensional conflict, and must be fought accordingly. If the Bush administration fails to realize that Colombia poses not
merely a security problem, the U.S. may find itself in a protracted conflict, similar to Vietnam.
68
Colombia FTA Good – Narco-traffickers (FARC)– Impact Module

Panama Canal is a critical SLOC – unrestricted access is vital to ensure stability in the Mid East, project
military power, and deter nuclear conflicts around the globe
Peele 97 – Lieutenant Colonel in U.S. Marine Corps
[Reynolds B., “he Importance of Maritime Chokepoints,” Parameters, Summer, http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/97summer/peele.htm]
The inescapable connection between commerce and warmaking continues to shape US policy toward open access to the world's oceans and seas. The economic growth of the United States is closely linked to the world
economy as a whole, and most of that trade is carried on and over the world's oceans;[19] seaborne commerce exceeds 3.5 billion tons annually and accounts for over 80 percent of trade among nations.[20] Virtually every
aspect of the daily lives of most people is touched by goods and services that are ultimately connected to free trade by sea.[21] At the same time, sea lines of communication directly affect the US ability to get forces,
Eight international
equipment, and supplies to crisis areas. The issues associated with sea lines of communication (SLOCs) and chokepoints include unimpeded transit on, under, and over these areas.
regions--called the "US Lifelines and Transit Regions" by the Department of Defense--contain chokepoints that require our attention:[22] • the Gulf of Mexico-
Caribbean Sea with the Panama Canal • the North Sea-Baltic Sea with several channels and straits • the Mediterranean-Black Sea with the Strait of Gibraltar and access to Middle Eastern areas
• the Western Indian Ocean with the Suez Canal, Bab el Mandeb, the Strait of Hormuz, and around South Africa to the Mozambique Channel • the Southeast Asian Seas with the Malacca and Lombok Straits among others,
and SLOCs passing the Spratly Islands • the Northeast Asian Seas with SLOCs important for access to Japan, Korea, China, and Russia • the Southwest Pacific with important SLOC access to Australia • the Arctic Ocean
Economic and military issues alike are important in shaping US strategy toward unobstructed passage of these
with the Bering Strait
eight major SLOCs and the associated chokepoints. According to the American Petroleum Institute, 1994 marked the first year that more than half the oil used in the United States was imported. The largest
supplier, Saudi Arabia, provides 18.5 percent of the United States' petroleum needs. Any Saudi oil reaching the United States has to travel more than 8000 sea miles via the SLOCs in the regions of the Western Indian Ocean,
the Mediterranean-Black Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico-Caribbean Sea. Disruption of this movement can affect not only the United States but the global economy as well, as was demonstrated during the 1980-1988 "tanker
war" between Iran and Iraq. US interest during that period of Middle East conflict was to insure the safe passage of non-belligerent ships moving petroleum from the Persian Gulf to Western economies, including the United
States. This eight-year conflict produced 543 attacks on ships, with approximately 200 merchant sailors killed. Fifty-three American lives were lost as a result of attacks on US military vessels in the region. It is important to
note that most of the ships that were attacked flew flags of nations not associated with the conflict between Iran and Iraq. More than 80 of these ships were sunk or declared a total loss, resulting in more than $2 billion in
direct losses to cargo and hulls. This in turn caused worldwide hull insurance rates to increase 200 percent, which was passed on to consumers in higher prices for petroleum products. Fears that the tanker war would result in
serious disruption of available oil supplies helped to push the price of crude oil from approximately $13 to $31 per barrel;[23] the net cost to the world economy of these price increases has been estimated at more than $200
billion.[24] Heavy US dependence on Persian Gulf oil, currently in the vicinity of 9.8 million barrels per day, may be irreversible. With the odds in favor of that part of the world remaining unstable and potentially volatile,
US national security strategy will undoubtedly continue to focus on free access to crude oil from the region. Measured by the sheer volume of merchant shipping transiting it, the region that includes the Southeast Asian Seas
and the Straits of Malacca, Sunda, and Lombok is the most prominent of all the eight regions. The region also encompasses the SLOC in the South China Sea past the Spratly Islands. These sea lanes carry almost half the
world's merchant shipping and large percentages of Asian trade through a few key straits. In 1993, over half the world's merchant fleet capacity and more than one-third of the world's ships sailed through the Straits of
Malacca, Sunda, or Lombok, or sailed past the Spratly Islands.[25<P255BJ0> Shipping traffic through Malacca is several times greater than the traffic through either the Suez or Panama canals.[26] The aggregate numbers
portray the significance of this region to ocean-borne commerce. More than one-half trillion dollars ($568 billion) of long haul interregional seaborne shipments passed through these chokepoints in 1993,[27] representing
over 15 percent of all the world's cross-border trade, excluding trade within the region. More than 40 percent of the trade from Japan, Australia, and the nations of Southeast Asia, as well as one quarter of the imports of the
Newly Industrialized Economies of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea, pass through these chokepoints.[28] The economic strength of these countries and their trading partners depends on unimpeded passage in the
region. In 1993, the United States was third in terms of owned "capacity ships" passing through the Strait of Malacca, behind Japan and Greece in the number of such ships transiting the region. The volume of merchant
shipping in the area and the associated significance of these SLOCs can be summarized as follows: Over half of all interregional tonnage passing through Malacca is either coming from or going to the Arab Gulf (Western
Indian Ocean Region). About half of interregional tonnage through Malacca is either coming from or going to Southeast Asia. Over a third of [the] tonnage is going to or coming from Japan, and next in shipping volume are
the Newly Industrialized Economies (NIEs) of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea.[29] In 1993, US maritime exports--valued at $15 billion and exceeding 11 million tons--represented 3.3 percent of the tonnage that
traversed the SLOCs in this region.[30] The region is not without security concerns that may affect the SLOCs. Several nations claim part or all of the Spratly Islands and, by extension, rights over the waters adjacent to the
islands.[31] China, Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam have garrisons on some of the atolls and have claimed sovereignty over the adjacent waters. Indonesia is one of 17 states declaring sovereignty over the
waters and SLOCs which are enclosed within its archipelagic state; it has considered seeking control of shipping among its islands under a doctrine of "archipelagic sea lines." The straits in the Indonesian Archipelago are
important for direct and cost-effective maritime activity, as they link the Pacific and Indian oceans. Finally, because of oil spills associated with accidents in the Strait of Malacca, the international community has considered
regulating shipping for environmental concerns and maritime safety.[32] There is no way to separate commerce from the defense of US interests in the South China Sea and nearby waters. Recent events in North Korea, Haiti,
Rwanda, Iraq, and the Balkans remind us how dangerous and uncertain it can be to consider trade apart from national security strategy. In National Security and the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the US Department of
Defense identifies the following post-Cold War threats to US interests and world order relative to these countries:[33] • Ethnic rivalry and separatist violence within and without national borders • Regional tensions in areas
such as the Middle East and Northeast Asia • Humanitarian crises of natural or other origin resulting in starvation, strife, or mass migration patterns • Conflict over mineral and living resources including those that straddle
territorial or maritime zones • Terrorist attacks and piracy against US persons, property, or shipping overseas or on the high seas The end of the Cold War did not alter the fact that the United States remains a maritime nation
with global security concerns. These concerns oblige the United States to maintain the capacity to project and sustain its forces throughout the world in defense of its own interests and those of its allies. US responses to
threats must be unobstructed and rapid; our 1994 deployment of troops and equipment in response to saber-rattling by Iraq is but one example of the need to be able to deploy efficiently in response to such threats. Other
examples in the DOD document include:[34] • Before and during the Persian Gulf War, the United States and other coalition naval and air forces traversed the straits of Hormuz and Bab el Mandeb, both key chokepoints. In
preparation for Operation Desert Storm, 3.4 million tons of dry cargo and 6.6 million tons of fuel had to be transported to US and allied forces in the Gulf. Ninety-five percent of the cargo moved by ship through the straits. •
If prevented from passing the Indonesian Archipelago and the Malacca Straits, a naval battle group transiting from Yokosuka, Japan, to Bahrain would have to reroute around Australia. Assuming an average speed of 15 knots,
the six-ship battle group (all consuming conventional fuel) would require an additional 15 days to transit an additional 5800 nautical miles. Additional fuel cost would be approximately $7 million. The United States considers
it important that SLOCs remain open, not merely because passage is essential for implementing the national security strategy, but as a matter of international right.[35] The United States does not want to see passage through
the SLOCs become contingent upon approval by coastal or island nations.[36] Such impediments to global mobility through key chokepoints could delay
response in crises; transit time from the US east coast to the Persian Gulf is 20 days via the Suez Canal, 26 days via South Africa. The United States can ill afford a strategy that fails to
ensure unobstructed passage over, under, and through key SLOCs. The examples also suggest that costs associated with the loss of access to key chokepoints--time, fuel, and
opportunity costs--could be unacceptable. These are matters that must be attended to; they cannot be allowed to accumulate until a crisis forces their resolution. There are presently six significant regional
economic and military concerns that require constant strategic focus on free access to sea lines of communication. • In the Middle
East, Saddam Hussein's hegemonic activities remain a threat to regional economic and political stability. State-sponsored terrorism originating in Libya and Iran
contributes to concerns about regional, as well as European, stability. • In Northeast Asia, North Korea's pursuit of a nuclear
capability exacerbates regional tension. For nearly 50 years, the United States has been committed to the defense of South Korea,
helping to maintain the balance of power and stability on the Korean peninsula. Also, the growth of Asia as a trading partner requires the United States to
discourage prospective regional hegemons.[37] • Stability within the Western Hemisphere is an enduring concern. Examples include the need for stable democracies in Haiti and Cuba, while stability remains important if El
Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala are to emerge from recent insurgencies with reasonable prospects for economic growth. Problems posed by the international drug trade are addressed below. • Unrest in
Bosnia and elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia continues to disrupt regional stability. The United States remains committed to ongoing peacekeeping operations in the search for peace in
the Balkans. • Interventions in Africa to prevent or end genocide (Rwanda and Somalia), support of UN efforts to reduce tensions between warring states (Angola and Mozambique), and efforts to calm civil strife (South
Africa and Namibia) can preclude second- or third-order effects of massive population shifts that have plagued the region for nearly a decade. SLOCs are important if the United States is to shape favorable outcomes in such
circumstances. • The U S
nited tates remains concerned about the regional dispute over the Spratly Islands. While it seems unlikely at present that a direct threat
to free access to the regional SLOCs will emerge, the statistics above demonstrate the importance of the South China Sea to our own trade as well as that of our allies and trading partners. The foregoing list of US security and
The underpinning in each statement is an immediate or potential requirement to deploy and
economic foreign policy interests is neither exhaustive nor prioritized.
sustain substantial military force in the interest of free access to SLOCs or in response to threats to US interests or those of its allies. The effects of disruptions
within the associated SLOCs range from significant in the Middle East and Southeast Asia to minimal around the coastal areas of Africa. However, all six would likely require the movement of land or naval forces and
equipment to crisis areas along key SLOCs to ensure that US security and economic interests can be protected.
69
Colombia FTA Good – FARC Ext – COLOMBIA FTA Key

Colombia FTA is critical to effective anti-drug cooperation to counter narco-terrorists
Business Wire 8
[“Fact Sheet: U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Essential To Our National Security,” March 12, Lexis]
Under the leadership of President Uribe, Colombia has been a strong and capable partner in fighting drugs, crime, and terror. Since 2002,
kidnappings have dropped 83 percent, terrorist attacks have dropped 76 percent, and murders have dropped 40 percent. With Colombian support and commitment, our
rule of law and counterdrug assistance will continue to make a difference. Colombia's economy is rebounding, and its citizens' lives are improving. Since 2002, poverty
has decreased by al-most 20 percent, and unemployment is at its lowest level in a decade. Roads are now open, displaced farmers are re-turning to their lands, and
economic growth topped 6.8 percent in 2007, the highest in eight years. Colombia has vastly expanded its police presence as part of an effort to bring security and
stability to all of its ter-ritory. Colombia has established a police presence in each of its 1,099 municipalities, which has secured 187 primary and secondary roads
throughout the country, freeing Colombians to use these roads. As a result, traffic along these roads has doubled since 2002, and commerce is flowing between areas
that were once virtually cut off due to violence. The Colombian government is continuing to battle narcotics trafficking, which provides the funding base for illegal
armed groups. These efforts took 500 metric tons of cocaine off the market in 2006 alone, depriving terrorist groups of $850 million in funds to buy arms and mount
attacks. In addition, the Colombian government has extradited more than 550 narcotics traffickers and terrorists to the United States over the past five years. The
United States has been a vital partner in Colombia's efforts through Plan Colombia, an effort launched by the Clinton Administration that has
enjoyed strong bipartisan support. The more than $5 billion the United States has provided to the program has helped to defeat narco terrorists
and eliminate illegal activity. It is also providing develop-mental and humanitarian assistance. This partnership can only succeed in the long
run, however, if Colombia can create jobs for the tens of thousands of combatants who have demobilized and the hundreds of
thousands of citizens that have been displaced by armed groups. The free trade agreement can help Colombia create those jobs and bolster
continued success.
Colombia FTA is key to ending FARC and reducing regional tension

