Cred Uniqueness
Cred Down Now- Surveillance
United States HR Credibility low because of domestic surveillance policy
Sanchez-Moreno in 2014 (Maria is a co-director of the U.S. program at Human Rights Watch; “Hold the US
accountable on human rights” Published: May 11, 2015 10:30AM ET Accessed: 7/7/15;
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/5/holding-the-us-accountable-on-human-rights.html)
The United States has its second universal periodic review (UPR) before the United Nations Human Rights
Council in Geneva on Monday. Countries will be able to ask the U.S. questions and make recommendations about its implementation of
human rights commitments made during its first review, which took place in 2010, as well as about other issues of concern. At the top of
the list should be Washington’s failure to hold accountable those responsible for the systematic torture
carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency in the global “war on terrorism.” Five years ago, the U.S. accepted a
UPR recommendation from Denmark to “take measures to eradicate” and “thoroughly investigate” all forms of torture and abuse by military or
civilian personnel within its jurisdiction. But the
only investigation into CIA torture conducted by the U.S.
Department of Justice was limited in scope and closed in 2012 with no charges filed. Nor does it seem to have
met basic standards of credibility or thoroughness; investigators apparently never bothered to interview key witnesses of the abuse: the
detainees. The U.S. has finally begun to tell the truth about what happened: the December 2014 release of a partially redacted summary of a
detailed U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report that describes, in harrowing detail, many of the acts of torture to which CIA officials
subjected detainees. Yet the full 6,700-page report remains classified, and Barack Obama’s administration has expressed no interest in
appointing a special prosecutor and opening new investigations. Countries that have succeeded in bringing to justice those responsible for
atrocities should take the lead in pressing the U.S. to act. Indefinite detention at Guantánamo Bay remains another outstanding concern. The
administration has reiterated its commitment to close the facility and has gradually transferred some detainees to other countries. But 122
men remain locked up in the detention center because of congressional restrictions on transfers and apparent foot dragging by the Department
of Defense. These men have no clear prospect of release or a fair trial under military commissions, which are fundamentally flawed. Among
other problems, they allow the use of evidence obtained by coercion, fail to protect attorney-client privilege and use rules that block the
defense from obtaining information essential to the case, including about the CIA’s treatment of the detainees on trial while they were in its
custody. Nearly two years since Snowden’s first disclosures, neither
the White House nor Congress has yet to impose
meaningful limits on the NSA's mass surveillance programs. Serious and longstanding human rights
problems also plague the U.S. criminal justice system, including poor prison conditions,
disproportionately harsh sentencing, the death penalty and abusive police practices. As the protests in many
U.S. cities over the deaths of African-Americans Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Walter Scott, Freddie Gray and others show, there is strong and
understandable public concern over police brutality and racial discrimination in the U.S. criminal justice system. Other governments should
press the U.S. to clean up these blots on its record. Countries should also call the U.S. out on abuses in its immigration system, notably
its
recent decision to detain immigrant families with children who are apprehended crossing the border.
The administration admits the detentions are aimed at deterring other migrants, many of whom are
fleeing persecution at home. But international law bars all detention of children for immigration
purposes, which is profoundly harmful to their development. The large-scale U.S. surveillance programs revealed by
National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden raise further concerns. Nearly two years since his first disclosures, neither the White
House nor Congress has yet to impose meaningful limits on these programs, which affect potentially millions of people inside and outside the
U.S. Even a very modest bill to impose some constraints on domestic surveillance, the USA Freedom Act, faces strong opposition from
legislators who support the programs. In this context, it is ever more critical that concerned governments join others, like those of Brazil and
Germany, that have been pressing the U.S. to reform. The
U.S. has put a lot of effort into strengthening the U.N.
Human Rights Council and making the UPR a useful process when it comes to dealing with other
countries. It has also made a point of setting a good example, by engaging in extensive consultation with
nongovernmental organizations and other stakeholders in the run-up to its review. But the U.S. will risk
undermining these efforts if it fails to fulfill its own human rights commitments.
