CASE
“foreign intel info” mechanism
not overbroad now
It’s not overbroad now
Wolf 14 – Director of the Global Privacy and Information Management Practice at Hogan Lovells US
LLP (Christopher Wolf, 3/19/14, “A Transnational Perspective on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act,” https://www.pclob.gov/library/20140319-Testimony-Wolf.pdf)//twemchen
Some have suggested that Section 702 authorizes purely political surveillance of
individuals and economic espionage. 8 But Section 702 restricts surveillance to the specific areas of national defense,
national security, and the conduct of foreign affairs, with specific emphasis given to international terrorism,
sabotage, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other grave hostile acts. This is a narrow scope – for
example, Section 702 cannot be used to investigate ordinary crimes, or even domestic terrorism. 9
Unlike the French statute on national security interceptions, Section 702 does not extend to organized
crime or to protection of national economic interests. The overstatement of the scope of Section 702 seems to be
driven by a lack of context . The law only permits the targeting of persons where a significant purpose is to acquire
“foreign intelligence information.”10 When acquired from a non- United States person, “foreign intelligence information” is defined
as: (1) information that relates to . . . the ability of the United States to protect against— (A) actual or potential attacks or other grave
hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; (B) sabotage, international terrorism, or the international proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or (C) clandestine intelligence activities by an
intelligence service or network of a foreign power by an agent of a foreign power; or (2) information with respect to a foreign power
or foreign territory that relates to . . . — (A) the national defense or the security of the United States; or (B) the conduct of the foreign
affairs of the United States.11 By
definition, the purposes contained in subsection (1) are measures designed
to protect against acts of terrorists and other third parties seeking to harm the United States, and the purposes
contained in subsection (2) are designed to enable the gathering of intelligence pertinent to national defense,
security, or foreign affairs. As discussed later in these comments, this is authority reserved and exercised by
other major sovereign powers , not just the United States. Moreover, these categories of information all
have one thing in common: they must be ascribed to a “foreign power or foreign territory.” This means
that private business records, academic research, and political opinions do not constitute
“foreign intelligence information.” Even with respect to the inclusion of information concerning “the
conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States” under subsection (2), Congress expressly signaled its intent to
exempt the private political views of non- United States citizens from the scope of what could be collected. 12
Instead, the term “foreign intelligence information” most likely encompasses information necessary to conduct diplomacy and
engage in international relations.13 Regarding what organizations might be affected, the term “foreign power” as defined by the
statute primarily incorporates foreign terrorist organizations, foreign governments, and instrumentalities of both.14 Much has been
made about the inclusion of “foreign-based political organization[s]” within the definition of “foreign power.”15 Importantly,
however, this term does not encompass any organization that can be said to have a political opinion. Instead, Congress indicated
that it must be interpreted in line with the other types of enumerated “foreign powers” to encompass political parties that act as
“mere instrumentalities of” government and other organizations with actual political power in a foreign country.16
***hegemony adv
link turn
Surveillance remains a key source of intelligence – key to global power and
legitimacy – that turns the case
McCoy 14 (Alfred W, “Surveillance and Scandal: Weapons in an Emerging Array for
U.S. Global Power,” ProQuest, August 2014, Monthly Review 66.3, pg. 70-81,
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1543483264?accountid=14667&title=Surveilla
nce%20and%20Scandal:%20Weapons%20in%20an%20Emerging%20Array%20for%20U.S.%20Global%
20Power) //AD
During six riveting months in 2013-2014, Edward Snowden's revelations about the National Security Agency (NSA) poured out from
the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Guardian, Germany's Der Spiegel, and Brazil's O Globo, revealing nothing less than
the architecture of the U.S. global surveillance apparatus. Despite
heavy media coverage and commentary,
no one has pointed out the combination of factors that made the NSA's expanding
programs to monitor the world seem like such an alluring development for
Washington's power elite. The answer is remarkably simple: for an imperial power losing its
economic grip on the planet and heading into more austere times, the NSA's latest
technological breakthroughs look like a seductive bargain when it comes to projecting
power and keeping subordinate allies in line. Even when revelations about spying on close allies roiled
diplomatic relations with them, the NSA's surveillance programs have come with such a discounted price tag that no Washington
leader was going to reject them. For well over a century, from the pacification of the Philippines in 1898 to trade negotiations with
the European Union today, surveillance and its kissing cousins, scandal and scurrilous information, have been key weapons in
Washington's search for global dominion. Not
surprisingly, in a post-9/11 bipartisan exercise of
executive power, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have presided over building the
NSA step by secret step into a digital panopticon designed to monitor the communications of every
American and foreign leader worldwide. What exactly was the aim of such an unprecedented program
of massive domestic and planetary spying, which clearly carried the risk of controversy at home and abroad?
Here, an awareness of the more than century-long history of U.S. surveillance can guide us through the billions of bytes swept up by
the NSA to the strategic significance of such a program for the planet's last superpower.1 What the past reveals is a
long-term
relationship between American state surveillance and political scandal that helps
illuminate the unacknowledged reason why the NSA monitors America's closest allies.
Not only does such surveillance help gain intelligence advantageous to U.S. diplomacy,
trade relations, and war-making, but it also scoops up intimate information for leverageakin to blackmail-in sensitive global dealings and negotiations of every sort. The NSA's
global panopticon thus fulfils an ancient dream of empire. With a few computer key strokes, the agency
has solved the problem that has bedeviled world powers since at least the time of Caesar Augustus: how to control unruly local
leaders, who are the foundation for imperial rule, by ferreting out crucial, often scurrilous, information to make them more
malleable. The Cost of Cost-Savings At the turn of the twentieth century, such surveillance was both expensive and labor intensive.
Today, however, unlike the U.S. Army's shoe-leather surveillance during the First World War or the FBI's break-ins and phone bugs
in the Cold War years, the
NSA can monitor the entire world and its leaders with only one
hundred-plus probes into the Internet's fiber-optic cables.2 This new technology is both omniscient and
omnipresent beyond anything those lacking top-secret clearance could have imagined before the Edward Snowden revelations
began.5 Not
only is it unimaginably pervasive, but NSA surveillance is also a particularly
cost-effective strategy compared to just about any other form of global power projection.
And better yet, it fulfills the greatest imperial dream of all: to be omniscient not just for a few
islands, as in the Philippines a century ago, or a couple of countries during the Cold War, but now on a truly global scale.
In a time of increasing imperial austerity and exceptional technological capability,
everything about the NSA's surveillance told Washington to just "go for it." This cut-rate
mechanism for both projecting force and preserving U.S. global power surely looked like
a must-have bargain for any American president in the twenty-first century-before new NSA documents started hitting
front pages weekly, thanks to Snowden, and the whole world began returning the favor by placing Washington's leaders beneath an
incessant media gaze.4 As the gap has grown between Washington's global reach and its shrinking mailed fist, as it struggles to
maintain 40 percent of world armaments (as of 2012) with only 23 percent of global gross output, the United States will need to find
new ways to exercise its power much more economically.5 When the Cold War started, a heavy-metal U.S. military-with 500 foreign
bases worldwide circa 1950-was sustainable because the country controlled some 50 percent of the global gross product.6 But as
America's share of world output falls-to an estimated 17 percent by 2016-and its social-welfare costs climb relentlessly from 4
percent of gross domestic product in 2010 to a projected 18 percent by 2050, cost-cutting
becomes imperative if
Washington is to survive as anything like the planet's "sole superpower."7 Compared to the $3
trillion cost of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, the NSA's 2012 budget of just $11 billion for worldwide surveillance and
cyberwarfare looks like cost saving the Pentagon can ill-afford to forego.8 Yet
this seeming "bargain" comes at
what turns out to be an almost incalculable cost. The sheer scale of such surveillance
leaves it open to countless points of penetration, whether by a handful of anti-war activists breaking into an
FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania, back in 1971 or Edward Snowden downloading NSA documents at a Hawaiian outpost in
2012.9 Once these secret programs are exposed, it turns out nobody really likes being under surveillance. Proud
national
leaders refuse to tolerate foreign powers observing them like rats in a maze. Ordinary citizens
recoil at the idea of Big Brother watching their private lives like so many microbes on a slide.10 Cycles of Surveillance Over the past
century, the tension
between state expansion and citizendriven contraction has pushed U.S.
surveillance through a recurring cycle. First comes the rapid development of stunning
counterintelligence techniques under the pressures of fighting foreign wars; next, the
unchecked, usually illegal, application of those surveillance technologies back home
behind a veil of secrecy; and finally, belated, grudging reforms as press and public
discover the outrageous excesses of the FBI, the CIA, or now, the NSA. In this hundred-year spanas modern communications advanced from the mail to the telephone to the Internet-state surveillance has leapt forward in
technology's ten-league boots, while civil liberties have crawled along behind at the snail's pace of law and legislation. The first and,
until recently, most spectacular round of surveillance came during the First World War and its aftermath. Fearing subversion by
German-Americans after the declaration of war on Germany in 1917, the FBI and Military Intelligence swelled from bureaucratic
nonentities into all-powerful agencies charged with extirpating any flicker of disloyalty anywhere in America, whether by word or
deed. Since only 9 percent of the country's population then had telephones, monitoring the loyalties of some 10 million GermanAmericans proved incredibly labor-intensive, requiring legions of postal workers to physically examine some 30 million first-class
letters and 350,000 badge-carrying vigilantes to perform shoe-leather snooping on immigrants, unions, and socialists of every sort.
During the 1920s, Republican conservatives, appalled by this threat to privacy, slowly began to curtail Washington's security
apparatus. This change culminated in Secretary of State Henry Stimson's abolition, in 1929, of the government's cryptography unitthe "black chamber" famous for cracking delegates' codes at the Washington Naval Conference-with his memorable admonition,
"Gentlemen do not read each other's mail."11 In the next round of mass surveillance during the Second World War, the FBI
discovered that the wiretapping of telephones produced an unanticipated by-product with extraordinary potential for garnering
political power: scandal. To block enemy espionage, President Franklin Roosevelt gave the FBI control over all U.S.
counterintelligence and, in May 1940, authorized its director, J. Edgar Hoover, to engage in wiretapping. What made Hoover a
Washington powerhouse was the telephone. With 20 percent of the country and the entire political elite by now owning phones, FBI
wiretaps at local switchboards could readily monitor conversations by both suspected subversives and the president's domestic
enemies, particularly leaders of the isolationist movement such as aviator Charles Lindbergh and Senator Burton Wheeler. Even
with these centralized communications, however, the Bureau still needed massive manpower for its wartime counterintelligence. Its
staff soared from just 650 in 1924 to 13,000 by 1943. Upon taking office on Roosevelt's death in early 1945, Harry Truman soon
learned the extraordinary extent of FBI surveillance. "We want no Gestapo or Secret Police," Truman wrote in his diary that May.
"FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex-life scandals and plain blackmail."12 After a quarter of a century of
warrantless wiretaps, Hoover built up a veritable archive of sexual preferences among America's powerful and used it to shape the
direction of U.S. politics. He distributed a dossier on Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson's alleged homosexuality to
assure his defeat in the 1952 presidential elections, circulated audio tapes of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s philandering, and monitored
President Kennedy's affair with mafia mistress Judith Exner.n And these are just a small sampling of Hoover's uses of scandal to
keep the Washington power elite under his influence. "The moment [Hoover] would get something on a senator," recalled William
Sullivan, the FBI's chief of domestic intelligence during the 1960s, "he'd send one of the errand boys up and advise the senator that
'we're in the course of an investigation, and we by chance happened to come up with this data on your daughter... ' From that time
on, the senator's right in his pocket." After his death, an official tally found Hoover had 883 such files on senators and 722 more on
congressmen.14 Armed with such sensitive information, Hoover gained the unchecked power to dictate the country's direction and
launch programs of his choosing, including the FBI's notorious Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) that illegally harassed
the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements with black propaganda, break-ins, and agent provocateur-style violence.15 At the
end of the Vietnam War, Senator Frank Church headed a committee that investigated these excesses. "The
intent of
COINTELPRO," recalled one aide to the Church investigation, "was to destroy lives and
ruin reputations."16 These findings prompted the formation, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, of
"FISA courts" to approve in advance requests for future national security wiretaps.17 Surveillance in the Age of the Internet
Looking for new weapons to fight terrorism after 9/11, Washington turned to electronic
surveillance, which has since become integral to its strategy for exercising global power.
In October 2001, not satisfied with the sweeping and extraordinary powers of the newly
passed PATRIOT Act, President Bush ordered the NSA to commence covert monitoring
of private communications through the nation's telephone companies without requisite
FISA warrants.18 Somewhat later, the agency began sweeping the Internet for emails, financial data, and voice messaging on
the tenuous theory that such "metadata" was "not constitutionally protected."19 In effect, by penetrating the Internet for text and the
parallel Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) for voice, the NSA had gained access to much of the world's
telecommunications. By the end of Bush's term in 2008, Congress had enacted laws that not only retroactively legalized these illegal
programs, but also prepared the way for NSA surveillance to grow unchecked.20 ' Rather than restrain the agency, President Obama
oversaw the expansion of its operations in ways remarkable for both the sheer scale of the billions of messages collected globally and
for the selective monitoring of world leaders. What made the NSA so powerful was, of course, the Internet that global grid of fiber
optic cables that now connects 40 percent of all humanity.21 By
the time Obama took office, the agency had
finally harnessed the power of modern telecommunications for near-perfect
surveillance. It was capable of both blanketing the globe and targeting specific
individuals. For this secret mission, it had assembled the requisite technological tool-kit-specifically, cable access points to
collect data, computer codes to break encryption, data farms to store its massive digital harvest, and supercomputers for nanosecond
processing of what it was engorging itself on.22 By 2012, the centralization via digitization of all voice, video, textual, and financial
communications into a worldwide network of fiber optic cables allowed the NSA to monitor the globe by penetrating just 190 data
hubs-an extraordinary economy of force for both political surveillance and cyberwarfare.23 With a few hundred cable probes and
computerized decryption, the NSA can now capture the kind of gritty details of private life that J. Edgar Hoover so treasured and
provide the sort of comprehensive coverage of populations once epitomized by secret police like East Germany's Stasi. And yet, such
comparisons only go so far. After all, once FBI agents had tapped thousands of phones, stenographers had typed up countless
transcripts, and clerks had stored this salacious paper harvest in floor-to-ceiling filing cabinets, Hoover still only knew about the
inner-workings of the elite in one city: Washington, D.C. By contrast, the marriage of the NSA's technology to the Internet's data
hubs now allows the agency's 37,000 employees a similarly close coverage of the entire globe with just one operative for every
200,000 people on the planet.24 A Dream as Old as Ancient Rome In the Obama years, the first signs have appeared that NSA
surveillance will use the information gathered to traffic in scandal, much like Hoover's FBI once did. In September 2013, the New
York Times reported that the NSA has, since 2010, applied sophisticated software to create "social network diagrams.. .unlock as
many secrets about individuals as possible...and pick up sensitive information like regular calls to a psychiatrist's office [or] latenight messages to an extramarital partner."25 Through the expenditure of $250 million annually under its Sigint Enabling Project,
the NSA has stealthily penetrated all encryption designed to protect privacy. "In
the future, superpowers will be
made or broken based on the strength of their cryptanalytic programs," reads a 2007 NSA
document. "It is the price of admission for the U.S. to maintain unrestricted access to and use of cyberspace."26 Imperial proconsuls,
from ancient Rome to modern America, have gained both the intelligence and aura of authority necessary for dominion over alien
societies by collecting knowledge-routine, intimate, or scandalous-about foreign leaders. The importance, and challenge, for
hegemons to control obstreperous local elites cannot be overstated. During its pacification of the Philippines after 1898, for instance,
the U.S. colonial regime subdued the contentious Filipino leaders via pervasive policing that swept up both political intelligence and
personal scandal.27 And that, of course, was just what J. Edgar Hoover was doing in Washington during the 1950s and '60s. Indeed,
the mighty British Empire, like all empires, was a global tapestry woven out of political ties to local leaders or "subordinate elites"from Malay sultans and Indian maharajas to Gulf sheiks and West African tribal chiefs. As historian Ronald Robinson once
observed, the British Empire spread around the globe for two centuries through the collaboration of these local leaders and then
unraveled, in just two decades, when that collaboration turned to "non-cooperation."28 After rapid decolonization during the 1960s
transformed half-a-dozen European empires into one hundred new nations, their national leaders soon found themselves the
subordinate elites of a spreading American global imperium. Washington
suddenly needed the sort of
private information that could keep such figures in line. Surveillance of foreign leaders
provides world powers-Britain then, America now-with critical information for the
exercise of global hegemony. Such spying gave special penetrating power to the imperial
gaze, to that sense of superiority necessary for dominion over others. It also provided
operational information on dissidents who might need to be countered with covert
action or military force; political and economic intelligence so useful for getting the
jump on allies in negotiations; and, perhaps most important of all, scurrilous
information about the derelictions of leaders useful in coercing their compliance. In late
2013, the New York Times reported that, when it came to spying on global elites, there were "more than 1,000 targets of American
and British surveillance in recent years," reaching down to mid-level political actors in the international arena.29 Revelations from
Edward Snowden's cache of leaked documents indicate that the NSA has monitored leaders in some thirty-five nations worldwideincluding Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff, Mexican presidents Felipe Calderón and Enrique Peña Nieto, German Chancellor
Angela Merkel, and Indonesia's president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Count in as well, among so many other operations, the
monitoring of "French diplomatic interests" during the June 2010 UN vote on Iran sanctions and "widespread surveillance" of world
leaders during the G-20 summit meeting at Ottawa in June 2010.30 Apparently, only members of the historic "Five Eyes" signalsintelligence alliance (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom) remain exempt-at least theoretically-from NSA
surveillance.31 Such
secret intelligence about allies can obviously give Washington a
significant diplomatic advantage. During U.N. wrangling over the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2002-2003, for example,
the NSA intercepted Secretary-General Kofi Anan's conversations and monitored the "Middle Six"-third world nations on the
Security Council-offering what were, in essence, well-timed bribes to win votes.32 The NSA's deputy chief for regional targets sent a
memo to the agency's Five Eyes allies asking "for insights as to how membership is reacting to on-going debate regarding Iraq, plans
to vote on any related resolutions" and "the whole gamut of information that could give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining
results favorable to U.S. goals."33 More recently, in 2010, Susan
Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.,
asked the NSA for assistance in monitoring the Security Council debate over sanctions
against Iran's nuclear program. Through NSA monitoring of the missions of four
permanent and four transient members-Bosnia, Gabon, Nigeria, and Uganda-the NSA,
said Rice, "gave us an upper hand in negotiations...and provided information about
various countries' red lines," winning approval of the U.S. position by twelve of the fifteen
delegations. Apart from such special assignments, the NSA has routinely penetrated, according to Snowden's documents, the
missions or embassies of at least seventeen nations.34 Indicating Washington's need for incriminating information in bilateral
negotiations, the State Department pressed its Bahrain embassy in 2009 for details, damaging in an Islamic society, on the crown
princes, asking: "Is there any derogatory information on either prince? Does either prince drink alcohol? Does either one use
drugs?"35 Indeed, in October 2012 an NSA official identified as "DIRNSA," or Director General Keith Alexander, proposed the
following for countering Muslim radicals: "[Their] vulnerabilities, if exposed, would likely call into question a radicalizer's devotion
to the jihadist cause, leading to the degradation or loss of his authority." The agency suggested such vulnerabilities could include
"viewing sexually explicit material online" or "using a portion of the donations they are receiving... to defray personal expenses." The
NSA document identified one potential target as a "respected academic" whose "vulnerabilities" are "online promiscuity."36 Just as
the Internet has centralized communications, so it has moved most commercial sex into cyberspace. With an estimated 25 million
salacious sites worldwide and a combined 10.6 billion page views per month in 2013 at the five top sex sites, online pornography has
become a global business; by 2006, in fact, it generated $97 billion in revenue.37 With countless Internet viewers visiting pom sites
and almost nobody admitting it, the NSA has easy access to the embarrassing habits of targets worldwide, whether Muslim militants
or European leaders. According to James Bamford, author of several authoritative books on the agency, "The NSA's operation is
eerily similar to the FBI's operations under J. Edgar Hoover in the 1960s where the bureau used wiretapping to discover
vulnerabilities, such as sexual activity, to 'neutralize' their targets."38 The ACLU's Jameel Jaffer has warned that a president might
"ask the NSA to use the fruits of surveillance to discredit a political opponent, journalist, or human rights activist. The NSA has used
its power that way in the past and it would be naïve to think it couldn't use its power that way in the future."39 Even President
Obama's recently convened executive review of the NSA admitted: "in light of the lessons of our own history... at some point in the
future, high-level government officials will decide that this massive database of extraordinarily sensitive private information is there
for the plucking."40 Indeed, whistleblower Edward Snowden has accused the NSA of actually conducting such surveillance. In a
December 2013 letter to the Brazilian people, he wrote, "They even keep track of who is having an affair or looking at pornography,
in case they need to damage their target's reputation."41 If
Snowden is right, then one key goal of NSA
surveillance of world leaders is not U.S. national security, but political blackmail-as it
has been since 1898. Such digital surveillance has tremendous potential for scandal, as anyone who remembers New York
Governor Elliot Spitzer's forced resignation in 2008 after routine phone taps revealed his use of escort services; or, to take another
obvious example, the ouster of France's budget minister Jérôme Cahuzac in 2013 following wire taps that exposed his secret Swiss
bank account.42 As always, the source of political scandal remains sex or money, both of which the NSA can track with remarkable
ease. Given the acute sensitivity of executive communications, world leaders have reacted sharply to reports of NSA surveillancewith Chancellor Merkel demanding Five-Eyes-exempt status for Germany, the European Parliament voting to curtail sharing of bank
data with Washington, and Brazil's President Rousseff canceling a U.S. state visit and contracting a $560 million satellite
communications system to free her country from the U.S.-controlled version of the Internet.43 The Future of U.S. Global Power By
starting a swelling river of NSA documents flowing into public view, Edward Snowden has given us a glimpse of the changing
architecture of U.S. global power. At the broadest level, Obama's digital "pivot" complements his overall defense strategy, announced
in 2012, of reducing conventional forces while expanding into the new, costeffective domains of space and cyberspace.44 While
cutting back modestly on costly armaments and the size of the military, President
Obama has invested billions in the building of a new architecture for global information
control. If we add the $791 billion expended to build the Department of Homeland Security bureaucracy to the $500 billion
spent on an increasingly paramilitarized version of global intelligence in the dozen years since 9/11, then Washington has made a
$1.2 trillion investment in a new apparatus for world power.45 Just as the Philippine Insurrection of 1898 and the Vietnam War
sparked rapid advances in the U.S. capacity to control subject populations, so the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan have, since
2001, served as the catalyst for fusing aerospace, cyberspace, and biometrics into a robotic information regime of extraordinary
power. After a decade of ground warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration announced, in 2012, a leaner defense
strategy with a 14 percent cut in infantry compensated by an increased emphasis on space and cyberspace, particularly investments
to "enhance the resiliency and effectiveness of critical space-based capabilities." While this policy paper emphasized defense against
the ability of state and non-state actors "to conduct cyber espionage and, potentially, cyber attacks on the United States" and the
defense of "an increasingly congested and contested space environment," the administration's determination to dominate these
critical areas is clear.4* By 2020, this new defense architecture should be able to integrate space, cyberspace, and terrestrial combat
through robotics for seamless information and lethal action. So
formidable is this security bureaucracy that
Obama's recent executive review recommended regularization, not reform, of current
NSA practices, allowing the agency to continue collecting American phone calls and
monitoring foreign leaders into the foreseeable future.47 Cyberspace offers Washington
an austerity-linked arena for the exercise of global power, albeit at the cost of trust by its
closest allies-a contradiction that will bedevil America's global leadership for years to
come.
***uk rels
citizens = alt cause
They care about surveillance of citizens – not politicians
Travis 6/15 – staff writer @ The Guardian (Alan Travis, 6/15/15, “Snowden leak: governments' hostile
reaction fuelled public's distrust of spies,” http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/15/snowdenfiles-us-uk-government-hostile-reaction-distrust-spies)//twemchen
The hostile reaction of the British and US governments to the Snowden disclosures of mass
surveillance only served to heighten public suspicion of the work of the intelligence
agencies, according to an international conference of senior intelligence and security figures. The recently published official
account of a Ditchley Foundation conference last month says one of the event’s main conclusions was that greater transparency
about the activities and capabilities of the security services would be essential if their credibility was to be preserved and enhanced
around the world. The account of the conference chaired by Sir John Scarlett, the former head of MI6, was published on Friday
and makes clear the foundation recognised the
widespread public unease following the revelations
and that the conditions of data collection about individuals and who has access to it are
legitimate areas of concern . Sir John Holmes, the foundation’s director, said while Snowden’s disclosures
had not revealed the intelligence agencies to be out of control, they “had shocked the publics in many
countries because they had been unaware of the nature of much intelligence work, as well as uninformed
about the authorisation and oversight arrangements already in place”.
random alt causes
We literally told them we don’t care about them
Lowther and Owen 4/11 – staff writers at The Mail (William Lowther, Glen Owen, 4/11/15, “Secret US
memo for Congress seen by Mail On Sunday says Britain's 'special relationship' with America is over,”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3035142/Secret-memo-Congress-seen-Mail-Sunday-saysBritain-s-special-relationship-America-over.html)//twemchen
Washington believes that the
‘special relationship’ between Britain and the US is over , according to a
secret briefing document seen by The Mail on Sunday. The memo for members of Congress states damningly that ‘the
UK may not be viewed as centrally relevant to the United States in all of the issues and relations
considered a priority on the US agenda’. Dated April 2015 and drawn up to brief the Senate and House of Representatives
on the impact of Britain’s General Election, the memo also warns that the UK faces turmoil if there is a hung parliament. The
document – prepared by the Congressional Research Service, an in-house intelligence body that gives confidential analysis to
legislators – states that while
Britain and the US are likely to ‘remain key economic partners’, a
‘reassessment of the special relationship may be in order… because its
geopolitical setting has been changing’. The memo, edited by Derek E Mix, the CRS’s chief European affairs
analyst, says that the development of organisations such as the G20 group of major economies has led to a
decline in the ‘influence and centrality of the relationship’. It also states that the UK’s continued
importance to the US will hinge on the future success of the economy – and Chancellor George Osborne’s implementation of
spending cuts. It reads: ‘A significant degree of the UK’s international influence flows from the success and dynamism of the British
economy, further raising the stakes on whether the UK can sustain stronger economic growth while continuing to pursue ambitious
fiscal consolidation.’ The ‘special relationship’ has been deployed by generations of politicians – most notably Ronald Reagan and
Margaret Thatcher – to describe the close political, diplomatic, cultural, economic, military and historical relations between the two
countries. It was first coined in a 1944 speech by Winston Churchill, when he said it was his ‘deepest conviction that unless Britain
and the United States are joined in a special relationship… another destructive war will come to pass’. Increasingly, however, the
relationship has come to be seen as one-sided , with British Prime Ministers more keen to flag up the
alliance than US Presidents. When David Cameron visited the White House in January, he insisted the President had said the special
relationship was ‘stronger than it has ever been’. The memo also expresses concern about a potential UK exit from the EU following
an ‘Out’ vote in any referendum, saying: ‘Both the positive and the negative aspects of a prospective life outside the EU are more
difficult to foresee.’ Explaining the significance of a hung parliament, the congressional document says it could result in a ‘brief
period of ambiguity’ and ‘constitutional uncertainty’.
Politics kills relations
Bromund 6/7 – staff writer at the Daily Signal (Ted Bromund, 6/7/15, “Assessing the Future of the USUK Special Relationship,” http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/07/assessing-the-future-of-the-us-uk-specialrelationship/)//twemchen
But now, precisely
because U S. views of the U K. are reliably positive, the fate of that
relationship rests—for the first time ever—fundamentally in the hands of the U K. There are no votes to be won
in the U S. by criticizing the U K. There are, however, votes to be won in the U K. by criticizing the U
S. Of course, public opinion can be strongly negative (or positive) and yet not be salient: The beliefs are felt, but not felt often
enough to matter. But just as it formerly did in the U S., public opinion in Britain now determines the
limits of the possible for the special relationship. But the British public also limits what is possible
where the EU is concerned. A 2014 YouGov poll found that only 17 percent of the British public identified itself as strongly
European. The level of European identification in France was twice as high, even though half the French public wants to leave the
EU. British dissatisfaction is not limited to Europe: A 2008 poll found that British views of many Western or Western-allied foreign
nations—India, Japan, and Germany—were strongly negative or barely positive. The only significant exceptions were Australia,
Sweden, and Ireland. This poll found that the U.S. was about as popular in the U.K. as Germany, which, given both the Blitz and
various World Cups, is remarkable. In short, U K. attitudes toward the U S. and the EU, while complicated, are not new: They reflect
a traditional bloody-mindedness about foreigners. But they also reflect deeply held beliefs about Britain’s national identity, beliefs
that are (or at least were) fundamentally liberal. It is these
beliefs that shaped, and will continue to shape, the U
K.’s approach to its world role, the special relationship, and its relations with Europe—or, rather, with the
political entity known as the European Union.
Their ev is hype, and collapse is inevitable – or, core interests ensure
cooperation
Meyer 15 – former British ambassador to the US (Sir Christopher Meyer, 1/15/15, “Our special
relationship hangs by a thread,” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11345045/Our-specialrelationship-hangs-by-a-thread.html)//twemchen
Today David Cameron
flies to Washington for what may be his last meeting with President Obama as British Prime
to a “uniquely close
friend and steadfast ally” and inevitably invoked the so-called special relationship between our two countries. All
Minister. A familiar tone was set by the White House announcement of his visit. It referred
therefore seems set fair for successful and productive discussions between old allies. After all, Mr Cameron and President Obama
have worked together on international problems for five years. But we
should treat all the public displays of
bonhomie and photo-ops with a pinch of salt . There are dangers for the UK in the repeated invocation of
a special relationship between America and Britain. The US actually bestows the accolade on many friendly
nations. Yet in the UK it can lead to the hubristic delusion that Britain, above all nations,
enjoys a privileged status in Washington. We cling to a phrase, which, with its undertones of
Churchillian nostalgia, sentimentalises a relationship towards which the Americans
have always been notably unsentimental . As a very senior State Department official said to me just before
Jack Straw’s maiden visit to Washington as foreign secretary in 2001, “if we don’t mention the special relationship in our speech of
welcome, we know you Brits will go ape s---.” To say all this is not to deny that [Yet]
America remains Britain’s
single most important partner and ally. Strip away the myths of the special
relationship and a massive hard core of common interests is still revealed . The
Charlie Hebdo massacre, the irruption of Isil into the Middle East and cyber-attacks on Western governments and
companies are sharp reminders that if any component of the UK/US relationship merits being called special, it is in the realm
of intelligence, where the closest co-operation has been a constant since the Second World War. We can be sure that,
at the top of the Cameron/Obama agenda, will be counter-terrorism and cyber warfare. These are issues on which British expertise
brings real value to the table. Mr Cameron should be in no doubt, however, that his visit takes place against the background of
growing American concerns about Britain’s reliability as a major ally. The prospect of the “Yes” vote prevailing in the referendum on
Scottish independence shook Washington to the core. Had the SNP won and forced the closure of the Faslane nuclear submarine
base, it would have been a severe blow to American and Nato interests just when the alliance needs to be on its mettle to deter
Putin’s revanchist ambitions. And American diplomats do not think the danger of Scottish independence has gone away. What
happens, they ask, if Labour wins a plurality in May but can govern only in coalition with the SNP? What kinds of concession would
Ed Miliband have to make to get Alex Salmond on board? The alternative of a Conservative-led government is not much more
reassuring for Washington, because it will mean another referendum within a couple of years, this time on our country’s continuing
membership of the EU. Over decades, support for Britain inside the EU has been an article of faith for the American foreign policy
establishment. There are other causes for US alarm, repeatedly expressed to me by American diplomats. David Cameron has
declined to commit to spending 2 per cent of our GDP on defence, the modest Nato target. Yet bizarrely, we have enshrined in law a
commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of our national output on aid, a figure more or less plucked from the air by the UN in 1970. Our
Armed Forces are braced for still further cuts, whoever wins the May election, such that our traditional ability to field significant
expeditionary forces abroad, often in tandem with the US and reflecting our status as one of only five permanent members of the UN
Security Council, could be damaged beyond retrieval. To this must be added the blows to our military reputation from failures of
political and military leadership in southern Iraq and Afghanistan’s Helmand province. Many Americans feel that they had to dig us
out of two consecutive military holes of our own making. Unfortunate comparisons are made with the recent success of French
military operations in Africa. Nor is our diplomacy what it once was. In 2009 the former foreign secretary, Lord Hurd, noted that the
Foreign Office was no longer a “storehouse of knowledge” and that it needed to “repair and restore its tradition of excellence”. With
savage cuts to its already tiny budget, this has clearly not happened, despite former foreign secretary William Hague’s best efforts. Is
it any surprise that, in allied consultations on the Ukraine and Russia, Washington’s first port of call is Berlin, even Paris, not
London? Contrast and compare with the late Eighties when Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan worked hand in glove on
managing the dying years of the old Soviet Union. This may or may not be David Cameron’s swansong in Washington. Either way he
must cut through the rhetorical mist of the special relationship and decide what kind of ally he wishes Britain to be to the United
States. It is a question of punching at our weight, not above it. A former American president, Theodore Roosevelt, used to say that in
foreign affairs it was best to “talk softly and carry a big stick”. Right now Britain talks very loudly and carries an ever-shrinking stick.
We cannot go on like this.
at: sopo – uk not key
The UK doesn’t support the US anymore – that’s independent of intelligence
gathering disputes
McKelvey 5/22 – White House reporter at BBC (Tara McKelvey, 5/22/15, “Is the US-UK's special
relationship in decline?,” http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31877574)//twemchen
Today the shared battle is against Islamic State. Citizens of both countries have been held hostage and then beheaded by IS in Syria,
strengthening the resolve of leaders of both countries to combat the militant group. Yet even
with the co-operation in
intelligence matters and military efforts, the relationship is strained . null President Ronald
Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher shared common political values "Many analysts believe that some
reassessment of the 'special relationship' may be in order," wrote Derek Mix in a recent report written for
Congress. "There are questions about whether the relative influence and centrality of the relationship is facing a decline." When
it comes to many "global challenges", he said, "the UK may not be viewed as centrally relevant." In
recent months, US officials have criticised UK defence spending . Americans say they're "worried", as
one US army commander explained to a Reuters journalist, spending would drop below 2% of the UK's g ross
d omestic p roduct, a threshold Nato members are supposed to maintain. The UK has also baulked at
conducting air strikes in Syria. In this and in other ways London has chosen not
to follow America's lead . After Fallon's speech, a journalist asked if he'd come here on a damage-control mission.
He scowled and said he refuted "any suggestion" patching things up was the reason for his trip to the States.
at: sopo – no impact
Soft power prevents effective counter terror
Betts 13 (Richard K is the Arnold Saltzman Professor of War and Peace Studies in the Department of
Political Science, the director of the Institute of War and Peace Studies, and the director of the
International Security Policy Program in the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia
University.[1] He is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, February, Political Science
Quarterly, “The Soft Underbelly of American Primacy: Tactical Advantages of Terror”,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2307/798092/epdf)//cc
In contrast to World War II, most wars are limited—or at least limited for the stronger side when power is grossly imbalanced. In
such cases, using terror to coerce is likely to seem the only potentially effective use of force for the weaker side, which faces a choice
between surrender or savagery. Radical
Muslim zealots cannot expel American power with
conventional military means, so they substitute clandestine means of delivery against military targets (such as the Khobar
Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia) or high-profile political targets(embassies in Kenya and Tanzania). More than once the line has
been attributed to terrorists, “If you will let us lease one of your B-52s, we will use that instead of a truck bomb.” The hijacking and
conversion of U.S. airliners into kamikazes was the most dramatic means of asymmetric attack. Kamikaze hijacking also reflects an
impressive capacity for strategic judo, the turning of the West’s strength against itself.12The
flip-side of a primacy
that diffuses its power throughout the world is that advanced elements of that power
become more accessible to its enemies. Nineteen men from technologically backward
societies did not have to rely on home-grown instruments to devastate the Pentagon and
World Trade Center. They used computers and modern financial procedures with
facility, and they forcibly appropriated the aviation technology of the West and used it as
a weapon. They not only rebelled against the “soft power” of the United States, they
trumped it by hijacking the country’s hard power.13They also exploited the
characteristics of U.S. society associated with soft power—the liberalism, openness, and
respect for privacy that al-lowed them to go freely about the business of preparing the
attacks without observation by the state security apparatus. When soft power met the
clash of civilizations, it proved too soft
Application of US soft power is idealistic and fails
Gray 11 (Collin S, US Army War College Strategic Studies, April, “Hard Power and Soft Power: The
Utility of Military Force as an Instrument of Policy in the 21st Century”,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA542526)//cc
Unfortunately, although
the concept of American soft power is true gold in theory, in practice
it is not so valuable. Ironically, the empirical truth behind the attractive concept is just
sufficient to mislead policymakers and grand strategists. Not only do Americans want to
believe that the soft power of their civilization and culture is truly potent, we are all but
programmed by our enculturation to assume that the American story and its values do
and should have what amounts to missionary merit that ought to be universal. American
culture is so powerful a programmer that it can be difficult for Americans to empathize with, or even
understand, the somewhat different values and their implications held deeply abroad.