Ratliff, 8 (William, The Washington Times, (“Giving Colombia a Chance” June 9, 2008, Pg. A25, Lexis-Nexis Academic)
We shouldn't expect the United States to do the one thing that would most contribute to FARC's demise either: that is, to decriminalize drugs, which would take the
enormous profit out of illegal narco-trafficking and dry up the organization's funding.
But there are things Washington can and should do - and nothing would do more to help Colombia right now than to approve the proposed U.S.-
Colombia free-trade agreement.
Unfortunately, congressional Democrats - including the party's House and Senate leadership and the presumptive presidential nominee - oppose the agreement. The
politicians don't understand, won't admit, or simply don't care that the drug violence in Colombia is at least partly our fault - and that freer trade
with the United States would help the struggling country and its people support themselves in other ways.
By strengthening Colombia's economy, we would help speed FARC's demise, which would enable the United States to reduce
military-related expenditures and other involvement in the Andes and reduce tensions in the entire region.
Passage of the Columbia FTA would lead to FARC demobilization and peace in Columbia
Walser, 8 – Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America in the Douglas and sarah Allison Center for Policy Studies (Ray, The Heritage Foundation, “Hugo
Chávez, Colombia, and the FARC: A Change of Heart?” 06-16-2008 http://www.heritage.org/Research/LatinAmerica/wm1956.cfm)
<Finally, itis time for the U.S. Congress to signal support for the Uribe government by passing the stalled free trade agreement. This
will give the Colombians an extra fillip of confidence and legitimacy as they try to draw the FARC toward demobilization and peace.
On June 8, the clouds of confrontation may have lifted for a moment in the Andes. It is time to seize the opportunity provided by this reprieve and seek
freedom for the FARC hostages and a concerted end to Colombia's bloody conflict.>
70

Uribe has caused a decline in violence and diminished the role of FARC – failure to pass Colombia FTA will embolden Chavez
and FARC
Senator Bond, 8 (Kit, States News Service, “Comment of U.S. Senator Kit Bond on US-Colombia Trade Agreement” May 12, 2008, Lexis-Nexis Academic
A U.S.-Colombia FTA represents an affirmation of U.S. support to our friends and strongest ally in an increasingly left-leaning continent. President Uribe'
administration finds itself surrounded by states determined to undermine Colombia' burgeoning democracy. These states provide safe haven to insurgent groups, allow
freedom of maneuver in border areas, and provide monetary support for their drug/terror activities. And I am sure Hugo Chavez would love nothing more than
to see this deal fail. Such an event would embolden his support for rebels in Colombia and undercut American interests in the region.
The question we ought to be asking ourselves is do we support Hugo Chavez or do we support Alvaro Uribe? President Uribe, has implemented far-reaching
policies to protect labor union members -- policies that have led to a general decline in violence, and an even greater decline in
violence against union members. Murders in Colombia overall decreased by nearly 40 percent between 2001 and 2007, and murders
of union members were reduced by over 80 percent. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia -- or FARC -- is still functioning, although
diminished by Legal reforms have been implemented under President Uribe to transform the judicial system and increase the number
of prosecutions.
In October 2006, a special subunit within the Unit of Human Rights was set up to investigate and prosecute 1,262 criminal cases of violence against trade union
members. President Uribe has pushed back Marxist guerrillas of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and the National Liberation Army (ELN).
It is important to remember that the FARC insurgent group currently holds more than 700 political and military prisoners -- three of whom are Americans.
This regime has been behind some of the most disturbing human right atrocities over the past three decades and finances its operations
by facilitating the drug trade. Earlier this year, the interdiction of two high value targets, senior terror planners and former operators was a testimony to President
Uribe' commitment to ending terror operations in his country. The capture of laptops in one of these interdictions on a FARC camp has yielded plenty of intelligence
tying Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez to the terrorists.
Chavez has opened Venezuela as a refuge to FARC, while Colombia battles the Marxist terrorists and has tried to elevate their prestige in the region. At one point,
Chavez tried to arrange a meeting between himself, FARC leader Manual Marulanda, Nicaragua' Daniel Ortega, and Bolivian president Evo Morales.
The Venezuelan is engaged in a high-stakes competition over the political and economic direction of Latin America.
He wants the region to follow his path of ever greater state control of the economy, while assisting U.S. enemies wherever he can. He's already won converts in Bolivia
and Ecuador, and forming alliances with the likes of Iran and Russia. If the leadership in the Congress is concerned about improving America' image
abroad -- fighting to keep illicit drugs off our streets, and preserving America' strategic interests in its own backyard -- then why donat
we start by helping out a key friend that we do have.
What would the rejection of this agreement say about America' commitment to our friends around the world? Friends like Colombia, and Korea I might add, who are
helping us fight terrorism, who want to open up their markets to U.S. goods and who embrace America' values are allies we must support.
Colombia under the leadership of President Uribe has made tremendous strides and implemented successful reforms over the last 5
and a half years. Colombia is a functioning democracy in an area surrounded by socialist, anti-American vitriol. The fact that
Colombia still faces challenges and needs continued reforms, should not lead us to withdraw support for this agreement. Rather, we
should increase our support to help Colombia strengthen its democratic institutions, implement continued social reforms and strengthen its legal
proceedings. Approving the Colombia FTA will embolden President Uribe to continue to make these positive reforms and keep
Colombia on the right path.
71

Not passing Colombia FTA would be a victory for FARC and Chavez
If Congress votes down the Colombia FTA, it will deliver a major psychological victory to Hugo Chávez, the FARC, and the
narcotraffickers that the U.S. has battled for decades in Colombia. It will also seriously jeopardize the progress and momentum made
by the Plan Colombia war on drugs on which the U.S. has spent hundreds of millions of dollars since the Clinton Administration.
A defeated FTA might also force Colombia reluctantly into closer ties with a very eager and suddenly conciliatory Hugo Chávez.
Venezuela is already Colombia’s second-largest export market after the U.S., and Colombia cannot afford to ignore it. Chávez’s dangling of
petroleum carrots will not be ignored by the Colombians. If Colombia is spurned by the U.S., it will continue to seek trade agreements with many other countries (e.g.,
Canada and Mexico) and trading blocs, such as the European Union, the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), and MERCOSUR (Southern Common Market). This
would only further isolate the U.S.
Colombia FTA is the best way to fight FARC terrorism

Investors Business Daily, 8 (“Trade vs. Terror” May 27, 2008, Lexis-Nexis Academic)
The most important way for the U.S. to seal a victory over the terrorists is to give Colombia the free-trade agreement it has earned. That
will bring more growth, more investment and more jobs.
Unfortunately, Democrats persist in withholding free trade based on the faulty, zero-sum theory that one nation's trade gain is Big Labor's loss. It's a fallacy that
happens to serve FARC's aims, which like Big Labor in the U.S. has no interest in a vibrant economy to give Colombia's poor opportunities.
The reality is that there is no greater poison to Marxist terrorists than people who have the economic power, opportunity and hope that
comes from free trade. Democrats continue to shut poor Colombians out of global markets, while many of their leaders, including Barack Obama, insincerely
claim to oppose FARC.
The only way to show we're serious about beating FARC is by expanding economic opportunity. FARC recruits from the poor. But
those poor Colombians, given a choice between terror or free trade, choose the latter. Why aren't Democrats doing the same?
72
Colombia FTA Good – Solves Drug Production
Colombia FTA is vital to curb drug production

Padilla 8 – Under Secretary for Commerce and International Trade
[Chris, “Press Briefing by Ambassador John Veroneau, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, Dan Fisk, Director of Western Hemisphere Affairs for the National Security
I might address that. Cocaine production, actually, is down significantly since Plan Colombia, which is important to remember. President
Clinton, together with then-Speaker Hastert reached a bipar-tisan agreement to invest billions and billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayers funds in Plan Colombia to
provide them with helicopters, with training, with economic assistance. The duty-free access for their products was part of this overall plan. And it's worked, and
cocaine production is down. In fact, when I was in Medellín with members of Congress and the Secretary of Commerce, we met with former paramilitaries who came in
from the jungle, lay down their weapons, and now have jobs growing flowers or sewing t-shirts in the factories around Medellín. So it's our strong view that if we want
to continue that progress, if we want to build on Plan Colombia, the next logical step is to have a two-way trade agreement. The reason
why it's important -- people say, well, why does Colombia want a trade agreement if they already have free access? The reason is this: Investors
want certainty.
I've spoken to companies as recently as this week who have said, we're pulling out of Co-lombia and we're putting our factories
in Peru or in the Central American countries that have already established trade agreements that have passed the Congress. If we wait -- people say, well,
why can't you just wait? The reason we can't wait is that every day we wait, it causes investor uncertainty and the loss of jobs in
Colombia. All of that is part of a package of reducing the drug trade, reducing violence, fighting the FARC. And I think, as the
President said today, it is now time to move forward.
Columbian FTA is vital to solve drug trafficking and violence

Washington Post 8
[Anthony Faiola, “In U.S., Trade Hits Stiff Head Wind,” February 15, Lexis]
Colombian business leaders, however, offer a very different picture. They say that the expanded trade preferences already being offered to
Colombia by the United States, which would be made permanent by the pas-sage of a comprehensive free-trade agreement, have created
a large number of desperately needed jobs. They especially credit export-fueled gains in their apparel and fresh-cut flower industries for helping
spark an economic renaissance in cities including Medellin and Cali, where violent crime and unemployment have dropped
sharply in re-cent years. Colombia's current trade preferences expire this month. Though administration officials and Democrats alike say an extension is likely to
pass soon, a full-blown trade deal, the Colombians say, would help them solidify gains by avoiding the need for a congressional
renewal every few years. Additionally, a free-trade accord would offer reciprocity for the first time, granting U.S. companies, which must pay tariffs on their
exports to Co-lombia, the same duty-free status with the United States that most Colombian exporters enjoy. "I honestly can't understand the economic
argument against the deal," said Eduardo Herrera, president of Supertex, a leading Colombian apparel exporter in Cali. "The
U.S. is helping us solve our own problems with narco-trafficking and violence by helping us create legitimate jobs
through trade preferences. Now we're saying, 'Let's make that permanent, and we'll open our market to you as well.' Why wouldn't they want that?"
Colombia FTA is critical to counter the drug trade

CongressNow 8
[Jay Heflin and Lachlan Markay, “Lugar Accuses Democrats of Politicizing Trade Policy,” February 14, Lexis]
Separately, House Members from both parties today expressed their support for the Colombia agreement. Speaking at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Reps. Jim
Moran (D-Va.) and Kevin Brady (R-Texas) joined Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez in voicing strong support for the FTA.
Gutierrez said that 2007 was a "great year" for American exports and trade, which reached $1.6 trillion. But on the issue of Colombian trade, he stated, "we are standing
still." Gutierrez called on Congress to support American and Colombian farmers by passing the FTA, citing the 230,000 U.S. jobs and 200,000 Colombian jobs involved
with the latter's flower industry. Without a free trade agreement, Gutierrez said, "we are putting all of the progress that Colombia has made at
risk," and "we are keeping an ally waiting." Moran discussed the essence of free trade as two nations exchanging the best products and services availa-ble. And the
Colombian flower industry does so well because of the high quality products that it provides, he said. The flower industry provides a great alternative to the "easy
seductions" of the drug trade, he continued, and there-fore the industry's success is of the utmost importance for the United States. If the tariffs on American
goods were lifted, Moran stated, companies in the United States would have more incentive to invest in Colombian industry, and
would help the country's economy - and flower industry - to flourish. Brady echoed Moran's comments about the Colombian
drug trade, saying that there would be benefits not just economically for the two countries, but also in the area of national
security. He called the deal the "absolute right thing to do." Colombian Trade Minister Luis Guillermo Plata also spoke to the Chamber, emphasizing his
country's recent eco-nomic, social and political improvements. Plata said that he agreed with Brady and Moran regarding national security,
saying, "prosperity is the best enemy of terrorism."
73
Colombia FTA Good – Competitiveness – Impact Module – 1/3