US human rights credibility is low now because of double standards and surveillancereversing this is key to ramp up human rights promotion
Carasik in 2014 (Lauren is a clinical professor of law and the director of the international human rights clinic at
the Western New England University School of Law; “Human rights for thee but not for me” Published: March 12,
2014 9:00AM ET Accessed: 7/7/15; http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/3/the-us-lacksmoralauthorityonhumanrights.html)
Last month U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry unveiled the State Department’s comprehensive annual assessment of human rights around the
globe. It painted a grim picture of pervasive violations. Notably absent from the report, however, was any discussion of Washington’s own
record on human rights. The report elicited sharp rebukes from some of the countries singled out for criticism. Many of them questioned
the United States’ legitimacy as self-appointed global champion of human rights. China issued its own
report, 154 pages long, excoriating the U.S. record on human rights and presenting a list of Washington’s violations. Egypt’s
Foreign Ministry called the report “unbalanced and nonobjective” and censured the U.S. for appointing itself the world’s watchdog. Ecuador,
Russia and Iran also criticized the report. By
signaling that the world cares about human rights violations, the report
provides a useful tool for advocates. While the omission of any internal critique is unsurprising, that
stance ultimately undermines the State Department’s goals of promoting human rights abroad. Abuses
unfolding around the world demand and deserve condemnation. But it is difficult for the U.S. to don the unimpeachable
mantle, behave hypocritically and still maintain credibility. It is tempting to dismiss the scolding as retaliatory howls by
authoritarian states, but their critiques have long been echoed by others. Pointing to simmering divisions over human rights standards, China
argued that developing countries face a different set of challenges from their more developed counterparts. This ideological debate has
permeated rights discourse and often underscores a north-south schism. The divide has its roots in the history of human rights. In 1945, still
reeling from the atrocities of World War II, world powers gathered in Paris to forge a multilateral agreement that would form “the foundation
of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” Those principles were enshrined in the nonbinding Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
The U.N. then adopted two covenants that would have the force of law: one focused on civil and political rights and the other on economic,
social and cultural rights. Together with the UDHR, they form the International Bill of Human Rights. The covenants were meant to be universal,
interdependent and indivisible and equally treated, but they do not exist in a political vacuum. Although the
U.S. was instrumental in
resisted conforming to many of the norms for which there is an
emerging international consensus. The U.S. holds sacred its commitment to civil and political rights, such as those protected by its
creating this international framework, it has
robust and revered Bill of Rights and proclaims itself a beacon of freedom and justice in the world. Critics argue that the rhetoric exceeds the
reality on the ground. Economic and
social rights are far more contested, in part because they require
affirmative duties that affect resource allocation: States must take progressive action toward providing housing, food,
education, health care and a host of other rights. The U.S. has been singularly unwilling to ratify key international human rights instruments,
reinforcing its status as an outlier in the field. The U.S. purports to be evenhanded. But geopolitical interests influence the tenor and content of
its assessments, leading some critics to accuse the U.S. of sacrificing human rights at the altar of political expediency. For example, the U.S. has
been accused of blunting its appraisal of allies such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Mexico, Uzbekistan, Honduras and Israel. Economic interests also
factor in. Critics decry the sale of arms to countries that by Washington’s own assessment are complicit in human rights abuses. While
politically and economically self-interested maneuvering is inevitable, not all countries issue an ostensibly definitive and unvarnished report on
the state of global human rights. In December during Human Rights Week, U.S. President Barack Obama
issued a proclamation
reaffirming the United States’ “unwavering support for the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.” Yet global headlines are dominated by high-profile U.S. human rights transgressions —
indefinite detention at Guantánamo Bay, torture, extraordinary rendition, extrajudicial assassination by drones that claims the lives of
innocents in addition to its targets, the aggressive pursuit of whistle-blowers and data
collection that violates privacy both at
home and abroad. Advocates criticize a litany of other human rights abuses, such as mass incarceration (the U.S. has 5 percent of the
world’s population but 25 percent of its inmates, with disproportionate representation among minority groups), the death penalty (including
post-execution revelations that raise serious doubt about already questionable convictions), racial profiling, the disenfranchisement of felons,
sentences of life without parole for juvenile offenders, gun violence, solitary confinement, the shackling of pregnant inmates and many others.