The idea is popular, even possibly authoritative, among Americans that ours is not just an “ordinary country,” but instead is a
country both exceptionally blessed (by divine intent) and, as a consequence, exceptionally obliged to lead Mankind. When national
exceptionalism is not merely a proposition, but is more akin to an iconic item of faith, it
is difficult for usually
balanced American minds to consider the potential of their soft power without rosetinted spectacles. And the problem is that they are somewhat correct. American values, broadly speaking “the American
way,” to hazard a large project in reductionism, are indeed attractive beyond America’s frontiers and have some utility for U.S.
policy. But there
are serious limitations to the worth of the concept of soft power, especially
as it might be thought of as an instrument of policy. To date, the idea of soft power has not
been subjected to a sufficiently critical forensic examination. In particular, the relation of the
soft power of attraction and persuasion to the hard power of coercion urgently requires
more rigorous examination than it has received thus far.
Soft power should not determine policy
Gray 11 (Collin S, US Army War College Strategic Studies, April, “Hard Power and Soft Power: The
Utility of Military Force as an Instrument of Policy in the 21st Century”,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA542526)//cc
6. By and large, soft
power should not be thought of as an instrument of policy. America is
what it is, and the ability of Washington to project its favored “narrative(s)” is heavily
constrained. Cultural diplomacy and the like are hugely mortgaged by foreigners’ own
assessments of their interests. And a notable dimension of culture is local, which means
that efforts to project American ways risk fueling “blow-back.” 7. Soft power cannot
sensibly be regarded as a substantial alternative to hard military power. Familiarity with the
concept alone encourages the fallacy that hard and soft power have roughly equivalent weight and utility. An illusion of
broad policy choice is thus fostered, when in fact effective choices are severely constrained. 8. An important
inherent weakness of soft power as an instrument of policy is that it utterly depends
upon the uncoerced choices of foreigners. Sometimes their preferences will be
compatible with ours, but scarcely less often they will not be. Interests and cultures do differ. 9. Soft
power tends to be either so easy to exercise that it is probably in little need of a policy push, being essentially preexistent, or
too difficult to achieve because local interests, or culture, or both, deny it political
traction.
Fails without Hard Power
Gray 11 (Collin S, US Army War College Strategic Studies, April, “Hard Power and Soft Power: The
Utility of Military Force as an Instrument of Policy in the 21st Century”,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA542526)//cc
10. Hard and soft power should be complementary, though often they are not entirely so. U.S. national style,
reflecting the full array of American values as a hegemonic power, has been known to give some cultural and hence political offense
abroad, even among objective allies and other friends. Whereas competent strategy enables hard military power to be all, or most of
what it can be, soft power does not lend itself readily to strategic direction. viii ix 11. Provided the different natures of hard and soft
power are understood—the critical distinguishing factor being coercion versus attraction—it is appropriate to regard the two kinds of
power as mutual enablers. However, theirs is an unequal relationship. The
greater attractiveness of soft power
is more than offset in political utility by its inherent unsuitability for policy direction
and control. From all the factors above, it follows that military force will long remain an
essential instrument of policy. That said, popular enthusiasm in Western societies for the placing of serious restraints
on the use of force can threaten the policy utility of the military. The ill consequences of America’s muchmanifested difficulty in thinking and behaving strategically are augmented perilously
when unwarranted faith is placed upon soft power that inherently is resistant to
strategic direction. Although it is highly appropriate to be skeptical of the policy utility of
soft power, such skepticism must not be interpreted as implicit advice to threaten or resort to military force with scant
reference to moral standards. Not only is it right in an absolute sense, it is also expedient to seek, seize, and hold the moral high
ground. There can be significant strategic advantage in moral advantage—to risk sounding cynical. Finally, it is essential to recognize
that soft power tends to work well when America scarcely has need of it, but the
more challenging contexts for
national security require the mailed fist, even if it is cushioned, but not concealed, by a
glove of political and ethical restraint.
American soft power is negatively perceived
Gray 11 (Collin S, US Army War College Strategic Studies, April, “Hard Power and Soft Power: The
Utility of Military Force as an Instrument of Policy in the 21st Century”,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA542526)//cc
Soft power is potentially a dangerous idea not because it is unsound, which it is not, but rather for the
faulty inference that careless or unwary observers draw from it. Such inferences are a challenge to
theorists because they are unable to control the ways in which their ideas will be interpreted
and applied in practice by those unwary observers. Concepts can be tricky. They seem to make sense of what
otherwise is intellectually undergoverned space, and thus 30 potentially come to control pliable minds. Given that men behave as
their minds suggest and command, it is easy to understand why Clausewitz identified the enemy’s will as the target for influence.37
Beliefs about soft power in turn have potentially negative implications for attitudes
toward the hard power of military force and economic muscle. Thus, soft power does not
lend itself to careful regulation, adjustment, and calibration. What does this mean? To begin with a
vital contrast: whereas military force and economic pressure (negative or positive) can be applied by choice as to quantity and
quality, soft power cannot. (Of course, the enemy/rival too has a vote on the outcome, regardless of the texture of the power
applied.) But hard
power allows us to decide how we will play in shaping and modulating the
relevant narrative, even though the course of history must be an interactive one once the engagement is joined. In
principle, we can turn the tap on or off at our discretion. The reality is apt to be somewhat different because, as noted above, the
enemy, contingency, and friction will intervene. But still a noteworthy measure of initiative derives from the threat and use of
military force and economic power. But soft power is very different indeed as an instrument of policy. In fact, I am tempted to
challenge the proposition that soft power can even be regarded as one (or more) among the grand strategic instruments of policy.
The seeming validity and attractiveness of soft power lead to easy exaggeration of its
potency. Soft power is admitted by all to defy metric analysis, but this is not a fatal weakness. Indeed, the instruments of hard
power that do lend themselves readily to metric assessment can also be unjustifiably seductive. But the metrics of tactical calculation
need not be strategically 31 revealing. It is important to win battles, but victory in war is a considerably different matter than the
simple accumulation of tactical successes. Thus, the burden of proof remains on soft power: (1) What is this
concept of soft power? (2) Where does it come from and who or what controls it? and (3) Prudently assessed and anticipated, what is
the quantity and quality of its potential influence? Let us now consider answers to these questions. Soft
power lends itself
too easily to mischaracterization as the (generally unavailable) alternative to military and
economic power. The first of the three questions posed above all but invites a misleading answer. Nye plausibly offers the co-option
of people rather than their coercion as the defining principle of soft power.38 The source of possible misunderstanding is the fact
that merely by conjuring an alternative species of power, an obvious but unjustified sense of equivalence between the binary
elements is produced. Moreover, such an elementary shortlist implies a fitness for comparison, an impression that the two options
are like-for-like in their consequences, though not in their methods. By conceptually corralling a country’s potentially attractive cooptive assets under the umbrella of soft power, one is near certain to devalue the significance of an enabling context. Power of all
kinds depends upon context for its value, but especially so for the soft variety. For power to be influential, those who are to be
influenced have a decisive vote. But the effects of contemporary warfare do not allow recipients the luxury of a vote. They are
coerced. On the other hand, the
willingness to be coopted by American soft power varies hugely
among 32 recipients. In fact, there are many contexts wherein the total of American soft
power would add up in the negative, not the positive. When soft power capabilities are strong in their values and
cultural trappings, there
is always the danger that they will incite resentment, hostility, and a
potent “blowback.” In those cases, American soft power would indeed be strong, but in a
counterproductive direction. These conclusions imply no criticism of American soft power per se. The problem would
lie in the belief that soft power is a reliable instrument of policy that could complement or in some instances replace military force.
8. Soft
power is perilously reliant on the calculations and feelings of frequently
undermotivated foreigners. The second question above asked about the provenance and ownership of soft power. Nye
correctly notes that “soft power does not belong to the government in the same degree that
hard power does.” He proceeds sensibly to contrast the armed forces along with plainly national economic assets with the
“soft power resources [that] are separate from American government and only partly responsive to its purposes.”39 Nye cites as a
prominent example of this disjunction in responsiveness the fact that “[i]n the Vietnam era . . . American government policy and
popular culture worked at cross-purposes.”40 Although soft power can be employed purposefully as an instrument of national
policy, such
power is notably unpredictable in its potential influence, producing net benefit
or harm. Bluntly stated, America is what it is, and there are many in the world who do not
like what it is. The U.S. Government will have the ability to proj- 33 ect American values in the hope, if not quite confident
expectation, that “the American way” will be found attractive in alien parts of the world. Our hopes would seem to be achievement of
the following: (1) love and respect of American ideals and artifacts (civilization); (2) love and respect of America; and (3) willingness
to cooperate with American policy today and tomorrow. Admittedly, this agenda is reductionist, but the cause and desired effects are
accurate enough. Culture is as culture does and speaks and produces. The soft power of values culturally expressed that others might
find attractive is always at risk to negation by the evidence of national deeds that appear to contradict our cultural persona.
Alt causes to soft power: perception and hard power
Gray 11 (Collin S, US Army War College Strategic Studies, April, “Hard Power and Soft Power: The
Utility of Military Force as an Instrument of Policy in the 21st Century”,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA542526)//cc
10. Hard
and soft power should be complementary, but unless one is strategically competent, neither
will have high utility for policy, either singly or “jointly.” An inherent and unavoidable problem with a country’s soft
power is that it is near certain to be misassessed by the politicians who attempt to govern soft power’s societal owners and carriers.
Few thoroughly encultured Americans are likely to undervalue “the American way” in many of its aspects as a potent source of
friendly self-co-option abroad. Often, this self-flattering appreciation will be well justified in reality. But
as an already
existing instrument of American policy, the soft power of ideas and practical example is
fraught with the perils of self-delusion. If one adheres to an ideology that is a heady
mixture of Christian ethics (“one nation, under God . . .”), democratic principles, and free market
orthodoxy, and if one is an American, which is to say if one is a citizen of a somewhat hegemonic world power
that undeniably has enjoyed a notably successful historical passage to date, then it is natural to confuse the national ideology with a
universal creed. Such
confusion is only partial, but nonetheless it is sufficiently damaging as
to be a danger to national strategy. Since it is fallacious to assume that American values truly are universal, the
domain of high relevance and scope for American soft power to be influential is
distinctly limited. If one places major policy weight on the putative value for policy of
American soft power, one needs to be acutely alert to the dangers of 40 an underrecognized ethnocentrism born of cultural ignorance. This ignorance breeds an arrogant
disdain for evidence of foreigners’ lack of interest in being coopted to join American civilization. The result of such
arrogance predictably is political and even military strategic counterreaction. It is a case
of good intentions gone bad when they are pursued with indifference toward the local
cultural context.
at: tism impact
Terrorism coop is inevitable
McKelvey 5/22 – White House reporter at BBC (Tara McKelvey, 5/22/15, “Is the US-UK's special
relationship in decline?,” http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31877574)//twemchen
"The US has acted as if it's
always available - 'We surge, we do this, we do that'," said David Ucko, an associate
professor at National Defense University in Washington and an adjunct fellow at King's College London. "It's far more pro-active."
Still Americans
and Britons work closely together . Michael Hayden, a former CIA director, said
there's been "trails beaten down in the forest" between the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6 to the extent that Americans at other intelligence agencies were jealous . One US intelligence
official told Hayden he wished the CIA officers would be more forthcoming. "He said, 'We'd like you to treat us like you treat the
British,'" Hayden recalled. The two spy
agencies have gotten into disputes, but they usually work
things out . When Col Oleg Penkovsky, a Soviet intelligence officer, said he wanted to hand over secrets, both Britons
and Americans were suspicious. But they had different ways to approach the matter. null Michael
Hayden, the former director of the CIA, said British and US officials work closely together "We're Americans," said David Gioe, a
former CIA officer who wrote his University of Cambridge dissertation about the special relationship. "We have our checklist. Out
comes the polygraph." MI6 officers saw the polygraph in a different light. "The Brits were absolutely horrified," he said. "They think
it's witchcraft." Together it was deemed unnecessary, and everybody moved on. Charles Ries, who served as the US government's
chief economic official in Baghdad, also praises the US-UK relationship. "The military guys used to joke that whenever
we
wanted to do something, they'd say, 'We're in,' and then they'd think about it ," he said.
***eu rels
internal link – defense
Security cooperation spills over to the same cooperation that privacy does –
their evidence is just rhetoric
Jordans 13 – AP (Frank Jordans, The Globe and Mail, 6/12/13, “Europe outraged over NSA
surveillance,” http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1366572736?pqorigsite=summon)//twemchen
But even
on a continent where privacy is revered, countries such as Germany are thankful for
U.S. intelligence Indignation was sharp and predictable across Europe - a continent where privacy is
revered. Yet anger over revelations of U.S. electronic surveillance was tempered by an indisputable fact:
Europe wants the information that American intelligence provides. That dilemma was clear
Tuesday, only days after leaks about two National Security Agency programs that purportedly target foreign messages including private e-mails, voice and other data transmissions - sent through U.S. Internet providers. The European Union's top
justice official, Viviane Reding, said she would demand that the United States afford EU citizens the same rights as Americans when
it comes to data protection. Hannes Swoboda, a Socialist leader in the European Parliament, said the purported surveillance showed
that the U.S. "is just doing what it wants." At the same time, German
Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich
confirmed that his government regularly receives tips from the United States on Islamic
extremists - and he doesn't expect the Americans to tell him where they got the
information. "We get very good and reliable information from our American friends and partners that has played an
important role in the past in preventing attacks in Germany," Mr. Friedrich told reporters in Berlin. "The
Americans don't tell us, and we also don't tell our partners ... where this information comes from. That's the
business of the respective agency ." The conflict in Europe between the right to privacy and a government's
obligation to protect its citizenry is similar to the debate in the United States over the limits of intelligence activities in a free society.
But the dilemma is even sharper in Europe, which hosted major NSA monitoring sites during the Cold War. Much of the continent
still has bitter and recent memories of massive surveillance by Communist authorities, who maintained that tapping phones,
opening mail and bugging homes was necessary to guard against Western spies and political dissidents. Germany, Britain, the
Netherlands and other major countries maintain their own spy systems, including electronic eavesdropping. But European laws
generally limit the scope to a much greater degree, preventing blanket surveillance of the kind allegedly carried out by the National
Security Agency. The
furor over the latest NSA revelations mirrors a vigorous but short-lived
debate in Europe following publication of a report a dozen years ago about a worldwide, U.S.-led electronic
surveillance program known as ECHELON. It was a global network of communications monitoring sites established during the Cold
War by the U.S., Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand to provide those governments with intelligence, some of which was
shared with other Western allies. The author of the 2001 ECHELON report said that while revelations about the latest NSA
programs were troubling, he believed a concerted European push to stop such activities was unlikely. "I'm a little bit
surprised that everyone is getting upset about the Americans when almost everyone else is
doing it, too ," Georg Schmid told The Associated Press. "The Americans are just better at it than
everybody else."
eu rels – defense
Some US-EU cooperation is inevitable but trends make it unsustainable
Walt 11- Robert and Rene Belfer Professor of International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F.
Kennedy School (Stephen, “The coming erosion of the European Union,” Foreign Policy News, 8/18/11,
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/18/the_coming_erosion_of_the_european_union) //AD
Third, I argued that the glory days of transatlantic
security cooperation also lie in the past, and we will see less
cooperative and intimate security partnership between Europe and America in the future . Why do I think so?
One obvious reason is the lack of common external enemy. Historically, that is the only reason why the
United States was willing to commit troops to Europe, and it is therefore no surprise that America's
military presence in Europe has declined steadily ever since the Soviet Union broke up. Simply put: there is
no threat to Europe that the Europeans cannot cope with on their own, and thus little role for Americans
to play. In addition, the various imperial adventures that NATO has engaged in since 1992 haven't worked
out that well. It was said in the 1990s that NATO had to "go out of area or out of business," which is one reason it started planning
for these operations, but most of the missions NATO has taken on since then have been something of a bust. Intervention in the
Balkans eventually ended the fighting there, but it took longer and cost more than anyone expected and
it's not even clear that it really worked (i.e., if NATO peacekeepers withdrew from Kosovo tomorrow, fighting might start
up again quite soon). NATO was divided over the war in Iraq, and ISAF's disjointed effort in Afghanistan just
reminds us why Napoleon always said he liked to fight against coalitions . The war in Libya could produce another
disappointing result, depending on how it plays out. Transatlantic security cooperation might have received a new
lease on life if all these adventures had gone swimmingly; unfortunately, that did not prove to be the case .
But this raises the obvious question: If the United States isn't needed to protect Europe and there's little positive
that the alliance can accomplish anywhere else, then what's it for? Lastly, transatlantic security cooperation
will decline because the United States will be shifting its strategic focus to Asia. The central goal of US
grand strategy is to maintain hegemony in the Western hemisphere and to prevent other great powers
from achieving hegemony in their regions. For the foreseeable future, the only potential regional hegemon is
China. There will probably be an intense security competition there, and the United States will therefore
be deepening its security ties with a variety of Asian partners. Europe has little role to play in this
competition, however, and little or no incentive to get involved. Over time, Asia will get more and more
attention from the U.S. foreign policy establishment, and Europe will get less. This trend will be
reinforced by demographic and generational changes on both sides of the Atlantic, as the percentage of
Americans with strong ancestral connections to Europe declines and as the generation that waged the
Cold War leaves the stage. So in addition to shifting strategic interests, some of the social glue that held Europe and
America together is likely to weaken as well. It is important not to overstate this trend -- Europe and America won't
become enemies, and I don't think intense security competition is going to break out within Europe anytime soon. Europe and
the United States will continue to trade and invest with each other, and we will continue to collaborate on
a number of security issues (counter-terrorism, intelligence sharing, counter-proliferation, etc.). But
Europe won't be America's "go-to" partner in the decades ahead, at least not the way it once was. This will be a
rather different world than the one we've been accustomed to for the past 60 years, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Moreover,
because it reflects powerful structural forces, there's probably little we can do to prevent it. Instead, the
smart response -- for both Americans and Europeans -- is to acknowledge these tendencies and adapt to
them, instead of engaging in a futile effort to hold back the tides of history.
ttip – pass inevitable
TTIP inevitable – their evidence cites empty EU rhetoric
Curran 14 – (6/16/14, “NEGOTIATOR PREDICTS PACT ON EU-U.S. SAFE HARBOR, BUT EU REP
REMAINS DEFIANT,” Cybersecurity Policy Report, ProQuest)//twemchen
A key U.S. negotiator in current talks to bridge privacy policy differences in the U.S.-European Union Safe Harbor framework for the
transfer of citizens' personal data predicted this week that the discussions would soon produce an
agreement , but an EU representative in the talks said defiantly that Europe would not negotiate away protections for the privacy of its
citizens' data. At an event organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Paul Nemitz, director for fundamental rights and citizenship
in the EU's Directorate-General for Justice, fiercely defended EU privacy rights, while Ted Dean, deputy assistant Secretary for services at the U.S.
the many shared cultural values of the two parties would
help the two sides to reach agreement on privacy issues in the context of the Safe Harbor framework. Changes to that
International Trade Commission, said he thought that
framework - worked out as a result of the EU's finding that the U.S. did not meet the "adequacy" standard for privacy protection for personal data of
European citizens after the European Commission's directive on data protection went into effect in 1998 - has paved the way since then for such data
transfers to occur, but is being renegotiated in light of disclosures of National Security Agency surveillance programs of non-U.S. communications data.
Currently, approximately 3,200 U.S. companies and other entities are covered under the Safe Harbor framwork. Negotiators from both sides said today
that their talks involve 13 resolutions, and indicated that most of those were not nearly as controversial as the privacy issue. "This is the subject of our
negotiations," declared Mr. Nemitz. "We have to find a solution to this Safe Harbor . . . that the NSA has put in jeopardy." The NSA surveillance
disclosures over the past year, Mr. Nemitz said, represent "one of the biggest barriers to trade" between the U.S. and EU, in part because of fears that
NSA has under surveillance the communications of EU citizens, which he said can motivate consumers to use U.S. services - which the NSA cannot as
easily monitor - instead of European services. Data originating in Europe, he said, should be protected "in the new digital age and [from] NSA spying."
He noted that more than 3,000 U.S. companies are living "happily" with EU privacy protections evidenced by their participation in the Safe Harbor
framework, and pronounced it a "success in the free flow of information." Mr. Nemitz said EU privacy law protects against "overreach" against
individuals by governments and corporations, and "protect the individual in its dignity and freedom." He said that under EU law, European countries
cannot undertake "mass collection of anything that individuals do on the Internet," but must show they are accessing data only "when necessary and
proportionate." The current talks with the U.S., he said, "have to come to concretization" of this policy. "It's the big elephant in the room, it is very
important." "We will not negotiate this down," he vowed. Privacy rights are "a constitutional requirement," he added. "On privacy, there is only one way
Dean said he believed the current negotiations "will be a success," citing the
myriad "shared values" between the U.S. and Europe, their status as "friends and allies," and the more than $1 trillion
worth of annual trade between the parties. Such a "vital economic relationship," he said, "is
underpinned by data flows." He said he had no official comment to make on the status of negotiations, but characterized the
talks as "intensive" and added, "we've made tremendous progress ." "Sometimes tough issues are dealt with last," he said.
now . . . more privacy, not less." Mr.
"We still have some tough issues." Mr. Dean said he was due to meet with Mr. Nemitz for further talks later this week, and said the two sides should
work quickly to reach an agreement. "We all bear costs for not getting this done, " he said. Harriet Pearson, a partner a Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP who was
the recent discourse between the U.S. and EU
has been "very heartening." She added, "the commonalities are more important than the
differences." James Lewis, senior fellow of CSIS's Strategic Technologies Program, said privacy policy differences were partly the product of
involved in efforts to work out the Safe Harbor framework in 1999 and 2000, said that
the Internet being designed with the assumption that parties had trusted relationships. "Can we build privacy back in," he wondered. "Yes, but it will be
difficult," he said, especially as growth soars in the number of connected devices. "Regulations may not be flexible enough," he said. He also said he
viewed the EU-U.S. debate on privacy as part of a "larger debate of nations extending sovereign control" to the Internet, and the "tension between
sovereignty and extraterritorial reach." He added, "how we resolve this will reshape the Internet." Regarding anger in the EU over alleged U.S.
surveillance of European governments, Mr. Lewis said "there is no international law on espionage [because] nations don't want it." He added, "it's
better to back away and sweep it under the rug again." Mr. Lewis also said that some European intelligence agencies had also conducted mass
surveillance of communications data, but did not share the existence of those programs with EU citizens. "It shouldn't be that only three people and a
dog know about your intelligence programs," he remarked. Mr. Nemitz also defended last month's ruling by the European Court of Justice that Google,
Inc., can be required to comply with users' requests to delete links to information about themselves, promoting the so-called "right to be forgotten" as
Europe looks to overhaul its data privacy policies. "The court has clearly said you have a right to privacy in the digital space," he said. Responding to
charges that the ruling amounts to censorship, Mr. Nemitz said it requires that links to data be removed, while the data itself can remain. The major
question underlying the decision, he said, "is whether technology rules alone," or "whether individuals have rights." Responding to arguments that
protections of the privacy of citizens' personal data represents an impediment to the use of technology, Mr. Nemitz asserted that "there is no
contradiction between technology and freedom." Rather, he said, there is "synergy" between the two in the form of the "trust that the individual must
have" that governments and businesses are not misusing data, and the economic growth that will result from such trust. Late last week (TRDaily, June
9), European Union Justice Ministers said they reached agreement on two key "pillars" of ongoing reform of data protection regulation - finding that
such rules will apply to non-European companies when they operate in Europe and setting standards for when personal data can be transferred to third
countries.
ttip – alt causes
Negotiations won’t work- laundry list of ideological disagreements
Boskin 13- professor of economics at Stanford University and senior fellow at the
Hoover Institution, chairman of George H. W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers
(Michael J, “EU-U.S. trade negotiations riddled with difficulties,” Korea herald, 7-17-13,
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20130717000573 ) //AD
While the negotiations are new, the issues
separating the two sides are long-standing and widely known. One of the most difficult is
the EU’s limitation of imports of genetically modified foods, which presents a major
problem for U.S. agriculture. Another is financial regulation, with U.S. banks preferring EU rules to the
The TTIP is being divided into 15 specific working groups.
more stringent framework emerging at home (such as the much higher capital standards for large banks recently proposed by
America’s financial regulators). Several
other serious disagreements also stand in the way of a
comprehensive deal. For example, U.S. pharmaceutical companies have stronger intellectualproperty protection at home than in the EU. Entertainment will become increasingly
contentious with online distribution of films. And the anachronistic 1920 Jones Act requires
cargo carried between U.S. ports to be shipped only on American ships (recall the confusion
about the possibility of foreign ships coming to help during the BP Gulf oil spill). Safety regulations and restrictions
on foreign control of companies in sensitive industries are further points of contention.
Slight prospect for a global deal- several factors delay negotiations
Donceel 13- account director at g+europe, specialising in EU trade and development
policy advises in the areas of energy and consumer affairs, previously worked for the
Directorate-General for External Trade in the European Commission, previous positions
with the Belgian ministry of foreign affairs and UNICEF, MSc in International Political
Economy from the LSE and a Master’s degree in European Studies from the Université
catholique de Louvain (Laurent, “An EU-US free trade agreement is far from a done
deal,” London School of Economics and Political Science, 2-28-13,
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/02/28/eu-usa-free-trade-deal/) //AD
Even before the negotiations have started, the US has already managed to put Europe on
the defensive. While Commission officials are still haggling over the wording of wordy press releases, Vice President Biden
and friends have already been busy creating the impression that the trade pact hinges on the EU opening its borders to farm
imports. Indeed, that is one of the issues, but one wonders how keen the Obama Administration is to convince its trade unions to
cheer on the slashing of US tariffs for textiles or certain food products. In any case, the
real benefit of establishing a
free trade area for 800 million affluent people lies in getting rid of most of the non-tariff
barriers. And that will be hard. The difficulty in dealing with all sorts of divergent safety, hygiene
or other standards is that they reflect deep cultural differences on issues such as food safety and
intellectual property. Whether it is the length of car bumpers, the use of GMOs, or the protection of Geographic Indications (GIs) –
such as Champagne – regulations by their nature touch on issues that are often vital to the cultural identities of regions. Since 2007,
the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) has been trying to facilitate free trade by removing non-tariff-barriers. But
for the
past four years, senior officials have been struggling to make much progress in
harmonising regulatory difference – the EU ban on chlorinated US chicken being a good illustrative example of
how difficult it has been to harmonise standards. Europeans and Americans have fundamentally different attitudes towards sanitary
and phyto-sanitary issues (SPS). The mad cow crisis, US steaks pumped up with growth hormones, the recent horse meat scandal
and other high profile food scares have shaken consumer confidence, driving the establishment of stricter environmental regulations
in the EU compared with the US. Hinting that the EU will take a tough stance on food safety standards, European Commission
President Barroso already insisted that negotiations would not compromise consumer health. That does not bode well. Yet there is a
sense of urgency in Brussels and in Washington D.C. Hopes
for a global free trade agreement first
proposed in the WTO’s Doha round a decade ago have evaporated and there is little
prospect for a global deal in sight. At the same time, economies on both sides of the pond are in dire need of a
positive boost. Yet neither side has the money for a far-reaching stimulus programme. Export-led growth through the reduction of
trade barriers is an attractive prospect. A joint report from the High Level Working Group on Growth and Jobs foresees that the deal
would lead to a 0.5 per cent GDP increase on both sides of the Atlantic. In the middle the current economic crisis, this is no small
feat.
Multiple issues overcome passage - prefer experts
Erlanger 13 - background at a variety of large scale newspapers, Harvard degree in
journalism, article cites said Douglas J. Elliott, a senior fellow in economics at the
Brookings Institution (Steven, "Conflicting Goals Complicate an Effort to Forge a Trans-Atlantic
Trade Deal," New York Times, 6-12-13, www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/business/global/to-create-jobseurope-pushes-for-trade-deal-with-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) //AD
PARIS — The
leaders of the European Union, mired in recession and battered by increasing
opposition from voters, are desperate for political success to promote economic growth.
They are pushing for a rapid negotiation of a trade agreement with the United States aimed at
expanding commerce and creating jobs. But many experts say any such deal faces long odds. France has
already raised objections about its “cultural exception,” which is aimed at protecting subsidized, domestic
movies and television programs, and continued to press the issue ahead of a meeting on Friday of the European Union’s trade
ministers. At the same time, there
is a range of other, probably more serious problems, including
agricultural disputes over things like genetically modified food and chlorinated chicken and
regulatory questions about car safety, pharmaceuticals and financial derivatives. New
concerns about widespread American spying on Internet and telephone traffic will make
existing disagreements about data privacy, an important issue in Europe, even more fractious.
Broad goals complicate the process- ensures difficult negotiations
Boskin 13- professor of economics at Stanford University and senior fellow at the
Hoover Institution, chairman of George H. W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers
(Michael J, “EU-U.S. trade negotiations riddled with difficulties,” Korea herald, 7-17-13,
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20130717000573 ) //AD
Moreover, the
desired scope of the agreement is vast, complicating the process further. The
TTIP would eliminate all trade tariffs and reduce non-tariff barriers, including in
agriculture; expand market access in services trade; bring about closer regulatory
harmonization; strengthen intellectual-property protection; restrict subsidies to state-owned
enterprises; and more. This all but guarantees difficult talks ahead; indeed, France has
already demanded and received a “cultural exception” for film and TV.
Alt causes block negotiations- regulatory cooperation- TPP proves delays
Egan 13- American University of Washington; Program Director, Associate Professor
and Chair of European Integration in SIS; Co-editor of the Palgrave Series of the
European Union; executive committee member of the European Union Studies
Association (Michelle, “From US-EU FTA to TTIP: Promises and Pitfalls,” Transworld:
Transatlantic Relations and the future of Global Governance, 3-20-13,
http://www.transworld-fp7.eu/?p=1060 )//AD
While the US and the EU may agree on core issues such as zero tariffs, and liberalization of services and
investment in principle, they are still far apart on other issues. Since tariffs on goods are already low, we can
expect to see reductions going as far as to eliminate tariffs altogether to yield some substantial gains. But the real benefits
for business would accrue from promoting regulatory cooperation with early consultations on
significant regulations, impact assessment, upstream regulatory cooperation, and good regulatory practices. However,
Europeans should heed the lessons drawn from the TPP, where after three years of
negotiations the lack of progress is viewed by some as the result of the US tough
negotiating stance on regulatory issues. The US has preferred to export its own
regulatory model to third countries in many of the trade agreements it has concluded. The
launch of transatlantic trade negotiations will be a key test in this respect as Europe has also followed a similar trade promotion
prospective negotiations will not be the same as the transatlantic
free trade area (TAFTA) proposed in the 1990s (and never realized), as both sides realize that this will be a more
limited sector-by-sector deal. One thing is clear though, addressing the prevailing deep-seated variation in
regulatory policies may be a very powerful instrument for domestic reforms. This is where the largest potential growth
and trade benefits exist, but also where striking a deal will take much longer time, given that it will
require bringing regulatory agencies on board as there are significant legal and political
factors involved in administrative law and rule-making that impact regulatory cooperation efforts.
strategy. What is clear is that
US focused on TPP, not TTIP- complicates passage
Erlanger 13 - background at a variety of large scale newspapers, Harvard degree in
journalism, article cites said Douglas J. Elliott, a senior fellow in economics at the
Brookings Institution (Steven, "Conflicting Goals Complicate an Effort to Forge a Trans-Atlantic
Trade Deal," New York Times, 6-12-13, www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/business/global/to-create-jobseurope-pushes-for-trade-deal-with-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) //AD
He noted that the
United States was trying to negotiate a similar deal, known as the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, with Asian countries and especially with Japan. China is not included in those negotiations, which
the Obama administration considers a higher, more immediate priority than the
European talks.
Extremely long timeframe- previous negotiations prove- external interests
prevent agreements
Egan 13- American University of Washington; Program Director, Associate Professor
and Chair of European Integration in SIS; Co-editor of the Palgrave Series of the
European Union; executive committee member of the European Union Studies
Association (Michelle, “From US-EU FTA to TTIP: Promises and Pitfalls,” Transworld:
Transatlantic Relations and the future of Global Governance, 3-20-13,
http://www.transworld-fp7.eu/?p=1060)//AD
Despite the opportunity to boost sluggish growth through a new trade initiative, the
need for Congressional
ratification will require any US-EU agreement to be passed by either a regular legislative
procedure if there is sufficient political support or through fast track authority which is potentially more
difficult, but prevents additional amendments being added during Congressional ratification. Though both sides reportedly hope
to begin formal negotiations as early as possible in 2013, previous negotiations suggest that they will be
long and difficult and could also be impacted by the US electoral calendar. Speaking to his
Export Council on 12 March 2013, President Obama said that he is “modestly optimistic that we can get
this done” due primarily to greater European recognition of the need for growth measures at a time of fiscal austerity in the euro
zone. He said this made the Europeans ‘hungrier’ for a deal. But Obama
also acknowledged the longstanding
agricultural and other national interests that, from the US perspective, have prevented
agreement in the past, and added that ultimately the negotiations will be a “hard slog.” He
did not mention the agricultural, SPS, and other concerns on the US side.
Won’t pass – Food safety standards are ideological – negotiations can’t
overcome
Erlanger 13 - background at a variety of large scale newspapers, Harvard degree in
journalism, article cites said Douglas J. Elliott, a senior fellow in economics at the
Brookings Institution (Steven, "Conflicting Goals Complicate an Effort to Forge a Trans-Atlantic
Trade Deal," New York Times, 6-12-13, www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/business/global/to-create-jobseurope-pushes-for-trade-deal-with-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) //AD
Given already low average tariffs (under 3 percent), the
main problems are nontariff barriers, things like
differing customs and regulatory requirements. The United States and Europe have different autosafety requirements, for example, and not all American states have the same ones. They differ on how to ensure the safety
of chicken — the Europeans do not allow the import of American chicken that has been
chlorinated to kill bacteria. They differ on the safety of genetically modified grains and
foods. In general, said Mr. Elliott of Brookings, European regulators “have a more cautionary
approach than Americans, and they have to prove safety rather than disprove arguments
about why something is unsafe.” American regulators generally require scientific
evidence that something is unsafe; the Europeans are more precautionary. Tariffs and
agricultural subsidies are monetary figures that can be negotiated. “ But safety is
qualitative and cultural ,” he said. “On both sides we have strong views about how to do things, and we can get
very entrenched .”
ttip – no help economy
Can’t solve EU economy — institution problems — comparative evidence
Ferreira 13 – candidate for Masters of Public Administration at Cornell University, writing for
WorldPolicy (Luis A., “The European Union’s Trade with Latin America”, 8/1/13;
<http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2013/08/01/european-unions-trade-latin-america)//trepka
Although the
European Union’s largest problems are institutional and the Union
cannot rely on trade alone to pull itself out of recession, it has a great opportunity to begin its economic
recovery by expanding commerce with Latin America. As Latin American economies continue to increase, the European Union
should use that opportunity for its own growth.
ttip – hurts trade
TTIP will reduce trade effectiveness – turns the case
Atlantic-Community 13 – (“TTIP: Not Like Any Other Regional Free Trade Agreement”, AtlanticCommunity, 7-26-13, http://www.atlantic-community.org/-/ttip-not-like-any-other-regional-free-tradeagreement) //AD
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)
is the latest attempt at a comprehensive trade
agreement between the two economic powerhouses of the EU and the US. As more details emerge, it is
becoming ever clearer that these negotiations will have far more reaching implications than the two
regions involved. To what extent will the partnership affect multilateral relations, from
which the EU has benefited so much, and how is it being received across the world? The first round of talks, from July 8 to July 11,
was held in Washington.
The scale of the agreement, should it be finalised, has sparked debate as to the
benefits and risks of the partnership to both European and global trade. The
implementation of TTIP will bring major economical benefit to both the EU and US
economies, while also contributing to the wider global economy, but some are wary of the
geoeconomic implications of the EU-US agreement. The press commentary this week looks at
how TTIP is viewed worldwide. Commentators are looking further down the line at a
harmonization between TTIP and other free trade agreements such as North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), while TTIP could be used as an influential stick to force China to adopt
western standards. While these may be positive feats, others are worried about the
damage that TTIP will cause to multilateralism and the World Trade Organization ( WTO ).