Colombia FTA is vital to U.S. economic competitiveness
Guttierez 8 – U.S. Secretary of Commerce
[Carlos M., “CONGRESS SHOULD PASS TRADE AGREEMENTS,” Sun-Sentinel, February 15, Lexis]
Florida is America's gateway to the Western Hemisphere, and Greater Miami has
reaped the rewards of increased global engagement. Trade has
energized the region's economy and created a flood of new opportunities that have grown Florida's exports. Now
is the time to open the gates further
with three critical free trade agreements pending before Congress with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. The United States is
the world's largest exporting nation, with $1.6 trillion in exports last year. With 25 percent of economic growth in 2007 coming from international trade, the benefits of
open markets are increasingly important to stabilizing and strengthening our nation's economy. According to recently released Commerce Department statistics, Florida
is the largest exporter in the southeast with $45 billion in exports in 2007 - an 80 percent increase since 2003. The South Florida metro area accounts for 65 percent of
Florida's exports. While that is impressive, the future holds even greater promise. When Congress passes these FTAs, Florida's citrus, machinery, software and
technology exports will have increased access to countries with a combined GDP of $1 trillion and 100 million consumers. For economic, security and humanitarian
reasons, perhaps the most important of these agreements, particularly for Miami, is Colombia. In 2006, Greater Miami exported more than $1.3 billion to Colombia.
However, exporters here could be doing even better. For 17 years, Congress has granted one-way free trade to Colombia. Virtually all of Colom-bia's exports enter the
United States duty free, while virtually all American exports to Colombia pay hundreds of millions in duties each year. Companies here, both big and small, will benefit
from these FTAs. Companies like Citrix Systems, Inc., a Fort Lauderdale-based global technology leader, and other American companies will benefit from both tariff
elimination on goods and services exports and increased protections for intellectual property and investors that FTAs provide. Although increased
competitiveness is one critical reason for these FTAs, it is not the only one. FTAs give the United States an opportunity to strengthen relationships
with key allies and democracies in critical regions. These coun-tries have shown a willingness to compete on an even playing field and open up their markets. This is
critical in a world where fair play and economic openness cannot always be taken for granted. Additionally, and perhaps more significantly, FTAs strengthen
social justice, democracy and security, particularly in this hemisphere. There is perhaps no better example of a country - or
an agreement - that can help us secure these key foreign policy objectives than Colombia. Colombia is one of our staunchest
allies in the region - a country not long ago that was on the brink of becoming a failed state. Today, under democratically elected President Uribe, and through
our bipartisan Plan Colombia initiative started under President Clinton, Colombia has made a tremendous turnaround. I've seen it myself, in places like Medel-lin,
which was once the world's murder capital and is now thriving, growing and prospering. Colombia's stability is a concern for all of us - not just to Colombians or the
nearly quarter-million Co-lombian-Americans in Florida who overwhelmingly want this FTA, but also to those concerned about the spread of stability and social justice
in our own hemisphere. These three agreements are the right thing to do for our country, and now is the right time to get them
done. When we do, we'll make South Florida better off and help ensure that American products, businesses, farmers and workers are
more competitive and successful in the global economy.
74

U.S. competitiveness is key to avert global nuclear war
Khalilzad 95 – U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan and Former Defense Analyst at RAND
[Zalmay, " Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War," Washington Quarterly, Spring, Lexis]
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding
principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open
and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear
U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global
proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally,
rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S.
leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. Precluding the rise of a
hostile global rival is a good guide for defining what interests the United States should regard as vital and for which of them it should be ready to use force and put American lives at risk. It is a good prism for identifying
threats, setting priorities for U.S. policy toward various regions and states, and assessing needs for military capabilities and modernization. To succeed in the long term in realizing this vision, the United States should adhere
to the following principles as guidelines for its policies. It must: * maintain and strengthen the "zone of peace" n6 and incrementally extend it; * preclude hostile hegemony over critical regions; * hedge against
reimperialization by Russia and expansion by China while promoting cooperation with both countries; * preserve U.S. military preeminence; maintain U.S. economic strength and an open international economic system; * be
judicious in the use of force, avoid overextension, and develop ways of sharing the burden with allies; and * obtain and maintain domestic support for U.S. global leadership and these principles. Why are these principles
important and how can the United States pursue them effectively? The remainder of this article will focus on these issues. In the course of building up the Western alliance, the United States helped create a community of
nations in Western Europe and East Asia that was held together by more than just the Soviet threat. These nations shared common values, most important among them democracy and a commitment to free markets. War
among these nations became unthinkable. This commonality of interests was expressed in the creation of organizations such as NATO and the Group of Seven (G-7), and in bilateral treaties such as that between the United
States and Japan. Under U.S. leadership, this group of nations pursued a policy of containing the Soviet Union until its collapse; in the post-cold war era, it is clear that, given continued unity, these nations will be strong
enough to overpower any threat from outside their ranks. Thus, this community of nations may be called the "zone of peace." Maintaining, strengthening, and extending the zone of peace should be the central feature of U.S.
post-cold war grand strategy. Maintaining the zone of peace requires, first and foremost, avoiding conditions that can lead to renationalization of security policies in key allied countries such as Japan and Germany. The
members of the zone of peace are in basic agreement and prefer not to compete with each other in realpolitik terms. But this general agreement still requires U.S. leadership. At present there is greater nervousness in Japan
than in Germany about future ties with Washington, but U.S. credibility remains strong in both countries. The credibility of U.S. alliances can be undermined if key allies such as Germany and Japan believe that the current
arrangements do not deal adequately with threats to their security. It could also be undermined if, over an extended period, the United States is perceived as either lacking the will or the capability to lead in protecting their
interests. In Europe, besides dealing with balancing Russian military potential and hedging against a possible Russian reimperialization, the near-term security threat to Germany comes from instability in East-Central Europe
and to a lesser degree from the Balkans. For France and Italy, the threats come from conflicts in the Balkans, Islamic extremism, and the spread of WMD and ballistic and cruise missiles to North Africa and the Middle East.
For example, at present the Germans fear that conflicts and instability in EastCentral Europe might "spill out" or "spill in." Such crises could set the stage for a bigger conflict and/or send millions of refugees to Germany. The
Germans are divided on how to deal with the threat from the east. For now, however, they are focused on integrating the former East Germany and favor a U.S.-led alliance strategy rather than filling the vacuum themselves,
as indicated in their substantial defense cuts. This is in part because of their confidence in the United States and the common values and interests they perceive among the allies, and in part because an alliance-based policy is
cheaper for Germany than a unilateral approach. But should the Germans come to believe that the alliance will not or cannot deal with threats to their interests, they might well consider other options. In East Asia, too, Japan
favors alliance with the United States to deal with uncertainty about Russia, future Chinese military capability, including power projection, and the threat of nuclear and missile proliferation on the Korean peninsula. For the
same reasons as Germany, Japan currently prefers to work with the United States. But the loss of U.S. credibility could also change Japan's calculations; the test will be how well the United States deals with North Korea's
nuclear program. As long as U.S.-led allied actions protect their vital interests, these nations are less likely to look to unilateral means. This implies that the United States needs a military capability that is larger than might be
required based on a definition of U.S. interests based on isolationism or the balance of power. U.S. power and willingness to lead in protecting vital joint interests in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East are necessary to
preserve the zone of peace. In Europe these interests can be best served if NATO remains the primary entity to deal with the security challenge from instability and conflict to the south and the east and a possible revanchism
in Russia. To perform this role, NATO must adapt by maintaining a robust military capability as a hedge against Russia's going bad; by preparing for the eventual membership of the nations of East-Central Europe in the
alliance in coordination with EU expansion; and by developing the capability to deter and defeat threats from the south. NATO allies need to increase their ability to project power to perform these tasks. West Europeans have
ample capability for self-defense but their capability for projecting power eastward or southward is far more limited. Even with increased European power projection capabilities, the United States would need to maintain a
significant military force on the continent for an indefinite period -- both because of military needs and to demonstrate its commitment and resolve. Asia has no NATO-like multilateral alliance. "The core security relationships
are the U.S.-Japanese and U.S.-South Korean ties. Maintaining security ties with each other is important for both the United States and Japan, even though trade relations between the two have a greater potential to create
mutual antagonism than trade relations between the United States and Germany. While North Korea remains hostile and militarily powerful and, in any case, in order to hedge against uncertainties in Russia and China, the
United States needs to station sufficient force in the region to deter all three countries and, with reinforcements, defend critical U.S. interests while running only limited risks. At present the main military threat is a possible
North Korean attack against South Korea. The United States and its Asian allies should explore the possibility of establishing multilateral security arrangements that can promote stability by increasing mutual trust and
providing for effective burden sharing. Within these constraints, it is in the U.S. interest and the interests of the other members of the zone of peace that the zone ultimately encompass the whole world. Unfortunately, this is
not a near-term proposition. Many regions and states are not ready. The United States should seek to expand the zone selectively and help others prepare for membership. The most important step that the United States and the
other prosperous democracies can take is to assist others in adopting the economic strategies that have worked in North America, Western Europe, and East Asia and are being successfully implemented in parts of Latin
America and elsewhere in Asia. Economic development and education are the most effective instruments for solving the problems of the nations outside the zone of peace. A global rival could emerge if a hostile power or
coalition gained hegemony over a critical region, defined as one that contains economic, technical, and human resources such that a power that controlled it would possess a military potential roughly equal to, or greater than,
that of the United States. It is, therefore, a vital U.S. interest (i.e., one that the United States should be willing to use force to protect) to avoid such a development. Although this could change in the future, two regions now
meet this criterion: East Asia and Europe. The Persian Gulf is critically important for a different reason -- its oil resources are vital for the world economy. In the long term, the relative importance of various regions can
change. A region that is critical to U.S. interests now might become less important, while some other region might gain in importance. For example, Southeast Asia appears to be a region whose relative importance is likely to
increase if the regional economies continue to grow as impressively as they have done in the past several years. The Gulf might decline if the resources of the region became less important for world prosperity because
technological developments provided economically feasible alternative sources of energy. At present, the risks of regional hegemony in Europe and East Asia are very small. This is due in large part to the alliance of the key
states of these regions with the United States, which endorses the presence of U.S. forces and the credibility of U.S. commitments. It is thus vital that U.S. alliances in Europe and East Asia be maintained but adapted to meet
the challenges of the new era. During the Cold War, the U.S. role in these two regions not only deterred threats from the Soviet Union but also contained rivalries. In Europe, it is not in the U.S. interest for the EU either to
become a superstate or to disintegrate. The former could ultimately pose a global challenge -- Western Europe's economy is bigger than the U.S. economy. The latter could encourage mutual suspicion and contribute to
renationalization and a possible repeat of the first half of the twentieth century. At this point, the United States is the preponderant outside power in the Persian Gulf. Its position there helps to discourage the rise of a rival and
will put it in a strong position to compete should one arise. U.S. preponderance serves the interests of the members of the zone of peace because it helps diminish the threat of interruption of oil supplies from the region. But
the threat of hostile regional hegemony remains. The United States, with support from its allies, needs to maintain adequate military capability to deter and defeat the threat of regional hegemony from Iraq or Iran. The United
States should seek greater contributions from its NATO allies and Japan in meeting the security challenges in this region. Washington and its allies must also encourage regional cooperation among the GCC states and help
them cope with the contradictory pressures -- liberal and fundamentalist -- for domestic change that beset them. Given the recent progress in the ArabIsraeli conflict, U.S. security ties with Israel can help in dealing with
threats from Iran or Iraq in the Gulf. Russia is still trying to find a place for itself in the world. Although still weakening militarily and economically, as heir to the Soviet strategic nuclear arsenal it is capable of conducting an
all-out nuclear attack on the United States. Consequently, it requires special attention under any circumstances. In the near term -- 10 years -- Moscow is unlikely to pose a global challenge. Even in its current weakened
condition, however, Russia can pose a major regional threat if it moves toward reimperialization. This scenario has been dubbed "Weimar Russia," denoting the possibility that, embittered by its economic and political
troubles and humiliations, Russia may attempt to recover its past glory by turning to ultranationalist policies, particularly the reincorporation of -- or hegemony over -- part or all of the old "internal" empire. In the aftermath
of the December 1993 parliamentary elections and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's strong showing in them, many Russians indicated a strong preference for reincorporation of the so-called near abroad -- the states on the territory of
the former Soviet Union. But, more recently, concerns about costs and negative international reaction have resulted in a shift in favor of hegemony -- Russian geopolitical and economic domination of weak but nominally
independent states. To avoid Russian hegemony over the near abroad, to say nothing of creating the groundwork for future cooperation on a whole range of international matters, the United States and the other members of the
democratic zone of peace have a substantial interest in helping Russia become a "normal" country, that is, a country that does not hanker for an empire and whose domestic life is not distorted by overmilitarization. Ideally, it
would become a prosperous, free market, Western-style democracy. Whether Russia will succeed in becoming a normal state is difficult to predict, but the stakes justify a major Western effort. Even so, the key determinant is
Russian domestic politics, over which, under the circumstances, the United States can have only limited influence, and the domestic trends are not very hopeful. As the United States encourages Russia to join the zone of
peace and cooperate on specific issues based on common concerns, it is in the U.S. interest that Russia's neighbors, such as Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, be able to make any attempt by Russia to recreate the empire
very costly, thereby deterring it. And should deterrence fail, such an approach would help sap its energies, undermining its prospects for becoming an effective global challenge. This does not mean that the United States needs
hostile relations between these countries and Moscow; good economic and political relations between Russia and its neighbors are not inconsistent with U.S. interests. But discouraging the emergence of a very robust
Commonwealth of Independent States and consolidating Ukrainian, Kazakh, and Uzbek independence should be the primary U.S. objective in dealing with these countries. The United States and its allies have lost some
opportunities here because economic problems and pressure from Russia have reduced support for independence in some of the newly independent states. To discourage Russian reincorporation of Ukraine by force, NATO
must make it clear to Russia, and must convince its own publics and parliaments, including the U.S. Congress, that such an action would lead to a cutoff of economic assistance to Russia, to NATO membership for the nations
of East-Central Europe on a much faster track -- perhaps at once -- than would be the case otherwise, and possibly to material support to a Ukrainian resistance movement and Russian isolation from the West. Without such
preparations now, there is danger that, in the face of a possible Russian takeover of Ukraine, NATO expansion to EastCentral Europe would not be politically supported because it would appear to be too provocative.
Unfortunately, at times in the past the United States has appreciated its stake in a situation too late to express its intentions clearly enough to deter an aggressor. A clear and strong Western posture now should also strengthen
those Russians who do not consider reimperialization to be in their country's interests. But this is not only a military matter. The key for Ukraine and others is to carry out economic and political reforms to increase internal
stability and reduce their vulnerability to Russian interference and domination. The United States, the EU countries, and Japan have a stake in helping Ukraine and others adopt significant economic reforms. To encourage
such a development, the G-7 states should be willing to meet some of the costs of the transition to a market-oriented system. China is another major power that might, over the long term and perhaps sooner than Russia,
CONTINUED…………
75
76