The New York–based Human Rights Watch says these violations disproportionately affect minority communities. “Victims are often the most
vulnerable members of society: racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, children, the elderly, the poor and prisoners,” it said in its annual
report on the U.S. last year. Aside from specific human rights violations, the U.S. has been singularly unwilling to ratify key international human
rights instruments, which reinforces its status as an outlier in the field. These include its refusal to ratify the Convention to Eliminate All Forms
of Discrimination Against Women (only seven other countries are not parties to it), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, the Convention on Rights of the Child (ratified by all states except the U.S., Somalia and South Sudan) and the Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities. The U.S. has also failed to ratify the American Convention on Human Rights, a regional framework on human rights
in the Americas. It has ratified only two of the International Labor Organization’s eight fundamental conventions. Washington’s refusal to ratify
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has provoked particular consternation. The
international community has
a profound interest in deterring the most violent abuses by ending impunity for war crimes, crimes against
humanity and genocide. The ICC was created to promote accountability for these crimes, which are, for a complex and interrelated
constellation of reasons, notoriously difficult to prosecute in domestic courts. But the U.S. will not submit to its jurisdiction, citing a number of
concerns, including that the court would be subject to political manipulation and lack accountability to the U.N. and that submitting to it would
violate state sovereignty. Some critics claim that it is the U.S. that fears being held to account in the international arena for the global
expansion of its military and its possible commission of war crimes. To be fair, the ICC has its critics as well, who contest both its legitimacy and
its efficacy. Subjects of complaint include its perceived preoccupation with African criminals, its slow pace of prosecutions and questions about
how and when the international community should protect citizens of a sovereign state against atrocities. But the U.S. refusal to sign the Rome
Statute, which established the ICC, undermines the principle that each and every country must be accountable to certain universal standards if
they are to be rendered meaningful. U.S. intransigence is often cloaked behind lofty conception of American exceptionalism — the idea that the
U.S. embodies the standards of liberty and democracy to which other countries should aspire. Claiming
to stand at the apex of
democracy and human rights, the U.S. exempts itself from surrendering its sovereignty to any global
rights framework. Resistance to the adoption of international norms is not monolithic within the country, however. In a sign of retreat
from these principles at a local level, some states and municipalities are embracing international human rights standards. The “Bringing Human
Rights Home” report by the Human Rights Institute at Columbia School of Law evinces the willingness of some local governments to incorporate
universal human rights standards, including economic and social rights that the U.S. has so far declined to validate. In 2012 former U.S.
President Jimmy Carter urged the U.S. to reclaim its moral high ground, lamenting that “America’s
violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends.” Upholding universal,
inalienable and enforceable human rights standards in a pluralistic and increasingly entangled world is no easy task. But the domestic and
international human rights movements are driven by the urgent goal of protecting the dignity of all human beings — including those at the
margins who are powerless, poor, invisible and persecuted. The
U.S. would have more credibility in promoting those
principles if it reflected on its own transgressions. Naming and shaming by international actors is an
essential tool for advancing human rights. But it assumes both the moral authority to sit in judgment
and the humility to be self-critical.