TTIP will fail – increases trade deficit and rapid unemployment- turns the
case
Moody 13– (Glyn, “Trade Agreements With Mexico And South Korea Turned Out To Be Disasters For
US: So Why Pursue TPP And TAFTA/TTIP?”, Tech Dirt, 8-1-13,
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130731/08404024018/trade-agreements-with-mexico-south-koreaturned-out-to-be-disasters-us-so-why-pursue-tpp-taftattip.shtml) //AD
Two massive
trade agreements currently being negotiated -- TPP and TAFTA/TTIP -- could potentially
affect most people on this planet, either directly or indirectly through the knock-on effects. Like all such agreements,
they have been justified on the grounds that everyone wins: trade is boosted, prices drop, profits rise
and jobs are created. That's why it's been hard to argue against TPP or TAFTA -- after all, who doesn't want all those things? But
given their huge impact, and the fact that trade agreements are also used to impose a range
of policies on countries that are certainly not in the public interest there -- for example making it harder
for generic drug manufacturers to offer low-cost medicines -- it seems reasonable to ask what the evidence is
that entering into these agreements really does deliver all or even some of those
promised benefits. An article in US News provides statistics that show that two major trade agreements -- the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the South Korea-US Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) -- have not
only failed to deliver, but have been disastrous for the US. As regards NAFTA, for example, here are
figures from a Reuters column it cites: The United States ran a $1.6 billion trade surplus ($2.6 billion in
today's dollars) with Mexico in 1993, the year before NAFTA. Last year [2011], the United States ran a
$64.5 billion deficit. That might have been a one-off, were it not for the following facts
about KORUS, reported here by the Economic Policy Insitute (EPI) In the year after [KORUS] the
agreement took effect (April 2012 to March 2013), U.S. domestic exports to South Korea (of goods made
in the United States) fell $3.5 billion, compared with the same period in the previous year, a decline of 8.3 percent. In the
same 12-month period, imports from South Korea (which the administration consistently declines to discuss) increased $2.3 billion,
an increase of 4.0 percent, and the bilateral U.S. trade deficit with South Korea increased $5.8 billion, a whopping 39.8 percent.
But maybe the trade agreements are generating jobs at least. Nope. Here's what happened with
NAFTA: Bill Clinton (1993) and his supporters claimed in the early 1990s that the North American Free Trade Agreement
would create 200,000 new jobs through increased exports to Mexico. In fact, by 2010, growing
trade deficits with Mexico had eliminated 682,900 U.S. jobs Well, what about KORUS? When the
U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (SKFTA) was completed in 2010, President Obama said that it would
increase U.S. goods exports by "$10 billion to $11 billion," supporting "70,000 American jobs from increased
goods exports alone" Here's what actually happened: Using the president's own formula relating changes in trade to jobs, the growth
in the trade deficit with South Korea in the first year since KORUS took effect likely cost more than 40,000 U.S. jobs So where does
this leave TAFTA/TTIP? Well, the European Commission's FAQ on the subject refers to some research it commissioned: One of the
studies on which the Commission's impact assessment was based was an independent report commissioned by the EU from the
London-based Centre for Economic Policy Research. The study, entitled 'Reducing barriers to Transatlantic Trade', outlines the
economic effects of a for both the EU and the US. It suggests the EU's economy could benefit by €119 billion a year -equivalent to an extra €545 for a family of four in the EU. According to the study, the US economy could gain an extra €95 billion a
year or €655 per American family. But the EPI is doubtful: A much more likely outcome, based
on North American experience
under NAFTA, is that production workers in all the member countries will suffer
falling wages and job losses (Scott et al. 2006), while U.S. and EU investors will profit
handsomely, reinforcing the rapidly rising share of profits in corporate and national income that
has taken place over the last decade in the United States (Mishel 2013).
ttip – hurts rights
TTIP hurts social rights, inflates lobby power and threatens consumer
protection
Meyer 6/16 (Arthur, reporter at the Market Mogul, 2015, “TTIP: Bad for Europe?”,
http://themarketmogul.com/ttip-bad-for-europe/)//cc
However, some state that the TTIP could on the contrary weaken the EU
and its already
established social rights. Moreover, it would enfeeble the democracy by empowering the
lobbyists. The TTIP plans to settle conflicts with private chambers of arbitration and
payments should be made with public money (that is to say with taxes); there is also the fact that
representative of big firms are consulted by the European Commission to discuss the implementation of
the TTIP. Consequently, there is a fracture between the European people and the SMEs that
are supposed to gain from the TTIP, given its technocratic nature. In fact, the different
negotiations about the treaty seem to be secrets and subject to important lobbying by
larger firms. Europeans are also under the impression that this treaty is going to
“Americanize” their way of life and that the EU is clearly the big loser of the TTIP
agreement. Firstly, Western European employees will have to cope with pressure coming
from a more competitive labour supply, especially in the agriculture sector where the
European subsidies may disappear. Secondly, the EU exposes itself with the obligation
to accept some hazardous methods and products that it has refused up till now (fracking
and GM crops for instance). Food quality standards and consumer protection may be
opposed to American norms. Now, Europeans can have the right to believe that they
need superior rather than inferior protection concerning clean energy, intensive farming
and pesticides’ implementation.
ttip – no impact to trade
No impact to free trade
Stelzer 14 (Irwin M is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, director of -economic policy
studies at the Hudson Institute, and a columnist for the Sunday Times, The Weekly Standard, 1/23, “Don't
Give Him What He Wants; Beware Obama's trade deals”,
http://ic.galegroup.com.westminster.idm.oclc.org/ic/ovic/MagazinesDetailsPage/MagazinesDetailsWind
ow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&displayquery=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Magazines&limiter=&u=atla10186&currPage=&disableHighlig
hting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&ac
tivityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA356182605 )//cc
Theoretically, free trade allows every nation to specialize in what it does best, and trade that
output for the stuff other nations produce more efficiently than it can. Result: Every nation's resources--labor, capital, land--are put
to their best possible use, capital flows around the globe to wherever it is most productive, consumers get goods and services at the
lowest possible prices, and all
is for the best in this best of all possible free-trading worlds. Except
that it isn't. TPA might under some circumstances be a good idea--but only if it empowers a president
who respects the legislation passed by Congress, and if the trade agreements it facilitates are also a good idea . Neither
criterion is met these days. Start with the particular president who is requesting this authority. He is no George W.
Bush, to whom Congress granted such authority. President Obama has made it clear that he will enforce those parts of any
legislation or treaty that suit him, de facto amend legislation without seeking congressional approval, and write regulations that
order nonenforcement of laws he does not like. Congress refused to pass his Dream Act, so he ordered the authorities to treat illegal
aliens as if it had; enforcement of Obamacare's employer mandate at the date specified in the law became inconvenient, so he
unilaterally postponed it; he has decided not to enforce the federal law against the sale of marijuana. There's more, but you get the
idea. It is therefore not unreasonable to suppose that a provision in one of these trade pacts that benefits some industry or company
that later fails to toe the presidential line or pay financial obeisance to Democratic campaign committees will disappear in a haze of
bureaucratic rulings. In short, whatever
the theoretical benefits of free trade, they must be
weighed against increasing this president's ability to exercise even more extralegal
power over American businesses. One example: The Asia deal might include a concession from Japan to ease
imports of made-in-America vehicles. It is not beyond imagining that the president will interpret that to apply only to the green
vehicles of which he is so fond. That is the lesser of the objections to a new set of deals. The
larger problem is that the
international exchange of goods and services--world trade--is occurring in markets so
distorted by the world's major exporter that it is impossible to predict the consequence
of any agreement. China is not included in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, but
as the world's biggest trader in goods--it overtook the United States last year in what the
Financial Times calls "a shift in power away from the U.S."--it affects the trade patterns of all the
parties to the potential agreements. For example, German machinery manufacturers who want access to
China's market must turn over their intellectual property to Chinese state-owned
enterprises, which after an initial period reach a scale that enables them to compete not
only with German, but with American manufacturers. In effect, if these deals are struck,
American manufacturers will find themselves competing even more fiercely with
exporters whose terms of trade are set in a market dominated by a currency manipulator
that subsidizes its inefficient state-owned enterprises, protects key markets from
American competition, and--how to put this--steals intellectual property. Despite recent
increases in the value of the yuan, it remains undervalued, distorting world trade flows, and forcing Korea and Japan
to follow suit, to howls of pain from Detroit automakers who believe such manipulation is artificially
constraining sales of made-in-America autos. Yet the president is fiercely opposed to any
move by Congress to make an end to currency manipulation "a principal negotiating
objective" of our trade negotiators. There is worse. Even in the absence of the distorting effect of China's key
role in shaping international markets, even if freer trade would increase the size of the global
economic pie as its advocates confidently contend, it would have a malign effect on the
distribution of income in the United States. Both parties have made their sympathy for "the hardpressed
middle class" clear. Democrats are -translating that into an attack on increasing inequality of income, never mind
that data relating to consumption, which reflects progressive taxation of "the rich" and benefits paid to lower earners, rather than
pretax incomes, call such rising inequality into question. Multimillion-dollar bonuses for failed bankers combined with high
unemployment and static pay checks for middle-income workers are undermining faith in market capitalism, and promoting the
notion that the macroeconomic cards are stacked against the struggling residents of the middle class and, worse, sawing off the
rungs on the income ladder that provided upward mobility for future generations. The two culprits are monetary policy--tipped in
favor of those holding the shares, property, and other assets the value of which Fed zero-interest monetary policy aims to increase at
the expense of savers--and trade policy. America is the largest market in the world, by far. Closing it to Chinese goods might raise
prices in Walmart a bit, but would surely lower China's economic growth rate to regime-threatening levels. Yet we consistently allow
China to undervalue its currency so that equally efficient American firms, makers of textiles, shoes, and electronics, among other
goods, cannot compete. Yes, we sell things to China, but far fewer than they sell here: China recently announced that its 2013 trade
surplus was up 12.8 percent over 2012, and was the largest in dollar terms since 2008, with sales here the principal driver.
Meanwhile, China maintains restrictions estimated by the Council on Foreign Relations to be equivalent to a 66 percent tariff on
U.S. exports of business services.
ttip – trade inevitable
International trade inevitable
The Chicago Tribune 08 (Newspaper, “After Doha”, 8/9,
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-08-09/news/0808080457_1_doha-round-doha-talks-tradetalks)//cc
It's a safe bet most of the 6 billion people around the world are going about their
business today oblivious to the fact that the World Trade Organization's Doha round of free
trade talks died last week. "The what?" they'd respond in befuddlement, if asked. Even people
involved daily in ongoing international trade aren't reacting much differently. They're
buying and selling goods across borders and oceans, dealing with the logistical
complications of high oil prices, currency fluctuations, the price of labor, unit cost,
quality control and the like. This doesn't mean that a successful completion of the Doha talks
wouldn't have mattered. It's a big deal that for the first time in half a century, global trade talks have
failed. The Doha talks -- seven years in negotiation -- would have slashed farm subsidies and further
opened markets for manufactured goods and services. But with or without Doha, countries will
continue to trade aggressively. The benefits and opportunities are just too great.
International trade expanded from 40 percent of the world economy in 1990 to more
than 55 percent by 2004, according to the World Bank. The fastest growing countries -among them China, Vietnam, Ireland -- were those that expanded their trade. Countries
left behind, including much of sub-Saharan Africa, traded the least. Even with the current slowdown in
the international economy, the WTO predicts that trade will still grow 4.5 percent this year. (That will be
down from 8.5 percent in 2006 and 5.5 percent last year.)
ttip – nato – defense
NATO survives everything – or literally everything is an alt cause
Nurkin 14 – Director of Research at HIS Aerospace, Defense and Security (Tate Nurkin, 8/26/14,
“Options for the evolution of NATO,” http://www.janes.com/article/42392/options-for-the-evolution-ofnato)//twemchen
Military capabilities and political will within member states to sustain large deployments and
endure armed conflict have suffered as a result of the 12-year conflict in Afghanistan and chronic
under-spending on defence, especially in Europe. Only two NATO member states – Poland and
Estonia – are among the countries worldwide with the 20 fastest rising defence budgets from 2012 to 2014,
while 12 NATO member states and two European partner states are among those with the 20 fastest
shrinking defence budgets between 2012 and 2014. The result of this persistent underinvestment in Europe in particular is a sizeable capability gap between the US and its NATO
allies that will have to be addressed through increased and co-ordinated European defence spending as
the US reduces its military presence in Europe in order to concentrate on Asian security and
the Middle East. Budget issues have also affected US defence spending and force
structure , as total defence spending has decreased by 16.9% in nominal terms since 2010, according to IHS Jane’s Defence
Budgets. However, a more prominent concern than the reduced budget is the uncertainty of whether
sequestration of the US budget in 2013 will take full effect in 2016 and exactly what resources the US Department of
Defense will have available to support which force structure. Resolution of this political and budgetary uncertainty in the US is a
critical first step in projecting the future forces NATO will have at its disposal. Despite
recurrent concerns about the
mismatch between US and European defence spending, NATO has proven itself an impressively
resilient alliance over its 67-year history, having endured several intra-European and
transatlantic rifts, such as the Suez Crisis of 1956, France leaving the integrated military structure
in 1966, the Iraq War in 2003, and the ongoing debate about mass communications
surveillance caused by the unauthorised disclosures of former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
NATO has empirically endured constant political fragmentation
Chandler 78 – Major, planning and programming officer at HQ USAF, Assistant Director for Strategy
Development and Analysis, Directorate of Plans, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Operations, Political
science instructor with the University of Maryland and the University of Nebraska, (Robert W. Chandler,
May-June 1978, “NATO’s Cohesion Europe’s Future, Air University Review,
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1978/may-jun/chandler.html)//twemchen
Internal erosive factors also have taken their toll on alliance cohesiveness. France,
after a decade of absence, still remains outside the military organs of NATO. Greece, too,
continues an outsider despite American urgings since the 1974 Cyprus crisis. Turkey similarly has
maintained its pique with the United States and NATO in the wake of the Cyprus crisis and remains part in,
part out of the military side of the alliance (the chances of Greek-Turkish conflict over the exploration and exploitation of possible oil
reserves in disputed areas of the Aegean Sea remain, but mediation by other NATO countries so far has helped prevent military
clashes). Portugal, after a two-year respite while it wrestled some tough domestic issues, is now on a road leading toward full
reintegration with NATO. The question of Communist participation at the highest levels of the
Italian government is an
abiding source
of great concern and consternation among the NATO allies. Spain, in spite of its obvious
strategic importance, still lies on the periphery of the alliance. The British-Icelandic "cod war" that has
been going on and off for more than five years is in temporary recess with some hope the dispute may have been resolved (British
trawlers repeatedly violated unilateral Icelandic fishing restrictions within two hundred miles of its coast; when the latter tried to
enforce its declaration with gunboats, London responded by dispatching Royal Navy frigates, and shots, rammings, and a variety of
ugly incidents soon followed). Finally, the
U.S. Congress periodically has considered substantial troop
reductions in Europe, and both Republican and Democratic Party platforms in 1976 called for a reappraisal of the
American military footing in NATO, heightening European anxieties of Washington's longterm commitment .5 The irony of these variegated influences is that while they give the
impression of disarray and fragmentation they are actually indications of political
vitality and solidarity. Recent events have shown that the Atlantic partnership, without impairing its
fundamental sense of direction and purpose, can tolerate a certain degree of
diversity and conflicting national interests among its members. Some observers may bemoan
NATO's seemingly tepid response to the many conflicts and crises involving alliance partners, but its lack of direct action
in the affairs of its members reveals an important political strength . Whether by chance or design, its
overt hands-off policy in dealing with events in Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Italy, Britain, Iceland, and indeed, the United
States during the Vietnam War demonstrates a high degree of political sophistication and
flexibility . In sum, NATO appears fragmented only in comparison to the strong bonds that
welded a collage of weak European and powerful North American states together in the early 1950s. The looser NATO
of the mid- 1970s reflects today's political realities between the NATO allies and their place in the
international milieu. A few persons might judge the Atlantic partnership an anachronism--a vestige of the Cold War--but the fact is
that the very common menace that brought them together in 1949 continues to provide much of its raison d'être.
no russia agro – hype
This is hype
Sokolsky and Stronski 6/18 – senior associates at the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie
Mosco Center (Richard Sokolsky, Paul Stronski, 6/18/15, “Don’t Overreact to Russia and Its Forty “New”
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles,” http://carnegie.ru/eurasiaoutlook/?fa=60446)//twemchen
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s
ballistic missiles (ICBMs) to
announcement that Moscow plans to add more than 40 intercontinental
its nuclear arsenal is troubling. It raises perceptions of Russian threats in
Europe at a time when post-Cold War East-West relations are at a historic low. The announcement is just the latest example of
nuclear saber-rattling from the Kremlin over the past year—a trend that started during an uptick in fighting in Ukraine last August,
when Putin warned that “Russia is not to be messed with. Let me remind you that Russia is one of the largest nuclear powers.” In
September, Russia tested a new ICBM as the Kremlin talked about the need to maintain a nuclear deterrent. In March 2015, Putin
reportedly claimed that nuclear forces were put on standby during the Crimean annexation campaign a year earlier. Loose talk about
nuclear weapons heightens tensions, but the
actual military threat these missiles pose should not be
exaggerated . Putin’s pronouncements have been primarily for propaganda purposes and
other Kremlin officials have tried to walk back some of this rhetoric, likely aware that it does
not play well in the West and even in some corners of Russia itself. Extreme statements about nuclear
weapons and conflict with the West have caused concern among elements of the Russian political and intellectual elite—some of
whom warn that continually whipping
up confrontation in Europe or the United States is a “dead end” for
Russia. Even people close to Putin seem to worry about the consequences of his rhetoric. Reportedly within 40 minutes of Putin’s
statement, his foreign policy advisor Yuri Ushakov stated that Russia has no intention of launching an
arms race, underscoring that an arms race would weaken its economic capabilities. This week’s
rhetoric confirms to Western ears that Russia is an unpredictable actor. But, the Kremlin’s nuclear saber-rattling
could easily be a sign of the Russian leadership’s lack of confidence in the country’s own
conventional capabilities, particularly as the United States expands its high technology and precision strike capabilities. Russian
military strategists have long feared that their conventional capabilities pale in comparison to NATO’s.
Some are starting to worry about China’s too. These ICBMs likely do not add any new nuclear capabilities to what Russia has right
now. The country is already in the middle of an ICBM modernization program, as September’s ICBM test shows. It is unclear
whether the announcement actually includes 40 new ICBMs or whether they are just part of the more than 50 ICBM deployments
that Putin already announced for 2015 back in December. Furthermore, Russia already has a large force of tactical nuclear weapons
that can reach most targets in the Baltic states and possibly elsewhere in Central Europe. The added military value of 40 ICBM
warheads is marginal and it is unlikely they will give Moscow a capability it does not already have. Putin claimed the missiles will be
added to the arsenal this year, so it is conceivable that some, if not all of them, were probably already in production or predeployment before the announcement as part of Russia’s ongoing strategic force modernization program. Concern in the Western
media about these Russian plans provoking an arms race is misplaced. The United States is already in the middle of a robust and
expensive program to modernize its strategic nuclear forces and its tactical nuclear weapons posture in Europe. Washington
should therefore feel no compelling need to match these newly announced ICBMs because it is
already upgrading its capabilities to meet current and future threats. There is also some doubt about Russia’s
capacity to produce and pay for these new ICBMs. Russia previously co-produced ICBMs and many of their
components with Ukraine. The Ukraine war is forcing the Russian military-industrial complex to become
fully self-reliant . Many Russian officials tout this as a positive development. But even before the war,
Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who is responsible for military production, claimed that Russia’s defense
factories and design bureaus were already " overworked" and "did not have time to do
what the Defense Ministry orders." A prominent example of the problems the Russian defense industry faces is its
next-generation Armata T-14 battle tank. In February, Russian Deputy Minister of Defense Yuri Borisov publicly stated that the
government “miscalculated” on the Armata by failing to budget enough money to build the amount of tanks it required. They also
seemed to skimp on quality . One of the new tanks reportedly broke down during a dress rehearsal for this year’s
May 9 Victory Day celebrations. Russia’s budget is severely stretched and it is unclear where it will get the money to build additional
ICBMs, as the Armata example shows. The rise in defense spending is forcing the government to rein in spending elsewhere. The
Russian government now struggles to balance military spending—key to the war in Ukraine and to projecting military power—with
the need to keep up social spending on pensions, education, and other aspects of the social safety net that underwrite domestic
stability as the economy contracts. A recent poll suggested that the Russian public prioritized social spending over the military by a
wide majority; 67 percent wanted the government’s first spending priority to be raising living standards, while only 12 percent
thought the first priority should be military modernization and rearmament. So, if these ICBMs might not actually be new and if
Russia might not have the money to build them anyway, what was the purpose of the announcement? The Kremlin was likely
speaking to both international and domestic audiences. Russian officials earlier this week lashed out against U.S. plans to station
battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and other heavy weapons in Baltic and Central European countries that border Russia. That
plan—still reportedly under development—is meant to assure NATO’s easternmost allies of the alliance’s commitment to their
defense. Putin’s announcement was likely in response to this U.S. proposal. Its goal
was to unnerve those very
same allies . The announcement also could have been an attempt to stoke discord within NATO between allies
(mainly in the east) who believe that improving NATO’s ability to defend the Baltic states is the
best way to deter Russian aggression and those (mainly in the south and west) who fear provoking
Russia even further by being too aggressive either with sanctions or military preparations. The announcement was also likely to be
an attempt to achieve the Russian goal of breaking Western consensus on how to respond to Russian aggression in Ukraine and
threats elsewhere. Domestically, Russia faces growing economic and social problems due to a combination of low oil prices,
sanctions, and the Ukraine war. This announcement highlights alleged foreign threats to Russia—a tactic frequently used to divert
attention from domestic problems. Furthermore, at least parts of the Kremlin see the military sector as a means to grow the
economy, while defense workers have long been an important Putin constituency. Making pledges to the defense industry at an arms
show outside of Moscow was possibly an attempt to shore up the country’s image as a producer of modern armaments—important
both to maintain its market share in the global arms market and to reinforce perceptions of Russian strength to domestic audiences.
It would be an easy political win, particularly if these weapons were already in development. Putin’s
announcement is
troubling mainly because of its political and psychological impact on NATO allies. But it is no
cause for alarm and the United States and NATO should avoid an overreaction that
will just play into Putin’s hands .
Their tanks aren’t very scary
Gady 6/26 – staff writer @ The Diplomat (Franz-Stefan Gady, 6/26/15, “The ‘World’s Deadliest Tank’:
Not as Deadly as Putin Thinks?,” http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/the-worlds-deadliest-tank-not-asdeadly-as-putin-thinks/)//twemchen
The new Russian T-14 Armata main battle tank (MBT), dubbed the “world’s deadliest tank,” has been making
headlines ever since its first public appearance during this year’s May 9 Victory parade in Moscow. With its brand-new design –
dissimilar to any Soviet-legacy armored ground vehicles – paired with bombastic statements by the tank’s developers, analysts as
well as the media have been mesmerized by the T-14s alleged groundbreaking new technology features. For example, this week, IHS
Jane’s Defence Weekly reported yet another previously unknown system that the Armata is purportedly fitted with: a new
generation of explosive reactive armor (ERA) that, according to a Russian defense industry source, has “no known world
equivalents.” “The new ERA can resist anti-tank gun shells adopted by NATO countries, including the state-of-the-art APFSDS
DM53 and DM63 developed by Rheinmetall [and] anti-tank ground missiles with high-explosive anti-tank warheads,” the source
added. Last week, Andrei Terlikov, head designer at Uralvagonzavod, the largest main battle tank manufacturer in the world,
announced that there might even be a possibility of reducing the number of soldiers operating the T-14: “The high degree of
automation allows for coming close to reducing the crew of the Armata platform-based tank from three to two.” However,
Western analysts have begun to caution that Russian official announcement by the tank designers and
military officials should be taken with a grain of salt . As Henry Boyd of the Institute for Strategic Studies
told Voice of America: Where this puts it in comparison with contemporary Western tank design is
something I think we’ll have to wait some time to get a better sense of. It’s inevitably not going to
end up with everything that is currently being advertised as possible to put on this platform, the ambition
is just going to be too great. Cost will come in at some point. I have written about the T-14 and the cost factor
(see: “Is the World’s Deadliest Tank Bankrupting Russia ?”), recounting a joke that made the rounds
during the rehearsals of the May 9 Victory parade regarding a T-14 Armata which broke down while crossing Red Square: “The
Armata truly has unprecedented destructive power; a
battalion can destroy the entire Russian
budget !” Additionally, if the recently published analysis of the U.S. cybersecurity firm Taia Global is correct, a crucial piece of
the tank’s equipment – the night vision cameras – might not even be Russian-made (see: “Is Russia’s Deadliest Tank Using Western
Technology?”). Like Boyd, I also repeatedly underlined that there is very little we genuinely know about this new piece of Russian
military hardware and that it is impossible for now to truly assess the tanks capabilities. It is mostly an informed guessing game.
Literally get off the hype train
Mount 6/25 – staff writer @ Defense One, Researcher at the Council on Foreign Relations (Adam
Mount, 6/25/15, “Why Putin’s ICBM Announcement Does Not Signal a New Nuclear Arms Race,”
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/06/why-putins-icbm-announcement-does-not-signalnew-nuclear-arms-race/116317/)//twemchen
Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin
gave brief remarks at the opening ceremony of ARMY-2015, an exposition
where Russia’s defense contractors demonstrated new military technology for foreign weapons buyers.
The speech was relatively sedate. It omitted much of the aggressive rhetoric that has become commonplace for the Kremlin,
amounting to little more than a sales pitch for Russia’s military systems. Highlighting several pieces of Russia’s plan to modernize its
military, Putin
mentioned that, “This year we will supply more than forty new intercontinental ballistic missiles
[ICBMs] to our nuclear force.” This simple statement ignited a minor fervor in NATO countries. Secretary
of State John Kerry told reporters that, “Nobody should hear that kind of announcement… and not be concerned.” NATO Secretary
General Jens Stoltenberg said, “This nuclear sabre-rattling of Russia is unjustified…. It’s also one of the reasons we are now
increasing the readiness and preparedness of our forces.” Reuters says Russia is “beefing up” its arsenal, CNBC asked whether it
meant a new cold war, and many others worried about the prospect of a new arms race. Reading through these statements, you
would think that Russia had announced a new arms buildup that posed a significant threat to the West. In fact, Putin’s
announcement was entirely in line with previous expectations and did not add major new capabilities
to his nuclear arsenal. Russia continues to comply fully with the New START treaty, which
limits strategic launchers like ICBMs. Because their Soviet-era ICBMs are aging out of service, Russian nuclear forces must take
delivery of forty new ICBMs each year just to replicate their existing capability. Far
from a threat, Russia’s ICBM
modernization may actually make their arsenal more vulnerable . In short, the speech was
barely an announcement and, because it held a moderate line on nuclear modernization, probably more good news than bad. Let’s
take a closer look. Under New START, Russia must decline to reach an aggregate limit of 700 deployed launchers (meaning ICBMs,
SLBMs, and heavy bombers) by 2018. Both Russia and the United States are on track to meet these commitments. In fact, according
to the latest data, Russia is far below this limit, holding its aggregate number of launchers steady at 515. The forty “new”
ICBMs do not increase the number of ICBMs deployed, but simply replace old missiles that have been in
service since the 1970s. It is entirely reasonable for Russia to replace its Soviet-era SS-18, SS-19, and SS-25 missiles with
variants of the new SS-27 and the Sarmat heavy ICBM. The replacement process, which Russia hopes to complete by 2022,
decreases the number of missiles in total , but packs more warheads onto each missile, a vulnerability
that the United States would never accept in its own arsenal because it means that more Russian warheads can be
attacked by fewer U.S. warheads. Russian ICBM modernization is reasonably well understood and proceeding as
expected. As veteran nuclear watcher Hans Kristensen noted last month, Putin in 2012 stated an intention to deploy forty ballistic
missiles a year. Since then, Russian ICBM deployment has fallen short of this goal, retiring more older systems than they are
deploying new ones. If anything, last week’s announcement represented a step back from Putin’s pledge last year to deploy fifty new
ICBMs this year, a clear concession to the acute fiscal pressures that are hemming in Russia’s military modernization. Furthermore,
the United States should welcome any Russian effort to be transparent about its nuclear
arsenal. The information transmitted through New START inspections and in public announcements like these is reassuring to
both parties. It should be applauded rather than criticized , especially if they do not announce new
capabilities. Even if Russia were somehow to accelerate its nuclear modernization efforts, the U.S. Department of Defense recognizes
that Russia “would not be able to achieve a militarily significant advantage by any plausible expansion of its strategic nuclear forces,
even in a cheating or breakout scenario under the New START Treaty.” To summarize: Russia could deploy many more missiles and
still remain behind the United States in numbers of launchers and under the New START caps. Even if it cheated on the New START
treaty and deployed still more, the Pentagon does not believe that this would significantly affect the strategic balance. Last week’s
announcement should fall somewhere between mundane and reassuring. Instead,
much of the West took the
bait. Putin clearly hopes that his irresponsible talk about nuclear weapons will strike NATO
like a drum, sending fear and awe resonating through the alliance. He hopes to provoke a reaction that will
distract attention from his conventional and hybrid aggression, raise Russia’s stature in Eastern Europe,
solidify his rule at home, and allow him to impose even greater military expenditures on his citizenry. With the United States
prepositioning heavy weaponry to its NATO allies in the Baltics and NATO itself planning to more than double the size
of its NATO Response Force (NRF), Russian rhetoric will only grow more shrill, reckless, and urgent in the
coming year. And with the U.S. presidential election kicking off, Putin is likely to find an audience
that is ready and willing to amplify his alarmist rhetoric . To be sure, Russia has made
deeply dangerous moves with its nuclear arsenal. Its abrogation of the INF treaty and apparent lack of interest in
returning to compliance undercuts U.S. confidence that it is possible to reach negotiated solutions with Russia. Furthermore,
Kremlin officials have also proven anxious to inject nuclear threats into non-nuclear crises, as when Putin rather strangely claimed
to have prepared to raise the alert level for his nuclear forces to cover his aggression in Ukraine. As former Secretary of Defense
William Perry told a meeting in Vienna this week, “We are about to begin a new round in the nuclear arms race unless some brake is
put on it right now.” With rhetoric reaching a fever pitch, it is important to remember that the
goal is not to plunge
eagerly into a new arms race, but to prevent one . The episode of the forty ICBMs firmly
underscores the need to be clear about Russia’s actions, to demarcate the trivia
from the substantive, the rhetoric from the threat. The United States has no interest at all in indulging
Putin’s effort to create tension at the nuclear level and every interest in confronting to Russia’s aggression at the conventional level.
To date, the White House has been exemplary in drawing this line, responding patiently but firmly to INF noncompliance while
refusing to rise to Putin’s nuclear threats. In response to a question about the forty ICBMs, White House press secretary Josh
Earnest told reporters, “We’ve seen these reports. I don’t have a specific reaction to them.” At the same time, the White House has
moved assertively to strengthen NATO’s ability to respond to aggression on its own terms, pledging to contribute high-end assets to
the NRF’s spearhead force. This Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) will benefit from U.S. special operations forces,
logistical, artillery, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. There are already calls in the United States
to fight fire with fire and add to our own nuclear forces. However, there is little reason to believe that building new nuclear
capabilities or forward-deploying the ones we already have would restrain Russia. There isevery reason to believe that Putin would
take these steps as license to divert attention to the nuclear balance, to abrogate existing arms control treaties, to launch a new arms
race, and to use his nuclear arsenal to cover aggression at lower levels—in short, to start a new Cold War. It is better to fight fire with
cold water. The United States should firmly resist Russian aggression by deploying conventional forces in Europe and just as firmly
resist the urge to respond to nuclear provocations. It will certainly not help to worry about “new” nuclear threats where there are
none. The
best way to prevent a new arms race is to refuse to engage in one .
***germany rels
alt causes
So many alt causes
Speigel 13 – European news Agency (“Embassy Espionage: The NSA's Secret Spy Hub in Berlin,”,
SPIEGEL International, 10-27-13 http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cover-story-how-nsaspied-on-merkel-cell-phone-from-berlin-embassy-a-930205.html)//twemchen
Trade Agreement at Risk? When the news of Merkel's mobile phone being tapped began making the rounds, the
BND and the BSI, the federal agency responsible for information security, took over investigation of the matter. There too, officials
have been able to do nothing more than ask questions of the Americans when such sensitive issues have come up in recent months.
But now German-American
relations are threatened with an ice age. Merkel's
connection to Obama wasn't particularly good before the spying scandal. The chancellor is said to
consider the president overrated -- a politician who talks a lot but does little, and is
unreliable to boot. One example, from Berlin's perspective, was the military operation in Libya almost three
years ago, which Obama initially rejected. When then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton convinced him
to change his mind, he did so without consulting his allies. Berlin saw this as
evidence of his fickleness and disregard for their concerns. The chancellor also
finds Washington's regular advice on how to solve the euro crisis irritating . She would
prefer not to receive instruction from the country that caused the collapse of the global
financial system in the first place. Meanwhile, the Americans have been annoyed for years that
Germany isn't willing to do more to boost the world economy. Merkel also feels as though she
was duped .
Alt causes – culture, drone strikes, the Iraq war, and Ukraine
Hill 6/29 – BBC Berlin correspondent (Jenny Hill, 6/29/15, “Are Germany and the US still the best of
friends?,” http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33253459)//twemchen
And in the past few years the
number of Germans who viewed America favourably fell too. Just 51%
now hold a good opinion of the US. " The honeymoon's over ," ran one newspaper headline. So what
happened? Complicated relationship Germany's relationship with the US is best described as
complicated . Arguably, it is a cultural thing. Germans do not, for example, share America's more
hawkish approach to foreign policy. There is mistrust and concern over US use of drones,
and the Iraq War, which Germany strongly opposed, still casts a shadow. And that's before anyone has mentioned
claims of spying. But while geopolitical threats such as Russian action in Ukraine - divide opinion
between the two countries, they also unite them. For Germany, the US is a powerful ally - but Angela Merkel is widely
seen by the West as chief communicator with President Vladimir Putin.
resilient
Alt causes – or relations are resilient
Chollet 4/6 – Counselor at the German Marshall Fund of the US, served previously with the Obama
Administration at the White House, State Department, and Pentagon, most recently as Assistant Secretary
of Defense for International Security Affairs (Derek Chollet, 4/6/15, “US-German relations need a
reboot,” http://www.politico.eu/article/us-german-relations-reboot/)//twemchen
The Snowden revelations were
the spark that ignited the current firestorm. Germans
remain apoplectic over reports about US intelligence operations on German soil, especially the
monitoring of Merkel’s cell phone, as well as the German intelligence services’ close cooperation with the NSA. This lit a
large stack of kindling, with many Germans already anxious about the dominance of
US technology companies like Google, the implications of American-promoted trade
deals, and the sense that they are on the short-end of the US strategic shift to Asia. Germans
discuss these concerns with an abundance of emotion, complaining of betrayal and a lack of trust . Seven
years ago, more than 200,000 Germans swooned at Obama’s appearance in Berlin’s Tiergarten, but recent polls show that
Obama’s German approval ratings on foreign policy and overall favorability are plummeting . From a US
perspective, the intensity of Germany’s anxieties is puzzling because their concerns are not unique. Americans also worry about data
collection and privacy, as the recent debate in Congress about extending the Patriot Act makes clear. And trade remains a deeply
divisive issue, although the US debate has focused more on trade with Asia rather than with Europe. But
what makes the
current drama so curious is that in many ways, Berlin is becoming the ally that
Washington wants it to be. Developing strong partners is at the core of Obama’s foreign policy. In recent years,
Germany has asserted its global role more forcefully, especially on matters of security and defense. We see this with Chancellor
Merkel’s leadership on Ukraine and Russia, where she has remained far stronger than many predicted. We see this in terms of
military engagement — Germany remains a “Framework Nation” in Afghanistan with 850 troops, is actively involved in NATO
reassurance efforts in Eastern Europe, and is supplying lethal assistance to the Iraqi Kurds — and in Berlin’s willingness to increase
defense spending. While there is an intense intellectual debate in Germany about its leadership role, the country is still coming to
terms with playing a larger, more global role and assuming greater foreign policy responsibility. Americans may in fact be more
eager for Germany to lead than many Germans are. The
two countries are looking at the same strategic
picture. They share concerns about cyber threats, the future of Russia and Eastern Europe, Asia’s
rise in power, turmoil in the Middle East, as well as global challenges like climate change and the future
of the liberal, rules-based order, and how democracies balance privacy and transparency with security issues. A
decade ago Robert Kagan’s argument that “Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus” dominated the transatlantic
debate. Today, the
US and Germany are living on the same planet. The state of the US-German
relationship is better than it sounds. We have our share of drama and turmoil. That’s
not new — recall the intense debate about the deployment of Pershing missiles in the early ’80s; the
tensions over Reagan’s visit to Bitburg Cemetery in 1985; debates over the Balkan crises in the ’90s;
and of course Iraq . To put today’s opinion polls in perspective, let’s keep in mind that not so long ago, things
were far worse. In 2007, 86 percent of Germans disapproved of President George W.