…CONTINUED
emerge as a global rival to the United States. China's economic dynamism, now also being reflected in its military development, ensures that -- if domestic turmoil can be avoided -- China will become an increasingly
important player on the global scene in coming decades. The country has had dramatic economic growth. Between 1978 and 1992 its GNP increased by 9 percent annually. In 1992, that rate increased to 12 percent. Its foreign
trade increased from $ 21 billion in 1978 to $ 170 billion in 1992. According to the International Monetary Fund, Chinese output may have exceeded $ 1.6 trillion dollars in 1992. The World Bank gives an even higher
estimate: $ 2.3 trillion. Militarily, China has been increasing its power projection capability -- both naval and air -- in part by purchasing advanced equipment from Russia. If China continues to grow at a higher rate than the
United States, at some point in the next century it could become the world's largest economy. n7 Such a development would produce a significant shift in relative economic power, with important potential geopolitical and
military implications. China, however, faces significant political uncertainties in its domestic politics, including a possible succession crisis on the death of Deng Xiaoping and the centrifugal tendencies unleashed by
differential economic growth among the provinces. Indeed, Chinese weakness, not excluding a possible civil war that could disrupt economic prosperity and create refugee flows, may cause significant problems for its
neighbors and the world community. Assuming these difficulties can be avoided, the world will have to deal with the fact that China is not a "satisfied" power. Among the major powers, China appears more dissatisfied with
the status quo than the others. Beyond Hong Kong and Macau, which will be ceded to China by the end of the century, it claims sovereignty over substantial territories that it does not now control, such as Taiwan, the Spratly
Islands and the South China Sea generally, and the Senkaku Islands between China and Japan. Although China has abandoned communism as a global ideology and seems to have accepted the economic imperative of the
global economy, it is still seeking its "rightful" place in the world geopolitically. How will China define its role as its power grows beyond its territorial interests? China appears to be seeking eventual regional predominance,
a prospect opposed by Japan, Russia, and several other rising regional powers such as Indonesia and India. Even without regional domination, China might become interested in becoming the leader of an anti-U.S. coalition
based on a rejection of U.S. leadership generally or as it is expressed in such policies as nonproliferation and human rights. This is evident in its assistance to Pakistani and Iranian nuclear programs. It is also clear that China
is not as opposed to the North Korean nuclear program as the United States is. Some Chinese writing on strategy and international security expresses hostility to U.S. preponderance and implies the need to balance it. But
China recognizes the importance of the United States -- as a market for Chinese goods and as a source for technical training and technology. Without U.S. help China is less likely to achieve its economic and military
objectives. China, however, is decades away from becoming a serious global rival either by itself or in coalition with others, and its internal political development is likely to influence the type of foreign policy it pursues. In
particular, its degree of democratization is likely to determine how much money and effort China is willing to devote to improving its international standing in the light of its immense development tasks at home. This
provides the United States with ample strategic warning. For the near term, economic considerations are likely to be dominant in Chinese calculations. Nevertheless, China by itself or as the leader of a coalition of renegade
states could complicate U.S.-led efforts to deal with issues such as proliferation and stability in the Persian Gulf and Northeast Asia. Chinese economic success confronts the United States with a dilemma. On the one hand, it
increases Chinese potential to become a global rival. On the other, it might produce democratization, decentralization, and a cooperative China. The United States should continue to pursue economic relations with China and
encourage its integration in global economic and security regimes. It should also use the leverage of economic relations, which are very important to China, to continue to encourage Chinese cooperation in restraining nuclear
and missile proliferation in places like Korea and Iran. But Chinese cooperation is likely to remain limited. While the United States continues to cooperate with China, it should be cautious in transferring to it technologies
that have important military implications. It should also ensure that China's neighbors, such as Taiwan and the member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, have the means to defend themselves. Working with
other powers, especially Japan, Korea after unification, and Indonesia, the United States should preclude Chinese regional hegemony by maintaining adequate forces in the region. Without a U.S. presence in the region, as
Chinese power grows, some states in the region are likely to appease China and move closer to it, while others such as Indonesia, Japan, and Vietnam would seek to balance it. A global rival to the United States could emerge
for several reasons. Because the main deterrent to the rise of another global rival is the military power of the United States, an inadequate level of U.S. military capability could facilitate such an event. This capability should
be measured not only in terms of the strength of other countries, but also in terms of the U.S. ability to carry out the strategy outlined here. U.S. tradition makes the prospect of defense cuts below this level a serious
possibility: historically, the United States has made this error on several occasions by downsizing excessively. It faces the same danger again for the longer term. The issue is not only what levels of resources are spent on
defense but also on what, for what, and how they are spent. For the United States to maintain its military preeminence, in addition to meeting possible major regional contingencies (MRCs), it needs specific capability in three
areas. First, besides maintaining a robust nuclear deterrent capability because of concerns with Russian and Chinese existing or potential nuclear postures, the United States needs to acquire increased capability to deter,
prevent, and defend against the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in major conflicts in critical regions. The regional deterrence requirements might well be different from those with regard to the Soviet Union
during the Cold War because of the character and motivations of different regional powers. U.S. ability to prevent and defend against use is currently very limited. In the near term, therefore, to deter use of WMD against its
forces and allies, the United States may have to threaten nuclear retaliation. To counter the spread of WMD and their means of delivery (especially ballistic and cruise missiles), the United States should seek to develop the
capability to promptly locate and destroy even well-protected facilities related to biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. Equally important will be the ability to defend against the use of these
weapons, including both active and passive defense. Deploying robust, multilayered ballistic missile defenses is vital for protecting U.S. forwarddeployed forces and extending protection to U.S. allies, thus gaining their
participation and cooperation in defeating aggression in critical regions. Second, the United States needs improved capability for decisive impact in lesser regional crises (LRCs) -- internal conflicts, small wars, humanitarian
relief, peacekeeping or peacemaking operations, punitive strikes, restoration of civil order, evacuation of noncombatant Americans, safeguarding of security zones, and monitoring and enforcement of sanctions. Given the end
of the Cold War, the United States can be more selective in deciding when to become involved militarily. It has not been selective enough during the past three years. Getting involved in LRCs can erode U.S. capabilities for
dealing with bigger and more important conflicts. Nevertheless, some crises may occur in areas of vital importance to the United States -- e.g., in Mexico, Cuba, South Africa, or Saudi Arabia -- and others might so challenge
American values as to produce U.S. military involvement. The United States might also consider participating with allies in some LRCs because of a desire either to extend the zone of peace or to prevent chaos from
spreading to a critical region and thereby threatening the security of members of the zone of peace. At present, LRCs are treated as lesser included cases of major regional conflicts, in the same way that some thought about
regional conflicts in relation to a global conflict during the Cold War. It has been suggested that the United States "underestimated and misestimated the MRC requirements during the Cold War." n8 It would be a mistake to
treat LRCs the same way now, especially because in the future U.S. forces will be much smaller than in the past and will provide a smaller margin for error. Even small LRCs can impose substantial and disproportionate
demands on the support elements of U.S. forces -- such as airborne warning and control systems (AWACS), SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses), airlift, and communications. To be prepared for its MRC commitments
and to have some increased LRC capabilities, the United States needs more airlift and changes in the MRC-driven training and organization of U.S. forces. Third, it is essential to retain a mobilization base to reconstitute
additional military capability in a timely fashion if things go badly in any major region. Without such a capability the United States is unlikely to be able to take prompt action, given the amount of strategic warning it is likely
to receive. To discourage the rise of another global rival or to be in a strong position to deal with the problem should one arise, focusing U.S. military planning for the future on Korea and the Persian Gulf, plus increased
ability for LRC operations, is inadequate. Over time, although the threat from North Korea will probably disappear, other larger threats could emerge. As an alternative, the United States should consider moving toward sizing
its forces largely by adopting the requirement that they be capable of simultaneously defeating the most plausible military challenges to critical U.S. interests that might be created by the two next most powerful military
forces in the world that are not allied with the United States. Such a force should allow the United States to protect its interests in Asia, Europe, and the Persian Gulf. Such a force-sizing principle does not mean that U.S.
forces have to be numerically as large as the combined forces of these two powers. It means that they should be capable of defeating them given relatively specific nearsimultaneous scenarios of great importance to the United
States -- a Gulf and Asia scenario; a Europe and Asia scenario; or Asian and Gulf scenarios nearly simultaneously. Such an approach would give the United States a flexible global capability for substantial operations. U.S.
superiority in new weapons and their use would be critical. U.S. planners should therefore give higher priority to research on new technologies, new concepts of operation, and changes in organization, with the aim of U.S.
dominance in the militarytechnical revolution that may be emerging. They should also focus on how to project U.S. systems and interests against weapons based on new technologies. The Persian Gulf War gave a glimpse of
the likely future. The character of warfare will change because of advances in military technology, where the United States has the lead, and in corresponding concepts of operation and organizational structure. The challenge
is to sustain this lead in the face of the complacency that the current U.S. lead in military power is likely to engender. Those who are seeking to be rivals to the United States are likely to be very motivated to explore new
technologies and how to use them against it. A determined nation making the right choices, even though it possessed a much smaller economy, could pose an enormous challenge by exploiting breakthroughs that made more
traditional U.S. military methods less effective by comparison. For example, Germany, by making the right technical choices and adopting innovative concepts for their use in the 1920s and 1930s, was able to make a serious
bid for world domination. At the same time, Japan, with a relatively small GNP compared to the other major powers, especially the United States, was at the forefront of the development of naval aviation and aircraft carriers.
These examples indicate that a major innovation in warfare provides ambitious powers an opportunity to become dominant or near-dominant powers. U.S. domination of the emerging military-technical revolution, combined
with the maintenance of a force of adequate size, can help to discourage the rise of a rival power by making potential rivals believe that catching up with the United States is a hopeless proposition and that if they try they will
suffer the same fate as the former Soviet Union. Although, based on the strategy proposed here, the United States needs increased capabilities in some areas, it can cut back elsewhere and do things differently to free up
resources for them. The United States still has too many bases. The country does not have the most effective process for making informed decisions for allocating resources for various types of force elements -- that is, those
forces that are required for current and future objectives and operational requirements. As things currently stand there is too much duplication in some key areas and capabilities that are not as relevant now as they were
before. This is especially true in the maintenance and support area. For example, the navy, the air force, and industry all provide maintenance for military aircraft engines. Greater centralization here could save significant
resources. The Defense Department is still being forced to buy weapon systems that it says it does not need and will not be needed under the proposed strategy. The current acquisition system is very costly and can save
The United States is unlikely to preserve its military and technological dominance if the U.S. economy declines
resources if streamlined.
seriously. In such an environment, the domestic economic and political base for global leadership would diminish and the
United States would probably incrementally withdraw from the world, become inward-looking, and abandon more and more of its
external interests. As the United States weakened, others would try to fill the Vacuum. To sustain and improve its economic strength, the United States must maintain its technological
lead in the economic realm. Its success will depend on the choices it makes. In the past, developments such as the agricultural and industrial revolutions produced fundamental changes positively
affecting the relative position of those who were able to take advantage of them and negatively affecting those who did not. Some argue that the world may be at the beginning of another such transformation, which will shift
To remain the
the sources of wealth and the relative position of classes and nations. If the United States fails to recognize the change and adapt its institutions, its relative position will necessarily worsen.
preponderant world power, U.S. economic strength must be enhanced by further improvements in productivity, thus increasing real
per capita income; by strengthening education and training; and by generating and using superior science and technology. In the long run the economic future of the United
States will also be affected by two other factors. One is the imbalance between government revenues and government expenditure. As a society the United States has to decide what part of the GNP it wishes the government to
control and adjust expenditures and taxation accordingly. The second, which is even more important to U.S. economic wall-being over the long run, may be the overall rate of investment. Although their government cannot
endow Americans with a Japanese-style propensity to save, it can use tax policy to raise the savings rate.
77
Colombia FTA Good – Competitiveness Ext. – COLOMBIA FTA Key
Colombia FTA is critical to U.S. economic competitiveness