Cred Down Now- Double Standards
US lacks HR credibility – US doesn’t adhere to the rules they are trying to promote
Tetik 14 Damla Cihangir-Tetik (Ph.D Candidate in Political Science, Sabanci University/Istanbul as well
as Project Coordinator for Transparency International Turkey), November 13, 2014, “HUMAN RIGHTS
AND DEMOCRACY PROMOTION AS FOREIGN POLICY TOOLS OF TRANSATLANTIC PARTNERS”,
http://idsmagazine.org/human-rights-and-democracy-promotion-as-foreign-policy-tools-oftransatlantic-partners-by-damla-cihangir-tetik/
Regarding human rights protection and democracy promotion, the “discrepancy of the West” argument reached its peak with the “war on
terrorism” policy of the US after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Western
democracy promotion and human rights norms
deteriorated with the US-led operation in Afghanistan in order to fight against global terrorism and with the invasion of Iraq
by the US and Britain. Additionally, the treatment of prisoners by the US officials in Guantanamo Bay, Bagram
in Afghanistan and Abu Ghraib was perceived as aggressive, paternalistic, neo-imperialist and a combination of all those
by the rest of the international community (Burnell 2010, 2). Importantly, the EU and especially the US are faced
with an important credibility problem at the moment concerning their efforts towards international
human rights protection and democracy promotion in the rest of the world. “Credibility refers to the fact that
democratization is hardly ever the only foreign policy goal of those governments who provide
democracy assistance” (Burnell 2010). As Bermeo explains, even though the US has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on democracy
and good governance in Egypt, its military aid, which is much more higher than the ones for democratization, increases the scepticism towards
the priority of the US in Egypt (Bermeo 2009). “Democracy
promotion can therefore only succeed if it is embedded
within the overall set of foreign policies of the promoting country and if the promoting country itself
adheres to the rules, norms and values it claims to want to become more widespread” (Burnell 2010). Similarly,
concerning international human rights protection, the US fails to accede to the ICC with others – including China, India,
Indonesia, Saudi Arabia – and this discourages these states and also the others from engaging in activities
that promote human rights (Muftuler-Bac and Peterson 2014). As a result, at the moment it is not expected from the US
to be a global leader of human rights protection and democracy promotion internationally.
Cred Down Now- Russ/China Specific
Us doesn’t have HR credibility – reason US hasn’t fought against abuses in China and
Russia
Neier 13 Aryeh Neier (American human rights campaigner. He was the president of the Open Society
Institute from 1993-2012 and a founder of Human Rights Watch. His most recent book is Taking
Liberties: Four Decades in the Struggle for Rights), November 2013, “After the NSA revelations, who will
listen to America on human rights?”, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/nsarevelations-america-human-rights
One of the unfortunate consequences of the spying by the NSA that has now been revealed is that it
makes it more difficult for the United States to be effective in promoting human rights internationally.
America's ability to exercise a positive influence on the practices of other governments had been
severely damaged under the Bush administration. That was because American abuses against detainees at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib
deprived Washington of the moral authority to criticise others when they engaged in such practices as prolonged detentions without charges or
trials, or trials before irregular courts, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or torture. President
Obama's inability to fulfil
his promise to close Guantánamo because of congressional opposition, and his unwillingness to hold
Bush-era officials to account for their abuses, has hampered his administration in recovering lost moral
authority. That may help to explain why the Obama administration has been relatively reluctant to
speak out forcefully about abuses of rights by governments such as those of China and Russia. Of course,
dependence on those governments economically and eagerness for their collaboration in the ongoing global struggle against terrorism were
also probably factors in muting American criticism. What the world has learned about the NSA's systematic intrusions on the privacy of others
has dashed hopes that the US would gradually recover its voice in speaking out for rights. It
is difficult, if not impossible, for a
government that is seen by many worldwide as a great violator of rights to be credible in promoting
those same rights. Of course, the damage to American foreign policy by the practices of the NSA goes far beyond American capacity to
promote human rights. Perhaps the damage in Europe has been the greatest. Europe has much stronger protections for privacy than the US,
reflecting a high level of public concern. Nowhere is the commitment to privacy stronger than in Germany, where article one of the country's
constitution, the Basic Law, begins with the assertion: "Human dignity is inviolable. To respect it and protect it is the duty of all state power."