Bush’s handling of foreign policy, and 59 percent did not want the US to play a leading role in world affairs. A decade ago,
the world’s crises sowed deep divisions between Germany and the US. The relationship
was defined by mutual recriminations and suspicions . In 2003, Angela Merkel, then still
virtually unknown in the US, nearly undermined her political career by writing an article for the Washington Post arguing that thenGerman Chancellor Gerhard Schröder didn’t speak for all Germans when he criticized the Iraq war. Today’s
and Russia, ISIS, China’s rise — are
unifying us .
crises — Ukraine
at: warming impact
No warming – our ev is predictive – backed by the multiple credible studies
Dodson 15 (Glen. Columnist. “Dodson: Global warming threat no longer credible”. 5 January 2015.
Cleveland Advocate. http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/opinion/dodson-global-warmingthreat-no-longer-credible/article_ad99afc7-175a-5fab-9738-bf38095ce80d.html)//JuneC//
For a number of years now, we have heard on radio and TV and read in newspapers, magazines and online news about how the ice
caps are melting along with other climatic changes because of global warming. Well with that in mind, how about all this warm
weather we have been experiencing? Just being facetious. Advertisement Recent reports from NASA and other scientific observers
indicate that we still have a lot to learn about the Earth and environmental changes. I have contended for years that the “sky is
falling” attitude by many from the scientific world regarding the global warming is because they have not looked back in history on
the various climatic changes that have occurred, not only in historic times but also thousands of years ago. A recent report by the US
National Snow and Ice Data Center says that the sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent had reached a maximum of 7.76 million
square miles, which is 595,000 square miles above the 1981 to 2010 average. Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the USNIDC said,
“Antarctic sea ice in 2014 is going to set a new record for sure.” He added, “What we are learning is, we have more to learn.” At the
other ice cap know as the Arctic, to the north of the USA and Canada, the ice there is 2.04 million square miles. The recent low
monthly average of 637,000 square miles occurred in 2012. John Coleman, co-founder of the Weather Channel, has
also joined in the debate on global warming by insisting that the theory of manmade climate is no longer
scientifically credible. In an open letter to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
Coleman wrote, “The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing ... and polar bears are
increasing in number.” Coleman added, “Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased.” He based
many of his views on the findings of the NIPCC, a non-governmental international body of scientists
aimed at offering an ‘independent second opinion of the evidence reviewed by the IPCC.’ He went on to say, “I
have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.”
Even the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in an up-to-date temperature data report
confirms that the United States has been cooling for the past decade. In the past, NOAA had been criticized
regarding its temperature station readings. To offset the criticism, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely
sited temperature stations spread across the USA. This network known as U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN)
began compiling temperature data in January 2005. In a 10-year period, the readings show that the average temperatures are not
rising but instead have cooled approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half the claimed global warming of the 20th
century. At the center of the controversy regarding Global Warming is the culprit carbon dioxide (CO2). Some scientists and
researchers tell of an increase in the CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels including coal, natural gas,
and oil for energy and transportation. Of the many scientists worldwide studying various aspects of the
warming, a number said that the climate change forecast are overestimated due to a failure to take into
account how plants absorb carbon dioxide. They said the impact of the rising CO2 levels on plant growth
as been underestimated by 16 percent. Another study being made in regard to Global Warming has found that biofuels
made from leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than gasoline. A $500,000 study paid for by the federal government,
recently released in the journal Nature Climate Change concluded that biofuels release 7 percent more greenhouse gasses as
compared to conventional gasoline. Overall in summary, like so many studies being made by a multitude of scientists and
researchers around the world, a lot more study and research needs to be made in an effort to learn more about the Earth and nature
in general.
Warming is slow and natural. Prefer observed data over their climate
models – takes into account external variables
Zolfagharifard 4/23 (Ellie. Assistant Science and Technology Editor at MailOnline. “Our climate
models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’,
says study”. 23 April 2015. Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3052926/Ourclimate-models-WRONG-Global-warming-slowed-recent-changes-natural-variability-saysstudy.html)//JuneC//
Global warming hasn't happened as fast as expected, according to a new study based on 1,000 years of
temperature records. The research claims that natural variability in surface temperatures over the course of a decade can
account for increases and dips in warming rates. But it adds that these so-called 'climate wiggles' could also, in the future, cause our
planet to warm up much faster than anticipated. The study compared
its results to the most severe emissions
scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 'Based on our analysis, a
middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,' said Patrick Brown, a doctoral
student in climatology at Duke University. 'But this could change.' The Duke-led study says that variability
is caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors. They claim these
'wiggles' can slow or speed the rate of warming from decade to decade, and exaggerate or offset the effects
of increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. If not properly explained and accounted for, they may skew the reliability
of climate models and lead to over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends. The research, uses observed data,
rather than the more commonly used climate models, to estimate decade-to-decade variability. 'At any given
time, we could start warming at a faster rate if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increase without any offsetting
changes in aerosol concentrations or natural variability,' said Wenhong Li, assistant professor of climate at Duke, who conducted the
study with Brown. The team examined whether climate models, such as those used by the IPCC, accurately account for natural
chaotic variability that can occur in the rate of global warming. To test these, created a new statistical model based on
reconstructed empirical records of surface temperatures over the last 1,000 years. 'By comparing our
model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the 'big picture' right but seem to
underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,' Brown said. 'Our model shows
these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated
warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from
2002 to 2013.' 'Statistically, it's pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century,
would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections,' Brown
said. 'Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario.' Under the IPCC's middle-ofthe-road scenario, there was a 70 per cent likelihood that at least one hiatus lasting 11 years or longer would occur between 1993 and
2050, Brown said. 'That matches up well with what we're seeing.' There's no guarantee, however, that this rate of warming will
remain steady in coming years, Li stressed. 'Our analysis clearly shows that we shouldn't expect the observed rates of warming to be
constant. They can and do change.'
at: warming impact – co2 ag
Increased CO2 creates a greening effect – increases overall flora biomass
Bastasch 2/27 (Michael. Reporter at The Daily Caller News Foundation University of Portland. “Claim:
CO2 Emissions Are Greening The Planet”. 27 February 2015. The Daily Caller.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/27/claim-co2-emissions-are-greening-the-planet)//JuneC//
Climate scientists often shriek about the supposed downsides of increased carbon dioxide emissions: a warmer planet, rising seas,
impending doom, John Cusack, etc. But is there an upside? As it turns out, increased atmospheric concentrations of
carbon dioxide are greening the planet, according to research done on the subject. “One byproduct of increased
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the longer temperate-zone growing seasons accompanying global warming is greater plant
growth,” wrote Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center — also known for his book “The Skeptical
Environmentalist.” Carbon dioxide is plant food. It’s a substitute for water and allows plant life to thrive in
areas that would have previously been impossible, including in the world’s most arid regions — a
phenomenon called “CO2 fertilization.” A warmer world also means longer growing seasons in temperate
zones, which further spurs plant growth. “The unsung part about global warming. It will actually lead to a
greener planet, because CO2 works as a fertilizer and global warming leads to more precipitation,”
Lomborg said, citing recent work by Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment
at Rockefeller University in New York. “Global Greening,“ Ausubel said, “is the most important ecological
trend on Earth today. The biosphere on land is getting bigger, year by year, by two billion tons or even
more.” Ausubel is not the only research to note the effects of CO2 fertilization. Several other groups have also noted that carbon
dioxide emissions are greening the planet. “Well documented evidence shows that concurrently with the increased
CO2 levels, extensive, large, and continuing increase in biomass is taking place globally — reducing
deserts, turning grasslands to savannas, savannas to forests, and expanding existing forests,” according to
a study by the libertarian Cato Institute from last year. “Nevertheless, in nearly all regions and globally,
the overall effect in recent decades is decidedly toward greening,” Cato notes. “This result is also the
opposite of what the IPCC expected.” In 2013, Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
(CSIRO) found that “CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid
areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa.” “In Australia, our native vegetation is superbly
adapted to surviving in arid environments and it consequently uses water very efficiently,” said Dr.
Randall Donohue, a CSIRO research scientist. “Australian vegetation seems quite sensitive to CO2
fertilisation.” Another 2013 study published in the journal Nature found a “substantial increase in water-use efficiency in
temperate and boreal forests of the Northern Hemisphere over the past two decades.” “The observed increase in forest
water-use efficiency is larger than that predicted by existing theory and 13 terrestrial biosphere models,”
the study added. “The increase is associated with trends of increasing ecosystem-level photosynthesis and
net carbon uptake, and decreasing evapotranspiration.” But as Lomborg notes, CO2 fertilization is only one side of
global warming and does not diminish the importance of the issue. “Remember, this does not mean that global warming is not real
or not overall a problem,” he said. “There are definitely downsides to global warming (and in the long run these are greater than the
upsides). But we don’t get a balanced global conversation on climate change if we overwhelmingly hear about the downsides but
rarely if ever hear about the upsides.” Scientists have also warned that higher temperatures, water scarcity and more severe weather
could offset the benefits of “global greening.” “On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and
could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water
availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example,” CSIRO’s Donahue cautioned.
Deforestation leads to loss of biodiversity and planetary collapse
Farrell 14 (Dorothy. Marketing and Communications Manager Judith Wright Centre of Contemporary
Arts. “Loss of biodiversity threatens ecosystem function”. 28 October 2014. Pipe Dream.
http://www.bupipedream.com/opinion/41745/loss-of-biodiversity-threatens-ecosystemfunction)//JuneC//
There’s a library as old as life itself. It exists in a continuous state of flux. Books have been added and removed, and the current ones
are always being updated. It’s the library of biodiversity, and each book holds the genetic code for a species. The library offers clues
for some of the world’s greatest mysteries. Speculations on some of the smallest scales of life have revealed complex and intricate
relationships that shape the inner workings of the biosphere. Relationships between organisms cause energy to flow and the
ecosystem to function. Each species is a piece of an ancient puzzle. Like an encyclopedia, species’ diversity guides
humans to a broader understanding of life. That understanding can be translated into the success of our
own species. Medicine, agriculture and climate are all inextricably connected to understanding
biodiversity. They are linked to human livelihood. For all that it’s worth, the library is in danger. Extinction marks the end
of a species’ genetic lineage. Gone, out like a light, goodbye forever! The Pyrenean ibex, the golden toad, the Baiji dolphin —
all are recently extinct, gone the way of the dodo. Extinction can occur naturally; survival can only be achieved by
the fittest. Yet, we are witnessing unprecedented rates of extinction. Within this century, the number of books on
the shelves of the biodiversity library could decrease by 20 to 50 percent. Scientists divide life on earth into five historical marks of
extinction and the dawn of human civilization initiated the sixth. The tropical rain forest fosters the world’s greatest
amount of biodiversity. Deforestation has claimed 40 percent of these environments. Cloud forests are
disappearing due to global warming. Coral reefs are being lost to pollution and acidification. The sea’s largest fish are lost to
overfishing. How many more species need to disappear before society takes notice? How many more landscapes do we need to
deforest, ravage of resources and leave behind before civilization is satiate? E.O. Wilson, a renowned biologist, once said, “We
should preserve every scrap of biodiversity as priceless while we learn to use it and come to understand
what it means for humanity.” Intelligence requires us to use every piece of the puzzle. Eliminating pieces is only going to
bring us backward. The burning books in Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451” are no longer a dystopian motif. The destruction of
valuable information is occurring now. Preservation is key to a viable planet, yet not enough people are talking
about it. In our own backyard, in the Nature Preserve, many species have disappeared as the consequence of deer overpopulation
alone. If we cannot take ownership of the things we live near, we cannot possibly fathom the destruction elsewhere. Extinction is
real, and it’s not going to stop without a major cultural intervention. The sooner we bring preservation into the academic spotlight,
the stronger and more just civilization becomes.
***france rels
uniqueness
Relations super high
O’Malley 14 – Staff writer at the Sydney Morning Herald (Nick O’Malley, 2/12/14, “France and US
rekindle relations,” Academic OneFile)//twemchen
You don't hear talk of "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" in Washington , DC, these days.
With French President Francois Hollande in town for a state visit, the focus is on the warmth of the
relationship between the US and its oldest ally, France, whose troops turned the tide at the battle of Yorktown, helping
America win its revolutionary war. A decade ago the alliance was at its lowest point after France declined to
follow the US into war in Iraq. The surrender monkey slur, coined by The Simpsons in the 1990s, was bandied about the capital with
glee. Today
with the US frustrated at Germany's continued reluctance to increase its
military engagement to match its economic might and Britain's exhaustion in the wake of Iraq and
Afghanistan, France has become crucial to America's diplomatic efforts in Europe. The
renewed warmth was noted by the leaders in an opinion piece they co-wrote for The Washington Post. "A
decade ago, few would have imagined our two countries working so closely together in so
many ways," they wrote. France has adopted an even tougher line than the US on Syria and Iran, just as it took a leadership role in
the intervention in Libya. Its diplomatic voice is all the more authoritative for its proven willingness - and capacity - to engage
militarily. Nicholas Dungan, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council in Washington and a senior adviser at the French Institute of
International and Strategic Relations in Paris, cites France's recent intervention in Mali as an "anti-Iraq" example of how to
successfully conduct such an operation. "[It had] local support, a United Nations mandate, expert troops, knowledge of the country
and the terrain, decisive action, then victory and swift departure," he says. French forces remain engaged against mostly Muslim
rebels in the Central African Republic. America's gratitude for this effort is genuine, says Erik Goldstein, professor of international
relations at Boston University. These are actions that would need significantly more American involvement were it not for the
French action at a time when the Pentagon is wrestling with its budget cuts. For years the US has been imploring its NATO allies to
build the strength to ensure Europe's security without relying on America. France and Britain are the only member nations that have
met the spending level the US believes necessary, 2 per cent of GDP.
uniqueness – terrorism
Terrorism cooperation is strong – their evidence
Delattre 14 – French ambassador to the US (Francois Delattre, 4/15/14, “New Opportunities for the USFrance Partnership,” Federal News Service, Lexis)//twemchen
French-American relations have never been stronger than they are today , as
exemplified by the state visit that we're referring to. If you think about it, on the diplomatic and security front, the U.S. and
France are each other's closest allies in the fight against terrorism, as illustrated by
France military operation in Mali, the heart of Africa, to combat al-Qaida, with much-appreciated
American support by the way.
uniqueness – at: wikileaks
Get off the hype train – damage will be short term only – mutual interests
ensure relations are resilient
Blau 6/25 – staff writer @ Handelsblatt Global Edition (John Blau, 6/25/15, “Wikileaks Disclosure;
France in Rage, Disbelief over NSA Spying,” Handelsblatt Global Edition, Lexis)//twemchen
French society reacted with shock, disbelief and outrage, but its government responded with
measured, muted disappointment this week to revelations that United States had wiretapped the phone
calls of three French presidents and other senior government officials. Experts say the disclosures of widespread
spying by the U.S. National Security Agency will damage relations between France and the United States, but are
unlikely to sever e ties between the two strategic allies. Gereon Fritz, the president of the VDFG Vereinigung
Deutsch-Französischer Gesellschaften für Europa, an organization of 170 clubs and groups with 25,000 members in Germany, said
the revelations of NSA spying in France, like those in Germany, would probably damage the country's
relations with the United States over the short term, pushing France to reevaluate but
not end its cooperation. Over time, the countries are likely to survive the controversy
because of the need to maintain a close strategic and economic relationship , he said.
"These revelations in France come as no surprise, really,'' Mr. Fritz, whose group is based in Mainz, Germany, said in an
interview."They are damaging of course in the short term, but over time I think the
countries will redouble their
efforts to strengthen the good cooperation," said Gereon Fritz, the president of the German-French Union, a group of 170 clubs
and 25,000 members in Germany that focuses on its partnership with France.
Squo assurances and apologies solve – also, France doesn’t care
TNS 6/25 – Thai News Service (TNS, 6/25/15, “Obama Reassures France After 'Unacceptable' Spying,”
Lexis)//twemchen
France is also sending a top intelligence official to Washington to confirm the spying is
over, government spokesman Stephane Le Foll said. "We have to verify this spying has finished," Le Foll told
reporters Wednesday. "Between allies this is unacceptable and incomprehensible. France does not spy on its
allies." The latest revelations of espionage among Western allies come after it emerged in late 2013 the NSA had spied on Germany
and that Germany's own BND intelligence agency had cooperated with the NSA to spy on officials and companies elsewhere in
Europe. Addressing parliament later in the day, Prime Minister Manuel Valls called the allegations very serious. Valls said the
United States must recognize the danger they posed to freedom and also do everything in its power to quickly repair the damage in
U.S.-French relations. French vote on spying law Ironically, the leak came a day before Wednesday's vote in the French parliament
on a controversial new law granting the state sweeping powers to spy on its citizens. The
White House said it was not
targeting Hollande's communications and will not do so in the future, but it did not comment on past
activities. France's ambassador to the U.S., Gerard Araud, appeared to downplay the revelations, saying on Twitter: "Every diplomat
lives with the certainty that their communications are listened to, and not by just one country. Real world." Le Foll said Paris had not
decided whether to launch legal proceedings as Germany had done but, amid calls from some for retaliation, played down diplomatic
consequences. "In the face of threats that we face and given the historic ties linking us, we have to keep a perspective," he said.
"We're not going to break diplomatic ties." However, Claude Gueant, Sarkozy's former chief of staff and one of the reported targets of
the NSA, told RTL radio: "I feel like trust has been broken." 'Who gave the order?' Dominique Moisi, senior adviser to the French
Institute for International Relations in Paris, said, Somewhere, something went wrong in the decision-making process in
Washington. Who gave the order? ... It would be very interesting to know the chain of command. Still, Moisi said France and the
United States need each other too much for lasting damage. France
will call for an apology. A formal one would be
better than a subdued, private one. And I think apologies are needed. They will remain close friends and
allies ," he said. "But this will leave a little scar. And this was, to say the least, unwelcome," Moisi added. German probe Earlier
this month, Germany's top public prosecutor closed a year-long probe into the suspected tapping of Merkel's cellphone by U.S. spies.
The leaked documents include five from the NSA, the most recent dated May 22, 2012, just days after Hollande took office. The
documents include apparent U.S. government cables discussing Hollande's worries about the Greek eurozone crisis and Sarkozy
mulling restarting Middle East peace talks without Washington's involvement. A member of Sarkozy's now-rebranded The
Republicans party described the reports as scandalous. Party member Eric Ciotti told France Info radio that Washington needs to
provide an explanation and also apologize for apparent practices he called undignified. But
analyst Philippe Moreau
Defarges of the French Institute of International Relations believes the controversy
will soon fade . It's a not a surprise. Today, I think WikiLeaks is an old question. Today, there
are other priorities, concerning the Middle East, concerning the Mediterranean ...that's
why I think it will be very quickly forgotten , Defarges said.
Even French officials agree
Hinnant and Charlton 6/26 – staff writers at Associated Press (Lori Hinnant and Angela Sharlton,
Associated Press, 6/26/15, “Anger, no surprise as US newly accused of spying in France,”
Lexis)//twemchen
The White House said Obama also pledged
to continue close cooperation with France on matters of
intelligence and security. If not a surprise, the latest revelations put both countries in something of a quandary. France's counter-espionage capabilities were called into question at the highest
level. The United States, meanwhile, was shown not only to be eavesdropping on private conversations of its closest allies but also to be unable to keep its own secrets. "The rule in espionage - even between allies is that everything is allowed, as long as it's not discovered," Arnaud Danjean, a former analyst for France's spy agency and currently a lawmaker in the European Parliament, told France-Info radio. "The Americans
have been caught with their hand in the jam jar a little too often, and this discredits them." Still, the French weren't denying the need for good intelligence - they have long relied on U.S. intel cooperation to fight
terrorism and are trying to beef up their own capabilities. The release of the spying revelations appeared timed to coincide with a final vote Wednesday in the French Parliament on a controversial bill allowing
broad new surveillance powers, in particular to counter threats of French extremists linked to foreign jihad. The law, which would give intelligence services authority to monitor Internet use and phone calls in
France, passed in a show-of-hands vote, despite a last round of criticism from privacy advocates concerned about massive U.S.-style data sweeps. It won't take effect, however, until a high court rules on whether it
is constitutional. Hours before the vote, the Socialist-led government again denied accusations that it wants massive NSA-style powers. "I will not let it be said that this law could call into question our liberties and
that our practices will be those that we condemn today," Valls said. Hollande, calling the U.S. spying an "unacceptable" security breach, convened two emergency meetings as a result of the spying disclosures. The
top floor of the U.S. Embassy, visible from France's Elysee Palace, reportedly was filled with spying equipment hidden behind elaborately painted tromp l'oeil windows, according to the Liberation newspaper,
which partnered with WikiLeaks and the website Mediapart on the documents. U.S. Ambassador Jane Hartley was summoned to the Foreign Ministry, where she promised to provide quick responses to French
Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said. He said he understood the need for
eavesdropping for counterterrorist reasons, "but this has nothing to do with that." Hollande was sending his top
concerns,
intelligence coordinator to the U.S. to ensure that promises made after earlier NSA spying revelations in 2013 and 2014 have been
kept. Valls said the U.S. must do everything it can, and quickly, to "repair the damage" to U.S.-French relations. "If the fact of the
revelations today does not constitute a real surprise for anyone, that in no way lessens the emotion and the anger. They are
legitimate. France will not tolerate any action threatening its security and fundamental interests," he said. "France does not listen in
on its allies," government spokesman Stephane Le Foll told reporters. The disclosures, which emerged late Tuesday, mean that
France has joined Germany on the list of U.S. allies targeted by the NSA. Two of the cables - dealing with then-President Nicolas
Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac, his predecessor - were marked "USA, AUS, CAN, GBR, NZL" suggesting that the material was meant to
be shared with Britain, Canada and other members of the so-called Five Eyes intelligence alliance. An aide to Sarkozy said that the
former president considered the eavesdropping unacceptable. There was no immediate comment from Chirac. The surveillance law
passed Wednesday would allow intelligence services to place recording devices in suspects' homes and tracking devices on their cars
without a judge's prior authorization. It would also require Internet firms to allow the installation of electronic boxes to record
metadata from all Internet users in France, which could then be analyzed for potentially suspicious behavior. While
the
French rhetoric was lively Wednesday, the high-level U.S.-French meetings showed that
the countries remain important allies, and suggested they were ready to paper over their
differences . In Germany, revelations that the NSA was listening to Chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone weighed on
relations with the U.S. for a while but it has very much receded from the top of the political leaders' agenda. Le Foll, the French
government spokesman, who was heading Wednesday to Washington on a previously scheduled trip, said it
wasn't a diplomatic rupture .
impact – at: warming
Wikileaks don’t hurt warming cooperation
Brunet 6/25 – published on France24, Romain BRUNET (6/25/15, “WikiLeaks: France plays the victim
in the intelligence game,” http://www.france24.com/en/20150625-wikileaks-france-nsa-victimintelligence-game-spying-espionage-hollande)//twemchen
"The
revelations are a source of worry and irritation – they force diplomats and leaders to take a
stand – and it does not improve the atmosphere, but they are unlikely to have any real
impact on Franco-American relations in the near term," said Nicholas Dungan, a senior adviser to the
French Institute for International and Strategic Affairs (IRIS) and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council in Washington. " France
has always pursued a policy of independence and equality with the United States,” Dungan said. “These
revelations will not undermine cooperation between Paris and Washington
on Cop21 (the UN Conference on Climate Change to be held in Paris in December), for example, or cooperation on
espionage . No two countries work more closely together in the fight against terrorism .”
impact – at: terrorism
France fails in the Middle East
Barnes-Dacey 6/30 – Senior Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations (Julien
Barnes-Dacey, 6/30/15, “France's deepening relations with the Gulf,”
http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_frances_deepening_relations_with_the_gulf)//twemchen
This developing
closeness has been embraced as a sign of France's growing strategic
relevance in the region, with Paris said to be filling the void created by deepening Gulf frustration with US regional policies,
particularly fears of a perceived soft line on Iran. But reality points the other way : France's new proximity
is dependent on increasingly unconditional support for Gulf regional policies, weakening its
ability to wield independent influence, including by making the case for Gulf policies of de-escalation
which, at times, it privately recognises as necessary. As the latest example, France, more than any other Western state is now
offering full backing to the Saudi-led military operation in Yemen, as others - notably the US - increasingly show their wariness of
the security, political and humanitarian downsides of the ongoing intervention press the Saudi government on the need for an exit
strategy.
Turn – US support makes French action counter-productive – it’s a more
effective actor on its own
Barnes-Dacey 6/30 – Senior Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations (Julien
Barnes-Dacey, 6/30/15, “France's deepening relations with the Gulf,”
http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_frances_deepening_relations_with_the_gulf)//twemchen
Either way, France
has been able to take these positions without incurring any significant burden of
responsibility, whether by initiating unilateral military steps to back its strong rhetoric or by suggesting any real
willingness to ultimately block the US brokered nuclear deal. Much like the Gulf States France continues to
look to the US to make the decisive calls in the region, even as it takes direct advantage of American
unwillingness to act as it wants. Ironically, if Washington was to respond more assertively, in line
with proclaimed Gulf and French ambitions, Paris would be likely to quickly lose its newly secured
privileged position with the Gulf States. French-GCC ties are clearly mutually beneficial in many ways, but at
the end of the day are unlikely to be able to deliver a meaningful strategic partnership. France may be
gaining new commercial reward but its role as an actor with meaningful regional influence is arguably being diminished as it
increasingly falls unquestioningly in line with Gulf policies, even where they are playing some role in feeding the conditions fuelling
new threats to European interests, whether in terms of terrorism or concerns about the huge increase in refugee inflows. For their
part the Gulf States know that, however
helpful and desirable the political cover Paris provides, France
will ultimately be unable and unwilling to meaningfully step up in order to help them address
their core regional concerns.
Wikileaks don’t hurt terrorism cooperation
Brunet 6/25 – published on France24, Romain BRUNET (6/25/15, “WikiLeaks: France plays the victim
in the intelligence game,” http://www.france24.com/en/20150625-wikileaks-france-nsa-victimintelligence-game-spying-espionage-hollande)//twemchen
"The
revelations are a source of worry and irritation – they force diplomats and leaders to take a
stand – and it does not improve the atmosphere, but they are unlikely to have any real
impact on Franco-American relations in the near term," said Nicholas Dungan, a senior adviser to the
French Institute for International and Strategic Affairs (IRIS) and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council in Washington. " France
has always pursued a policy of independence and equality with the United States,” Dungan said. “These
revelations will not undermine cooperation between Paris and Washington
on Cop21 (the UN Conference on Climate Change to be held in Paris in December), for example, or cooperation on
espionage . No two countries work more closely together in the fight against terrorism .”
impact – at: space debris
Either status quo Space Surveillance Network solves OR debris collisions
are inevitable
Sankin 6/16 (Aaron. Aaron has more than seven years of experience as journalist pursuing rich
storylines. Aaron's work has appeared in the Huffington Post, San Francisco Magazine, The Onion, The
Motley Fool, The Daily Dot, The Austin Chronicle, SF Appeal, The Bay Bridged, Theatre Bay Area,
Crawdaddy!, The Bold Italic and The San Francisco Bay Guardian. “Meet the heroes keeping us safe from
space junk”. The Week. 16 June 2015. http://theweek.com/articles/560364/meet-heroes-keeping-safefrom-space-junk)//JuneC//
The film Gravity starts with a bang: A satellite explodes, sending a deadly wave of debris hurtling toward two astronauts repairing
the Hubble Space Telescope. Art, in this case, imitates life. On Jan. 11, 2007, the Chinese government fired a missile into one of its
aging weather satellites, smashing it into smithereens. Viewed as a provocative step toward the militarization of space, the strike
drew sharp condemnation from the international community. Less discussed, though, was a different danger: Those innumerable
pieces of broken metal now orbiting the Earth. Each piece, traveling up to 17,500 miles per hour, can seriously damage anything it
hits. NASA estimates the total number of pieces of orbital debris larger than a grapefruit at over 500,000. Smaller debris could
number in the millions. And when they collide, they break, creating more bits of potentially deadly space junk. A BB-sized piece can
strike with the force of a Jeep speeding down a highway at 60 miles per hour. A single fleck of paint cracked the windshield of the
Space Shuttle Challenger. (Courtesy NASA) In the half-century after Sputnik kicked off the space race, orbital debris increased at a
gradual, linear rate. The exploding Chinese satellite, however, created a huge spike in that rate; so did a 2009 collision between the
Iridium 33 communications satellite and a long out-of-use Russian satellite. Previously, ''space junk'' mostly meant the cast-offs
from launch vehicles — engines and other equipment used to get satellites into orbit, then discarded. But the two satellite incidents
changed the game: Orbital space debris has reached a ''tipping point,'' according to a 2011 report by the National Research Council,
potentially threatening our modern, satellite-based communications systems. Luckily, while the destruction in Gravity happened in
minutes, the real-life problem has been building for decades, and there's time to do something about space junk. A growing
international community works tirelessly to keep the world's spacecraft safe. From a military agency tracking nearly
everything in the sky to a sprawling network of researchers developing sci-fi technologies to vaporize
orbital garbage, humanity is finally starting to solve the problem. In March 2012, the six astronauts aboard the
International Space Station awoke to a potentially dire alert. A piece of debris from the Iridium satellite crash three years prior was
careening perilously close to the station. They quickly began evacuation procedures, getting as far as loading into the Russian Soyuz
spacecraft docked at the facility before receiving the all clear. In orbital terms, the nine-mile gap between the station's position and
the space junk whizzing by was barely a hair's breadth. In a dozen years, it was the third time the station's occupants had loaded into
the escape pods. A year before, the gap between the station and a piece of debris was a breathtakingly close 1,100 feet. It might seem
obvious: If space debris is such a problem, why not armor the satellites and space stations? But the six inches of sheet lead that could
protect against collisions would be prohibitively heavy; it'd be impractical to even get off the ground. The current system
involves literally avoiding the problem. Spacecraft operators need advance warning of possible collisions, and then they
need to play dodge-the-debris. They need the Space Surveillance Network. During the Cold War, the United States
created a radar network to warn of incoming Soviet missile attacks. Thankfully, a Soviet first strike never happened, but the system
remains useful: It can track anything in the sky, including satellites and space debris. Based at Vandenberg Air Force Base on the
central California coast, it's grown to include 20 telescope and radar sites across the globe — from Alaska to Cape Cod to the Indian
Ocean's remote Diego Garcia atoll. The Space Surveillance Network — which in 2006 was incorporated into the Joint Space
Operations Center (JSpOC), an international effort that also includes the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada — tracks some
23,000 man-made objects in orbit and publishes daily updates on Space-Track.org. Anyone can use the data, from
researchers and governmental space agencies to private satellite operators and space flight companies
likeSpaceX. However, aided by the Space Surveillance Network, JSpOC goes one step further. ''Every day we do what we call
‘conjunction assessment,' which is an analysis to determine if two objects in orbit are going come within a certain distance of each
other and potentially cause a collision,'' says Lt. Col. Scott Putnam, who runs the Space Surveillance Division at JSpOC. It then
warns satellite owners of a possible crash. The network averages 23 warnings a day. In 2014, warnings led to a satellite
moving once every three days; the International Space Station had to move three times that year. But
the JSpOC doesn't
demand any moves. It only makes recommendations, even to NASA, and advises how to proceed . Prior to
Iridium, JSpOC had been screening about 140 satellites for collisions; after the crash, it also started including the 60 satellites in
Iridium's satellite fleet. Within a year, that number increased to more than 1,000. Nevertheless, more
collisions are inevitable, because there's so much debris to dodge. The strategy, a JSpOC spokesperson admitted,
doesn't address the fundamental problem. We need to clear out the clutter.
impact – at: asats
Status quo solves - Adequate space protection programs have been funded
for 2016
Gertz 15 (Bill. Senior editor of the Washington Free Beacon. Prior to joining the Beacon he was a
national security reporter, editor, and columnist for 27 years at the Washington Times. “China Missile
Test Highlights Space Weapons Threat”. 25 March 2015. The Washington Free Beacon.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-missile-test-highlights-space-weapons-threat)//JuneC//
China’s recent test of a missile designed to shoot down satellites in low-earth orbit highlights a growing
threat of space weapons, the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command said on Tuesday. Adm. Cecil D.
Haney, head of the Omaha-based nuclear forces command, also voiced worries about the strategic nuclear
forces buildup by Russia and China, and said as commander he must assume North Korea is correct in
claiming to have miniaturized a nuclear warhead for its missile forces. Haney also warned about the use of
sophisticated cyber attacks by terrorist groups such as the Islamic State (IS), also known as ISIS or ISIL.
“And clearly in the case of that group, being able to use it to recruit, use cyber to threaten, and those kind
of things… we see more and more sophistication associated with that,” he said. The U.S. Cyber Command,
which is part of Stratcom, is looking “very, very closely” at the terrorist cyber threats, “on a day-to-day
basis,” he said. Asked about a recently released list of 100 U.S. military personnel targeted by IS, Haney said the list of names did
not originate from Defense Department networks. He suggested the information may have been culled from social media. “We do
have a campaign where we practice and train on operational security, but not just with the members, but also alert the families, in
terms of this business of using social media,” Haney said. On China’s space weapons buildup, dubbed “counterspace” arms by the
Pentagon, Haney said the United States needs to be ready to deal with attacks on satellites in a future conflict. “The threat in space, I
fundamentally believe, is a real one. It’s been demonstrated,” Haney said, noting China’s 2007 anti-satellite missile test against an
orbiting satellite that created tens of thousand of debris pieces. “They’ve repeated this kind of test last summer, and during that test,
fortunately, they did not do a hit-to-kill kind of thing,” he said, noting that no further debris was created. “But just seeing the nature
of these types of activities show how committed they are to a counter-space campaign,” Haney said. “So we have to be ready for any
campaign that extends its way into space.” The July 23 test of the anti-satellite missile was identified by defense officials as the DN-1
anti-satellite interceptor missile. China also has a second anti-satellite (ASAT) missile called the DN-2 that was tested in 2013 and is
designed to hit satellites in high-earth orbit—the location of intelligence, navigation, and targeting satellites. China, which is publicly
opposing the development of space weapons, did not identify the test as an anti-satellite missile. Instead, the Defense Ministry
described the test as a “land-based anti-missile technology experiment.” Haney said the July test was similar to the 2007 ASAT test.
“The only difference this time [is that] it did not impact another satellite,” he said. “I’m not convinced that was their intention. But
quite frankly, just the whole physics and the demonstration and everything that they did, I’m sure they collected data in order to
further make this an operational capability. … This was also a test for capability in low earth orbit.” Haney was asked what steps the
United States is taking in response to the space weapons threat and declined to provide specifics. The president’s budget for
fiscal 2016 contains adequate funding for investments in space protection capabilities, he said.
Haney described space defenses as mainly passive efforts, including “space situational awareness,” or
intelligence on space threats, as well as developing tactics, techniques, and procedures for space defenses,
and undefined “resiliency” of space systems. Asked about developing offensive U.S. space capabilities,
Haney said: “I will leave it at we are working for our space protection program.” In 2008, the Pentagon used a
modified Navy SM-3 anti-missile interceptor to shoot down a National Reconnaissance Office satellite that was falling from orbit.
The test was widely viewed as an indication the interceptor could be used in the future as part of an anti-satellite weapons systems.
Rick Fisher, a China military affairs expert, said China appears to be building an extensive space combat capability that includes
ground- and space-based lasers, ground-launched anti-satellite missiles, and co-orbital weapons. “The remainder of this decade will
likely see China continue to test ground-launched ASATs and begin to test air-launched ASATs,” said Fisher, a senior fellow at the
International Assessment and Strategy Center. “However, Chinese sources indicate that laser-armed space platforms may not be
ready until later in the 2020s,” he added. “By this time China will also have lofted a dual-use space station and may have tested dualuse space planes.” On the nuclear and strategic threats, Haney said: “Today’s threat environment is more diverse, complex, and
uncertain than it’s ever been, against a backdrop of global security environment latent with multiple actors, operating across
multiple domains.” Haney warned that the aging U.S. nuclear arsenal and infrastructure can no longer be taken for granted as safe,
secure, and effective in the future without modernization, which is threatened by budget cuts. “For decades, we have sustained while
others have modernized their strategic nuclear forces, developing and utilizing counterspace activities, increasing the sophistication
and pervasive nature of their cyber capabilities and proliferating these emerging strategic capabilities around the globe. Haney
singled out Russian President Vladimir Putin for “provocative” actions, along with Russian modernization of nuclear missiles,
bombers, submarines, and industrial base. The provocative actions included demonstrating nuclear capabilities during the Ukraine
crisis and penetrating U.S. and allied air defense zones with long-range strategic bombers. He also mentioned Russia’s violation of
the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty. China also is building up strategic forces. “China has developed a capable
submarine and intercontinental ballistic missile force, and has recently demonstrated their counterspace capabilities,” Haney said.