Veroneau 8 – Deputy U.S. Trade Representative
[John, “Press Briefing by Ambassador John Veroneau, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, Dan Fisk, Director of Western Hemisphere Affairs for the National Security
Can I just add one element to this level playing field? Canada
and the European Union are also negotiating trade agreements with Colombia,
and I think the Canada-Colombia agreement is very close to being finalized. So the story that Chris told about the unlevel playing
field is going to, in a way, get even more unlevel, because tractors that are produced in Canada, and other products that are made in Canada,
that we compete with, are now going to be -- or soon will be going into Colombia duty-free. So it's not simply, we have an unlevel playing field;
we're going to be at a disadvantage to our competitors in Canada, who will have access to the Colombian market duty-free.
Colombia FTA would make the US more competitive

Segal, 8 (Susan, Op-ed Latin Business Chronicle, “Helping a Friend” February 25, 2008, http://www.americas-society.org/article.php?id=892)
“The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement is our single most effective tool to help bring economic and political security to
Colombia.... Congress must push rhetoric aside and partner with Colombia in their efforts in establishing a secure and vibrant democracy.... A trade deal would
extend our current trade relationship from a set of revocable unilateral preferences to a relationship where U.S. industry enjoys the
same benefits already granted to Colombia through the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act. With a permanent trade promotion agreement, the
Colombian market would open on a reciprocal basis to U.S. goods, allowing 80 percent of U.S. consumer and industrial products to
immediately enter Colombia duty-free. This helps workers and allows U.S. exporters to be more competitive at a time of increased
challenges. In addition, labor provisions in the core text would require enforcement of domestic labor laws. It is time to level the playing field for ourselves while
helping the people of Colombia.”
The Columbia FTA is necessary to ensure US competitiveness

Roberts and Walser, 8 –Roberts is Research Fellow for Economic Freedom and Growth in the Center for International Trade and Economics, and Walser is a
Senior Policy Analyst in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, at The Heritage Foundation (James and Ray, The Heritage Foundation,
“Losing Latin America? A Protectionist Congress is Destroying U.S. Credibility,” 04-15-2008,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/latinamerica/wm1890.cfm) // DCM
<A race is on for influence and, ultimately, for power in the Western Hemisphere. Strangers from the Eastern Hemisphere, from China to
Russia, from Europe to Iran, are interested in trade and secure supplies of resources, minerals, and energy. These less constrained outsiders
with little oversight arrive daily in places like Bogota and Panama City with new offers for trade and investment. While we elect to sit on the sidelines, others move to
cut deals and cut us out.
78
Colombia FTA Good – Free Trade – Impact Module

Colombia FTA will be perceived as a vital signal of America’s commitment to free trade – failure risks
undermining global trade
Washington Post 8 [Anthony Faiola, “In U.S., Trade Hits Stiff Head Wind,” February 15, Lexis]
As the Bush administration races to push free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea through Congress before leaving office next
year, it is meeting a level of resistance observers call high even by the normally contentious standards of such debates. It happens as the administration
is confronting the most hostile domestic environment toward free trade in years. Recent polls suggest more Americans than ever view globalization as negative,
blaming free trade for the loss of mil-lions of manufacturing jobs that have moved overseas. As the economy falters, populist pundits of the Lou Dobbsian school are blaming reckless trade deals. In a hotly contested election
year, Democratic candidates are jockeying for the labor vote, questioning the wisdom of such accords as the North American Free Trade Agreement. Anti-globalization sentiments at home are nothing new. Think back to Ross
Perot's "great sucking sound," or the rock-throwing protesters at the World Trade Organization's 1999 meeting in Seattle. But observers say the stalled Co-lombia, Panama and South Korea deals are raising a fundamental
Since World War II,
question for the United States. At a time when faith in free trade is seriously failing in various corners of the world, particularly Latin America, is Washington itself still a true believer?
free trade emerged as America's economic mantra, Uncle Sam's recipe for developing nations seeking to fight poverty and
integrate globally. But even as economists grumble about resurgent resistance to open markets by emerging economies including India and Brazil, perhaps the most notable shift is happening in the United
States. "It's very alarming," Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez said. "This is the very time for us not to have second thoughts or
convey a lack of confidence in free trade to the world." The power of global trade, foreign investment and open markets is lifting hundreds of millions of out poverty in China.
But implemented the wrong way, and mixed with ill-conceived government policies, it can produce tragedies such as Argentina's spectacular economic collapse in the early 2000s. Many in Buenos Aires blamed the crisis, at
Bush administration's first showdown is set to
least in part, on steep losses in domestic manufacturing jobs as lowered trade barriers brought a flood of cheaper, for-eign-made products. The
come over the agreement with Colombia, an accord whose significance is more symbolic than economic. Colombia's economy is smaller
than that of many U.S. states, though the fate of the agreement is likely to be seen as a bellwether for U.S. trade policy. Leading Democrats and some
Republicans cite numerous reasons to oppose the deal. Of overriding concern, they say, is a pattern of murders against union members there and what they call the inability of leaders in Bogota to ade-quately address the
problem. But critics also insist that the administration has yet to prove the deal, as well as those with South Korea and Panama, would benefit average Americans Seeking to answer that, Sens. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) and
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) presented legislation last week that would make it more difficult to pass trade agreements unless they are accompanied by a more thorough financial analysis. It would mandate inclusion of what they
call essential data, such as estimates of how many U.S. jobs would be lost or gained. "The facts are [Colombia] is another trade agreement modeled on NAFTA," Brown said. "We will stop it." The senators and other
opponents argue that the problem isn't the concept of free trade, but that the Bush administration has been soft on enforcing fair trade. Seoul's automakers, for instance, would win greater access to the U.S. market under its
pending deal despite charges that the South Koreans have failed to uphold promises to open their markets to American cars. Although the new accord would mandate wider access to the Korean market for U.S. automakers,
and provide for penalties if that doesn't happen, Democrats call it too little, too late. Free trade "isn't our piÃ±ata, it's not that somebody has a blindfold on and is striking at it," Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the
trade subcommittee, said. "What's happening here is that we've had years of a passive trade approach from this administration. They have had a mindless policy that even if trade is one sided, it's better than nothing." Critics
also argue that while free trade may have brought down prices of household goods for millions of Ameri-cans, the cost of those bargains has been borne by exploited laborers abroad. They point to disclosures last year that
scores of foreign workers in apparel factories in Jordan, booming since that country reached a free-trade accord with the United States, were laboring under slave-like conditions. Colombian business leaders, however, offer a
very different picture. They say that the expanded trade preferences already being offered to Colombia by the United States, which would be made permanent by the pas-sage of a comprehensive free-trade agreement, have
created a large number of desperately needed jobs. They especially credit export-fueled gains in their apparel and fresh-cut flower industries for helping spark an economic renaissance in cities including Medellin and Cali,
where violent crime and unemployment have dropped sharply in re-cent years. Colombia's current trade preferences expire this month. Though administration officials and Democrats alike say an extension is likely to pass
soon, a full-blown trade deal, the Colombians say, would help them solidify gains by avoiding the need for a congressional renewal every few years. Additionally, a free-trade accord would offer reciprocity for the first time,
granting U.S. companies, which must pay tariffs on their exports to Co-lombia, the same duty-free status with the United States that most Colombian exporters enjoy. "I honestly can't understand the economic argument
against the deal," said Eduardo Herrera, president of Supertex, a leading Colombian apparel exporter in Cali. "The U.S. is helping us solve our own problems with narco-trafficking and violence by helping us create legitimate
jobs through trade preferences. Now we're saying, 'Let's make that permanent, and we'll open our market to you as well.' Why wouldn't they want that?" Congressional opposition has confronted the administration with a
defeat in modern history of a successfully negotiated U.S. trade deal. But if it does not try,
dilemma. If it forces a vote on Colombia in the current climate, it could score the first
analysts say it risks sending a message overseas that America's doors to trade are temporarily closed. U.S. Trade Representative
Susan C. Schwab argued this week for moving ahead with a vote. Though she would not offer a timeline, some administration officials have called for that to happen no later than this spring. "Right now, free-
trade agreements are being negotiated all over the world without us," she said. "Sitting on our hands is not going to make the
U.S. more competitive. It is not going to create one single solitary job."
Free trade is key to avert nuclear annihilation

Copley News Service 99 [Dec 1, LN]
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of
nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have
forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with
other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative
global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists,
whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher
Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135
As long as nations are trading peacefully, and

WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs.
their economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing
China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of
hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's not
the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a growing number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm,
Solar Turbines and other companies for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30
Growing global prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear

percent of our gross domestic product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers.
winter. Nations of the world are learning to live and work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once
imagined. Those who care about world peace shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.
79
Colombia FTA Good – Free Trade Ext. – COLOMBIA FTA Key
Rejecting the Colombia FTA will destroy U.S. trade credibility and prevent negotiation of future
agreements
CongressNow 8
[Jay Heflin, “White House Willing to Deal on Colombia Trade Agreement; Skeptics Say It Might Not Be Enough to Secure Passage,” March 18, Lexis]
Susan Finston, an adjunct fellow with the free-market Institute for Policy Innovation, believes a failure to pass the deal
would could hurt the ability of the U.S. to negotiate future agreements. "To have put the other side through the kind of lengthy
negotiations - the comprehensive negotiations we went through with Colombia and then turn it down - I think it would certainly not help the
credibility of the U.S. as a trading partner," she said. "There have been consultations with Congress throughout. That's the way it always works.
There are ways to put fences around things so the their concerns can be met."
80
Colombia FTA Good – Soft Power – Impact Module

Passing Colombia FTA would increase the US soft power
Schwab, 8 - United States Trade Representative
(Susan, US News and World Report, “Susan Schwab on the Colombian Trade Deal; The latest free-trade agreement is caught in the crossfire” March 26, 2008
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/20 08/03/26/ susan-schwab-on-the-colombian-trade-deal.html)
What if the treaty doesn't pass?
Leaders in the hemisphere and Latin America have said that the single most destabilizing factor in Latin America today may be the
U.S. Congress's failure to ratify the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. That is more destabilizing today than anything that Colombia's
neighbor Venezuela is doing or threatening to do— and that is saying a lot.
And beyond Latin America?
Then you have the whole issue of U.S. global leadership and the exercise of "soft power." One of the principal instruments of soft
power that any president has is our trade and commercial relationships, and if you reject the use of trade in that context, you are giving
up a tremendously valuable instrument that also has major economic and commercial benefits for us. If the Congress is not capable of
ratifying a trade agreement that is so clearly in our interest, it raises real questions about our global economic leadership going
forward.
B. The collapse of U.S. soft power will shatter global cooperation – making nuclear proliferation, environmental destruction,
failed states and diseases inevitable
Reiffel – Visiting Fellow at the Global Economy and Development Center of the Brookings Institution – 2005 (Lex, The Brookings Institution, Reaching Out:
Americans Serving Overseas, 12-27-2005, www.brookings.edu/views/papers/20051207rieffel.pdf)
I. Introduction: Overseas Service as a Soft Instrument of Power