Dignity, which also has a central place in the European charter of fundamental rights, but is not mentioned in the US constitution, is understood
in Germany and elsewhere in Europe to encompass a commitment to privacy. In the absence of a clear repudiation by the Obama
administration of practices of the NSA that go far beyond the requirements of national security, including a pledge to discontinue spying on
European leaders, and to end indiscriminate surveillance of many millions of European citizens, it seems likely that co-operation with the
United States on a host of issues will decline drastically. The
US once enjoyed a reputation as a country that respected human rights. This
enhanced its political standing with other countries and gave Washington the capacity to promote these rights worldwide. Its stand on
rights had been an asset; now it is turning into a liability. The main reason to respect rights, of course, is because of their
intrinsic worth and significance. A secondary reason that is not negligible, however, is that America's practices on rights also have a significant
impact on the country's other interests in its relations with the rest of the world.
No China Pressure
US is walking a fine line between promoting human rights and maintaining US-China
relations
HRF in 2012, Human Rights First, How to Integrate Human Rights into U.S.-China Relations,
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/blueprints2012/HRF_China_blueprint.pdf
Under the Obama Administration, human rights have remained a contentious issue on the U.S. agenda with
China. Administration officials, including the president, have pressed Chinese officials publicly and privately on
a variety of issues, including free speech, Internet freedoms, and policies toward the Tibetan people, as well as raising cases of specific
activists and human rights defenders. The annual Human Rights Dialogue with China, which was suspended by the Chinese for nearly four years
during the Bush Administration, has restarted. While the State Department maintains the lead on human rights issues, other agencies such as
the Departments of Labor and Justice have been brought into the dialogue. At
the grassroots level, the administration has
continued to fund a broad array of programs in the areas of democracy, rule of law, civil society development,
sustainable development, environmental protection, cultural preservation in Tibet, and health. Notwithstanding these efforts, the
administration has struggled to define the place of human rights on the larger agenda with China. It
came into office determined to have, as Secretary Clinton put it, a “positive and cooperative relationship with
China” in order to elicit Chinese cooperation on a panoply of global and bilateral issues. To this end, the
administration signaled throughout its first year that cooperation with China would take precedence
over human rights. However, it gradually stepped back from this careful approach when it became clear by the end
of 2010 that Chinese cooperation on other issues was not forthcoming.
Russia Uniqueness
US- Russia Relations High
Russia and US will cooperate struggles force cooperation
Sputnik News in 2015 (Sputnik News is an international news service; “Russia Still Vital Partner for US to
Maintain Global Stability” Published: June 26, 2015 Accessed: 7/8/15;
http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150623/1023723036.html)
Russia is an essential US partner in the Iran nuclear negotiations, Middle East affairs and the war on
terror, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said at the Atlantik Brucke conference speech in Berlin, Germany
on Monday. WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — Carter is visiting Berlin in an attempt to strengthen bilateral US-German ties, and will next fly to
Estonia to attend the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence and then attend the regular NATO Defense
Ministerial meeting. “[The US government] will continue to cooperate with Russia when it [Russia] is
willing. This includes the P5+1 negotiations with Iran, nonproliferation more generally, counter-terrorism
— countering ISIL-like [Islamic State] movements.” The Defense Secretary noted the United States would
“continue to hold out the possibility that Russia will assume the role of respected partner moving
forward, not isolated and going backward as it is today.” He also acknowledged that US-Russia strategic cooperation
was vital to international stability. “Much of the progress we've made together since the end of the Cold
War, we accomplished with Russia. Let me repeat that. Not in spite of Russia, not against Russia, not
without Russia, but with it.”
The Obama administration is working to improve relations with Russia
Rogin, 2015 Josh. "US-Russia Bilateral Ties: How Obama Wants to Repair Relations with
Moscow." The Economic Times. Times of India, 06 Jan. 2015. Web. 10 July 2015.