On North Korea, Haney noted Pyongyang’s claim to have miniaturized a warhead capable of being fired from the new KN-08 roadmobile long-range missile. “As of yet, I don’t see any tests yet that associated with this miniaturized claim,” he said. “But as a
combatant commander, as commander of your Strategic Command, it’s a threat that we cannot ignore as a country.” Iran recently
launched a space vehicle that “could be used as a long-range strike platform,” he said. U.S. nuclear forces remain in urgent need of
modernization, he said. “As a nation, we cannot simply afford to underfund our strategic capabilities, Haney said. “Any cuts to the
president’s budget, including those imposed by sequestration, will hamper our ability to sustain and modernize our joint military
forces and put us at real risk of making our nation less secure and able to address future threats.”
Low risk, motive, and impact of an ASAT attack – their ev is hype
Sankaran 15 (Jaganath. a post-doctoral research associate at the National Security Education Center at
the Los Alamos National Laboratory and a Research Scholar at CISSM. He was previously a fellow at the
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University and a Stanton Nuclear Security
Fellow at RAND Corporation. Sankaran received his PhD from the Maryland School of Public Policy in
2012, where his work on space security resulted in a dissertation on Debating Space Security: Capabilities
and Vulnerabilities. “Limits of the Chinese Antisatellite Threat to the United States” ABSTRACT. 9
January 2015. The Air University. http://www.isn.ethz.ch/DigitalLibrary/Articles/Detail/?lng=en&id=186545)//JuneC//
The argument that US armed forces are critically dependent on satellites and therefore extremely
vulnerable to disruption from Chinese anti-satellite (ASAT) attacks is not rooted in evidence. It rests on
untested assumptions—primarily, that China would find attacking US military satellites operationally
feasible and desirable. This article rejects those assumptions by critically examining the challenges
involved in executing an ASAT attack versus the limited potential benefits such action would yield for
China. While some US satellites are vulnerable, the limited reach of China’s ballistic missiles and inadequate infrastructure make it
infeasible for China to mount extensive ASAT operations necessary to substantially affect US capabilities. Even if China could
execute a very complex, difficult ASAT operation, the benefits do not confer decisive military advantage. To dissuade China and
demonstrate US resilience against ASAT attacks, the United States must employ technical innovations including space situational
awareness, shielding, avoidance, and redundancies. Any coherent plan to dissuade and deter China from employing an ASAT attack
must also include negotiations and arms control agreements. While it may not be politically possible to address all Chinese concerns,
engaging and addressing some of them is the sensible way to build a stable and cooperative regime in space. In May of 2013, the
Pentagon revealed that China had launched a suborbital rocket from the Xichang Satellite Launch Center in southwest Sichuan
province that reached a high-altitude satellite orbit. According to Pentagon spokesperson Lt Col Monica Matoush, “the launch
appeared to be on a ballistic trajectory nearly to geo-synchronous earth orbit.”[1] An unattributed US defense official said, “It was a
ground-based missile that we believe would be their first test of an interceptor that would be designed to go after a satellite that’s
actually on orbit.”[2] In fact, the anticipation of this launch had sparked reports in the United States that China would be testing an
antisatellite (ASAT) missile that might be able to attack US global positioning system (GPS) navigation satellites orbiting at an
altitude of 20,000 kilometers (km).[3] However, the Chinese claimed the launch carried a science payload (a canister of barium
powder) to study Earth’s ionosphere. Reporting on the launch, China’s state-run Xinhua news service announced that “the
experiment was designed to investigate energetic particles and magnetic fields in the ionized stratum and near-Earth space. The
experiment has reached expected objectives by allowing scientists to obtain first-hand data regarding the space environment at
different altitudes.”[4] Even though the barium payload release occurred at an altitude of 10,000 km, the Chinese did not clarify how
high the missile actually went or what launch vehicle was used.[5] The launch reignited the perceived threat of Chinese
ASAT missile attacks on US military satellites. The growing US concern about Chinese ASAT capability
goes back to 2007 when Beijing shot down one of its own satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO). China has
also conducted “missile defense” tests viewed as proxies for ASAT missions.[6] These Chinese activities
are seen by many analysts as a threat to US space capabilities. The persistent refrain has been that the US military
exploits space surveillance capabilities better than any other nation, resulting in an asymmetric advantage to its armed forces on a
global scale.[7] Given this US advantage, analysts posit China will find it prudent to directly attack US satellites—executing a space
“pearl harbor” that would cripple US military capabilities for years.[8] Without its eyes and ears in space to provide early warning
and real-time intelligence, it is argued, the United States would be in a painfully awkward situation should China put direct military
pressure on Taiwan.[9] However, the argument that US armed forces are critically dependent on satellites and therefore extremely
vulnerable to disruption from Chinese ASAT attacks is not rooted in evidence.[10] Instead, it rests on untested assumptions—
primarily, that China would find attacking US military satellites operationally feasible and desirable.[11] This article tests those
assumptions by critically examining the challenges involved in executing an ASAT attack versus the limited potential benefits such
action would yield for China. It first examines which US military satellites are most vulnerable to Chinese ASAT
attack and then, by demonstrating the limited reach of China’s ballistic missiles and inadequate
infrastructure capacity for launching multiple rockets, posits that it would be infeasible for China to
mount extensive ASAT operations necessary to substantially affect US capabilities. The article next
explores the limited benefits China would achieve from an ASAT attack, arguing that even if it manages to
execute a very complex and difficult ASAT operation, the benefits do not confer decisive military
advantage. Finally, it suggests policy actions—both unilateral US military-technical innovations and bilateral cooperative
measures with China—to dissuade China and to demonstrate US resilience against ASAT attacks.
***asia rels
alt causes
Sovereignty disputes and economic frictions take out the advantage
Chowdhury 6/27 – former journalist based in India, RT contributor (Jhinuk Chowdhury, 6/27/15, “Will
'interests outweigh obstacles' in US-China relationship?,” http://rt.com/op-edge/270154-china-usrelations-tensions/)//twemchen
Although there were quite a few feel-good announcements, the
Strategic & Economic Dialogue clearly shows
mutual trust in Sino-US relation remains a massive work to be done As the tension between
Beijing and Washington over the South China Sea intensified, a number of alternative voices emerged
advocating a rethinking of the Sino-US relationship. From the policy of what many thought was
focused on 'containment' of China, there are now suggestions that ask Washington to
'accommodate' the emerging Asian power by responding to its need to be treated as an equal partner on the
international stage. Some call it 'utterly ironic' that two of world's largest economies should
build separate economic blocs - one leading the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) the other the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Others say Obama administration's opposition to the AIIB is not what the position
of a responsible stakeholder should be.
SCS
Johnson 6/23 – Reuters, Retired US Air Force Officer, and a retired Foreign Service Officer (William
Johnson, 6/23/15, “The five most important issues in U.S.-China relations,”
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/23/the-five-most-important-issues-in-u-s-chinarelations/)//twemchen
The South China Sea issue has been front and center for the last 18 months, as China carried
out major land reclamation efforts . While the issue stems from territorial disputes
between China and various Southeast Asian nations, which don’t intrinsically involve the United States, the
United States sees China’s island building activities as a potential threat to freedom of navigation along a critical trade route.
China, on the other hand, sees U.S. involvement in the region as meddling in bilateral
disputes with China’s neighbors. It sees enhanced U.S. military cooperation with Vietnam and
the Philippines, and increased Japanese military activity in the region, as part of a U.S.
strategy to contain China . The 2015 dialogue provides an opportunity to ratchet down the recent level of
confrontation in order to smooth the way to a successful state visit by President Xi.
NGO laws
Johnson 6/23 – Reuters, Retired US Air Force Officer, and a retired Foreign Service Officer (William
Johnson, 6/23/15, “The five most important issues in U.S.-China relations,”
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/23/the-five-most-important-issues-in-u-s-chinarelations/)//twemchen
China s new draft law on NGOs will substantially limit the ability of a wide range of
organizations to work in China The key sticking point in the new law is that it places regulatory authority
over foreign NGOs with China s State Security Bureau, rather than the Ministry of Civil Affairs, which
Police will be allowed to enter and inspect offices, and seize
documents and equipment. The United States has long been critical of China s record
on human rights, and this proposed law, which was released for comment on June 8, will be a focal point
in that discussion. China’s response to U.S. pressure on this issue will likely turn on its view
that foreign elements are stirring up trouble in China. This is the same argument that China used to explain
regulates domestic NGOs.
the Occupy Central pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong. Reading between the lines, it is clear that in both instances,
when China says “foreign elements,” it means the U nited S tates and its allies.
AIIB
Johnson 6/23 – Reuters, Retired US Air Force Officer, and a retired Foreign Service Officer (William
Johnson, 6/23/15, “The five most important issues in U.S.-China relations,”
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/23/the-five-most-important-issues-in-u-s-chinarelations/)//twemchen
Economic alignments in East Asia will likely be a central focus of this year’s dialogue. China is in the
process of starting the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is intended to provide
more streamlined funding than the World Bank or the Asian Development Bank can currently provide. The
United States opposed the establishment of the AIIB – and lobbied its allies to decline membership — on the
grounds that it had unclear governance standards, inadequate environmental controls, and might not be sufficiently capitalized to
sustain its loans. But in the week before a March deadline, the United States suffered a stinging defeat as its
allies, led by
the United Kingdom, became founding members of the bank, leaving the United
States and Japan on the outside looking in . Governance of the AIIB, and a means for coordinating its
efforts with the World Bank, will be key elements of the economic discussions. In a similar vein, the U.S.-led TPP includes the
United States and Japan as the key members of what would be the largest trade agreement ever. The difference here is that China is
the outsider. China has complained that the
TPP is yet another instance of the United States trying to
contain China . President Obama’s recent remark that the U.S. must write the rules for trade, or China will, didn’t dispel
this notion.
Cyber
Johnson 6/23 – Reuters, Retired US Air Force Officer, and a retired Foreign Service Officer (William
Johnson, 6/23/15, “The five most important issues in U.S.-China relations,”
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/23/the-five-most-important-issues-in-u-s-chinarelations/)//twemchen
Cybersecurity, which has been a simmering point of dispute at every dialogue, will
become even more heated in light of the recently disclosed hack of the OPM personnel database, as well as the
database containing security background data for nearly every federal employee and military member. The United States,
while not directly accusing the Chinese government, has claimed that the hack was the work of Chinese
actors . Couple that with the indictment of five Chinese military personnel for cyber-espionage against U.S. corporations and
labor organizations in order to gain economic advantage, and there is little doubt that the meetings will be fairly rancorous. Still, not
everything on the cyber front is gloomy. The United States and China have made a great deal of progress in cooperating on cybertracking of illicit movements of funds and people. The Chinese will be pressing hard to get the United States to cooperate in
disrupting the illegal flow of cash from China to the United States, and in repatriating both the funds and the fugitives who stole
them. This discussion will likely bleed over into the human rights arena, as evidenced by the case of Yang Xiuzhu, who is wanted on
corruption charges and applied for asylum in New York after being detained by Interpol.
BIT
Johnson 6/23 – Reuters, Retired US Air Force Officer, and a retired Foreign Service Officer (William
Johnson, 6/23/15, “The five most important issues in U.S.-China relations,”
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/23/the-five-most-important-issues-in-u-s-chinarelations/)//twemchen
The least contentious of the major issues is the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), which would establish
rules for foreign investment in each country. After hitting roadblocks in previous years, the two countries
have made concrete progress in the run up to this year’s dialogue. They’ve exchanged “negative lists” that
designate areas of the economy where foreign investment will not be allowed — the first step toward
winnowing each country’s lists to a level acceptable to the other side. Experts are optimistic that this deal
can be completed during President Obama’s tenure. Don’t expect instant success, but this is the most
likely area for the dialogue to come up with some sort of major agreement. The dialogue will set the tone
for U.S.-China relations for the next year. These issues will be central to those relations All of them bear
watching.
We’re acting like children
Byrne 6/24 – (Brendan Byrne, 6/24/15, “Can U.S. – China Relations Be Saved?,”
http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/06/u-s-china-war-tension/)//twemchen
So far the U.S. has rejected what they say as an attempt to change the status quo. A fundamental
difference in thinking pits the U.S. and its transactional model of diplomacy against the Chinese desire for
greater respect, but the further depletion of reserves of good will can be stopped by talks such as those
currently underway in Washington. The talks could pave a way to agreements to be made during Xi's visit
in September, and provide an opportunity for both sides to lay the foundations of greater cooperation.
Lampton believes that both sides will have to make a sacrifice in order to maintain peace. While the U.S.
should do more to recognize China's "legitimate aspirations for a voice in the international system,"
Beijing would do well to take some "maritime disputes off the table." Such an approach would involve
greater sensitivity from the U.S. in recognizing controversial actions, such as island building in the South
China Sea, and legitimate expressions of growing international clout, like the new banks. At the same time
China needs to demonstrate a deeper appreciation of the profound implications of its emergence in the
international sphere. Both sides need to appreciate their weaknesses and maintain communication, in
order to reduce the possibilities of misreading the actions of politicians trained in completely different
schools of thought. Both U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and Chinese Vice Premier Wang Yang have
underlined their commitment to avoiding confrontation at the latest round of talks. There is hope yet for
the relationship, assuming that greater cooperation can be forged on a variety of issues and both sides
demonstrate a commitment to better understanding the motivations of their counterparts.
dialogue solves
Dialogue solves
Xinhua 6/23 – Chinese Newspaper (6/23/15, “Chinese official says key China U.S. dialogue promotes
relations,” http://www.ecns.cn/voices/2015/06-23/170248.shtml)//twemchen
Chinese Vice Premier Wang Yang said Monday that the China U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue
(S&ED) has helped the world's two largest economies identify and expand common interests and
strengthen bilateral relations In an op-ed carried by The Wall Street Journal, Wang said the key China
U.S. dialogue has helped the two countries effectively manage differences and minimize their impact on
bilateral relations and also helped U.S. leaders and the public learn more about 21st-century China The
dialogue is a sign of the growing maturity of China U.S. relations Wang said, noting that bilateral trade
has doubled over the past nine years and China has become one of the fastest-growing export markets for
the United States. Over the past six years, direct investment from Chinese companies to the United States
has increased fivefold, creating more than 80,000 jobs across the country, he said, adding that there's
significant room for growth if there are fewer obstacles to Chinese investment in the United States. "The
convergence of interests has gone beyond many people's imagination. It is now such that neither could
afford noncooperation or confrontation," he noted. Wang said the dialogue has played a critical role in
kick-starting negotiations on a China U.S. bilateral investment treaty that had been stalled since 1982.
The two countries reached a breakthrough in treaty talks at the 2013 S&ED meetings after agreeing to
conduct negotiations on the basis of pre-establishment national treatment with a negative list approach.
The two sides pledged at last year's S&ED meetings to resolve core issues and major provisions of the
treaty by the end of 2014 and to initiate negotiations on the negative list, which specifies sectors and items
barred to each other's investment, in early 2015. The investment treaty will also be high on the agenda of
this year's S&ED meetings, set to kick off Tuesday in Washington, after the two sides exchanged initial
negative list offers earlier this month. Experts are optimistic that the two countries could finish the treaty
talks under the Obama administration, but ratification might have to wait until after the 2016 U.S.
presidential election. The treaty will help address a number of investment concerns between the United
States and China and investors from both countries will get better access to each other's markets,
cementing the foundation of China U.S. economic ties. Wang said this year's S&ED meetings are of
particular significance as it will lay the groundwork for Chinese President Xi Jinping's state visit to the
United States in September. The Chinese vice premier also said he is looking forward to engaging in
candid discussions with U.S. colleagues to achieve broader consensus, better solutions and mutual
success.
at: internal link
Security incentives outweigh – cooperation is inevtable
Kwok 13 – South China Morning Post (Kristine Kwok, 11/5/13, “Anti-US backlash ‘unlikely’ in the
region,” Lexis)//twemchen
Despite a series of diplomatic overtures over alleged US surveillance in the region, a backlash like
that seen in Europe is unlikely in Asia as Washington is still an irreplaceable
security guarantor , analysts say. The revelation that the US was co-operating with its ally Australia to spy on Asian
countries came a few weeks after reports of similar activities sparked outcries in Europe and one month after President Barack
Obama's no-show at two regional summits raised doubts about Washington's commitment to the region. If anything, the
reports had merely confirmed suspicions the US has been spying on Asian nations, said Dr Oh Ei Sun, a senior
fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore and a former adviser to the Malaysian government.
"Whether they like it or not, a
lot of countries in the region still rely on the US for security balancing," Oh said.
While Beijing had sought to enhance security ties with Asian neighbours, Oh said it had not yet been able to
provide a guarantee that was similar to that on offer from the US. "Even for countries with no formal
security agreement [with the US], it's unspoken that the US security guarantee still plays a
huge role in their national security make-up." Countries in the region protested against US surveillance
after documents leaked by whistle-blower Edward Snowden showed that Australian embassies were being used to monitor
phones and collect data for Washington. Jakarta summoned Australian ambassador Greg Moriarty after it was reported that the US
and Australia mounted a joint surveillance operation against Indonesia during UN climate talks in 2007. Enhancing military ties
with Asian countries has been a pillar of Obama's policy to re-engage with the region in response to a rising China, a policy better
known as the "pivot". Countries in the region, however, were disappointed that Obama had to repeatedly cancel trips to Asia. In
October, the government shutdown forced the US president to skip the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum in Bali and the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in Brunei. Richard Heydarian, a foreign policy adviser to the Philippine Congress
and a lecturer at Ateneo de Manila University, said the incident would create a few months of embarrassment for the Obama
administration, but military co-operation in the region would still move forward. US Vice-President Joe Biden will visit China, Japan
and South Korea in the first week of next month, the White House has confirmed. Biden is expected to emphasise the country's
commitment to the Asia pivot.
***israel rels
at: internal link
Israel doesn’t care
Wilson 13 – Staff writer at Jewish Journal (Simone Wilson, 10/30/13, “The NSA is spying on Tel Aviv
through the U.S. Embassy, says Israeli intelligence analyst,”
http://www.jewishjournal.com/hella_tel_aviv/item/the_u.s._embassy_in_tel_aviv_is_spying_on_us_s
ays_israeli_intelligence_anal)//twemchen
Totally regretting that massive drug deal I made at the nightclub across from the U.S. Embassy last weekend. In a report on
IsraelDefense.com yesterday, Israeli intelligence analyst Ronen Solomon revealed that while examining aerial photographs of
various U.S. embassies around the world, he discovered "completely identical devices" to the spy box in Berlin, recently outed by
German newspaper De Spiegel, "on the roofs of embassies in many more countries, including in Tel Aviv." Der Spiegel originally
reported that the "Special Collection Service" (SCS), a unit within America's now-infamous National Security Agency (NSA), has
been utilizing sketchy infrastructure atop the U.S. Embassy in Berlin to tap into signals passing by or through the embassy. Ex-NSA
superstar Edward Snowden provided the paper documents showing that "the SCS operates its own sophisticated listening devices
with which they can intercept virtually every popular method of communication: cellular signals, wireless networks and satellite
communication." Here's how Der Spiegel described the spy box: From the roof of the embassy, a special unit of the CIA and NSA can
apparently monitor a large part of cellphone communication in the government quarter. ... The necessary equipment is usually
installed on the upper floors of the embassy buildings or on rooftops where the technology is covered with screens or Potemkin-like
structures that protect it from prying eyes. Hilariously, the best photo of Tel Aviv's own (underwhelming) version comes courtesy of
Ali Mansouri, that gooby 55-year-old in short-shorts jailed last month for allegedly spying on Israel for Iran. Authorities claimed he
snapped multiple photos of Ben Gurion Airport and the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv. This gem was apparently taken from the "Isrotel"
monstrosity next door to the embassy, and inexplicably released to the press by the Israel Security Agency after Mansouri was
don't expect any outraged government press statements or street riots 'round
these parts. A common misconception around the world is that Israelis will be offended when they
learn their No. 1 ally/mama bird/butt buddy is spying on them. On the contrary, Israel invented this
game. They're probably even in on it . Not only did Israeli companies supply the
technology behind the NSA spying, but recent reports indicate Israeli authorities could have access to much of
caught: But
the agency's loot. French newspaper Le Monde, for one, recently accused the Israeli Mossad of helping hack into the phone of former
French President Nicholas Sarkozy. The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday that many former Israeli intelligence officers are of the
educated opinion that "Israel knows it is a victim, lives with it as 'part of the game' in intelligence, does all it can to limit NSA spying
and believes the Europeans are overreacting." Solomon related much of the same: "The assumption in Israel is that the U.S. listens
in on all of the conversations taking place in the Middle East, as well as in Europe, especially if they are unencrypted," he wrote in his
report. In fact, Danny Yatom, former head of the Mossad, told Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv last week: “I can tell you with certain
knowledge that [America] has been listening in on its allies, including Israel... not necessarily in [Benjamin] Netanyahu’s tenure as
prime minister. The US doesn’t really care about anyone [but itself] and the Americans are vehemently denying the incidents. It
could very well be that these things [monitoring calls] are happening here [in Israel] too. When the Americans think they need to
listen in on someone, they’ll do just that.” The
general population in Israel, too, is likely to greet the news with
a big fat yawn . As I previously noted when Israel launched the Western world's single most invasive biometric ID system
this summer, the average (Jewish) Israeli is far more concerned with his security than his privacy rights. And if that means a few spy
cams and wire-tappings, so be it. "I think we know that all our phones/computers are already (and for a while) are being monitored
for security reasons," a friend told me on Facebook. One could even say that some
Israelis like being spied on ,
in a way — because at least then they know the "bad guys" are getting the same treatment. We'll just make sure to take our MDMA
orders around the corner from Hayarkon Street next time.
***india rels
uniqueness
Relations high
Phadnis 3/16 – The Hindu (Ashwini, India-US relations have entered a new era: Foreign Secy, The
Business Line, http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/india-us-relations-have-entered-a-newera-foreign-secy/article6998834.ece)
India and the United States have entered a "new era'' in the field of doing
business and the attention deficit which plagued the relations has now been done
away with , S. Jaishankar, Foreign Secretary, said on Monday. Delivering a talk on 'India-US 2015:
Partnership for peace and security' , he said much of the obstructions, which prevented
the two countries from engaging in the field of commerce, had now been done away
with. The Foreign Secretary accepted that a lot will depend on how the Indian Government is able to increase the 'ease of doing'
here. The two-day conference has been jointly organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry and Vivekandana International
Foundation, among others. Taking a historical perspective of India-US relations, Jaishankar said that during the first 50 years there
was limited convergence between the two nations. "The US objective was to keep India in play as a nation, a society, a power which
expected economic aid,” the Foreign Secretary pointed out. Fast forwarding to present, Jaishankar said that if people were overly
anchored in the past, then they will not see the opportunities which exist between the two countries but cautioned that if the
expectations were overstated than there was the "risk of coming up short'', he said, adding that this creates its "own backlash''. He
added that India needs to be careful as to how "position and manage” the relationship. Talking about the
defense
cooperation between the India and the United States Jaishankar said that it was "broadly moving”
in the right direction.
alt causes
Structural factors prevent cooperation
Ganguly 12 — chair in Indian cultures and civilizations at Indiana University and a senior fellow with the
Foreign Policy Research Institute (Sumit, “Think Again: India's Rise”, Foreign Policy, 7/5/2012,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/05/think_again_india_s_rise?page=0,1, Deech)
However, a significant segment of the Indian public insists that the country retain
full independence in foreign
affairs, and India's policymakers rarely lose an opportunity to underscore this concern. As Prime Minister Singh said in a major
address to India's armed forces, "We must therefore consolidate our own strategic autonomy and independence of thought and
action." That attitude is a significant barrier to cooperation. Consequently, despite a convergence of interests, it may
prove exceedingly difficult to forge an institutional partnership with the United States. Given the values and concerns it shares with
the United States, India's resistance to closer collaboration is bizarre. After all, during a significant part of the Cold War, despite
profound ideological differences and a professed commitment to nonalignment, India was for all practical purposes a Soviet ally -- a
relationship codified in the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation. But, today, two decades after the Cold War's
end, Indian elites have again inexplicably taken refuge in the idea of nonalignment, under the guise of "strategic autonomy." In
considerable part, the intellectual establishment's lack of imagination stems from its paucity of trained international affairs
specialists. Shocking though it may seem, in a country of over a billion people, perhaps only a dozen or so political analysts are of
truly global stature. Other factors are also likely to constrain partnership with the U nited States. India's political
order has become increasingly federalized , and despite the existence of at least two national parties, it is unlikely that either
will be able to form a national government of its own in the foreseeable future. That means India's ruling party will be forced
to pursue a compromise foreign policy . Thanks to the exigencies of coalition politics, for example, the United Progressive
Alliance government in New Delhi has been forced to shelve a decision to allow investment from foreign multibrand retail stores like
Wal-Mart. Similarly, a carefully negotiated water-sharing agreement with Bangladesh also fell prey to the demands of a fractious
coalition partner. Finally, the
United States and India cannot paper over some fundamental differences
of interest. The two countries remain at odds over how best to deal with Iran's apparent quest for nuclear
weapons . Even though most Indian policymakers view Iran's nuclear pursuit with concern, they will not endorse unilateral
military action against the country. India remains dependent on Iranian oil and natural gas, it has a substantial Shiite population,
and, above all, it is extremely uncomfortable with the unilateral exercise of U.S. military power against recalcitrant regimes.
at: internal link
Embassy surveillance doesn’t impact U.S.-Indian relations
Desai 14 (Ronak. D. an Affiliate at the Belfer Center's India and South Asia Program at Harvard
University. “NSA spying claims against BJP are unlikely to impact US-India relations”. The American
Bazaar. 12 July 2014. http://www.americanbazaaronline.com/2014/07/12/nsa-spying-claims-bjpunlikely-impact-us-india-relations)//JuneC//
Strategic partnership has been remarkably resilient. WASHINGTON, DC: Recent revelations that the National Security
Agency (NSA) spied on India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2010 have raised fresh concerns that yet another crisis may be
on the horizon for US-India relations. According to documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden and published by The
Washington Post, the NSA obtained broad legal authorization from a U.S. court to spy on the BJP while it served as India’s primary
opposition party. The surveillance claims prompted Indian officials to summon senior U.S. diplomats to voice their objections and
demand an explanation from their American counterparts. The disclosure comes at a time when bilateral ties between Washington
and New Delhi have experienced turbulence in recent months following the arrest of an Indian consular official in New York last
year. Differences over a slate of more substantive issues, including trade, intellectual property rights, and pharmaceuticals have
further strained ties between the United States and India. The BJP’s landslide electoral victory this past May was widely viewed as
an opportunity for the two countries to revitalize ties and regain the momentum that has traditionally characterized US-India
relations. But some now fear that this latest NSA spying controversy will derail those efforts. Such fears are
unfounded, however, and reflect a misunderstanding of India’s own unique attitude toward surveillance
and of the strength and character of the US-India strategic partnership. Indian officials have not allowed past
revelations of American surveillance on India to affect relations with Washington. On the contrary, New Delhi has responded to
prior instances of American spying with a relatively high degree of tolerance, if not plain acceptance. After documents leaked by
Snowden last year disclosed that India was the fifth largest target of the NSA worldwide, for example, New Delhi’s response was
conspicuously muted. Reports that India’s Embassy in Washington and UN Mission in New York were key
surveillance targets similarly elicited a tepid official reaction . Complaints lodged by New Delhi with Washington
during these episodes have been largely perfunctory, intended to help blunt public criticism of the Indian government’s subdued
response to the spying claims without damaging ties with the United States. If the past is any indication of the future, the
current row over the latest set of disclosures is no different. New Delhi’s outlier position toward American monitoring
activities abroad is motivated by its aspirations regarding surveillance as an instrument of national security. India continues to
confront a growing number of internal and external threats in a variety of forms. New Delhi has sought to significantly augment its
surveillance capabilities to combat these threats, and, as a result, views the United States as a source of inspiration in this arena.
While these efforts remain controversial within India, igniting a heated public debate over privacy and civil liberties issues within
the country, they are key to understanding New Delhi’s consistently tempered reaction to American spying disclosures. Indian
officials recognize that overly harsh criticism of the United States would undermine its own surveillance
ambitions. This reality was powerfully demonstrated last year when India’s External Affairs Minister at
the time, Salman Khurshid, defended the United States and its controversial PRISM surveillance program
as an effective tool to combat terrorism. India’s posture stood in stark contrast to the outrage expressed by a majority of
the international community, which bitterly denounced the United States and demanded Washington dismantle the program. The
durability and multifaceted character of the US-India strategic partnership also makes it doubtful that the
current NSA controversy will adversely impact foreign relations between Washington and New Delhi. The
past decade has witnessed ties between the United States and India burgeon within a wide and diverse array of areas ranging from
defense and security to trade and commerce. Cooperation between the world’s two largest democracies has reached unprecedented
levels compared to just five years ago. But at the same time, the strategic partnership has faced a series of profound challenges.
India’s stringent nuclear liability law precluded either country from realizing any benefits from the US-India civilian nuclear deal
signed by the two countries in 2006. New Delhi’s close ties with Tehran and its dependency on Iranian oil became major sources of
friction between India and the United States at a time when Washington sought to isolate the theocratic state over its disputed
nuclear weapons program. The arrest of Devyani Khobragade last year sent bilateral relations in a tailspin.In each instance, many
critics predicted the demise of the US-India strategic partnership. In each instance, these critics were proven wrong. Neither
country allowed their relationship to become hostage to any single issue and worked through outstanding differences meaningfully.
The strategic partnership between the United States and India has proven remarkably resilient in the face
of even the most formidable challenges. The ongoing dispute over these most recent NSA revelations is
unlikely to be an exception. This is particularly true given New Delhi’s own ambitions surrounding surveillance. While
enduring challenges in any partnership are inevitable, this most recent spying controversy will not be one
of them. (Global India Newswire)
no impact
No war – deterrence solves
Haniffa 4/6 – Managing Editor and Chief Diplomatic and Political Correspondent of India Abroad
(Aziz, Pak general: No chances of India-Pakistan war, Rediff News,
http://www.rediff.com/news/report/pak-general-no-chances-of-india-pakistan-war/20150406.htm)
Lieutenant General Khalid Kidwai(retd), who headed Pakistan's Strategic Plans Division for
over 15 years and is adviser to the country's National Command, said his country has
blocked the avenues for serious military operations by India by introducing a variety of
tactical nuclear weapons in its arsenal. General Kidwai, one of Pakistan's most decorated generals, argued
that tactical nuclear weapons in Pakistan's arsenal made nuclear war with India less
likely , adding, "I am fond of calling them weapons of peace -- the option of war is foreclosed ." The
general was speaking at the Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference in Washington, DC. "For 15 years, I and my colleagues
in the SPD worked for deterrence to be strengthened
in South Asia comprehensively so as to
prevent war, to deter aggression , and thereby for peace, howsoever uneasy, to prevail," General Kidwai
added. "We have," General Kidwai said, "worked to create road blocks in the path of those who thought that there was
space for conventional war despite nuclear weapons of Pakistan." "By introducing a variety of tactical nuclear
weapons in Pakistan's inventory, and in the strategic stability debate," he reiterated, "we have blocked the
avenues for serious military operations by the other side." "The naivete of finding space for limited
conventional war despite the proven nuclear capabilities of both sides went so far as to translate the thinking into an offensive
doctrine -- the Cold Start Doctrine -- equivalent to a pre-programmed, pre-determined shooting from the hip posture, in quick time,
commencing at the tactical level, graduating rapidly to the operational-strategic level, strangely oblivious of the nuclear Armageddon
it could unleash in the process." the general said, targeting the Indian Army's Cold Start doctrine. "It clearly was not thought
through," General Kidwai felt. "It was quite surreal when Kidwai was clinically talking about the needed range of Pakistan's nuclear
weapons to cover entire Indian land mass," one observer at the conference pointed out, "particularly vis-a-vis the Shaheen-3 with its
2,750 kilometres range, sufficient to hit the Andaman and Nicobar islands, which many believe may be developed as India's military
bases." General Kidwai strongly defended the Nasr 'Shoot and Scoot' system as "a defence response to the offensive Indian Cold Start
posture." When asked by Peter Lavoy, the moderator of the discussion and the newly-minted senior director for South Asian Affairs
at the National Security Council, if Pakistan "considered the political impact of long-range nuclear weapons on non-Indian targets,"
General Kidwai shot back, "Did India and the other nuclear countries do so too?" Asked if Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme
would ever stop expanding, General Kidwai again invoked India, saying, "It is not open-ended and aligned with India only." "The
two realities of today's South Asian strategic situation are, one, notwithstanding the growing conventional
asymmetries, the development and possession of sufficient numbers and varieties of nuclear weapons by both India and
Pakistan has made war as an instrument of policy near- redundant ," the general added. Best Selling Psychology
(General) Books For You Best Selling Regional & National History (General) Books For You Best Selling Military History (General)
Books For You "The
tried and tested concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) has ensured
that."
So does interdependence
Khalid 15 – writer for Washington Review of Turkish and Eurasian Affairs (Hafsa, Peace Discourse
between India-Pakistan: Prospects and Challenges, Washington Review of Turkish and Eurasian Affairs,
http://www.thewashingtonreview.org/articles/peace-discourse-between-india-pakistan-prospects-andchallenges.html, March 2015)
Similarly, both India
and Pakistan share an immense potential of bilateral trade and
economic cooperation . According to a famous by Lawrence Saez saying “if goods do not cross borders, soldiers
economic interdependence restrains the countries from
waging wars against one another or aggravating their interpersonal conflicts. It means that for
the countries like India and Pakistan, trade is perhaps the best solution to overcome their
traditional rivalry. Similarly, economic interdependence is much likely to develop such a
scenario that facilitates negotiations, cooperation and goodwill between the
rivals. It is therefore argued that in conflict-prone situations, trade interdependence can defuse the
tensions and misinterpretations since it promotes healthy dialogues and
opportunities for filling the communication gaps.
will”. It is a widespread belief that
india rels bad – indo-pak war
Revitalizing US-India co-op angers Pakistan – nuclear war
Tiefer 6/19 (Charles. Professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law. “Today's India-Pakistan Armed Tensions - Will
New U.S. Military and Nuclear Aid to Modi Inflame Them?”. 19 June 2015. Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2015/06/19/todays-india-pakistan-armed-tensions-will-new-u-s-military-and-nuclearaid-to-modi-inflame-them)//JuneC//
Just for context about tension, India and Pakistan have fought four major wars since independence. They have a tense armed
confrontation over Kashmir. In 2008, a Pakistani-based terrorist group unleashed a murderous assault on Mumbai seen as “India’s
9/11.” Narendra Modi, the strong Indian Prime Minister elected a year ago, leads the BJP party of Hindu nationalists, antagonistic
on many grounds towards its Islamic neighbor. Modi and the BJP have said numerous things suggesting combative attitudes toward
Pakistan, although as Prime Minister, Modi has kept commendably calm. Nuclear confrontation? Oh, yes. A report this week
by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said “India and Pakistan are both expanding their nuclear weapon
production capabilities as well as their missile delivery capabilities.” The institute estimates that India has between 90
and 110 nuclear warheads, and Pakistan has between 100 and 120 — levels on the order of the United
Kingdom. The Obama Administration cooperates with India in large measure from hope for collaboration
with India to contain China’s military buildup and aggressive moves. Punit Saurabh just published a persuasive
report, India and U.S. Grow Closer Against a Backdrop of An Expansionist China. President Obama has gone twice to India, and
forged a strong tie with Modi. Those ties expand at the level of the Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, and further down at the level
of the procurement undersecretary, Frank Kendall. But that does not mean Pakistan will look on the India-U.S.
cooperation as benign. On the contrary, something of an opposing set of alliances is shaping up. A littlementioned aspect of this has been what Saurabh calls “China’s overt and covert support to the Pakistani defense buildup, aimed at
India through supply of submarines, JF-17 fighters, and strategic inroads in sensitive parts of Kashmir. In other words, China
is helping Pakistani on sea, air, and land, just as the U.S. helps India. So, what is the U.S. providing for the Indian
military that may add to these tensions? The single most interesting item: the Pentagon has publicly set up a collaboration group to
help India build its next aircraft carrier, implementing it this month. India has kept open the option that this could be a nuclearpropelled aircraft carrier. India is said to be particularly interested in the Pentagon’s method of launching planes, from these carriers
Specifically, the next generation “Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System” (EMALS) will be used on the new Ford-class U.S.
carriers. India wants that and may get it. And, it wants to build the aircraft carrier itself, at least in part. In light of the U.S. sharing
advanced technology, the other part might get built in the Newport News Shipbuilding yard. That would mean a lot of lucrative
business for Huntington Ingalls, already a major beneficiary of defense appropriations, and very well connected — the kind of step
that tilts advanced U.S. arms making and selling toward India. As for nuclear, India seeks, and is getting, cooperation on building
nuclear reactors for civilian energy generation. That would mean a lot of lucrative business for Westinghouse and General Electric.