The United States is struggling to define a new role for itself in the post-Cold War world that protects its vital self interests without making the rest of the world
uncomfortable.
In retrospect, the decade of the 1990s was a cakewalk. Together with its Cold War allies Americans focused on helping the transition countries in Eastern and Central
Europe and the former Soviet Union build functioning democratic political systems and growing market economies. The USA met this immense challenge successfully,
by and large, and it gained friends in the process.
By contrast, the first five years of the new millennium have been mostly downhill for the USA. The terrorist attacks on 9/11/01 changed the national mood in a matter
of hours from gloating to a level of fear unknown since the Depression of the 1930s. They also pushed sympathy for the USA among people in the rest of the world to
new heights. However, the feeling of global solidarity quickly dissipated after the military intervention in Iraq by a narrow US-led
coalition. A major poll measuring the attitudes of foreigners toward the USA found a sharp shift in opinion in the negative direction between 2002 and 2003, which
has only partially recovered since then.1
The devastation of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina at the end of August 2005 was another blow to American self-confidence as well as to its image in the rest of the
world. It cracked the veneer of the society reflected in the American movies and TV programs that flood the world. It exposed weaknesses in government institutions
that had been promoted for decades as models for other countries.
Internal pressure to turn America’s back on the rest of the world is likely to intensify as the country focuses attention on domestic
problems such as the growing number of Americans without health insurance, educational performance that is declining relative to other countries, deteriorating
infrastructure, and increased dependence on foreign supplies of oil and gas. A more isolationist sentiment would reduce the ability of the USA to use
its overwhelming military power to promote peaceful change in the developing countries that hold two-thirds of the world’s
population and pose the gravest threats to global stability. Isolationism might heighten the sense of security in the short run, but it would put the
USA at the mercy of external forces in the long run.
Accordingly, one of the great challenges for the USA today is to build a broad coalition of like-minded nations and a set of
international institutions capable of maintaining order and addressing global problems such as nuclear proliferation, epidemics like
HIV/AIDS and avian flu, failed states like Somalia and Myanmar, and environmental degradation. The costs of acting alone or in small coalitions are now more clearly
seen to be unsustainable. The limitations of “hard” instruments of foreign policy have been amply demonstrated in Iraq. Military power can
dislodge a tyrant with great efficiency but cannot build stable and prosperous nations. Appropriately, the appointment of Karen Hughes as Under Secretary of
State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs suggests that the Bush Administration is gearing up to rely more on “soft” instruments.2
81
Colombia FTA Good – Soft Power Ext – Colombia FTA Key

Colombia FTA is key to repairing the US’s image
Farzad, 8 (Roben, Business Week, “Cheap Shots Over Free Trade; Pointless politics threatens a pact with Colombia that would aid U.S. Manufacturers” May 19,
2008, Pg. 76, Lexis-Nexis Academic)
But I resent the obstruction of trade just for the sake of politics and without regard to the economic and diplomatic costs. Witness how Congress
is waylaying the
free-trade agreement with Colombia, perhaps the best friend the U.S. has in Latin America. For a reputationally damaged U.S., this
might be the last piece of low-hanging foreign policy fruit out there--no troop surges, no 11th-hour hustling at the U.N.--and it's withering on the
vine.
Colombia FTA key to soft power
Showalter,8 (Monica, Op-ed in Investor’s Business Daily “U.S-Colombia Free Trade Agreement” January 3, 2008
http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Fact_ Sheets/2008/asset_uploa d_file854_14604.pdf)
“In 2006, two-way trade with Colombia totaled $16 billion. That could grow a lot bigger, reason enough to OK a free-trade deal. But free-trade deals also offer
something else to the U.S.: a way to project “soft power” to strengthen its ties with democracies in the Western Hemisphere.... Free-trade
treaties are actually a big opportunity to draw friendly countries like Colombia closer to the U.S. The high investment they attract
creates jobs and reduces the appeal of hard-left populism.”
82
Colombia FTA Good – Terrorism – Impact Module

Colombia FTA is critical to counter Islamic terrorism
Wimbish 8 – Mass Communication Specialist for Department of Defense’s Southern Command
[Michael, “SOUTHCOM COMMANDER TESTIFIES BEFORE CONGRESS,” US Fed News, March 14, Lexis]
The commander of U.S. Southern Command testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee March 13, saying that there
is a low likelihood for military conflict in Latin America and the Caribbean while warning of possible emerging security challenges. Navy Adm. James Stavridis'
testimony, alongside the commanders of U.S. European Command and the future U.S. Africa Command, was his second in a week. On March 6, he appeared before the
Senate Armed Services Com-mittee as part of the command's annual posture statement to Congress. Stavridis discussed the recent tensions between Colombia, Ecuador
and Venezuela, sparked by Colombia's attack of Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) rebels in Ecuador March 1. He said the peaceful resolution, which
also involved leaders from other surrounding nations, displayed the region's aptitude for solving such problems. "The region came together to solve that problem, and
that?s very encouraging," Stavridis said. Stavridis also offered the SOUTHCOM take on Venezuela's recent military weapons and equipment purchases, which have
included more than 20 high-performance fighter jets, 50 new attack helicopters, over 100,000 AK-103 au-tomatic rifles, military transports, and advanced diesel
submarines. "I personally have difficulty understanding why that level of weapons would be needed by the Venezuelan state because, as we?ve just seen, this is a region
that is not prone to going to war, but has the capacity to solve, peacefully, disputes," stated Stavridis. As he has said before, Stavridis stated that the historically good
military-to-military relations between the U.S. and Venezuela have recently dissolved. However, he said the command hopes "we can work our way into a better
relationship." The admiral also stressed the importance of continued U.S. support to Colombia as the nation pushes on with its security plan aimed at narco-terrorists
groups, pointing to the plunging homicide, terrorist attack and kidnapping rates during this decade. Stavridis also said the number of FARC members has dropped from
more than 17,000 to "some-where around 8,000 or 9,000." "By every objective measure, there has been enormous progress in Colombia," he said. Since 2002, the U.S.
military has provided training, logistical and intelligence support to their Colombian coun-terparts as they combat narco-terrorist groups who have waged a bloody war
against the nation's democratic institutions for more than four decades. Stavridis was also asked about the security impact of a possible U.S. free
trade agreement with Colombia, which is currently pending Congressional approval. "As your national security advisor in that region, I will tell you that it
is very important that the free trade agreement be passed from a national security perspective," said Stavridis. "And, I hear that not just
from senior people in Colombia, but from my interlocutors in the region. They're watching very closely to see what happens to a nation that stands with the United
States for a decade or more." In addition to narco-terrorist groups in the region, Stavridis said the emergence of Islamic radical terrorist groups is a
"less immediate force in the region, but it has the potential to become of greater concern to us." "At the moment, I would say, at an unclassified
level, [their efforts are] largely centered in proselytizing, recruiting, money laundering. It is hooked somewhat into the narcotics
trade and, above all, it is a means of generation of revenue, largely for the Hezbollah Islamic radical organization. Monies are garnered here
in Latin America and go back to Hezbollah," said Stavridis. The admiral also said the command is "concerned about linkage between the
Iranian state and nascent Islamic radical terrorism in this region."
Future terrorist attacks will cause extinction

Alexander 03, Director of Inter-University for Terrorism Studies
[Yonah, Washington Times, August 28, LN] bg
the international community failed, thus far at least, to

Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that
understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the
United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on
September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens,
despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive
diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare
of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of
terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts,
The internationalization and brutalization of

contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact.
current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical,
radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security
concerns. Two myths in particular must be debunked immediately if an effective counterterrorism "best practices" strategy can be developed [e.g., strengthening international cooperation]. The first illusion is that
terrorism can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated completely, provided the root causes of conflicts - political, social and economic - are addressed. The conventional illusion is that terrorism must be justified by oppressed
people seeking to achieve their goals and consequently the argument advanced "freedom fighters" anywhere, "give me liberty and I will give you death," should be tolerated if not glorified. This traditional rationalization of
"sacred" violence often conceals that the real purpose of terrorist groups is to gain political power through the barrel of the gun, in violation of fundamental human rights of the noncombatant segment of societies. For
instance, Palestinians religious movements [e.g., Hamas, Islamic Jihad] and secular entities [such as Fatah's Tanzim and Aqsa Martyr Brigades]] wish not only to resolve national grievances [such as Jewish settlements, right
of return, Jerusalem] but primarily to destroy the Jewish state. Similarly, Osama bin Laden's international network not only opposes the presence of American military in the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, but its stated objective
is to "unite all Muslims and establish a government that follows the rule of the Caliphs." The second myth is that strong action against terrorist infrastructure [leaders, recruitment, funding, propaganda, training, weapons,
operational command and control] will only increase terrorism. The argument here is that law-enforcement efforts and military retaliation inevitably will fuel more brutal acts of violent revenge. Clearly, if this perception
continues to prevail, particularly in democratic societies, there is the danger it will paralyze governments and thereby encourage further terrorist attacks. In sum, past experience provides useful lessons for a realistic future
strategy. The prudent application of force has been demonstrated to be an effective tool for short- and long-term deterrence of terrorism. For example, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron commander of
the Islamic Jihad, defused a "ticking bomb." The assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab - a top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip who was directly responsible for several suicide bombings including the latest bus attack in
it behooves those countries

Jerusalem - disrupted potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the U.S. military operation in Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime as a state sponsor of terror. Thus,
victimized by terrorism to understand a cardinal message communicated by Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on May
13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however long and hard the road may be: For without
victory, there is no survival."
83
Colombia FTA Good – U.S.-Latin American Relations

Passage of Colombia FTA is key to US-Latin America relations
Colombians and all of our other friends in Latin America deserve better: They deserve the support of all Americans. Congress
should reverse its decision to
suspend action on the U.S.–Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement and bring it to a favorable vote, sealing a permanent bond with our
allies and friends in Colombia and signaling to the entire continent that the United States has not lost interest in Latin America. This will
show that the United States is not retreating: that it stands ready to make a strong, stable, and democratic Colombia a pivotal point for continued and expanding
relations with the Western Hemisphere.
84
Colombia FTA Good – US Economy

Colombia FTA is key to the US economy- trade allows export markets, cheap imports, and competition
Porter, 8 (Eduardo, The International Herald Tribune, “Trade Bashing” June 10, 2008, Pg. 6, Lexis-Nexis Academic)
Just this week, Democrats in the House and Senate proposed a bill that would require the president to submit plans to renegotiate all current trade agreements - before
Congress considered any pending agreements and before the president negotiated any new ones. In April, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided to change the rules
guiding approval of free trade agreements to stall the approval of one with Colombia.
The United States has an enormous stake in maintaining an open global economy. Trade means export markets for American products,
as well as cheap imports for American companies and consumers. Foreign competition helps spur productivity, which has driven the
spectacular increase in American living standards since World War II.
Before this country stumbles into a trade war, all political leaders would benefit from a careful examination of how other wealthy democracies have found ways to
cushion economic blows on the most vulnerable and make trade more palatable to their workers.
More generous social policies are a far better choice than protectionism.
Not passing Colombia FTA would devastate the US economy