President Barack Obama's administration has been working behind the scenes for months to forge a new
working relationship with Russia, despite the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown little interest in repairing
relations with Washington or halting his aggression in neighbouring Ukraine. This month, Obama's National Security Council
finished an extensive and comprehensive review of US policy toward Russia. At the end of the sometimescontentious process, Obama made a decision to continue to look for ways to work with Russia on a host of
bilateral and international issues while also offering Putin a way out of the stalemate over the crisis in Ukraine. Leading the
charge has been Secretary of State John Kerry. This fall, Kerry even proposed going to Moscow and
meeting with Putin directly. The negotiations over Kerry's trip got to the point of scheduling, but ultimately were scuttled because
there was little prospect of demonstrable progress. In a separate attempt at outreach, the White House turned to an
old friend of Putin's for help. The White House called on former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to discuss having him call Putin
directly, according to two officials. It's unclear whether Kissinger actually made the call. The White House and Kissinger both refused to
comment for this column. Kerry has been the point man on dealing with Russia because his close relationship with Russian foreign minister
Sergei Lavrov represents the last remaining functional diplomatic channel between Washington and Moscow. They meet often, often without
any staff members present, and talk on the phone regularly. Obama and Putin, on the other hand, are known to have an intense dislike for each
other and very rarely speak. In
several conversations with Lavrov, Kerry has floated an offer to Russia that would
pave the way for a partial release of some of the most onerous economic sanctions. Kerry's conditions included
Russia adhering to September's Minsk agreement and ceasing direct military support for the Ukrainian separatists. "We are willing to isolate the
issues of Donetsk and Luhansk from the issue of Crimea," a senior administration official said, naming two regions in Eastern Ukraine under
separatist control. That represents a way forward for Putin." Kerry has seemed more enthusiastic about mending ties with Russia than Obama
himself. After the president gave a blistering critique of Russian behaviour in a major United Nations speech, saying that "Russian aggression in
Europe recalls the days when large nations trampled small ones in pursuit of territorial ambition," Kerry urged Lavrov to ignore his boss's
remarks, according to Lavrov. There is also a belief among many both inside the State Department and the White House that sanctions are
working. The Russian economy is tanking, albeit due largely to collapsing oil prices and not targeted punishments. One senior administration
official argued that absent the sanctions, Putin might have been even more aggressive in Ukraine. Moreover, this official said, the sanctions
need time to work and might yet prove to have greater effect on Putin's decisionmaking in the months ahead. If the Russians are getting ready
to cave, they aren't showing it. Putin remains defiant and Russian military assistance to the Ukrainian rebels continues. The Russian leadership
has been rejecting Kerry's overtures both in public and private. Diplomatic sources said that Lavrov has refused to even discuss Kerry's
conditions for partial easing of sanctions. And Putin has made a hobby of bashing the US in public remarks. Some experts believe that any plan
to warm US-Russian relations is unlikely to succeed because it doesn't have the full support of either president. "It's very clear that between the
Putin Kremlin and the Obama White House there is very bad chemistry. Its not a question of simply distrust, it's a question of intense dislike
between the two leaders," said Dimitri Simes, president, Center for the National Interest. Obama
has made it clear that in his last
two years in office he is prepared to make big moves on foreign policy even if they face political or
legislative opposition, such as normalising relations with Cuba or pursuing a nuclear deal with Iran. But
when it comes to Russia, he is unwilling to place his own credibility behind any outreach to his nemesis Putin. By choosing a middle ground
between conciliation and confrontation — not being generous enough to entice Russia's cooperation yet not being tough enough to stop
Putin's aggression in Eastern Europe — Obama's policy risks failing on both fronts.