***malaysia rels
at: internal link
No impact to surveillance of Malaysian embassy
The Star 13 (“US Embassy clears air with Wisma Putra over surveillance claims”. 31 October 2013.
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2013/10/31/US-embassy-wisma-putra-statement)//JuneC//
KUALA LUMPUR: Wisma Putra has obtained clarification
from US ambassador to Malaysia, Joseph Y. Yun,
over alleged electronic surveillance facilities at the US Embassy here. In a statement, Wednesday, it said
that Yun had responded that all surveillance activities conducted by the United States around the world
were for the purpose of security, especially to identify potential leads with respect to terrorism and
weapons of mass destruction. The Ambassador also said the embassy had received instructions from
Washington to review the scope of work in this matter. Yun also assured that the privacy of individuals
would not be affected. Wisma Putra said it was working closely with relevant Malaysian authorities on the matter, and should
there be any compelling evidence, the Foreign Affairs Ministry would seek recourse. Wisma Putra assured that Malaysia’s
security and sovereignty remained the priority of the Malaysian Government. The issue surfaced following media
reports quoting intelligence whistle-blower Edward Joseph Snowden that the United States had 90 electronic surveillance facilities
worldwide, including the US Embassy here.
***turkey rels
at: internal link
Litany of surveillance programs against Turkey has been exposed, including
in the embassy, but they don’t casre
Gaist 14 (Thomas. Freelancer at the World Socialist Web Site. “NSA surveillance targets Turkish political
and military leadership”. 2 September 2014. World Socialist Web Site.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/09/02/nsat-s02.html)//JuneC//
The US National Security Agency (NSA) is involved in systematic spying against large sections of the Turkish ruling elite, according
to reports this week in the German news magazine Der Spiegel and The Intercept , the online publication edited by Glenn
Greenwald. Both reports were based on documents leaked by former NSA employee and surveillance whistleblower Edward
Snowden. Der Spiegel and The Intercept have not released the new Snowden documents for direct viewing by the public. US
espionage against Turkey is coordinated by the NSA’s Special Liaison Activity Turkey (SUSLAT) office and other secret offices and
listening stations housing Special Collection Services agents, the documents show. The NSA has spied on the Turkish
army, intelligence agencies, top companies and government ministries. US surveillance operations have
targeted Turkey’s political elite in an effort to collect information about “leadership intentions” inside the
government. As part of a “Turkish Surge Project Plan” initiated in 2006, the NSA began attacking the
computers of Turkey’s political leadership. The NSA spied on the Turkish embassy in Washington DC and
installed “Trojan” software on electronics used by Turkish representatives at the United Nations
Headquarters in New York City as part of programs codenamed POWDER and BLACKHAWK,
respectively. The US has conducted extensive joint surveillance operations with Turkey against the Kurdistan Workers Party
(PKK), which fought a guerrilla war against the Turkish military for more than decade. This collaboration included the formation of
a Combined Intelligence Fusion Cell to facilitate collaboration between US and Turkish agents. The NSA has wire-tapped PKK
leaders living abroad and tracked the PKK’s financial operations in Europe. The agency initiated moves to supply Turkey with
cutting-edge voice recognition technology for use against the PKK in January 2012, the documents show. According to a document
dated January 2007, the NSA has provided Turkey with cell phone location data, updated on an hourly basis, in support of targeted
assassinations against PKK leadership. “Geolocations data and voice cuts from Kurdistan Worker Party communications which were
passed to Turkey by NSA yielded actionable intelligence that led to the demise or capture of dozens of PKK members in the past
year,” the NSA document says, according to the Der Spiegel and Intercept reports. These operations have led to mass deaths of
civilians. In December 2011, Turkish F-16s launched strikes against a convoy of civilian fuel smugglers traveling from Iraq, killing
34, after a US surveillance drone incorrectly identified the travelers as terrorists, the new documents confirm. Despite listing the
PKK as a terrorist organization and backing Turkish strikes against the organization, the US has now begun providing air support for
PKK fighters engaged in combat against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Documents from the British GCHQ cited by Der
Spiegel show that UK intelligence has directed its own espionage activities against the Turkish Energy Ministry, the Turkish
Petroleum Corporation (TPAO) and the Turkish Pipeline Corporation (BOTAS), and against the country’s Finance Minister Mehmet
Simsek. Turkey is one of the most important regional allies of US imperialism. Historically, Turkey has served as a key base for US
military and intelligence operations, and the CIA maintains surveillance partnerships with Turkey dating back to the 1940s. As the
NSA documents note, intelligence ops against the “underbelly of the Soviet beast” were carried out from posts in Turkey throughout
the Cold War. Since 2011, in coordination with the CIA and US regional allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Turkey has served as a staging
area for US-backed Islamist militias fighting against the Syrian regime. NSA spy bases in Turkey currently direct espionage against
Russia, Georgia, and increasingly since 2011 against Syria’s Assad regime. Intelligence gathered on Turkey through these operations
is shared with other powers including the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The US-Turkish relationship is thus
contradictory, with the US determined to keep a close watch on its “strategic partner,” the documents show. US intelligence metrics
cited by Der Spiegel listed Turkey as a surveillance priority of equal or greater importance than Venezuela and Cuba. “The very
politicians, military officials and intelligence agency officials with whom U.S. officials work closely when conducting actions against
the PKK are also considered legitimate spying targets by the NSA,” the magazine noted. These are only the latest exposures of
unrestrained spying by US imperialism against nominally allied powers. Since 2013, revelations stemming from Snowden-leaked
documents have exposed NSA operations against hundreds of high-level targets within the German government and against
European Union computer networks and facilities in Washington DC and Brussels, including the offices of the EU Council of
Ministers and the European Council. Responding to the news Monday before departing for this week’s NATO
summit, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan downplayed the exposures, saying, “There is no such
thing as countries with strong intelligence agencies not eavesdropping on other countries. Everybody does
this.”
***OFF-CASE
***brics da
1nc – da
BRIC economies are strong now — rise of the new decade proves
Singh and Dube 11- *CUTS Centre for International Trade, Economics and Environment, **South
African Institute of International Affairs, (Suresh P. and Memory, “BRICS and the world Order: A
beginner’s Guide”, 2-22-11, http://cuts-international.org/BRICSTERN/pdf/BRICS_and_the_World_Order-A_Beginners_Guide.pdf) //AD
The BRICS
forum has evolved and expanded after formalisation of the group. In addition to the four founder
countries, it now includes South Africa, as discussed. During 2001–10, the BRIC countries achieved
significant gains in both an economic and a political sense. As far as demographic and economic
progress of the group is concerned, in 2010 BRICS countries collectively accounted for more than
40% of the global population and nearly 30% of the land mass. The group constituted a share of
about 25% of the world GDP in PPP terms compared with 16% in 2000. This is expected to rise
significantly in the near future. Along with improvements in economic indicators, the group has also realised
improvement in social indicators, such as increased literacy levels. Significant positive changes have
taken place in all the BRICS countries over the last two decades (1990–2010). The economic size in nominal terms (US
dollars) has increased manifold – with Brazil by over four times, India nearly five times,
China over fourteen times, and South Africa by over three times. The situation further improves if
comparison is made based on PPP. China has emerged as the second-largest economy, followed by India in fourth position, Russia in
sixth and Brazil in eighth. The increasing
trend in GDP is reflected further by a significant increase
in per capita income over the last two decades. These have brought in perceptive changes about
the potential and importance of BRICS in reshaping the global economic order. The
BRICS, now increasingly recognised as some of the fastest-growing countries and the engines of the global recovery
process, plays a formidable role in shaping macroeconomic policy, as was observed after the financial
crisis (2008–10).
Plan crowds-out BRICS countries
Goodman 13- Writer for the PDU, an open-source thinktank; studying Political
Science, International Affairs, and Music at Skidmore College (Corinna, “The TTIP –
Gains and Losses across the Atlantic,” Project for Democratic Union, 8-6-13,
http://www.democraticunion.eu/2013/08/the-ttip-gains-and-losses-across-the-atlantic/) //AD
Countries that would suffer from the TTIP are trading partners with both parties. In
case of Europe, particularly Norway and Turkey are affected. Both countries trade extensively with the
Union: Norway is the EU’s fourth most important import partner and for Turkey, the EU is the most important import and export
partner. The suffering trading partners of the US include Australia, Mexico, and Canada.
The US is Australia’s most important economic partner and both countries established the AUSFTA, the Australia-United StatesFree Trade Agreement in 2004. Mexico, Canada, and the US together created the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in
1994. NAFTA opened up markets and eliminated tariffs and trade barriers. The TTIP would lead to a decline in exports and imports
Consequently, trade between Mexico and Canada would increase.
Other countries that would suffer from the TTIP are the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia,
India, China, and South Africa). Import and export from EU countries as well as the US
would decline as a result of TTIP, as it would become cheaper for the new partners to
sell goods in the US and the EU, respectively.
for the US’ NAFTA partners.
EU FDI is key to BRICS economic growth
Hunya and Stöllinger 09- research economists at the Vienna Institute for International
Economic Studies, (Gábor and Roman, “Foreign Direct Investment Flows between the EU and the
BRICs”, Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, December 2009,
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CEIQFjAC&url
=http%3A%2F%2Fwiiw.ac.at%2Fforeign-direct-investment-flows-between-the-eu-and-the-brics-dlp1960.pdf&ei=NP_7Uc_3F8uMyAHikIE4&usg=AFQjCNFDBedZbC0n5I9Bh-twO3SEzSaOA&sig2=BtydrdERRAZyreNoGXkyfw) //AD
The EU
is among the main investors in each of the BRICs and the dominant investor in
Brazil and Russia. In China and India, the EU has less weight. But after correcting for particularities in FDI data, such as
the prominent role of Hong Kong and off-shore centres in Chinese FDI and of Mauritius in Indian FDI, the EU ranks higher also in
these countries. In
a direct comparison with the US and Japan, the EU emerges as the leading
investor among the Triad countries in each of the BRICs. This suggests that EU firms are well
positioned to compete with other multinational corporations in the BRICs. The analysis of the
number of projects confirms this finding, the role of the EU in China is much greater than suggested
by FDI data. China emerges as the main BRICs target for EU projects, but in terms of FDI inflows China occupies rank three
after Russia and Brazil. The divergent results can be explained by the small number of very large projects in the natural resource
sector of Russia and the great number of finance- and trade-related small investments in China. In some cases, FDI
has
become the major entry strategy of EU firms into the BRICs markets.
BRIC is key to global economic growth
Aguilar 13 - coordinates Oxfam's Global and Regional Programme in Brazil. (Carlos Aguilar, “Let's talk
about a new agenda for the BRICS”, 4-19-13, http://www.amandla.org.za/home-page/1728-lets-talkabout-a-new-agenda-for-the-brics-by-carlos-aguilar) //AD
In the past decade, some
countries had begun to show an important role in the global growth
economy situation that helped to elaborate the original concept for BRIC postulated by
Goldman Sachs in 2001. The underlying rationale then was to build an association of
'emerging economies' based on factors such as GDP growth, consumption growth, as
well as the size and demographics of the countries, so that, as a block, they would
increase productivity in the global capitalist market. This wasn't just a disinterested, optimistic idea; it
emerged at the time of the economic and financial crisis in major developed economies. An element often overlooked by economists
is the base of energy and food resources concentrated in these countries and their capacity to influence regional agendas in Latin
America and Asia. Now, however, Goldman Sachs no longer talks about emerging economies when referring to BRICS, using instead
a new conceptual category called Growth Markets and talking about the operation of these markets within the logic of business
opportunities. This new formulation accounts for South Africa's inclusion in BRICS: despite the fact that South Africa has neither a
significant population, (compared with Nigeria, for example), and nor is it a growth market, it has come to be considered part of the
club based on its regional weight and the fact that it opens opportunities for capital inflow to Africa, above all in the trade of
commodities. With
the current formulation, the emergence of BRICS countries as economic
powers is seen to be a motor for the global economy in the coming decades. But this
optimism is unwarranted given that BRICS emerged in an environment of crisis in the developed countries, which seem unable to
rethink the international agenda on trade, climate change, global financial institutions and other key issues. The current planetary
crisis not bears five emerging markets consolidating patterns of growth and consumption on a larger scale, as demanded the global
capitalist system. If the BRICS summit remains a business forum, it will be virtually impossible to trust that this set of countries will
mean something different for global challenges. These countries have huge differences in political systems and positioning in
international forums, but the common issue is the weight of social and economic inequality, which is expressed through different
criteria from income, land ownership, as well as racial/ethnic, gender, and urban/rural variables. If one considers the 20 largest
economies globally, Brazil and South Africa stand out as the most unequal and if we focus on inequality in terms of income, income
disparities increased in all BRICS countries except Brazil over the past 20 years (according to the Oxfam Report: Left Behind the
G20) which may be significant for other BRICS countries in relation with their challenges on inequality and sustainable
development. Even the Chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (Jim O'Neill) recognizes that most of the new wealth of the
BRICS is going to a small group at the top of the economy. So
the underlying rationale for BRICS needs to
be rethought: it has to be seen in light of the contributions it can make to the current
challenges we face in the context of global governance. BRICS has to be a different formulation, based on
its capacity to rethink the international agenda for cooperation, with common goals to meet the challenges of sustainable
development. Most importantly, it cannot evade responsibility for confronting the burden of inequality.
Economic decline causes war
Auslin 9 - (Michael, Resident Scholar – American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman – Resident Fellow –
American Enterprise Institute, “The Global Economy Unravels”, Forbes, 3-6, http://www.aei.org/article/100187)
global chaos followed hard on
economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically
What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and
sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of
more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems. The
threat of instability is a
pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even
in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses
grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability . The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of
repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent
on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been
predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression
inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable
societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the
country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part
of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already
protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already
taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants,
largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since
1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do
not bode well for the rest of Europe. A
prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would
dramatically
raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States,
unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually
know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang .
2nc – link wall
TTIP challenges BRICS trade- rising export competition
Monan 13- deputy director and associate research fellow of World Economy Study at
the Economic Forecast Department of the State Information Center (Zhang, “Not just
two-way trade boost,” ChinaDaily USA, 6-26-13, http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/business/201306/26/content_16662273.htm) //AD
If the TTIP becomes a reality, it would reshape world trade rules, standards and patterns, thus
challenging the trade alliances among emerging market economies, especially among
the BRICS economies - Brazil, Russia, India. China and South Africa. The new rules forged by the EU and the US would
doubtlessly raise the threshold for entry into their markets, as lower trade barriers between the EU and the US would constitute
higher barriers to external economies. China's
exports to the US would face competition from EU
exports and its exports to the EU competition from US exports.
Expanding US- EU economic engagement tanks BRICS competitivenessrevenue crowd out
Oppenheimer 12 - Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson
School and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University. He is the Director of the Program in
Science,Technology and Environmental Policy (STEP) at the Woodrow Wilson School and Faculty
Associate of the Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences Program, Princeton Environmental Institute, and The
Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies, (Michael F., “The U.S. and Europe Face the
BRICs: What Kind of Order?”, 4-27-12, Sais institute, http://transatlantic.saisjhu.edu/publications/books/Transatlantic_2020/ch02.pdf) //AD
Over the medium-to long-term, and even under favorable growth assumptions, the
challenge posed by the BRICs
(and other rising states) to an efficiently functioning, liberal global system will be
severe, and the barriers to a common U.S.-European response will be high. This is the
case even as the BRICS themselves face growing impediments to growth. Extrapolating
recent hyper-economic performance based on continued success of investment/export
led growth models can make the BRIC challenge seem more formidable than it is, and can cause
us to overlook areas of potential collective action among developed countries and rising states as the problems they encounter begin
to converge. At
the Center for Global Affairs at NYU, we’ve been working under a Carnegie
Corporation grant to develop alternate future scenarios for pivotal states, and have become convinced of
the contingent nature of recent BRIC successes, particularly for China, Russia and
Turkey. Growth rates for this set of countries will continue to exceed those for advanced
developed countries given their continued, though diminishing, cost advantages, but
will not be sustained at recent historic rates, and weak internal institutions, income inequalities,
inadequate infrastructure, ageing populations, environmental stresses could cause
dramatic declines in economic performance and government legitimacy. As BRIC governments
face these inhibitions, some political space could be created for more market-driven development strategies, and a narrowing of
differences about how to maintain/extend a liberal global system. The
growing disquiet among Western
investors concerning their treatment in China, for example, could reinforce outside
leverage for liberal reforms. However, even in a less robust future, the BRICs will continue to
challenge the liberal system. Not present at the creation, with often illiberal economic and political
institutions, growing power and an uncertain and divided West, we can expect strong
assertions of views in conflict with our own, and growing friction between the BRICs
and established powers. Global negotiations—on almost anything—will face diminishing returns; regional and bilateral
arrangements will proliferate; home-grown systems of economic management and global trade/financial engagement will widen
differences and clog negotiating arenas. For
at least the medium term future, reform of global
institutions to reflect shifts in relative economic power may succeed, but will complicate
decision-making without necessarily enhancing legitimacy. The extent and effects of revisionist
challenges to the liberal order will also depend on internal reform and transatlantic collaboration among advanced countries. It is
hard to imagine the latter without the former. Without
fiscal solvency, economic growth and job
creation in the U.S., sustained transatlantic leadership is implausible. Without
improved EU institutions and structural reform at national levels, a positive European
response to U.S. initiatives is equally implausible. With diffuse leadership and internal preoccupations,
disparate and conflicting responses to BRIC challenges (and opportunities) are more
likely than not. There is a strong possibility that the West will not meet these tests, that
the result could be an illiberal, multipolar and conflict-prone world, delivering far less
than optimum growth and with fewer opportunities for the BRICs of the future. A common
U.S.- European agenda that works within this system of diminished relative power and
consensus would begin with a rebuilding of economic competitiveness and institutions
of common action. For the short term, U.S. fiscal pressures, stubborn unemployment and partisan divides
limit bold leadership on behalf of new ideas. Europe’s institutional deficit and deepening divisions between north and
south limit both its ability to propose new ideas and its capacity to respond to ideas from outside. Yet we should be able to find
sufficient political capital to continue present efforts to reform global institutions, improve cross-border financial regulation, bring
collective pressure on China for more market-based currency pricing, improve IMF surveillance and seek commitments from major
prevention of further
protectionist backsliding should be possible. Many of these efforts will not succeed over
the short term, but could lay the ground for effective follow-through when internal
conditions become more favorable.
players to limit global trade and financial imbalances. While a restarted Doha is too far a reach,
2nc – BRIC uniqueness
BRIC influence and FDI rising- growth inevitable
McMillan et al 13- represents lenders and borrowers in a variety of domestic and cross-border
financing transactions, including syndicated and single-bank financings, secured and unsecured
transactions, first lien/second lien finance, and loan and credit restructurings, (Christine, “The FDI
Report 2013: Global greenfield investment trends”, 2013, FDI intelligence,
http://ftbsitessvr01.ft.com/forms/fDi/report2013/files/The_fDi_Report_2013.pdf) //AD
FDI into BRIC countries Brazil,
Russia, India and China have all become major players in global
FDI. From 2003 to 2012, the BRIC countries attracted 22.29% of global FDI projects.
China alone attracted more than one-tenth of global FDI projects and has topped the
regional rankings every year since 2003. BRIC countries have attracted 26,027 projects since 2003, with
estimated capital investment of $2230bn, creating approximately 8 million jobs directly. The highest volume of FDI into the BRIC
countries was in 2008, with a total of 3205 projects recorded. In
2012, three of the BRIC countries – China,
India and Brazil – finished in the top five destination countries for FDI globally.
Collectively, they attracted 17.64% of global FDI projects. Brazil saw the largest increase in market share
of the BRIC countries in 2012, attracting 18.42% of FDI projects into the BRICs. Russia attracted 11.3% of FDI projects into the
BRICs in 2012 and ranked second in capital investment in Europe in 2012. India attracted 30.02% of FDI projects into the BRICs in
2012. The country also performed well from a regional and global perspective in 2012, ranking second in Asia-Pacific and fourth
globally by project numbers. China
accounted for 40.26% of FDI projects into the BRICs in 2012
and captured 8.01% of global FDI projects. Within Asia-Pacific, China was the top country for
FDI by project numbers, with a regional market share of 25.24% of projects. The
economic slowdown in BRIC economies and worldwide is likely to lead to a continued
decline in FDI to the BRIC countries in 2013. However, from 2014 onwards we expect
FDI into the BRICs to rebound due to stronger economic growth and local factors. The 2014
FIFA World Cup and 2016 Olympics in Brazil and the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia should stimulate FDI. Major FDI reforms in
India, including passing a new land acquisition law and permitting more FDI in retailing, airlines and broadcasting is likely to
increase FDI into India in the medium to longer term and once the path of Chinese GDP growth becomes clearer investors are likely
to expand FDI again into China.
Pan-Asian trends spill over to BRIC- prosperity in the partnerships
Zongyi 13- staff writer (Liu, “BRICS have proved economic world order”, Global Times, 7-7-13,
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/794384.shtml#.Ufv52pK1Fsk) //AD
The most prominent change is the emergence of the Pan-Asian plate. The development of China
and India has totally changed Japan's central role in the Asian economy. The Pan-Asian plate includes not only those higher up the
value chain like Japan and South Korea, but also Southeast Asian and South Asian countries. China
and India are
positioned in the middle, and China has become the center of Asian trade. A vertical supply
chain has been formed in the Pan-Asian plate, breaking the traditional pattern determined by geographical position. Besides
Asian countries, Latin American countries like Brazil and Chile and African countries like
Tanzania and Gabon are also contained in the Asian economic and financial circle. This supply chain of
the Pan-Asian plate continues to expand, and the GDP of developing countries has risen to take
50 percent of the world's GDP. This will further change the structure of demand worldwide. The appearance
of the BRICS group is the best reflection of these major changes in the world economic
pattern. When Jim O'Neill came up with the BRIC concept in 2001, he saw four promising markets for investment. However, he
only foresaw an economic trend but did not realize it would be also a political one. O'Neill later raised the concepts of Next 11 and
VISTA. Countries included in these concepts are mostly a part of the Pan-Asian industrial chain. Or we can say that as long as a
country is included in the Pan-Asian economic chain, its prospects will be promising. But O'Neill
opposed the
inclusion of South Africa into BRIC due to its relatively small economic scale. In fact,
South Africa, Africa's biggest economy, reflects the increasing trend of Africa merging
into the Pan-Asian economic plate. With the economic development of emerging
countries such as China and India, the economic chain of the Pan-Asian plate will continue to expand, and the
BRICS group will have more members in the future. The growth of the Pan-Asian plate and the
formation of BRICS countries are the results of globalization, pushed by market forces. They are not
exclusive to the US or European countries, since transnational groups from the US and Europe served as catalysts in the process.
BRICS expanding now but FDI is key
Escobar 13- financial author for spearhead (Pepe, “BRICS go over the wall?”, Spearhead Research, 328-13, http://spearheadresearch.org/SR_CMS/index.php/economyenergy/brics-go-over-the-wall) //AD
Reports on the premature death of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) have been
greatly exaggerated. Western corporate media is flooded with such nonsense, perpetrated in this particular case by the
head of Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Reality spells otherwise. The BRICS meet in Durban, South
Africa, this Tuesday to, among other steps, create their own credit rating agency, sidelining the dictatorship – or at least “biased
agendas”, in New Delhi’s diplomatic take – of the Moody’s/Standard & Poor’s variety. They will also further advance
the
idea of the BRICS Development Bank, with a seed capital of US$50 billion (only structural details need to be
finalized), helping infrastructure and sustainable development projects. Crucially, the US and
the European Union won’t have stakes in this Bank of the South – a concrete alternative,
pushed especially by India and Brazil, to the Western-dominated World Bank and the Bretton Woods system. As
former Indian finance minister Jaswant Singh has observed, such a development bank could, for instance, channel Beijing’s knowhow to help finance India’s massive infrastructure needs. The huge political and economic differences among BRICS members are
self-evident. But as they evolve as a group, the point is not whether they should be protecting the global economy from the now nonstop crisis of advanced casino capitalism. The point is that, beyond
measures to facilitate mutual trade, their
actions are indeed becoming increasingly political – as the BRICS not only deploy their
economic clout but also take concrete steps leading towards a multipolar world. Brazil is
particularly active in this regard. Inevitably, the usual Atlanticist, Washington consensus fanatics – myopically – can see nothing
else besides the BRICS “demanding more recognition from Western powers”.
Of course there are problems.
Brazil, China and India’s growth slowed down. As China, for instance, became Brazil’s top trading partner –
ahead of the US – whole sectors of Brazilian industry have suffered from the competition of cheap Chinese manufacturing. But
some long-term prospects are inevitable. BRICS will eventually become more forceful at the International Monetary Fund.
Crucially, BRICS will be trading in their own currencies, including a globally convertible
yuan, further away from the US dollar and the petrodollar.
2nc – FDI uniqueness
EU and US increasing investment in BRICS now
Hunya and Stöllinger 09-research economists at the Vienna Institute for International
Economic Studies, (Gábor and Roman, “Foreign Direct Investment Flows between the EU and the
BRICs”, December 2009,Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies,
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CEIQFjAC&url
=http%3A%2F%2Fwiiw.ac.at%2Fforeign-direct-investment-flows-between-the-eu-and-the-brics-dlp1960.pdf&ei=NP_7Uc_3F8uMyAHikIE4&usg=AFQjCNFDBedZbC0n5I9Bh-twO3SEzSaOA&sig2=BtydrdERRAZyreNoGXkyfw) //AD
The major source of FDI in the BRICs is by a large distance the US with more than 5
thousand investment projects, 29% of the total (Table 5). The highest number of investments occurred in
2006 followed by 2008. Last year the share of US projects was lower than before while that of Japan, second in the overall ranking,
increased.
The main EU investors, Germany, the UK, France and Italy occupy the ranks 3
to 6, with Germany coming close to Japan. The joint share of the four largest EU economies amounts
to 24% for the whole observed period and 26% in 2008 which is a slight increase in
concentration. The share of the EU15 increased from 32% in 2003 to 38% in 2008 which
points to a growing importance of the EU among the investors in the BRICs. In terms of
reported investment capital the lead of the USA is much smaller than for the number of projects, with 15% for the whole observed
period and only slightly higher in 2008. Germany comes second while Japan is further down the list. Investing
countries
with relatively high amounts of investments relative to the number of projects include
Korea and Hong Kong. Those with relatively small sums per project are France and Italy. Still, the share of the
four leading EU investors is 22%, higher than that of the USA for the whole observed
period, reaching as much as 27% in the year 2008. As to the EU15, their share in the invested
sum increased from 33% in 2003 to 40% in 2008. This is another strong argument
supporting the increasing role of the EU investors in the BRICs.
2nc – i/l – us key
BRIC expanding now but US key
Brand et. Al. 12- Lecturer and Post-Doc Researcher at the Department of Political Science at the
University of Mainz, (Alexander, “BRICs and U.S. Hegemony: Theoretical Reflections on Shifting Power
Patterns and Empirical Evidence from Latin America”, MAINZ PAPERS ON INTERNATIONAL AND
EUROPEAN POLITICS, 2012, http://international.politics.uni-mainz.de/files/2012/10/mpiep04.pdf)
//AD
In the economic dimension, the U.S. still is very important for Latin America. What is more,
despite the activities of BRIC states throughout the region, the traditional asymmetrically patterned relationship
still continues to exist: While Latin America on the whole is not the U.S.’s most important trading partner, Latin
American states are still by and large dependent on their exports to the U.S. market –
either heavily (Mexico) or to still impressive degrees. The same is true for the U.S. as the main source of
FDI flows to Latin America; although Brazilian and Chinese activism is surging, it is still at a comparatively low level.
Thus, the very phenomena that have captured the attention of analysts recently – Chinese FDI targeted to resource and
infrastructure projects, intensified economic exchange between e.g. Brazil and China themselves, the growth of
trade volumes between China and LA as well as Brazil and its regional neighbors still do not, in essence and so far, signal
a fundamental break with the established patterns of asymmetrical economic relations between the U.S.
and Latin America and hence, the strong U.S. influence in the region. In terms of monetary and
currency policy, the U.S. position in terms of a dominance of the dollar throughout Latin
America remains intact so far as well. This means that fiscal and monetary policies on behalf of the
United States still exert considerable influence within the region, be they intentionally targeted at
achieving certain outcomes or not.
2nc – i/l – eu key
EU and US key to BRICS- 80% of revenue
Grant et. Al. 13- diplomat for New Zealand for over 10 years. Deputy High Commissioner,
consultant on trade and development matters before joining Business Unity South Africa Executive
Director: Trade Policy, Secretary of the SADC Employers Group and SADC Business Forum from 2007 to
2010 (Catherine, “BRICS FDI: A Preliminary View”, March 2013, SAIIA,
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=17&ved=0CLgBEBYwEA&url=htt
p%3A%2F%2Fwww.saiia.org.za%2Fdoc_download%2F173-brics-fdi-a-preliminaryview&ei=NP_7Uc_3F8uMyAHikIE4&usg=AFQjCNE51g_GvhzeSY_EdtN_P0q37ErqkA&sig2=hpcdmNQ
ucZOEDXxTW5S0Jw) //AD
Generally, the
evidence suggests that intra-BRICS countries’ investment is not substantial.
Traditional economies play a pivotal role in investment in the BRICS countries, with the
EU-27, the US and Japan having been critical in this regard.13 The EU-27 in particular has
been the largest source of FDI to the BRICS. The UK has been the biggest investor in
Russia and China, Spain the biggest investor in Brazil, and Germany the biggest
investor in India.14 South Africa has benefited from nearly 80% of FDI inflows coming
from the EU. With the cancellation of the BITs, existing investments are protected for an additional 10 years, but new
investments are not. US FDI has been directed mainly towards China, reaching its peak in 2008 prior to the
global economic crisis, and falling to its lowest levels in the middle of the crisis in 2009. Japanese FDI has been
relatively diverse, destined for Brazil and increasingly for India; but mainly dominated
by China since 2003. Brazil and India competed effectively for Japanese FDI, whereas
Russia and South Africa received relatively less of the incoming FDI from Japan.
EU and BRICS FDI is directly interlinked- key to stability
Havlik et al 09- Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleich (wiiw), the Vienna Institute
for International Economic Studies, Rahlgasse, (Peter, “EU and BRICs: Challenges and opportunities for
European competitiveness and cooperation,” Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General European
Commission, 7-10-9, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=5586)
//AD
While the share of EU FDI going to the BRICs remains small. the
EU is an important source of FDI for all
BRICs. This constellation mirrors trade, as the EU is a more important trading partner
for the BRICs than vice versa. In terms of FDI flows: the EU is by far the most important
investor in Russia and Brazil accounting on average for 57% and 53% of the total FDI
going to these countries in the period 2004-2007 (Figure 1.3.4, left). In the Asian BRIC economies the share of the i inward FDI is
much lower, ranging from 31% in India to only 10% in China. This is explained by the large intra-regional FDI flows in South and
South-East Asia. In the case of Hong Kong stands out as the largest investor accounting for 37% of total inflows in the period 20042007. FDI
flows originating from Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea make up another
13%" The high share of intra-regional FDI in Asian countries is linked to the high
degree of vertical trade integration. In the case of Hong Kong, however, a part of the FDI flows to China
constitutes round-tripping capital ie Chinese investment taking a detour via Hong Kong for tax or other reasons (Poncet 2008).
This phenomenon is also found in India and Russia since round-tripping inflates a country's aggregate EDIL the
role of the
EU as a provider of FDI to India and China might be higher than suggested by the
statistics in the case of Russia the situation is different because much of Russian round-tripping capital
enters was Cyprus gardes of the precise share of EU which is an EU member state (see Box 13.2). Reg member states in Russia's
inward FDI EU firms show a very high presence in Russia. A
major reason for it is Russia’s proximity which
is one of the major determinant intensity of bilateral FDI flows to emerging markets
(Frenkel. Funke and Stadma, 2004). The EU emerges as the largest provider of FDI among the
Triad countries in each of the BRICs (Figure 13.4 right Russia and Brazil, the amount
invested by EU firms equaled seven to eight times the amount of FDI us firms in these
countries (average by 2000 The average annual FDI flow from the EU to China in 20052007 amounted to EUR 6.6 billion, more than twice the amount pouring in from the
United States. Japan. which has a strong Asian focus in its outward FDI, recorded on average EUR 4.9 billion to China
during the same period. In Hong Kong-the magnitude of FDI flows from the EU and t EUR4.9 billion EUR 3.7 the United
States are on a more s level amounting billion respectively. EU flows to India were the lowest among
the BRIC counties amounting to EUR 3.9 billion on average for the period 2005-2007, albeit the EU is the number one investor in
India if Mauritius is neglected (see Box 1.3.2). Whereas the strong Ho links between the EU and Russia could be expected due to the
proximity of the two markets and was also found in the trade in goods and services, the
favorable position of EU
firms in Brazil compared to US firms is more surprising and in contrast with the result
found in services trade. The strong position of EU firms in the BRICs is mainly the result
of from Spain which has close historical links with South America" and Germany which
is a major and geographically well diversified provider of FDI.
2nc – i/l – fdi key
FDI key to BRICs economic stability
Rao et al 10 – Department of Banking Technology, School of Management, Pondicherry University,
(Kode Chandra Sekhara, “Determinants of FDI in BRICS Countries: A panel analysis”, Int. Journal of
Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 5, Issue 3, 2010, http://www.business-andmanagement.org/download.php?file=2010/5_3--1--13-Vijayakumar,Sridharan,Rao.pdf) //AD
In recent days, BRICS-
the fast developing economies of the world having larger market
potentials are expected to attract larger inflow of FDI. However, the factors attracting the
FDI inflows towards these countries are relatively less researched. This study made an
attempt to identify the factors determining the FDI inflows of BRICS countries from the
period 1975 to 2007. The determinant factors include: Market size, Economic Stability and
Growth Prospects, Cost of Labour, Infrastructure Facilities, Trade Openness, Currency
value and Gross capital formation. The study finds that other than Economic Stability and
Growth prospects (measured by inflation rate and Industrial production respectively), Trade openness (measured
by the ratio of total trade to GDP) all other factors seem to be the potential determinants of FDI
inflows in BRICS countries. The empirical results are robust in general for alternative
variables determining FDI flows. The empirical analysis has some policy implications
towards the improvement of investment climate to attract higher FDI inflows into
BRICS countries that are expected to facilitate their economy in enhancement of
Market potential, Infrastructural development and Capital Formation. Inflation (the
Economic stability variable) and the Industrial production (the Growth Perspective variable) are critical
factors in attracting FDI, which helps to make appropriate policies for improving the
performance of domestic economy. Therefore, it is an important object to maintain the
stability of the currency of the host country to attract increased FDI. The benefit of
trade openness in terms of their impact on FDI is not validated in this study. Thus, BRICS
countries as developing nations have to involve themselves in the path of economic
reform and liberalisation activities. As expected, the negatively significance of wage rate
seems to validate the study as the determinant of FDI.