White House Press Release, 8 (Office of the Press Secretary, “Fact Sheet: U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement essential To Our National Security” March 12,
2008, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080312-3.html
Closing off markets to trade would cause a retreat from the opportunities of the global economy and would be a mistake for the United States. Isolationist
policies could: Drive up prices for American families and deny them choices they have come to expect; Cause other nations to retaliate
by raising their own barriers to trade, which would contribute to U.S. companies moving jobs overseas; and Hurt the millions of
Americans employed either by U.S. exporters or by foreign companies operating in the U.S.
COLOMBIA FTA will boost the US’s economy by removing export tariffs, creating jobs, and creating an attractive market for
investors
Armbruster, 8 (William, Florida Shipper, “Tangle over trade: Dispute between Democrats and Bush thwarts congressional action on Colombia free-trade
agreement” May 12, 2008, Pg. WP, Lexis-Nexis Academic)
The tangle over trade adjustment assistance leaves the Colombia agreement hanging despite the economic and political benefits it
offers both countries. Opponents have not raised any substantive objections to the agreement itself, though Democrats and labor leaders argue that Colombia must
do more to reduce violence against union members.
The key benefit from the U.S. perspective is
that it would eliminate or substantially reduce duties on most U.S. exports to Colombia.
Colombia's current tariffs on imports of U.S. manufactured goods average 14 percent, and range as high as 35 percent. (An article in last
week's issue incorrectly stated that the average tariff was 35 percent.) Tariffs on farm products are much higher.
In contrast, under legislation first enacted in 1991 and renewed last year, 90 percent of all imports from Colombia enter the U.S. duty-free, while the average duty for
the remaining 10 percent is just 2.2 percent.
The law, known as the Andean Trade Preference Act, is designed to combat drug production and trafficking in the Andean countries Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and
Peru by offering trade benefits to help them develop and strengthen legitimate industries.
"Colombia enjoys nearly free access to our marketplace, while our access to theirs remains limited," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in a
publication seeking to bolster support among small businesses for the accord, officially known as the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement.
The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that passage of the agreement would boost U.S. exports by an additional $1.5 billion, thus
creating more jobs for American workers.
Colombia's increasing affluence its gross domestic product rose 6.5 percent last year, according to the CIA Factbook has made it an
increasingly attractive market for U.S. exporters and investors.
U.S. exports last year totaled $9.4 billion, up from $5.5 billion in 2005 and $6.7 billion in 2006. Those increases, combined with a drop in imports from Colombia,
left the U.S. with a trade surplus of $881 million last year. That made Colombia one of the few countries with which the U.S. has a
favorable trade balance.
85
Colombia FTA Good – US Economy

Colombia FTA is key to both countries economies- it creates jobs, increases investment, and can offset the costs of the housing
crisis
President Uribe already has made impressive strides against poverty in Colombia, as shown in Chart 6, which shows that poverty, as measured both by the Gini
Coefficient and by a unique formula devised by an international study team (Mision para el diseno de una Estrategia para la Reduccion de la Pobreza y la Desigualdad
— MERPD) that was funded by the United Nations Development Program, USAID, and other international development assistance agencies, has decreased
substantially while President Uribe has been in power. The increased trade, investment, and job creation from the U.S.–Colombia FTA would only
accelerate this laudable trend.
The FTA will spur additional economic development in Colombia and, just as important, will push the Colombian government to build
up and strengthen government institutions and judicial and economic regulation to ensure that continued economic progress will not
depend on any particular political personalities. Susan Segal, president of the Council of the Americas, notes:
The U.S.–Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement is our single most effective tool to help bring economic and political security to
Colombia. Without this agreement and the investment security it provides, hundreds of thousands of Colombian jobs are in jeopardy
of being lost. Each job opens an opportunity for a Colombian worker to enter the formal sector and to build individual economic
prosperity—the alternative to narcotrafficking and the direct threat that poses to U.S. national security. Increased foreign investment
and export market guarantees would further help to create the right economic conditions.[46]
If Congress were to reject such an agreement, it would be inflicting real pain on Colombian workers and the Colombian economy. As
the Cato Institute recently reported: A recent study by the University of Antioquia shows that not approving the TPA would decrease investment by 4.5
percent in Colombia. Furthermore, it would increase unemployment by 1.8 percentage points, representing a net loss of 460,000 jobs.
GDP would go down 4.5 percent, and the poverty level would rise by 1.4 points.[47]
More U.S. Exports to Colombia. U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce Chris Padilla recounts that:
Ninety-two percent of imports from Colombia currently enter the United States completely duty free. It has been that way for 16 years, since Congress first passed the
Andean Trade Preferences Act that gave Colombia access to our market as a way to reduce poverty and fight the drug trade.[48]
The FTA would then simply level the playing field and give U.S. exporters access to the Colombian market of 44 million consumers.
Padilla describes the current situation: [A] can of Colombian coffee comes into the United States duty-free. But [a] bottle of Pepsi, made in the
USA, pays a stiff 20% tax when sold in Colombia.
[B]eautiful Colombian flowers—a major Colombian export—come into our market and pay zero tariffs. But…U.S.-made fertilizer, which helps those flowers grow, is charged up to 15% when exported to Colombia.
[A] bag of carrots comes into the United States—and onto your dinner table—without paying any U.S. tariffs. But [a] tractor, made by Caterpillar in East Peoria, Illinois, faces a 10 percent duty when sold to a Colombian carrot farmer.
[A] Pennsylvania apple pays a 15 percent tariff when sold in Colombia. Meanwhile, [a] Colombian banana enters the United States duty-free.[49]
Padilla summarizes that:
Colombian exporters pay tariffs on only 8% of the goods they send to the U.S. Meanwhile, U.S. exporters currently pay tariffs— some as high as 35%—on 97% of the products we sell Colombia….
The U.S. exports more to Colombia than Russia, even though Russia has a population that is three times larger and an economy seven times that of Colombia.[50]
Demonstrating bipartisan support for the FTA, former White House Chiefs of Staff Ken Duberstein (Reagan Administration) and Mack McLarty (Clinton Administration), recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal:
[Under the FTA] U.S. exports to Colombia, from cars to chemicals to consumer products, would grow by an estimated $1 billion per year—a direct benefit to U.S. workers and their families. From Colombia’s perspective, the FTA would add a welcome dimension of
certainty to our trading relationship, encouraging investors to commit to Colombia and help create jobs there, too.[51]
As U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez reported earlier this year:
In 2007, trade contributed over half a percentage point to total GDP growth—the largest contribution in 16 years. We need to keep up
the momentum. Trade agreements are critical to lowering barriers to American exports and creating better-paying American jobs.[52]
With specific regard to the effect of the housing/ subprime mortgage crisis on the U.S. economy, Secretary Gutierrez said that during the second quarter of 2007, U.S.
GDP growth of 1.4 percentage points from trade offset a 1.2 percentage point decline in GDP caused by the housing crisis.[53]
Passing Colombia FTA will boost the US economy by removing tariffs on exports
White House Press Release, 8 (White House Documents and Publications, “Fact Sheet: Expanding Economic Opportunities Through Free and Fair Trade”
May 23, 2008, Lexis-Nexis Academic)
Today, President Bush highlighted the importance of trade in promoting prosperity and freedom in the United States and around the world. At the White House, the
President discussed a display of products from businesses that would benefit from trade liberalization, and urged Congress to approve our free trade agreements with
Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. The companies represented at the White House have created jobs, increased prosperity, and proven that
they can compete in the global market. In order for these and other U.S. businesses to continue growing, the government needs to keep
working to reduce foreign trade barriers, enabling companies to compete on a level playing field.
Approval and implementation of the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement would eliminate tariffs on goods produced by several of the
companies attending today's event.
Failure To Approve The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Would Be Bad For American Workers, Farmers, Ranchers, And
Business Owners
86
Earlier this year, President Bush sent Congress a bill to implement the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement. Unfortunately, rather than hold the up or down vote that
Congress committed to, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi chose to block it. If this decision stands, it will kill the agreement and hurt American
small business owners and workers.
87
Colombia FTA Good – Solves Ag/Econ

Small farmers would benefit from Colombia FTA- our evidence is comparative
Small Farmers Would Benefit. Anti-FTA activists have also alleged, without any factual basis, that the FTA will hurt Colombia’s small
farmers.[44] According to the U.S. agricultural attaché in Bogota, small farmers generally grow high-value-added crops (e.g., coffee and
mangoes). These crops would be far superior in quality and lower in price than any coffee or mangoes imported from the U.S., and the
FTA would enhance small farmers’ access to niche markets (e.g., organic foods) in the U.S.[45]
Of all the agricultural producers in Colombia, the small farmers “would be the least affected by the FTA,” according to the U.S. Embassy. The agricultural attaché noted
that the large landowners in Colombia are inefficiently producing rice, corn, wheat, and other high-volume, low-margin commodities that are currently protected by
high tariffs but would face stiff competition from U.S. imports after the FTA is ratified. Lower food prices would more than offset any dislocation
actually felt by small farmers due to U.S. agricultural imports. The urban poor would also benefit from cheaper food.
In fact, the whole Colombian economy would benefit because the currently underutilized large landholdings would become attractive investment
targets for more efficient, better-funded U.S. agribusinesses, which would bring in advanced technology and better equipment,
creating good, sustainable new private-sector jobs in the process.
Some of the large landowners have supported paramilitaries, and some are drug lords. Few Colombians would shed any tears if the FTA caused these owners some
economic dislocation. Of course, this would leave the large landowners who have sponsored and funded the paramilitaries with less money to do so in the future. Their
potential reversal of fortune would further weaken that source of conflict.
88
Colombia FTA Good – AT: Human rights abuses and violence

The US should pass the Columbia FTA – human rights abuses, terrorism, and violence have all decreased immensely since
Uribe entered office
<When President Álvaro Uribe entered office in 2002, violence was indeed ripping apart the very fabric of the Colombian nation.
Combined, the narcoterrorist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the paramilitaries of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)
had over 50,000 combatants in the field. Since 2002, with additional U.S. help under Plan Colombia and in accordance with President Uribe's
Democratic Security strategy, the number of combatants has declined by at least 75 percent. Today, only the discredited FARC, with less than
10,000 fighters, represents a significant menace to the government as it ruthlessly uses the hostages it holds to leverage international attention and concessions.
The overall murder rate in Colombia has dropped by 40 percent, kidnappings are down by 83 percent, and terrorist attacks have
decreased by 76 percent.[1] Murders of trade unionists have dropped even more, by 75 percent, [2] with only 11 killings thus far in 2008.[3]
While these murders are deplorable, there is no indication that the government of Colombia had any involvement in them. In cases that were heard in court, the majority
of the homicides were found to be for nonpolitical reasons. Trade unionists, an estimated 70 percent, are heavily concentrated in noncompetitive public-sector unions
and represent less than 5 percent of Colombia's work force.[4] Labor spokesmen in the private sector tend to favor completing the agreement. Moreover, the
government is actively investigating all acts of violence and threats against unionists. With dubious logic, the U.S. Congress wants to punish the
Colombian government that has done so much to improve the situation.>
89
AT: Colombia FTA Causes Species Loss – Impact Takeouts

Species extinction won't cause human extinction – humans and the environment are adaptable – this answers their invisible
threshold argument
Doremus – Professor of Law at UC Davis – Winter 2000 (Holly, Washington & Lee Law Review, "The Rhetoric and Reality of Nature Protection: Toward a New
Discourse," 57 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 11, jp)
In recent years, this discourse frequently has taken the form of the ecological horror story . That too is no mystery. The ecological horror story is
unquestionably an attention-getter, especially in the hands of skilled writers [*46] like Carson and the Ehrlichs. The image of the airplane earth, its wings wobbling as
rivet after rivet is carelessly popped out, is difficult to ignore. The apocalyptic depiction of an impending crisis of potentially dire proportions is
designed to spur the political community to quick action . Furthermore, this story suggests a goal that appeals to many nature lovers: that virtually
everything must be protected. To reinforce this suggestion, tellers of the ecological horror story often imply that the relative importance of various rivets to the
ecological plane cannot be determined. They offer reams of data and dozens of anecdotes demonstrating the unexpected value of apparently useless parts of nature. The
moth that saved Australia from prickly pear invasion, the scrubby Pacific yew, and the downright unattractive leech are among the uncharismatic flora and fauna who
star in these anecdotes. n211 The moral is obvious: because we cannot be sure which rivets are holding the plane together, saving them all is
the only sensible course.
Notwithstanding its attractions, the material discourse in general, and the ecological horror story in particular, are not likely to generate policies that will satisfy nature
lovers. The ecological horror story implies that there is no reason to protect nature until catastrophe looms. The Ehrlichs' rivet-popper account, for example, presents
species simply as the (fungible) hardware holding together the ecosystem. If we could be reasonably certain that a particular rivet was not needed to prevent a crash, the
rivet-popper story suggests that we would lose very little by pulling it out. Many environmentalists, though, would disagree. n212
Reluctant to concede such losses, tellers of the ecological horror story highlight how close a catastrophe might be, and how little we know about what actions might
trigger one. But the apocalyptic vision is less credible today than it seemed in the 1970s. Although it is clear that the earth is experiencing
a mass wave of extinctions, n213 the complete elimination of life on earth seems unlikely. n214 Life is remarkably robust. Nor is
human extinction probable any time soon. Homo sapiens is adaptable to nearly any environment. Even if the world of the future
includes far fewer species, it likely will hold people. n215
One response to this credibility problem tones the story down a bit, arguing not that humans will go extinct but that ecological
disruption will bring economies, and consequently civilizations, to their knees. n216 But this too may be overstating the case. Most
ecosystem functions are performed by multiple species. This functional redundancy means that a high proportion of species can be
lost without precipitating a collapse. n217
Species loss won’t risk extinction – no credible reason it will snowball