2nc – economy impact
BRIC key to the global economy — turns the case
Moghadam 11- director of the European Department at the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
Director of the Fund’s Strategy, Policy, and Review Department for three years, and Head of the
Managing Director’s office, worked in European and the Asia-Pacific Departments of the Fund, bachelor's
degree in mathematics at Oxford University, a master’s degree in economics at the London School of
Economics, and a PhD in economics at the University of Warwick, (Reza, “New Growth Drivers for LowIncome Countries: The Role of BRICs Prepared by the Strategy, Policy, and Review Department”,
January 12, 2011, International Monetary Fund,
https://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2011/011211.pdf) //AD
26. While
they are difficult to quantify, the effects of BRIC FDI on local economies have
been tangible: BRIC FDI has helped tap natural resources in many LICs. This is most
evident in the rapid growth of oil and mining industries in Africa, partly made possible
by BRIC investment, leading to sharp increases in production, exports, and processing
capacity. In some cases, BRICs’ investment may also have strengthened the bargaining power
of LICs, helping them to negotiate more favorable contracts with foreign firms. BRIC
financing has helped increase manufacturing capacity in some LICs. This is clearly the case in countries
such as Ghana where most Chinese FDI is involved in agroprocessing and garment
manufacturing. Even in resource-rich countries, there is now a greater emphasis on increasing value added in both upstream
and downstream industries (e.g., building refining capacity in Nigeria, and processing copper into electric wires in Zambia). The
key challenge for LICs is to amplify these positive effects of BRIC FDI by continuing to
attract more inflows, ensuring that natural resource extraction contributes to
strengthening domestic revenue mobilization, and fostering greater linkages with local
economies. As is the case for trade flows, this challenge is not specific to BRIC FDI but is heightened by the prospect of
attracting more FDI than in the past from a broader array of countries. Recipient countries can foster FDI by
improving their business environment. The focus should be on improvements in areas that are critical for
attracting FDI such as the availability of adequate and reliable infrastructure, rule of law, and reduction of red tape and corruption
(Dabla-Norris et al., 2010). At the same time, reducing
high trade barriers is important, especially for FDI in
search of intermediate inputs and regional exports. Recipient countries should ensure that greater FDI,
particularly in natural resources, translates into higher fiscal revenue, which can then be spent in
priority areas. In the face of strong competition for FDI among recipient countries, LIC policymakers should
carefully evaluate the benefits of policy incentives against the cost and the fiscal
implications of such incentives to ensure that public resources are used for the highest
priorities. Regional policy coordination could help countries limit incentive competition.
Deeper regional integration could also make small LIC economies more attractive to
FDI, notably by having regional projects especially in the power and transport sectors. Moreover; policies aimed at attracting FDI
should avoid discriminating against domestic firms. BRICs and LICs can cooperate more closely in
promoting local employment and industrial linkages. While an important goal of attracting FDI is to
increase local employment and strengthen local productive capacity, excessive local employment and input requirements could deter
FDI inflows and undermine the efficiency of foreign invested firms. To avoid such an outcome, investors could be encouraged to hire
and train more local workers while, at the same time, recipient countries could aim to facilitate firms’ access to necessary skills,
including by upgrading education programs and rationalizing labor market regulations. Similarly, linkages
to local firms
could be facilitated by encouraging joint ventures, improving internal transport systems,
and ensuring equal access to industrial clustering by local firms (Broadman, 2006).
BRICS key to the global economy- supports developing countries
Morazán 12 - doctorate in economics, research associate at The SÜDWIND Institute for Economics
and Ecumenism, (Pedro, “The Role of BRICS in the developing world”, April 2012, European Parliament,
http://www.ab.gov.tr/files/ardb/evt/1_avrupa_birligi/1_9_politikalar/1_9_8_dis_politika/The_role_of
_BRICS_in_the_developing_world.pdf) //AD
The implications of increased relations are differing among the heterogeneous group of
developing countries. Largely, BRICS have contributed to economic growth and
sustainable development as recent studies show (IMF 2011e; Lin 2012). The biggest effect can
be identified in trade relations. 60 % of BRIC total impact on LICs is attributed to
trade. Due to strong trade ties of BRIC to Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia,
respective impacts are pronounced in these regions. Oil exporting countries are more influenced by trade
shocks than others (IMF 2011e: 18). Indirect spillovers to LICs include commodity prices, global
interest rates and demand. The influence of BRIC on these variables should not be
underestimated. In terms of demand and productivity, a 1 % increase in BRIC is followed by a 0.7 %
increase in LICs output over 3 years (Lin 2012). Moreover, due to higher wages and mechanisation, China
and other MICs are moving from low-skilled, labour-intense production to higher value
added goods, thereby leaing spaces and opportunities for LIC-economies to create jobs
in these sectors (Lin 2012). Impacts of FDI from BRIC to LICs can be very strong in countries
with high inflows in percentage of GDP (e.g. Sudan, Zambia). In general, these flows are seen as a minor
contributor to LIC growth only. After all, the volume is somewhat undersized in comparison to western countries and so far
“empirical evidence (...) is inconclusive” (IMF 2011e: 19). Taking
into account the overlapping structure of
trade, FDI, grants and development financing the positive impact of BRIC becomes
more obvious. Especially African countries show substantial improvement in electricity
supply, railway and road infrastructure as well as communication structures. Service
security and lower transport and communication expenditures are enabling further
economic development. Positive spillovers include higher productivity, higher
exportrates, diversification of industries, and intensifying of regional trade linkages. The
IMF is also acknowledging BRIC assistance being complementary to traditional
development aid (IMF 2011a: 27). The BRIC impact on LICs growth has significantly increased
during the financial crisis.BRIC were affected less than western countries, which has also led
to an increased share in total LICs export. BRIC economies are not fully intertwined with western structures, thereby providing
certain autonomy and reducing growth volatility in LICs (Lin 2012). Counterfactual analysis show, that if BRIC
growth
would have declined at the same extent as industrialized countries during the crisis,
LICs’ growth would have been 0.3 – 1.1 % lower (IMF 2011e: 27). By and large, there are
remarkable spillovers and positive impacts through BRICS’ engagement, especially
regarding trade. Trade, FDI and development financing have not only contributed to LICs’ economic development but also
lessened the effects of the recent financial crisis on LICs. However, many LICs still rely too much on exports of primary
The World Bank’s
Global Development Finance lists the BRICS in its statistical databank as developing
debtor countries and – except for South Africa – they can all be found in the TOP 5
borrowers11. With an external total debt stock of USD 1,615.7 billion in 2010, the BRICS together “accounted for almost 40 %
commodities and are in need of diversification and improved technologies for their industries.
of the end 2010 external debt stock owed by all developing countries” (GDF 2012: 2). However, especially China, but also other
BRICS have incurred enormous amounts of international reserves over recent years. Except for Brazil (83.2 % of external debt
stock) and South Africa (97.0 %) this amount surpasses the external debt stock, and in the case of China even more than five times
(531.2 %). Also related to GNI, none of the BRICS is severely indebted with the indicators ranging from 9.3 % (China) to 26.9 %
Although BRICS play an increasingly important role as providers of
development finance, financial flows are generally (still) much smaller than OECD
countries’ financing, however, it tends to be less concessional. Debt creating flows from BRICS to
(Russian Federation).
SSA, for instance, have risen dramatically: Total loan disbursements from BRICS to SSA grew by an average of 60 % annually over
the period 2000-10, reaching over USD 6 billion in 2010 (cf. Figure 5). Figure 5 also shows that again China plays the
This has raised concerns that BRICS financing
could affect debt sustainability negatively, especially in countries which have received debt relief recently and
countries with weak institutions. Indeed, though generally benefits are identifiable through increased
BRICS development financing, some risks remain especially connected with the following
BRIC seem to “provide more financing to LICs with weaker institutions and
governance.”
he fact that BRIC financing is based at
least partly on commercial risk calculations: if the risk is perceived higher, the concessionality of the loan
predominant role in this overall trend (World Bank 2011: 22).
decreases. For example, countries with higher BRIC loan commitments (=higher exposure), countries without IMF-supported
programmes and countries with weaker institutions (which all could reflect a higher risk of debt distress) tend to receive loans on
less concessional terms (IMF 2011d: 12f). Both factors are inconsistent with the logic of the IMF debt sustainability framework for
LICs, which was designed to help maintain long term debt sustainability providing guidelines for debtor and creditor countries on
borrowing limits and grant-allocation decisions according to a country’s prospective repayment ability. Within this framework,
countries with strong institutions and good governance indicators are perceived as
having higher repayment ability; they can therefore manage higher debt indicators and incur more loans with low
concessionality. Thus, especially countries with weak institutions are at higher risk to run into debt distress if much and less
conditional financing is provided. However, so
far there are very few examples of BRICS financing
creating debt sustainability problems. In the case of Bhutan, for instance, partly loan financed investment in
hydropower projects (by India) is seen as unproblematic as the prospective rate of return is seen as increasing repayment capacities
(IMF 2009). In Mozambique, where two non-concessional loans where signed with China and Brazil for infrastructure projects,
amounts are fairly small but still raise some concerns that this form of financing needs to be used more productively than in the
past (IMF 2011f). A case in point is certainly Zimbabwe,
currently classified as being in debt distress,
where the government agreed upon non-concessional loans with China amounting to
USD 566 million (IMF 2011g). However, Zimbabwe has not yet received debt relief under the respective frameworks (the
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative and Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative), and it is likely that China will take its share if
conditions are met for debt relief in the future.
Although not yet problematic, it is certainly important
to observe BRICS’ financing, its social and
economic returns and possible debt sustainability issues in LICs in the
future. However, it can also be seen, that the debt sustainability framework could turn out to be a toothless tiger if it is not used as a
guidance by all development partners on both sides. This
implies that the EU should not only engage in
capacity strengthening of debt and project management as well as governance issues in
LICs but also engage in a political dialogue with BRICS (and other non-OECD development partners)
to come to common terms of needs-based development financing within a commonly designed debt sustainability framework.
***iran sanctions da
1nc – da
Embassy surveillance is critical to prevent the collapse of Iran sanctions
negotiations
RT 14 – (5/13/14, “NSA spying on foreign embassies helped US 'develop' strategy,”
http://rt.com/usa/158608-nsa-greenwald-un-snowden/)//twemchen
The National Security Agency in 2010 provided the US ambassador to the United Nations with
background information on several governments and their embassies that were undecided
on the question of Iranian sanctions . In May 2010, as the UN Security Council was attempting to win support for
sanctions against Iran over its nuclear-energy program, which some say is a front for a nuclear weapons program, several members
were undecided as to how they would vote. At this point, the
US ambassador to the world body, Susan Rice, asked the
NSA for assistance in her efforts to “develop a strategy,” leaked NSA documents reveal. The NSA swung
into action, aiming their powerful surveillance apparatus at the personal communications of diplomats from four non-permanent
Security Council members — Bosnia, Gabon, Nigeria and Uganda. This gave
Rice an apparent upper-hand in the
course of the negotiations. In June, 12 of the 15-member Security Council voted in favor of new sanctions. Later, Rice
extended her gratitude to the US spy agency, saying its surveillance had helped her to know
when diplomats from the other permanent representatives — China, England, France and Russia —
“were telling the truth ... revealed their real position on sanctions ... gave us an upper
hand in negotiations ... and provided information on various countries’ ‘red lines’.” The
information comes from a new book by journalist Glenn Greenwald, ‘No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the US
Surveillance State’, the New York Times reported. Rice’s request for assistance was discovered in an internal report by the security
agency’s Special Source Operations division, which cooperates with US telecommunications companies in the event a request for
information is deemed necessary. Greenwald’s book goes on sale Tuesday. The book also provides a list of embassies around the
world that had been infiltrated by the US spy agency, including those of Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, the European Union, France,
Georgia, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Venezuela and Vietnam. United States
Vice President Joe Biden (R) sits with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (L) as U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice stands (C)
before the start of the United Nations Security Council High-Level Meeting on Iraq at U.N. headquarters in New York, December 15,
2010 (Reuters) News of the NSA’s vast surveillance network, which targets friends and enemies of the United States with
equanimity, were revealed in June when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden provided Greenwald with thousands of files on
the program. Despite promises by President Obama for greater safeguards on the invasive system, which has infuriated people
around the world, the NSA seems determined not to let international public opinion block its spying efforts. “While our intelligence
agencies will continue to gather information about the intentions of governments — as opposed to ordinary citizens — around the
world, in the same way that the intelligence services of every other nation do, we will not apologize because our services may be more
effective,” according to a White House statement. The latest revelations detailing how the
NSA gives American
diplomats an unfair advantage raises the question as to how such orders passed legal muster in the first place.
According to the documents, a legal team went to work on May 22 building the case to
electronically eavesdrop on diplomats and envoys from Bosnia, Gabon,
Nigeria and Uganda whose embassies were apparently not yet covered by the NSA. A judge from the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court approved the request on May 26. The Obama administration has faced fierce criticism
following revelations of the global surveillance program, which was used not simply to identify potential terrorists, but to eavesdrop
on the communications of world leaders. Following revelations that German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s private cell phone
communications were being hacked by the NSA, Germany pushed for a ‘no-spy’ agreement with the United States to restore the
trust. The Obama administration, however, rejected the offer. Now Europe has announced plans to construct a new Internet network
that bypasses the United States and the NSA, a move the US Trade Representative labeled “draconian.”
Iran nuclear agreement is critical to prevent extinction
Delattre 14 – French ambassador to the US (Francois Delattre, 4/15/14, “New Opportunities for the
US-France Partnership ,” Federal News Service, Lexis)//twemchen
The United States and France are also at
the forefront of international efforts to prevent Iran from
becoming a nuclear weapon state . With the partners of the so-called P-5 plus one, we are working hard to
try to achieve a comprehensive agreement with Iran, whose goal is to prevent this country from developing nuclear
weapons and to obtain all necessary assurances that its nuclear program remains peaceful. We have to stay -- that's France's position
that we have to stay firm on this for at least three reasons, I would say: number one, because a
nuclear-armed Iran
would be an existential threat to the security of Israel; number two, because a nuclear-armed Iran would
trigger an arms race and potentially a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, meaning in the most -- one of
the most volatile region s in the world; and number three, a nuclear-armed Iran would mean the demise
of the international nonproliferation regime that we together patiently built over the past decades.
And for these reasons and a couple of others, we simply have to negotiate, of course, with Iran in good faith but also to remain firm
on our fundamentals.
***snowden asylum da
1nc – da
Snowden’s about to be granted asylum in France – but the plan’s conflict
resolution ensures he remains in Russia
The Local 6/24 – (6/24/15, “Obama tells Hollande: Snooping will stop,”
http://www.thelocal.fr/20150624/live-us-spying-france-nsa-united-states-snowden)//twemchen
14:04 - France
to offer asylum to Snowden and Assange? As furious French politicians
continue to offer up suggestions for how France should best react to the spying scandal, the man known
as the "leftist firebrand" Jean-Luc Mélenchon says Paris should offer asylum to two of America's most
wanted men. Mélenchon says France should offer asylum to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, currently holed up in the
Ecuadorian embassy in London, and NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, currently holed up
somewhere in Russia . Mélenchon, an MEP from the Parti de Gauche also echoed Marine Le Pen's call for an end to
negotiations over the transatlantic free trade treaty (TTIP) between the US and the EU.
If he stays in Russia, he’ll give all our secrets away
Cohen 14 – Staff writer at CNN Politics (Tom Cohen, 3/9/14, “Military spy chief: Have to assume Russia
knows U.S. secrets,” http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/07/politics/snowden-leaks-russia/)//twemchen
In the world of military strategy, every contingency must be examined, especially the worst-case
scenario. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, made that clear when he told National Public Radio in
an interview broadcast Friday how U.S.
officials must plan for the possibility that Vladimir Putin's Russia
has access to American battle plans and other secrets possibly taken by classified leaker Edward
Snowden. "If I'm concerned about anything, I'm concerned about defense capabilities that he may have
stolen from where he worked, and does that knowledge [may] then get into the hands of our adversaries —
in this case, of course, Russia ," Flynn said of the former National Security Agency contractor who fled to Moscow to seek
asylum. A hero to some and traitor to others, Snowden last year disclosed details of the vast U.S. surveillance network put in place
after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, including how the government keeps records on billions of phone calls for possible
use in terrorism investigations. Flynn said he worried about what else Snowden knows, and how Russia -- where Snowden lives now
-- may have access to the documents. He cited intelligence
capabilities, operational capabilities,
technology and weapons systems as potential subjects of so far unpublicized
information Snowden -- and Russia -- may have. "We really don't know" what Snowden's got, Flynn said,
adding that "we have to assume the worst case and then begin to make some recommendations to our leadership about how do we
mitigate some of the risks that may come from what may have been compromised." He added that the intelligence community also
must assume that Russia either already has the information taken by Snowden or is trying to get it, adding "that
would be
very serious ." Because of the possibility, "we have to make some judgments, recommendations about ... how to respond to
that," Flynn said. "We're going to be dealing with this for many, many years," he noted, saying procedures, techniques and tactics
currently in use may have to be changed. Flynn spoke as Putin has moved troops into the Crimea Peninsula of
Ukraine in a showdown with the United States and its European allies over the former Soviet region's independence. In January, he
and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the Snowden
leaks already
caused serious damage to U.S. security . "What Snowden has stolen and exposed has gone way, way
beyond his professed concerns with so-called domestic surveillance programs," Clapper said then. "As a result, we've lost
critical foreign intelligence collection sources , including some shared with us by valued partners."
Terrorists and other adversaries of America were "going to school on U.S. intelligence sources' methods and trade craft, and the
insights that they are gaining are making our job much, much harder," Clapper told the committee. "Snowden claims that he's won
and that his mission is accomplished," Clapper also noted. "If that is so, I call on him and his accomplices to facilitate the return of
the remaining stolen documents that have not yet been exposed to prevent even more damage to U.S. security." Flynn told the panel
that "the greatest cost that is unknown today but that we will likely face is the cost of human lives on tomorrow's battlefield or in
some place where we will put our military forces when we ask them to go into harm's way."
This emboldens Russia – risking nuclear East-West confrontation over
Ukraine
Kincaid 14 – staff writer at AIM (Cliff Kincaid, 3/24/14, “Snowden Helped Russia Invade Ukraine,”
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/snowden-helped-russia-invade-ukraine/)//twemchen
A blockbuster story in the Monday Wall Street Journal reveals the
terrible damage National Security Agency (NSA)
leaker Edward Snowden has done, enabling Russian “war planners” to avoid detection as they
evade d U.S. surveillance and staged the invasion of Ukraine . At the same time, Lt. Gen. Michael
Flynn, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), says Snowden’s theft of documents has made it harder for U.S. troops to
avoid being maimed or killed by terrorist bombs known as improvised explosive devices (IEDs). “Some U.S.
military and
intelligence officials
say Russia’s war planners might have used knowledge about the U.S.’s usual
surveillance techniques to change communication methods about the looming
invasion ,” the Journal said in its front page story. “U.S. officials haven’t determined how Russia hid its military plans from U.S. eavesdropping equipment that picks up digital and electronic
communications.” ABC’s “The Note” calls the Journal story a must-read, explaining that the Journal disclosed that “intelligence analysts were surprised because they hadn’t intercepted any telltale
communications where Russian leaders, military commanders or soldiers discussed plans to invade.” Strangely, however, the story never mentions Edward Snowden, the former intelligence analyst now being
controlled by the Russian security agency, the FSB, in Moscow. Clearly, however, the “knowledge” about U.S. surveillance techniques came from Snowden. Snowden’s collaborators in the media, who revealed his
stolen documents about NSA surveillance of America’s enemies and adversaries, are up for prestigious Pulitzer Prizes when these awards are announced at Columbia University on April 14. AIM has argued that
such awards would constitute another black eye for the media and undermine whatever confidence the American people have left in the press. In a statement to POLITICO about the possibility of Pulitzers being
given to Snowden’s mouthpieces in the media, AIM asked, “Specifically, what did Snowden tell the Russian FSB about U.S. capabilities to detect and deter a Russian invasion of Ukraine, or the ability of the U.S. to
determine the nature or intentions of the Putin regime?” The answer is now in. Thanks to Snowden, the U.S. was deceived. On Sunday’s “Meet the Press” program on NBC, House Intelligence Committee Chairman
Mike Rogers (R-MI) said, “We know today [of] no counterintelligence official in the United States [who] does not believe that Mr. Snowden, the NSA contractor, is not under the influence of Russian intelligence
services.” In a clear reference to Russian aggression in Ukraine, Rogers said, “He is under the influence of Russian intelligence officials today. He is actually supporting in an odd way this very activity of brazen
brutality and expansionism of Russia. He needs to understand that. And I think Americans need to understand that. We need to put it in proper context.” He added that Snowden is “clearly in Moscow, under the
influence of intelligence services for a country that is expanding its borders today using military force. I think there’s a lot more questions that need to be answered here.” The Wall Street Journal said,
America’s vaunted global surveillance is a vital tool for U.S. intelligence services, especially as an
early-warning system and as a way to corroborate other evidence. In Crimea, though, U.S. intelligence officials are
“
concluding that Russian planners might have gotten a jump on the West by evading U.S. eavesdropping.” “Inside Crimea,” it went
on, “Russian
troops exercised what U.S. officials describe as extraordinary discipline in their radio
and cellphone communications. Remarks that were intercepted by U.S. spy agencies revealed no hint of the plans.” It said,
“To close the information gap, U.S. spy agencies and the military are rushing to expand satellite coverage and
communications-interception efforts across Russia, Ukraine and the Baltic states. U.S. officials hope the ‘surge’ in
assets and analysts will improve tracking of the Russian military and tip off the U.S. to any possible intentions of Russian President
Vladimir Putin before he acts on them.” In a March 7 National Public Radio interview, Lt. Gen. Flynn of the DIA mentioned Snowden and said, “If I’m concerned about anything,
I’m concerned about defense capabilities that he may have stolen from where he worked, and does that knowledge then get into the hands of our adversaries—in this case, of
course, Russia.” Asked if Snowden got access to “war plans” and the ways and means by which the U.S. gathers intelligence, Flynn said, “The answer to it is we really don’t know.
From what we do know, we have to assume the worst case and then begin to make some recommendations to our leadership about how do we mitigate some of the risks that
may come from—from what may have been compromised. This is going to be one of these instances where
we’re going to be dealing with this
for many, many years .” Flynn went on to say that Snowden had stolen information regarding how U.S. forces are
able to “defeat some of these improvised explosive devices,” which have killed and maimed thousands of U.S. soldiers. He said “We
know that there’s some evidence that he [Snowden] may have gotten some information about that. And so we have to protect, you
know, how we defeat these kind of devices. So we may need to change some of the way we operate.” The implication is that
Snowden’s disclosures will increase the likelihood of more “wounded warriors” from conflicts in the Middle East and around the
world. Yet, at the time Snowden began making his charges, he was hailed by such figures as radio hosts Michael Savage and Glenn
Beck as a hero. Many liberals are also ardent Snowden backers, with a group called Action for a Progressive Future scheduling a
Tuesday news conference in Washington to “call for a change in the U.S. government stance toward NSA whistleblower Edward
Snowden.” One of the participants, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, calls Snowden a patriot.
Miscalc and extinction
Farmer and Bradshaw 2/20 – Defense Correspondent at The Daily Telegraph, citing General
Sir Adrian Bradshaw, Deputy Commander of NATO Forces in Europe, and former Director of British
Special Forces, and Michael Fallon, British Secretary of State for Defence (“NATO general: Russia
tensions could escalate into all-out war,” Business Insider, 2-20-2015,
http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-general-russia-tensions-could-escalate-to-war-20152)//twemchen
Tensions with Russia could blow up into all-out conflict, posing “an existential
threat to our whole being”, Britain’s top general in Nato has warned. Gen Sir Adrian Bradshaw,
deputy commander of Nato forces in Europe, said there was a danger Vladimir Putin could try to use
his armies to invade and seize Nato territory, after calculating the alliance would be too
afraid of escalating violence to respond. His comments follow a clash between London and Moscow after the
Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, said there was a "real and present danger" Mr Putin
could try to destabilize the Baltic states with a campaign of subversion and irregular
warfare. The Kremlin called those comments “absolutely unacceptable". Sir Adrian told the Royal United Services’ Institute there was a danger
such a campaign of undercover attacks could paralyze Nato decision making, as members disagreed over
how much Russia was responsible, and how to respond. Nato commanders fear a campaign of skilfully
disguised, irregular military action by Russia, which is carefully designed not to trigger the
alliance's mutual defence pact. He said the "resulting ambiguity" would make "collective
decisions relating to the appropriate responses more difficult". But Sir Adrian, one of the
most senior generals in the British Army and a former director of special forces, went further
and said there was also danger that Russia could use conventional forces and Soviet-era
brinkmanship to seize Nato territory. He said Russia had shown last year it could generate
large conventional forces at short notice for snap exercises along its borders. There was
a danger these could be used “not only for intimidation and coercion but potentially to
seize Nato territory, after which the threat of escalation might be used to prevent reestablishment of territorial integrity. This use of so called escalation dominance was of
course a classic Soviet technique.” He went on to say that “the threat from Russia, together with the
risk it brings of a miscalculation resulting in a strategic conflict, however unlikely
we see it as being right now, represents an existential threat to our whole being.” Nato has
agreed to set up a rapid reaction force of around 5,000 troops ready to move at 48 hours notice, in case of
Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. Supplies, equipment and ammunition will be stockpiled in bases in the region.
Alliance leaders hope the force will deter any incursion. David Cameron warned Vladimir Putin there will be
more sanctions and "more consequences" for Russia if the ceasefire in Ukraine does not hold. The Prime Minister vowed that the West would be
"staunch" in its response to Russia and was prepared to maintain pressure on Moscow "for the long term". He rejected the findings of a scathing
parliamentary committee report that the UK found itself "sleep-walking" into the crisis over Ukraine. The EU Committee of the House of Lords found
Mr Fallon said
the Russian president might try to test Nato’s resolve with the same Kremlin-backed
subversion used in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. A murky campaign of infiltration,
propaganda, undercover forces and cyber attack such as that used in the early stages of
the Ukraine conflict could be used to inflame ethnic tensions in Estonia, Lithuania or
Latvia, he said. The military alliance must be prepared to repel Russian aggression
“whatever form it takes”, Mr Fallon said, as he warned that tensions between the two were “warming up”. His comments were
there had been a "catastrophic misreading" of mood by European diplomats in the run-up to the crisis. Earlier this week,
dismissed in Moscow. Russia's Foreign Ministry spokesman said the country does not pose a threat to Baltic countries and accused Mr Fallon of going
beyond “diplomatic ethics” . Alexander Lukashevich said: "His absolutely unacceptable characteristics of the Russian Federation remind me of last
year's speech of US president Barack Obama before the UN general assembly, in which he mentioned Russia among the three most serious challenges
his country was facing.” "I believe we will find a way to react to Mr Secretary's statements."
2nc – xt: uq link
France will grant asylum now – the plan uniquely appeases France,
ensuring he’ll stay in Russia
RT 6/26 – (6/26/15, “Snowden, Assange could get ‘symbolic’ asylum offers – French justice minister,”
http://rt.com/news/269839-france-asylum-assange-snowden/)//twemchen
The French
justice minister said she would not be surprised if, in light of the latest
revelations about the NSA spying on country’s leaders, France offers political
asylum s to Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, as a “symbolic gesture.” Commenting on a
WikiLeaks report claiming that the US had been spying on three leaders of France from 2006 until 2012, French Justice Minister
Christiane Taubira told BFM TV that it was, of course, an “absolutely unspeakable practice.” “If France decides to offer asylum to
Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, I would not be shocked,” said Taubira. It would be a “symbolic gesture,” she said, while
adding that it is up to the French PM Manuel Valls and the president Francois Hollande to decide. Earlier this week, WikiLeaks
announced a plan to reveal a new collection of reports and documents on the US National Security Agency, concerning its alleged
interception of communications within the French government over the last ten years. The documents revealed that the last three
French presidents were allegedly spied on by Washington. The information leaked thus far by WikiLeaks has caused strong criticism
from French politicians with President Hollande releasing a statement saying that the spying is “unacceptable” and “France will not
tolerate it.” The White House rejected the report with President Barack Obama reassuring Hollande he was not spied on. Minister
Taubira’s comments meanwhile seem to reflect the general mood in France. On Thursday an opinion peace in France’s Libération
newspaper said that offering Edward Snowden
safe haven is a “single gesture” that would send
“a clear and useful message to Washington,” in response to American
“contempt” in spying on France’s elite. Edward Snowden, a former intelligence contractor has been granted a temporary
asylum by Moscow after he leaked classified information from the NSA back in 2013. The information leaked resulted in a series of
global scandals as he has exposed numerous surveillance programs run by the NSA and the Five Eyes in cooperation with
telecommunication and IT companies. Julian Assange meanwhile remains a political prisoner inside the Ecuadorian embassy in
London, after the country granted him asylum in 2012. Assange is under Swedish investigation into sexual offenses, which he
strongly denies and views it as an American attempt to eventually extradite him to Washington. The editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks
gained mass recognition in 2010 after publishing US military and diplomatic cables leaked by Chelsea Manning.
2nc – xt: uq link – at: alliance resilient takes out
da
No it doesn’t – the alliance doesn’t matter
Ford 6/25 – CNN (Dana Ford, 6/25/15, “French minister: It's possible asylum will be offered to
Snowden, Assange,” http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/europe/france-assange-snowdenasylum/)//twemchen
(CNN) French
Justice Minister Christiane Taubira said Thursday she "wouldn't be surprised" if
France decided to offer asylum to Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks,
has been holed up in London's Ecuadorian Embassy for more than two years to avoid extradition to Sweden, where prosecutors want
to question him about 2010 allegations that he raped one woman and sexually molested another. Snowden, a former U.S.
government contractor, has remained in Russia since exposing widespread federal surveillance programs. "If France decides to offer
asylum to Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, I wouldn't be surprised. It's
a possibility ," Taubira told CNN affiliate
BFMTV. She stressed it wasn't her decision, but that of the French Prime Minister and President. On Wednesday, France summoned
the U.S. ambassador for a meeting in the wake of reports that the United States spied on French President François Hollande and his
two predecessors --
despite France being a close ally . WikiLeaks has published what it said were U.S.
National Security Agency reports about secret communications of the last three French presidents between 2006 and 2012. France
won't tolerate "any action jeopardizing its security and the protection of its interests," the country's Defense Council said in a
statement Wednesday. But it suggested it was already well aware of the spying allegations. "These unacceptable facts already
resulted in clarifications between France and the United States" in 2013 and 2014, the Defense Council said. "Commitments were
made by the American authorities," the council said. "They must be recalled and strictly respected."
2nc – xt: uq link – at: other countries solve
No one else will grant asylum
Hunt 6/5 – staff writer @ Silicon Republic (Gordon Hunt, 6/5/15, “Edward Snowden: I’ve applied for
asylum in 21 countries,” https://www.siliconrepublic.com/enterprise/2015/06/05/edward-snowden-iveapplied-for-asylum-in-21-countries)//twemchen
Speaking in a live Q&A hosted by Amnesty International on YouTube, the world’s most famous whistleblower, Edward Snowden,
said once again just how many countries
are as yet unwilling to take him in . There can be no doubt that
pressure from, or fear of, the US is the primary reason why none of the 21 different nation states that
Snowden has approached seeking asylum are playing ball. To clarify, Snowden is wanted on espionage charges in the US for his role
in revealing a gargantuan amount of evidence showing that US spying agency the NSA’s surveillance is getting/had gotten out of
control. Subsequent moves from states, and international bodies, all over the world have justified the moves made by the previous
NSA contractor, as they changed laws to try to rein in spying activities. 21 letters and a long wait “I have applied
for asylum
in 21 different countries across the world, including western Europe,” explained Snowden when
asked what the immediate future holds for him, as he continues to live in Russia on a year-by-year basis.
“I’m still waiting on them to get back to me,” he says, without naming the countries. Yesterday marked the two-year
anniversary from when Snowden, along with journalists Glen Greenwald and Laura Poitras, began discussing the mountain of secret
files that had been taken from the NSA’s ever-growing database. In an op-ed that Snowden penned for the The New York Times to
mark the date, amid evidence that the US decision-makers are showing a shift in opinion on the subject of surveillance, the
American said he was pleased to see change emerging around the world. “In a single month, the NSA’s invasive call-tracking
program was declared unlawful by the courts and disowned by Congress,” he wrote. “After a White House-appointed oversight board
investigation found that this program had not stopped a single terrorist attack, even the president who once defended its propriety
and criticised its disclosure has now ordered it terminated.” Both plenty, and little, has changed States all over Europe are embroiled
in their own surveillance fiascos, with the UK and Germany two standout cases of the powerful commandeering information from
the powerless. In the time since Snowden hit the headlines, supporters of his have campaigned against the ludicrous stance the US –
and, by extension, most of the world – has taken towards someone whose revelations have so-soon proved popular. But as the likes
of Brazil, the EU and the UN come out in stark criticism of what the US – and many, many, many more – have been up to in recent
years, it does seem bizarre that no states are willing to welcome in the person who did most to shape this new, far more aware
landscape. Since Snowden’s revelations, European institutions have ruled certain surveillance practices illegal, the UN has declared
mass surveillance an unambiguous violation of human rights, and the Council of Europe has called for new laws to protect whistleblowers. No death penalty: Result Here’s an article from almost two years ago listing some of the states Snowden has apparently
applied for asylum in. Almost
two years, and still no takers. In seeking a return to the US,
Snowden feels he could only do so if he was guaranteed a fair trial. “Unfortunately …
there is no fair trial available, on offer, right now,” he said recently, claiming “the only thing they have said at this
point is that they would not execute me, which is not the same as a fair trial”.
2nc – xt: uq link – at: won’t leave
He’ll claim permanent refuge in France
Prupis 6/26 – staff writer @ Common Dreams (Nadia Prupis, 6/26/15, “French Asylum for Snowden
and Assange Would Send 'Clear Message' to US,”
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/06/26/french-asylum-snowden-and-assange-would-sendclear-message-us)//twemchen
French Justice Minister Christiane Taubira would "absolutely not be surprised" if whistleblower Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange received asylum in France. "It would be a symbolic gesture," Taubira told French news channel BFMTV on
Thursday, adding that it would not be her decision to offer asylum, but that of the French Prime Minister and President. Taubira's
statement came in response to a question about recent revelations that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) spied on the past
three French presidents, which she called an "unspeakable practice." Snowden currently lives
in political asylum in
Russia, awaiting an offer of permanent refuge from several other countries,
including France . He faces espionage charges in the U.S.
2nc – at: won’t publish military secrets
Just cause he doesn’t publish them, doesn’t mean he won’t turn them over
Williams 14 – Anchor at NBC News (Brian Williams, 5/28/14, “2HEADLINE: NBC Interview with
Former National Security (NSA) Contractor Edward Snowden Interviewer: Brian Williams, Anchor, "NBC
Nightly News" Location: Moscow, Russia Time: 10:03 p.m. EDT Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2014,”
Federal News Service, Lexis)//twemchen
MR. SNOWDEN:
There's nothing that would be published that would -- that'd harm the
public interest. These are programs that need to be understood, that need to be known, that require deep background and
context for research. They are difficult to report, but they're of critical public importance. (Clip ends.) MR. WILLIAMS: And just for
clarification here, note that Snowden
didn't deny turning over military secrets. He asserted
instead that they wouldn't be published .
2nc – xt: impact
Ukraine war won’t happen
Sano 3/23 – Head of Global Political and Security Risk @ Business Monitor International Research
(3/23/15, “Guest post: will Russia make a play for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania?”
http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2015/03/23/guest-post-will-russia-make-a-play-for-estonia-latviaand-lithuania/)//twemchen
Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its destabilisation of eastern Ukraine, a
military confrontation between Russia and the West over the Baltic states is no longer
unthinkable . Under what circumstances could this happen? How would such a conflict play out, and what might happen once such a war
ended? The notion of large-scale warfare in Europe – even without the nuclear
dimension – would send shockwaves around the world, threatening to overturn the
entire post-Cold War order . If the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) failed to defend the
Baltics or were to lose against Russia, then Asia and the Middle East would also be destabilised, as
doubts grew over the reliability of the US as an ally. This would usher in a much more
unstable geopolitical climate, akin to the 1930s . It is highly doubtful that Russia seeks armed conflict with
the West, so any move against the Baltics would be the result of miscalculation on its part. The Ukraine conflict showed that Russia increasingly views
the plight (whether real or perceived) of ethnic Russians abroad as a possible pretext for intervention in neighbouring states. Ethnic Russians comprise
a quarter of the populations of Estonia and Latvia. Scores of thousands of ethnic Russians there have not been granted citizenship. There is thus
considerable angst in the Baltic states about future Russian military intervention. Russia Feels Threatened By NATO Source: BMI Research How Might
Potential triggers for Russian intervention include violent clashes between
Baltic nationals and ethnic Russians, new laws that downgrade the status of ethnic
Russians, a shoot-out between border troops or a confrontation between Russian and
NATO aircraft over the Baltic Sea. It is not known whether a potential Russian move against the Baltics would target all three
Conflict Begin?
states, or just one or two. Overall, Russian intervention in the Baltics could assume two main forms: 1) Deniable destabilisation efforts: The Kremlin is
accused of instigating unrest between pro-Russian separatists and non-Russians in eastern Ukraine, dispatching experienced military and intelligence
personnel to direct pro-Russian forces and providing arms and training to separatists. These processes are thought to have deployed several thousand
troops into the area. Russia could conceivably seek to repeat this formula in the Baltics, and after weeks or months of violence, could demand a
settlement that would give ethnic Russians more power over the domestic and foreign policies of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; or it could deploy a
small ‘peace-keeping’ force to restore order. However, I believe that any Kremlin attempt to galvanise ethnic Russians in the Baltics would be much
more difficult than in eastern Ukraine, because the Baltic states have far higher standards of living and governance. Russia’s seizure of Crimea has not
triggered any mobilisation of Baltic Russians for closer ties with Russia. Baltics’ Relative Prosperity Positive For Stability. (Per capital GDP) Source:
National governments/BMI 2) Swift occupation: Alternatively, Russia could occupy the Baltic states in a swift operation that met little resistance, due
to the small size of the latter’s armed forces. However, a purely ‘out of the blue’ occupation is unlikely, as the Kremlin would be hard pressed to justify
this. A less dramatic version of this scenario would involve Russian troop deployments into parts of Estonia and Latvia close to the Russian border that
have significant ethnic Russian populations, or the seizure of key infrastructure such as ports, airports, and railways. How Would The West Respond?
Russian actions against the Baltics would present the US and European countries with their biggest foreign policy crisis in decades, because they are
committed to the defence of NATO members. According to Article 5 of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against
one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed
attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations,
will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary,
including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.” However, Russia’s deniable destabilisation might not
automatically or universally be viewed as an ‘armed attack’. In addition, the term ‘action as it deems necessary’ does not guarantee a military response.
Thus, NATO’s top decision makers could first resort to sanctions and diplomacy. Nevertheless, given that most NATO members understand Article 5 as
providing a robust security guarantee, any backtracking by the alliance from its expected commitments would cripple its credibility. From NATO’s point
of view, it would make more sense to deploy troops to the Baltic states at the first sign of inter-ethnic unrest, to deter Russia from escalating any
trouble-making or from sending its own troops. Source: BMI Research Although a Russian move into the Baltics would be a clear act of aggression, I
due to the risks of a nuclear
exchange, or at the very least, a large-scale conventional war . NATO might thus have to
would anticipate significant opposition in many Western countries to military action,
assemble a ‘coalition of the willing’, which would need to include the US, despite its war-weariness after fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. How Would
NATO’s leading members would ultimately go to war to end Russian
military activities in the Baltic states. However, a major question is whether Russia and NATO would be able to contain the
fighting to the Baltic states. Russia could attack Poland or seize the Swedish land of Gotland in the Baltic Sea (see
The War Play Out? I believe that
and NATO could strike targets in Russia. The biggest danger would be the use of
nuclear weapons. Of course, the trigger for this is not known, but any such action would likely involve
tactical (i.e. battlefield) nuclear weapons, rather than strategic ones (which are designed to be used against cities). Even if
‘only’ tactical weapons were used, this would lead to public alarm across the northern hemisphere, as fears
mounted over escalation towards a strategic nuclear exchange . A shooting war between
Russia and the West would send shockwaves through the global economy , as the post-Cold
War order in Europe was torn up. Two-way imposition of sanctions and the disruption of air and
maritime transportation in northern Europe would severely disrupt international
trade. Oil prices would surge, on assumptions that Russia’s hydrocarbon exports
would be taken off the market or disrupted. The European economy would be very hard
hit by disruptions to gas imports from Russia, especially if this were to happen in winter. A move by Moscow to cut
Europe’s energy supplies would also severely damage the Russian government’s income. What Would
Happen After a War? Implications of a Russian victory: Russia’s triumph over the most powerful
military alliance in the world could prompt several Eastern European countries in the EU to reach some sort of
map),
accommodation with Moscow. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan would probably accept Moscow’s hegemony in Eurasia. A victorious
a
multi-decade new Cold War, although this would not be global in scope, because Europe’s economic importance has declined
substantially since the 1980s. Also, there would be no ideological dimension to the new struggle. In Russia , the president would bask in the
success of re-establishing control of the Baltic republics, and patriotic fervour would surge, but the economy would be
devastated by major Western sanctions. Given rising economic pressures, the president
could steer Russia towards formal authoritarianism. Elsewhere, the unreliability of
collective security treaties would encourage Japan and South Korea to bolster their
defences against China and North Korea respectively, probably by developing their own nuclear
arsenals. Similar trends would play out in the Middle East, where Saudi Arabia and
several of its neighbours fear the consequences of a nuclear Iran . Implications of a NATO victory: The
Kremlin could then press the US and EU for some sort of formal division of Europe into rival spheres of influence. Europe would be set for
alliance would have demonstrated its ongoing supremacy in Europe, despite years of defence cuts. The US would have sent a strong message that it will
stick by its allies, even if it means confronting a nuclear-armed world power. Russia’s defeat would severely discredit its leadership, which would be
seen as reckless and incompetent. The president would probably share the fate of Argentina’s military ruler Leopoldo Galtieri, who was removed in
1982 within days of his country’s defeat by Britain in the Falklands War. The military regime subsequently fell in 1983, and new elections restored
democracy. A defeated Russia would still be too powerful to fall into line with the West, but its new leaders might seek a less confrontational path and
hope that the eventual normalisation of relations with the US and EU would pave the way for Russia’s economic revival.
2nc – turns relations
Turns french relations
NEOnline 6/26 – (6/26/15, “France furious over NSA surveillance on three successive French
administrators,” http://www.neurope.eu/article/un-seul-geste-that-could-split-the-
alliance /)//twemchen
France may be joining Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela in offering Snowden asylum
in France . The Justice Minister, Christiane Taubira, said on TV on Thursday that she “wouldn’t be surprised” if France
decided to offer asylum to Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. Following the revelations of Washington’s
spying on three successive French administrations, including President François Holland, the French government and
French public opinion are outraged . On Thursday, the historical French daily co-founded by Jean-Paul Sartre in 1973
Libération called for a firm response to US “contempt” by what Laurent Joffrin, it editor, referred to “un seul geste.” The newspaper
published a trove of WikiLeaks documents that do not compromise US operatives in Europe, but they seem to put
the Euro-
Atlantic alliance in a difficult spot, in a difficult time . On Wednesday, France summoned the
U.S. ambassador for explanations. President Barack Obama stated that as of late 2013 “we are not targeting and will not target the
communications of the French President.” This clearly indicates that this was not the case prior to “late” 2013. The founder of
WikiLeaks, Assange, is trapped in London’s Ecuadorian Embassy for more than two years to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he
is wanted for questioning over rape and sexual molestation. Snowden is trapped in Moscow, since whistle-blowing on NSA
surveillance practices.
***asia pivot da
1nc – da
TTIP conclusion destroys the Asia pivot
Akhtar and Jones 13 (Shayerah Ilias Akhtar Specialist in International Trade and Finance Vivian C.
Jones Specialist in International Trade and Finance “Proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP): In Brief” Congressional Research Service July 23, 2013
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43158.pdf)//trepka
Impact on transatlantic relationship. On
one hand, the TTIP’s successful conclusion could reinforce
the United States’ commitment to Europe in general and especially to the European Union’s role as a critical
U.S. partner in the international community. Some see this as key, given concerns that the Obama
Administration’s “rebalancing” toward the Asia-Pacific region may reflect a decline in the relative
importance of the transatlantic relationship, though Administration officials have rejected this view.18 On the other hand, should
the negotiations stall or produce results not seen as sufficiently ambitious, further questions could be raised about the strength of
the transatlantic relationship.
Nuke war
Cabasso 14 – Executive Director of Western States Legal Foundation (Jackie, “The Asia-Pacific Pivot
and Growing Dangers of Great Power Wars”, 8/6/14, http://www.trivalleycares.org/new/JCAug.6_2014rally_talk.pdf)///twemchen
With conflicts raging around the world, and the post World War II order crumbling , we are
now standing on the precipice of a new era of great power wars – the potential for wars
among nations possessing nuclear weapons is growing; nations which cling to nuclear weapons as central
to their national security. In 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced a major foreign policy shift: a longterm
strategic pivot , with diplomatic, economic and military dimensions -- to Asia and the Pacific. The pivot is a
plan to contain and encircle China , a rising U.S. competitor. The U.S. has been expanding
its military alliances with many of China’s neighbors, including Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Australia, is
building new military bases, and has committed to deploy 60% of the Navy and Air Force to
Asia and the Pacific. A new “Air-Sea Battle” warfighting doctrine has been developed in the case of war against China. But
nuclear-armed China is also a provocative actor , claiming sovereignty over 80% of the South China Sea,
with sea beds believed to contain massive reserves of oil and natural gas. China and Japan are involved in a
frightening standoff over the contested Senkaku islands . President Obama, meeting with
Japanese Prime Minister Abe this spring, said that these islands fall within the U.S.- Japan alliance, and that the U.S. would back
Japan if it came to war between Japan and China. China
is challenging the Philippines over islands it
claims, and the United States is establishing a new military base there. In March of last year, U.S. B-52 bombers carried out
simulated nuclear bombing raids on North Korea as part of ongoing U.S.-South Korean military exercises. And in December, as
tensions over the Senkaku Islands rose, the U.S. provocatively flew a pair of unarmed B-52 bombers over airspace claimed by China,
as a demonstration of its commitment to defend Japan. These are just a few examples of a much larger, very complex and dangerous
trend. As the only nation so far to have experienced nuclear weapons in war, it is tragic that Japan – like other U.S. allies in the
Asia-Pacific region, relies
on the U.S. nuclear umbrella as the ultimate guarantor of its
defense . Regrettably, since 1952 the U.S.-Japan military alliance has served a similar role in Asia that NATO has served in
Europe, where its post Cold-War expansion has contributed to growing U.S. - Russia tensions. The U.S.- Japan Alliance, with more
than 100 U.S. military bases across Japan, led former Prime Minister Koizumi to describe his nation as an “unsinkable aircraft
carrier for the United States.” The U.S. is pushing hard to relocate Futenma Air Station from a heavily populated area of Okinawa, to
an offshore area in the smaller city of Nago. Anti-base sentiment runs deep in Okinawa, which hosts the bulk of U.S. military forces
in Japan. Mayor Susumu Inamine of Nago, a member of Mayors for Peace, has been heroically opposing the new base, citing dangers
such as accidents, aircraft noise and environmental damage, including threats to an endangered marine mammal called a dugong –
similar to a manatee. Mayor Inamine visited Washington, DC in May to make his case to the U.S. State Department and rally
international support. In Gangjeong village on Jeju Island in South Korea, where the Korean government, with U.S. support, in
building a new naval base, a similar better-known struggle is going on. There too, the villagers were not consulted before
construction began, and there are daily protests by locals, religious groups, and international human rights and environmental
organizations. Mayor Kang Dong-kyun, also a member of Mayors for Peace, was arrested in 2011 for supposedly ‘obstructing
business’ at the construction site and detained for 90 days. Japan’s turn to the right is another matter of great concern, with U.S.
support for the recent decision of Prime Minister Abe’s Cabinet to change the interpretation of war-renouncing Article 9 of the
Constitution – a decision that substantially eviscerates the clause of its principles, and steps away from some of the country’s
longstanding peace policies. The Global Council of the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons has just issued
a statement in solidarity with our Japanese colleagues and members, calling on Japan not to abandon Article 9 of its Peace
Constitution and to lead efforts for negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons. With the U.S.- Russia conflict over the Ukraine and
the U.S. “strategic pivot” to the Asia-Pacific we
have entered a new era of confrontation among
nuclear-armed powers and dangers of great power wars . Nuclear tensions in the
Middle East, Southeast Asia and on the Korean peninsula remind us that the threat of nuclear war is
ever present .
***japan econ da
1nc – da
Plan overstretches EU negotiating capital
Mildner and Schmucker 13 senior researcher at the German Institute for International and Security
Affairs – head of the Globalization and World Economy Program at German Council on Foreign Relations
(Dr. Stormy-Annika Mildner, Dr. Claudia Schmucker, 18 June 2013, “Trade Agreement with SideEffects?” http://www.swpberlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/comments/2013C18_mdn_schmucker.pdf)//trepka
Another problem is that the TTIP
talks could tie up a considerable proportion of EU and US
negotiating capacity . Both sides are already involved in numerous bilateral and plurilateral
negotiations. The European Union is currently negotiating FTAs with Canada, Japan and
Mercosur, the United States, as already mentioned, with the TPP countries. Additional
Transatlantic talks thus threaten to overstretch both executives and could further diminish interest in a
successful conclusion of the Doha Round.
Kills the EU-Japan FTA – it’s key to both their economies
UPI 13 (“Japan-EU second round free-trade talks begin” Published: June 23, 2013 at 11:49 PM TOKYO,
June 23 (UPI) http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2013/06/23/Japan-EU-second-round-free-tradetalks-begin/UPI-79901372045744//trepka
Japan and the European Union began their second round of free-trade talks in Tokyo Monday
designed to substantially boost their exports. The talks are a continuation from the first
round held in April in Brussels to eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers. Japan is the 27-member bloc's seventh-largest
trading partner globally, while the EU is Japan's third-largest trading partner after China and the United States.
Together the EU and Japan account for more than a third of world's gross
domestic product . Kyodo News said during the current round, expected to last through July 3, the two sides
would hold sector-by-sector talks covering fields including goods and services trade, investment and intellectual
property. Japan hopes to increase auto and home electronics exports to the regional bloc by
eliminating EU-imposed tariffs. Similarly, the EU wants Japan to remove its non-tariff barriers to give the
bloc greater access to public-sector projects in Japan. The EU in an earlier news release said an agreement between the
two economic giants would result in the creation of 400,000 jobs. It would boost EU
exports to Japan by nearly 33 percent, while Japanese exports to the EU would jump by 23.5
percent. The talks with the EU also are part of Japan's efforts to secure new sources
of growth, Kyodo said
Causes Asia war
Envall 10 (David Envall, Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of International Relations, MacArthur
Foundation Asian Security Initiative, “Implications for Asia in Japan’s Economic Decline,” East Asia
Forum, August 11, 2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/08/11/implications-for-asia-in-japanseconomic-decline/)//twemchen
‘To lose one decade may be a misfortune…’ ran a recent article in The Economist, the unstated quip being that the next one was
lost due to carelessness. Another ‘lost decade’ would further justify such dark humour and would also present
the Asian
region with a significant security challenge. Japan’s economic decline is well established. That country’s stock
market, which was just below 40,000 points in 1989, finished 2009 at just over 10,500. Yet Japan’s underlying economic problems
are wider and more complex. They range from low growth and deflation to expanding public debt and rising inequality. And the
global financial crisis has further exacerbated matters. What makes Japan’s economic woes a regional security challenge is the
important role of the US-Japan alliance in maintaining regional stability. If the alliance were weaker, it would have serious
implications for regional stability. As a Japanese analyst recently observed, a US downgrading of the alliance or withdrawal from the
region could well lead to faster Japanese military growth (notwithstanding its current
economic lethargy),
heightened regional threat perceptions and a greater scope for global insecurity. Alliance troubles would make it
harder if not impossible for the US to pursue its ‘double assurance’ strategy of instilling confidence in strategic partners and
competitors alike. How could Japan’s fiscal
weakness potentially undermine the alliance ? Worsening economic
troubles would add greater constraints to the already considerable political and cultural restrictions on Japan’s ability to
contribute to the alliance and thus negatively affect America’s confidence in Japan as an ally. Declining
military spending over the past seven years illustrates Japan’s predicament, and the trend, in light of the country’s public debt, could
well continue. Shifting greater amounts of the total bill for ongoing agreements to the US, as a recent report on the alliance’s future
Economic weakness together with export dependency could also
influence Japan to mismanage its current hedging strategy in dealing with China and the US. Japanese leaders
postulates, ‘would undoubtedly put strain on the alliance’.
describe its current approach as pursuing a more autonomous foreign policy, but the rise of China has provoked Japan to respond to
the resulting geostrategic pressures in Asia. This ‘return to Asia’ policy might resolve some of Japan’s problems associated with its
dark history, but there is no guarantee that any such policy would be more repentant than chauvinistic.
2nc – at: growth now
It’s halting
AFP 6/8 – AFP (6/8/15, “Japan's revised Q1 growth blows past expectations,” Lexis)//twemchen
Japan posted stronger-than-expected growth in the first quarter as a pickup in
capital spending drove the world's number three economy, but some economists warn that
the recovery could be short-lived . The 1.0 percent expansion in January-March -- or 3.9 percent on annualised
basis -- was sharply up from an initial estimate of 0.6 percent growth, according to the Cabinet Office figures. The upbeat data is
good news for Tokyo's efforts to boost the economy, but household
spending remains stubbornly weak as
the Bank of Japan struggles to push up prices in a bid to end decades of deflation. Despite wage rises at big firms and a
tighter labour market, convincing people to splash out on consumer goods has been a
struggle after Japan raised sales taxes last year to help pay down a huge national debt. The rise
hammered consumer spending and pushed the economy into a brief recession.
Japan limped out of the red in the last three months of 2014 with Monday's surprise figures offering some hope for a recovery.
"Capital spending is the last piece of the puzzle, with exports and consumption showing signs of recovery," said Atsushi Takeda, an
economist at Itochu Corp.
2nc – at: earthquake thumps
It doesn’t
Farooque 11 – (TendersInfo, 6/2/11, “: Cable hails UK presence in Japan” Lexis)//twemchen
"The EU and Japan share various senses of values. In the long run, conclusion of the EU-Japan FTA/ EPA
is essential to strengthen and develop mutual economic relationship of the two, including direct
investment, employment and international trade. In the short run, I believe that the conclusion would be
a powerful relief for Japan currently facing various hardships and difficulties caused by the Great East
Japan Earthquake and ensuing tsunami." Whilst he is in Japan, the Business Secretary will visit a range of
important Japanese investors in the UK in the automotive and engineering sectors, including Toyota,
Nissan, Hitachi, Honda and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. He will also meet with Japanese Government
Ministers and take part in the launch of a joint UKTI/British Airways campaign to revitalise trade and
investment links between the UK and Japan following the earthquake.
***africa da
1nc – da
Plan destroys African economic stability
Berger et al 13 (Does the TTIP Create Winners and Big Losers? 8/15/13 http://www.atlanticcommunity.org/-/does-the-ttip-create-winners-and-big-losers- ¶ Axel Berger and Clara Brandi (German
Development Institute): "The Global Trading System at a Turning Point")//trepka
¶¶
It is not yet clear what the
ramifications of the TTIP negotiations will be for countries that are not
directly involved. It is possible that Mexico, Canada, Japan, and countries of North and West Africa might be adversely affected, but
this would mostly occur in the instance that the TTIP stays isolated to just the EU and US. Negotiations could stand to potentially
grow and include countries of the Pacific, or even become a TTIP+3 process that would include Canada, Mexico, and Turkey. The
process of creating a broader reaching treaty could however usher in a new series of problems, in which all countries must adopt
these "new rules of the global economy" in order to join the "select circle." Asking other countries to adapt to the global order would
be particularly beneficial however if it adds to the momentum of liberalizing trade rules internationally. ¶ ¶ This Think Tank RoundUp discusses what will happen to those non-member countries that are left out of the negotiations, yet must still continue to be
trading partners of both the US and the EU? Should other countries be included in the partnership, or do they stand to benefit
regardless of inclusion?¶ ¶ The
transatlantic talks will have uncertain consequences for any
country that does not have a seat at the negotiating table. Regional agreements might
lead to discrimination against non-members and impede their access to the
European and American export markets. Recent studies show that such countries as Mexico,
Canada and Japan and the countries of North and West Africa would be adversely affected.
Nuclear war
Deutsch 2 – Founder of Rabid Tiger Project (Political Risk Consulting and Research Firm focusing on
Russia and Eastern Europe) [Jeffrey, “SETTING THE STAGE FOR WORLD WAR III,” Rabid Tiger
Newsletter, Nov 18, http://www.rabidtigers.com/rtn/newsletterv2n9.html]//trepka
a nuclear war is most likely to start in Africa. Civil wars in
Zaire), Rwanda, Somalia ¶ and Sierra Leone, and domestic instability in Zimbabwe,
Sudan and other countries, as well as occasional brushfire and other wars (thanks in
part to "national" ¶ borders that cut across tribal ones) turn into a really nasty stew.
rabid tigers
are willing to push the button rather than risk ¶ being seen as
wishy-washy i
Geopolitically speaking, Africa is open range. Very few
countries in Africa are beholden to any ¶ particular power South Africa
already has the Bomb outside powers can more easily find client states there ¶
than Europe where the political lines have long since been drawn, or Asia where many
of the countries
don't need any "help," ¶
Thus, an African war can
attract outside involvement very quickly
¶ an African nuclear
strike can ignite a much broader conflagration
such a strike ¶ would in
the first place have been facilitated by outside help - financial, scientific, engineering
Africa is an ocean of troubled waters, and some ¶ people love to go fishing.
The Rabid Tiger Project believes that
the Congo (the country formerly known as
We've got all too
many
and potential rabid tigers, who
n the face of a mortal threat and overthrown.
.
that she also probably
is a major exception in this respect - not to mention in
. Thus,
, say, in
(China, India, Japan) are powers unto themselves and
thank you.
. Of course, a proxy war alone may not induce the Great Powers to fight each other.
But
, if the other powers are interested in a fight. Certainly,
, etc.
2nc – at: no growth now
The economy’s growing overall
Mthathis 6/12 – Executive Director of Oxfam South Africa (Sipho Mthathis, 6/12/15, “JOURNEY
TOWARDS AN AFRICAN TAXATION RENAISSANCE,” IPS, Lexis)//twemchen
Economic growth is predicted to increase by 4.5 percent across the continent this year,
despite falling oil prices and the Ebola crisis. South Africa's economy, the second
biggest in Africa is expected to continue to grow by 3.5 percent this year; Nigeria will grow by an enviable
5.5 percent.
2nc – at: ebola alt cause
Tax breaks solve Ebola damage
Anderson 6/29 – staff writer @ The Guardian (Mark Anderson, 6/29/15, “Sierra Leone urged to get
tough on tax to repair battered health system;
Reducing tax breaks for mining companies and cracking down on tax evasion could generate revenues
and save lives in wake of Ebola, says report,” The Guardian, Lexis)//twemchen
Sierra Leone, which has more confirmed cases of Ebola than any other country, could inject an extra $94m into
its economy over the next few years if it reduced tax breaks for the five largest mining firms
operating in the country, according to a report by Health Poverty Action (HPA). "We urge Sierra Leone, and the UK as one of its
main donors, to take a close look at how greater revenue
from the extractives industry could be used to
deliver a better and more equitable health system for the country's people," said Tadesse Kassaye
Woldetsadik, HPA's head of Africa programmes. The report, Healthy Revenues: How the extractives industry can support Universal
Health Coverage in Sierra Leone (pdf), examines Sierra Leone's contracts with Sierrra Rutile, Octea Mining and Sierra Minerals
Holding Limited, as well as London Mining and African Minerals, which were both recently purchased by Chinese state-owned firm
Shandong Iron and Steel. "An estimate from the Budget Advocacy Network and National Advocacy Coalition on Extractives in Sierra
Leone said the country had lost $199m (£126m) a year in recent years due to tax incentives - over three times the health budget for
2015," the HPA report said. "Extractives
industry revenues can provide significant additional
contributions to health financing... the government must look to this sector as a key source of
revenue generation in the years ahead," it added.
***tpp trade-off da
1nc – da
The plan pushes TTIP across the finish line – this siphons resources from
the USTR by exposing divisive legislative disputes
Froman 13 – USTR (Michael Froman, 7/19/13, “REP DAVE CAMP HOLDS A HEARING ON ,
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S TRADE POLICY AGENDA,” Political Transcript Wire, Lexis)//twemchen
FROMAN: With regard to TPP, we have stated that our objective is to
finish it this year. That's ambitious, but our
negotiators are hard at work as we speak in Malaysia, and we are going to work very hard with Japan when they
get in to bring them up to speed and allow them to re-open or re-litigate or delay the negotiations, so our
focus is to try and get this done this year. BRADY: You think there's a good chance we can -- always the tougher
issues come at the end . You know what I mean? They're a little more unpredictable as you're
sort of near the finish line, but are you optimistic that we can finish in that timetable? FROMAN: I am. I think it's
ambitious, but I think it's doable .
That destroys the TPP
Mildner and Schmucker 13 senior researcher at the German Institute for International and Security
Affairs – head of the Globalization and World Economy Program at German Council on Foreign Relations
(Dr. Stormy-Annika Mildner, Dr. Claudia Schmucker, 18 June 2013, “Trade Agreement with SideEffects?” http://www.swpberlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/comments/2013C18_mdn_schmucker.pdf)//trepka
Another problem is that the TTIP
talks could tie up a considerable proportion of EU and US
negotiating capacity . Both sides are already involved in numerous bilateral and plurilateral
negotiations. The European Union is currently negotiating FTAs with Canada, Japan and
Mercosur, the United States, as already mentioned, with the TPP countries. Additional
Transatlantic talks thus threaten to overstretch both executives and could further diminish interest in a
successful conclusion of the Doha Round.
<tpp good>
2nc – doha impact
The link alone destroys the perception of negotiating effectiveness –
destabilizing the Doha round
Ikenson and Moore 13 – Director of the Herbert A Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Issues at the Cato
Institute AND New Zealand’s Ambassador to the US, former Director General of the WTO (Daniel
Ikenson and Michael Moore, 10/2/13, “THE CATO INSTITUTE HOLDS A FORUM ON THE WTO AND
THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF MULTILATERALISM,” Political Transcript Wire, Lexis)//twemchen
IKENSON: Thank -- thank you, Ambassador. And -- and I just may ask you; right at the end there, you -- you
alluded to the
TPP as being a potential filling station to put more gas into the tank for Doha. Can you
give a couple of examples of how TPP is going to help push Doha -- or pull Doha over the finish line or
help bolster the WTO? MOORE: OK well take, for example, the old issues. If the United States and Japan and
Canada can show to the world they're prepared to deal with some of the older issues, it (ph) will
we're talking rice, sugar, those kind of issues; that will send electrifying message back to Geneva that you
are prepared to face these issues, if you're prepared to face textiles. Then, of course, the new economy needs all sorts of new stuff, on
I.P. (ph), on data flows, on those areas of regulatory coherence, where we can save so much money and get rid of so much red tape
and avoid so much corruption. All those things will send a message that if you can -- if we can do it with this configuration, which is
almost a cross section, we don't have a least (ph) developed country of the WTO, things
hope.
can begin to happen, I would
That signal is critical – it’s crunch time for the agreement, and absent a
credible signal of competence, the Doha round will fail – taking
international trade with it
Godfrey 6/18 – staff writer for Tax News quoting the WTO Director-General (Mike Godfrey, 6/18/15,
“Crunch Time For WTO's Doha Round,” http://www.taxnews.com/news/Crunch_Time_For_WTOs_Doha_Round____68381.html)//twemchen
The Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Roberto Azevêdo, has expressed
disappointment with the lack of progress in negotiations on the work program to advance the remaining
issues of the Doha Development Agenda. The Doha Round, launched in 2001, seeks to achieve a global
agreement on the reduction of tax and non-tariff barriers on international trade. WTO members
committed in November 2014 that they would agree a work program by July this year as a springboard towards the WTO's 10th
Ministerial Conference in Nairobi in December. Azevêdo convened a meeting of all WTO members in Geneva on June 17, 2015, to
report on the current state of play in the negotiations. He discussed in detail the consultations that have been held since the last
meeting of all members on June 1. "Taking an overview of all of these consultations, it
is hard to see a way forward.
There has been no progress on the gateway issues. We still have no convergence ," he
said. "As things stand I see very little prospect of delivering the substantive, meaningful work program
which we have been aiming towards. That is the reality today. The question is whether we can change
this situation by the end of July – and that is up to you." The Director-General concluded: "Now it is
time for the political calls to be made... We have a sense of what we can achieve, so now it's about making those tough
political calls – just like we did in Bali. So this is the priority over the coming weeks. It's decision
time ."
2nc – at: link uniqueness
TTIP’s not the focus yet
Beary 13 – EuroPolitics (Brian Beary, 3/21/13, “EU/US : TRADE DEAL MUST COVER ALL OF
AGRICULTURE, SENATORS WARN,” Lexis)//twemchen
While the US administration can start negotiations on the TTIP without needing Congress' approval, in practice Obama will need strong buy-in from
Capitol Hill because Congress will need to sign off on any future trade deal. US lawmakers are mostly voicing their support for launching the TTIP talks
and are looking forward to drilling down into the details with the Obama administration. Several senators told acting USTR Marantis that Obama
needed to immediately start discussing with them the terms for getting Congress to renew the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which lets the
administration negotiate a trade deal that can be sent to Congress for a single up or down vote. The TPA expired in 2007 and the more trade-oriented
Republicans are irked with Obama for having done nothing to renew it in his first term. "We have already wasted four years," said Senator Hatch. In
return for granting TPA, Congress will seek concessions, such as more aid for companies adversely impacted by shifts in global trade flows - so-called
trade adjustment assistance. EU negotiators will be reluctant to sign anything until Obama has renewed the TPA - also known as fast-track authority -
on the TTIP line by line. Another concern for the EU is the negotiating
capacity of its US counterparts. The USTR, already one of the smaller government agencies, is having its
budget slashed under Washington's own austerity cuts called the sequester'. Obama has yet to nominate a successor
because without the TPA, Congress could vote
to Ron Kirk as USTR, Kirk having left office on 15 March. There are even tentative plans in the White House to subsume the USTR within the
Department of Commerce, a move that Republicans view with suspicion.
2nc – xt: resources k2 tpp
Resource dedication is critical to TPP success
Blinken 2/15 – Deputy Secretary of State (Deputy Secretary Blinken, 2/15/15, “U.S. Economic Policy in
East Asia and the Pacific,” Plus Media Solutions, Lexis)//twemchen
So where
does TPP stand today? We made lots of progress during the most recent negotiations in
New York, and I was just discussing that with the chairman before we came out here. The contours of a final
agreement are coming into focus. But the closer you get to the end of something as
complicated and meaningful as TPP, you get to the toughest issues and the hardest choices . So
we need all stakeholders in all sectors – including those of you in this room – to help make those choices and push
TPP over the finish line. We need you to make the calls, convene the meetings, and remind
officials of the economic and strategic benefits that this agreement will bring. With your help, we can
complete this agreement and continue to bend the arc of the region in the direction of progress and prosperity.
2nc – xt: trade-off
TPP and TTIP negotiations are zero-sum –resource commitments
overstretch the USTR
Punke and Kind 14 – Deputy Trade Representative in Geneva AND Representative Ron Kind from
Wisconsin (Michael Punke, Ron Kind, 7/16/15, “HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE HOLDS A HEARING ON U.S. TRADE AGENDA AND THE WORLD
TRADE ORGANIZATION,” Political Transcript Wire, Lexis)//twemchen
Let me ask you, Ambassador Punke, while I've got you here, resource issue. I mean, right now we're
engaged in TPP
negotiations, TTIP negotiations going on, trying to figure out a way to salvage and resurrect the Doha
Round, the potential for plurilateral negotiations to help spur Doha. You've directly been involved in the ITA negotiations,
especially with China. We've got the environmental agreement, Environmental Goods Agreement that's pending,
Trade in Services Agreement, Trade Facilitation Agreement coming out of the Bali ministerial round. Is
our team in Geneva, and is our USTR team being stretched to the limit right now in regards to our
negotiating capacity? Given all of these different items, tremendously important in their own right, but how are we doing
as a Congress in making sure that you and the entire USTR team have the resources that you need in order to do an adequate job of
representing this country with so many balls up in the air at the same time? PUNKE: Well, Congressman, thank you very much for
that. And we certainly are very grateful for the support that we've had from you specifically, but from the committee more broadly, in
terms of resources for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
Zero-sum
Cooper 14 – Specialist in International Trade and Finance (William H. Cooper, 2/1/15, “Free trade
agreements: impact on U.S. trade and implications for U.S. trade policy,” CRS, Lexis)//twemchen
A third question is whether the Office of the United States Trade Representative and other trade policy
agencies have sufficient time and human resources to negotiate a number of
FTAs simultaneously while managing trade policy in the WTO and other fora. Others might find some U.S.
interests being short-changed.
TTIP kills focus on the TPA
Akhtar and Jones 13 (Shayerah Ilias Akhtar Specialist in International Trade and Finance Vivian C.
Jones Specialist in International Trade and Finance “Proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP): In Brief” Congressional Research Service July 23, 2013
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43158.pdf)//trepka
Impact on transatlantic relationship. On
one hand, the TTIP’s successful conclusion could reinforce
the United States’ commitment to Europe in general and especially to the European Union’s role as a critical
U.S. partner in the international community. Some see this as key, given concerns that the Obama
Administration’s “rebalancing” toward the Asia-Pacific region may reflect a decline in the relative
importance of the transatlantic relationship, though Administration officials have rejected this view.18 On the other hand, should
the negotiations stall or produce results not seen as sufficiently ambitious, further questions could be raised about the strength of
the transatlantic relationship.
Focus on EU directly trades off – government statements
Flaherty 14 (NAFTA Partners Unlikely To Get US Invite To EU Trade Talks January 31, 2014, Scott
Flaherty http://www.law360.com/articles/505486/nafta-partners-unlikely-to-get-us-invite-to-eu-tradetalks)//trepka
¶
Following the trilateral meeting, Kerry and Canada's Baird seemed to suggest that instead of
looking to the EU negotiations, the nations should look to build on NAFTA through
another trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. All three North American countries are
involved in the TPP talks, along with nine other countries on both sides of the Pacific.
***terrorism da
1nc – link
If we stop monitoring embassies, the druggies will sneak in and spy on us –
devastates counter-narco-terror operations
Kravitz 8 – (Derek Kravitz, 10/28/08, “Drug Cartel Spy In U.S. Embassy in Mexico?,”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/10/the_us_state_department_is
.html)//twemchen
The U.S. State Department is investigating an allegation that an
employee of the American Embassy in Mexico City
passed sensitive information to a major drug cartel . The report stems from a scandal at
the organized crime unit of the Mexican attorney general's office, where 35 employees were accused
yesterday of passing information about investigations to the Beltran-Leyva narcotics organization. The
informants collected as much as $450,000 a month, The Associated Press reported. A unnamed protected witness (who The New
York Times said went by the alias "Felipe") also told authorities that he spied
for the drug cartel on U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration agents while working as a criminal investigator at the U.S. embassy,
according to El Universal, a Mexico City newspaper. DEA intelligence chief Anthony Placido said at a Washington news conference
today that he was concerned about Felipe's claims, but said he couldn't confirm that embassy information about drug-enforcement
measures had been passed on to drug lords. The revelations mark the
"most serious known infiltration of
anti-crime agencies " in Mexico since the 1997 arrest of Gen. Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, then the country's top anti-drug
chief. He is now serving 71 years in prison. El Universal reported Monday that the alleged spy might have revealed details about the
U.S. hunt for American drug suspect Craig Petties, who was captured in January after five years on the run. Petties has been accused
of operating a multimillion-dollar marijuana and cocaine ring that stretched from Mexico to Texas, Mississippi and Memphis.
***ptx links
2nc – ptx link
Trade deals cause liberal backlash
Stelzer 14 (Irwin M is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, director of -economic policy
studies at the Hudson Institute, and a columnist for the Sunday Times, The Weekly Standard, 1/23, “Don't
Give Him What He Wants; Beware Obama's trade deals”,
http://ic.galegroup.com.westminster.idm.oclc.org/ic/ovic/MagazinesDetailsPage/MagazinesDetailsWind
ow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&displayquery=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Magazines&limiter=&u=atla10186&currPage=&disableHighlig
hting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&ac
tivityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA356182605 )//cc
Republicans are being urged to support President Obama's request for TPA so that he can complete negotiations on TPP and TTIP
while pursuing other deals at the WTO. For those who do not often feast on this alphabet soup: Obama wants what we used to call
fast-track authority to make a trade deal. In today's lingo, the president seeks Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) so that he can put
any deal he negotiates before Congress on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, no amendments allowed. The two deals he wants to
consummate are a 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Canada, Mexico, Chile, Brunei, and several other parties, and a
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the 28-nation European Union. The administration also hopes to work
out a freer trade agreement with the 159-member World Trade Organization (WTO), but the chances of doing that are somewhere
between remote and nil, which is one reason the administration is pressing for regional trade deals. The
president has a
problem. The same group of Democrats that shot down Larry Summers, his first choice
to replace Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve, are threatening to deny him TPA
authority: His overseas negotiating partners are reluctant to offer any quid pro quo in
return for some U.S. concession if Congress can later vote to pocket the other parties' concessions while canceling
the president's. Gary Hufbauer, senior trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, reckons that at least
half of congressional Democrats will vote against giving the president the authority he
seeks, some because history teaches he won't bother consulting with them, some because they fear he will make
concessions that damage their constituents. Hufbauer concludes that Obama needs "three-quarters of the
Republicans" to get a trade deal passed. Republicans' business backers are engaged in an all-out effort to round up those votes.
Former U.S. trade representative and head of the World Bank Robert Zoellick, a victor in trade wars past, has returned to the fray to
urge Republicans to "lead in opening markets ... and make 2014 the year the U.S. reclaimed global leadership on trade." With all due
respect to the estimable Mr. Zoellick, and to House speaker John Boehner, a reflexive free-trader, congressional
Republicans should just say no.