Sagoff – 1997 – Pew Scholar in Conservation and the Environment and past President of the International Society of Environmental Ethics
[Mark, “Do we consume too much?” The Atlantic Monthly, June]
There is no credible argument, moreover, that all or even most of the species we are concerned to protect are essential to the functioning
of the ecological systems on which we depend. (If whales went extinct, for example, the seas would not fill up with krill.) David
Ehrenfeld, a biologist at Rutgers University, makes this point in relation to the vast ecological changes we have already survived.
"Even a mighty dominant like the American chestnut," Ehrenfeld has written, "extending over half a continent, all but disappeared without
bringing the eastern deciduous forest down with it." Ehrenfeld points out that the species most likely to be endangered are those the
biosphere is least likely to miss. "Many of these species were never common or ecologically influential; by no stretch of the
imagination can we make them out to be vital cogs in the ecological machine."
Only a small number of species are needed – your concerns of extinction are exaggerated
Kimbrell – 2002 – Executive Director of the International Center for Technology Assessment and the Center for Food Safety
[Andrew, The Fatal Harvest Reader: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture, p. 83-4]
There is a second practical problem with assigning value to biological diversity. In a chapter called “The Conservation Dileema” in my book The Arrogance of
Humanism, I discuss the problem of what I call nonresources. The sad fact that few conservationists care to face is that many species, perhaps
most, probably do not have any conventional value at all, even hidden conventional value. True, we cannot be sure which particular species fall
into this category, but it is hard to deny that a great many of them do. And unfortunately, the species whose members are the fewest in number, the
rarest, the most narrowly distributed – in short, the ones most likely to become extinct – are obviously the ones least likely to be
missed by the biosphere. Many of these species were never common or ecologically influential; by no stretch of the imagination can
we make them out to be vital cogs in the ecological machine. If the California condor disappears forever from the California hills, it will be a tragedy.
But don’t expect the chaparral to die, the redwoods to wither, the San Andreas Fault to open up, or even the California tourist industry to suffer – they won’t.
So it is with plants. We do not know how many species are needed to keep the planet green and healthy, but it seems very unlikely to
be anywhere near the more than quarter of a million we have now. And if we turn to the invertebrates, the source of nearly all biological diversity, what
biologist is willing to find a value – conventional or ecological – for all 600,000-plus species of beetles?
90
AT: Colombia FTA Causes Species Loss – Impact Takeouts

Empirically denied – we are destroying ecosystems now
Pimm and Raven – 2-24-2000
[Stuart L, Center for Environmental Research and Conservation, Peter, Missouri Botanic Garden, Biodiversity: Extinction by Numbers, Nature,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6772/full/403843a0.html]
Humanity is rapidly destroying habitats that are most species-rich. About two-thirds of all species occur in the tropics, largely in the
tropical humid forests3. These forests originally covered between 14 million and 18 million square kilometres, depending on the exact
definition, and about half of the original area remains4. Much of the rain-forest reduction is recent, and clearing now eliminates about 1
million square kilometres every 5 to 10 years4, 5, 6. Burning and selective logging severely damages several times the area that is
cleared5, 6.
Empirically proven there is no impact to species loss – they are redundant and won’t collapse the ecosystem
Davidson – Conservation biologist with background in economics – 5-1-2000
[Carlos, Economic Growth and the Environment: Alternatives to the Limits Paradigm]
Biodiversity limits. The original rivet metaphor (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981) referred to species extinction and biodiversity loss as a limit to human population and the
economy. A wave of species extinctions is occurring that is unprecedented in human history (Wilson 1988, 1992, Reid and Miller 1989). The
decline of biodiversity represents irreplaceable and incalculable losses to future generations of humans. Is biodiversity loss a case of limits, as suggested by the rivet
metaphor, or is it a continuum of degradation with local tears, as suggested by the tapestry metaphor? In the rivet metaphor, it is not the loss of species by itself that is
the proposed limit but rather some sort of ecosystem collapse that would be triggered by the species loss. But it is unclear that biodiversity loss will lead to
ecosystem collapse. Research in this area is still in its infancy, and results from the limited experimental studies are mixed. Some studies
show a positive relationship between diversity and some aspect of ecosy stem function, such as the rate of nitrogen cycling (Kareiva 1996, Tilman et al. 1996). Others
support the redundant species concept (Lawton and Brown 1993, Andren et al. 1995), which holds that above some low number, additional
species are redundant in terms of ecosystem function. Still other studies support the idiosyncratic species model (Lawton 1994), in which loss of some
species reduces some aspect of ecosystem function, whereas loss of others may increase that aspect of ecosystem function.
The relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem function is undoubtedly more complex than any simple metaphor. Nonetheless, I believe that the tapestry
metaphor provides a more useful view of biodiversity loss than the rivet metaphor. A species extinction is like a thread pulled from the tapestry. With each thread lost,
the tapestry gradually becomes threadbare. The loss of some species may lead to local tears. Although everything is linked to everything else,
ecosystems are not delicately balanced, clocklike mechanisms in which the loss of a part leads to collapse. For example, I study
California frogs, some of which are disappearing. Although it is possible that the disappearances signal some as yet unknown threat to
humans (the miner's canary argument), the loss of the frogs themselves is unlikely to have major ecosystem effects. The situation is the same
for most rare organisms, which make up the bulk of threatened and endangered species. For example, if the black toad (Bufo exsul)
were to disappear from the few desert springs in which it lives, even careful study would be unlikely to reveal ecosystem changes. To
argue that there are not limits is not to claim that biodiversity losses do not matter. Rather, in calling for a stop to the destruction, it is the losses themselves that count,
not a putative cliff that humans will fall off of somewhere down the road.
Even if you win a risk of ecosystem collapse, the time frame is incredibly long
The San Francisco Chronicle – 7-26-2001
[Jane Kay, Study takes historical peek at plight of ocean ecosystems]
The collapse of ecosystems often occur over a long period.

In one example, when Aleut hunters killed the Alaskan sea otter about 2,500 years ago, the population of their natural prey, the sea urchin,
grew larger than its normal size. In turn, the urchins grazed down the kelp forests, important habitat for a whole host of ocean life.
Then, when fur traders in the 1800s hunted the otters and sea cows almost to extinction, the kelp forests disappeared and didn't start to
regenerate until the federal government protected the sea otters in the 20th century. In California, the diversity of spiny lobsters, sheephead fish and
abalone kept down the urchin numbers.
At present in Alaska, the kelp beds are declining again in areas where killer whales are preying on sea otters. Biologists think the killer
whales switched to otters for food because there are fewer seals and sea lions to eat.
91
AT: Colombia FTA Hurts Biodiversity – Impact Takeouts
Biodiversity is not key to the ecosystem

Washington Post – 8-29-1997
[Diversity Is Not Enough to Ensure Hardy Ecosystems]
Ecologists have long maintained that diversity is one of nature's greatest strengths, but new research suggests that diversity alone does not
guarantee strong ecosystems.
In findings that could intensify the national debate over endangered species and habitat conservation,
three new studies suggest that a greater
abundance of plant and animal varieties does not always translate to better ecological health. At least equally
important, the research found, are the types of species and how they function together.
"Having a long list of Latin names isn't always better than a shorter list of Latin names," said Stanford University biologist Peter Vitousek, co-author of one of the
studies published in the journal Science.
Separate experiments in California, Minnesota and Sweden found that diversity often had little bearing on the
performance of ecosystems -- at least as measured by the growth and health of native plants. In fact, the communities with the
greatest biological richness were often the poorest when it came to productivity and the cycling of nutrients.
One study compared plant life on 50 remote islands in northern Sweden that are prone to frequent wildfires
from lightning strikes. Scientist David Wardle of Landcare Research in Lincoln, New Zealand, and colleagues at the Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, found that islands dominated by a few species of plants recovered more quickly than nearby islands with greater biological diversity.
Similar findings were reported by University of Minnesota researchers who studied savannah grasses, and by
Stanford's Vitousek and colleague David Hooper, who concluded that functional characteristics of plant species
were more important than the number of varieties in determining how ecosystems performed. "In aiming to protect
natural ecosystems, we cannot just manage for species variety alone," the Stanford researchers wrote.
British plant ecologist J.P. Grime, in a commentary summarizing the research, said there is not yet "convincing evidence that
species diversity and ecosystem function are consistently and causally related."
"It could be argued," he added, "that the tide is turning against the notion of high biodiversity as a controller of
ecosystem function and insurance against ecological collapse."
Bioinvasion makes loss of biodiversity inevitable

Africa News – 11-17-1998
[Invasion by exotic species 'danger', The Nation Nairobi]
Nairobi - The
Worldwatch Institute says bioinvasion, which is the spread of exotic species, has become the second
greatest threat to biological diversity, as more organisms criss-cross borders.
The biological pollution sweeping the planet is occasioned by global trade, which carries in its wake non-native exotic species
across boundaries.
According to the institute, natural boundaries including mountains, deserts and ocean currents, used to isolate
one ecosystem from another. "But trade, travel and other human activities are moving more and more organisms
around these boundaries, touching off more and more invasions."
A bioinvasion occurs when a plant or animal is released into a new environment, where it finds good conditions.
If the exotic species encounters no effective competitors, predators, or diseases in its new range, it may undergo
a population explosion.
92

PTX Pepfar Cfta

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

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

PTX Pepfar Cfta

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Michigan 7 Wk Jrs CHPS

Politics – PEPFAR/Colombia FTA

Politics – PEPFAR and Colombia FTA

GENERIC UNIQUENESS DEBATE

Generic Uniqueness – Political Capital

Bush still has capabilities to get his agenda passed

Generic Uniqueness – No Political Capital

Bush has no Political Capital

Bush has no political capital- India Nuclear deal proves

Bush has no political capital- even with foreign policy

Generic Uniqueness – Concessions Now

Democrats won a concession on July 1st : proves the link is non-unique.

Generic Uniqueness – No Concessions Now

PEPFAR – 1NC Shell – 1/2

B. Bush’s political capital is key to PEPFAR passage

C. Plan costs political capital

PEPFAR – 1NC Shell – 2/2

Loconte – Senior Fellow at Pepperdine University’s School of Public Policy – 2-20-08

And, AIDS will spread globally and cause extinction

PEPFAR – Will Pass

PEPFAR will pass- support is strong, but it will be a tough fight

PEPFAR will pass, but it will be a fight

PEPFAR – Will Pass

PEPFAR – Will Pass

PEPFAR will pass -- compromise

PEPFAR – Bush Pushing

Bush is pushing for PEPFAR

PEPFAR – Political Capital Key

Bush political capital key to passage

PEPFAR – Political Capital Key

PEPFAR – Solves AIDS

PEPFAR key to solve AIDS

PEPFAR is key to prevent AIDS and 7 million systemic deaths

We have a moral obligation to fight AIDS- PEPFAR is key

PEPFAR – Solves AIDS

PEPFAR – AT: Drugs Inaccessible

We must solve AIDS – prevents extinction

Malaria kills over a million children in Sub-Saharan Africa annually

Pepfar – Soft Power

I. Introduction: Overseas Service as a Soft Instrument of Power

PEPFAR – Impact - Leadership

PEPFAR key to leadership – sends a message of American compassion

PEPFAR key to soft power

Soft Power Solves AIDS

PEPFAR – Impact – G8 Cred

PEPFAR key to soft power and G-8 cooperation

Aff- PEPFAR – Won’t Pass

Republicans are blocking PEPFAR from coming up for a vote

Won’t pass- Republicans are blocking it because of cost

Won’t pass – being blocked

Aff - PEPFAR – Won’t Pass

PEPFAR wont pass – senators are blocking

PEPFAR wont pass – republicans blocking

Aff - PEPFAR – Won’t Pass

PEPFAR won’t pass – Republicans will block it due to spending

Aff - PEPFAR – Bush not pushing

Aff – PEPFAR – AT: Solves Malaria

Aff – PEPFAR – AT: Solves Malaria

The Standard, 2005 ("Scientists on the warpath as malaria fights back,"

Aff - PEPFAR – Aff AT AIDS

Prevention of AIDS has not increased – millions still getting AIDS

PEPFAR won’t help alleviate HIV/AIDS