US- Russia relations are thawing- Kerry’s visit to Sochi
Tétrault-Farber, 2015 Gabrielle. "Russia, U.S. Maintaining 'Working Relations' With Kerry Visit to
Sochi | News." The Moscow Times. The Moscow Times, 12 May 2015. Web. 10 July 2015.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's visit to Sochi to meet with President Vladimir Putin and Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov on Tuesday showcased the willingness of Moscow and Washington to continue
cooperating on key issues of international peace and security even as bilateral relations have plunged to a postCold War nadir, Russian political analysts told The Moscow Times. Russia and the United States have remained locked in a
standoff since the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis in early 2014, marked by Moscow's annexation of Crimea last March and the loss of
more than 6,000 lives in clashes between Kiev's forces and separatists in the country's east, according to the United Nations. In
their regular exchange of jabs, Russia continues to blame the United States for fueling the conflict, while Washington accuses
Moscow of providing material support to the pro-Russian separatists of eastern Ukraine, a claim Russian authorities have denied.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov initially said the talks would not revolve around the mutually imposed
sanctions over the Ukrainian crisis during Kerry's first visit to Russia since May 2013. But a Foreign
Ministry statement released after Lavrov's meeting with Kerry said that sanctions against Russia were a
"dead end" and that the country was ready to cooperate with the United States on the basis of equality.
The Russian delegation also said the country was not to blame for the dire state of relations with the United States. Points of
contention were mostly kept at bay, as the focus was turned to the political resolutions of international
crises, including the implementation of the Minsk agreements on a cease-fire in eastern Ukraine. The talks focused on
broader regional and international issues — the situations in Ukraine, Syria and Iran — which have fueled heated debate
between the countries. Putin's meeting with Kerry lasted for four hours. Afterward, Kremlin adviser Yury Ushakov said that the talks
had failed to lead to any significant breakthroughs. He noted, however, that Putin would like to see a normalization of U.S.-Russian
relations. Viktor Kremenyuk, the deputy head of the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences,
referred to the Sochi talks as "a working visit devoid of propaganda" in an interview with The Moscow Times. A day prior to Kerry's
visit, the Russian Foreign Ministry publicly condemned the United States, accusing it of having fostered unrest in Ukraine and
attempting to isolate Russia on the international stage. But the finger-pointing
and scathing remarks seemed to have
been put on hold, at least temporarily, to address more pressing affairs. Both countries had in fact
presented Kerry's visit as an opportunity. The State Department said the visit would contribute to
keeping lines of communication open with senior Russian officials, while the Russian Foreign Ministry said it
would serve to "normalize" the countries' fraught bilateral relations. Lavrov told Russian media that his
meeting with Kerry had gone "wonderfully," the RIA Novosti state news agency reported. Meanwhile, Kerry wrote via
Twitter on Tuesday that he had had "frank" talks with both Putin and Lavrov. "Russia and the United States need a new
roadmap, new rules that regulate their relationship. Like neighbors in a communal apartment," said
Kremenyuk. "The two countries are caught in a conflict that has eclipsed their common goals and
common international responsibilities. Moscow understands the importance of the United States in addressing
international issues. This is what this visit is about." Both sides also seemed to pay particular attention to the ceremonial element of
the visit. Lavrov and Kerry laid flowers at a World War II memorial before holding talks, during which they showered each other in
gifts. Lavrov presented Kerry with locally harvested tomatoes and potatoes, mirroring the Idaho potatoes the Secretary of State had
given him in Paris in January of last year, Foreign Ministry press secretary Maria Zakharova wrote on her Facebook page. Kerry
also received a commemorative T-shirt of Russia's celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, which were
snubbed by American and other high-ranking Western officials last week. American officials, according to Zakharova, provided their
Russian counterparts with a list of quotes from Russian media that they thought "did not reflect the real potential" of RussoAmerican relations. Will Stevens, spokesperson for the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, also wrote that Kerry gave Lavrov a brief case.
Kerry's visit
to Russia, according to Alexei Malashenko of the Carnegie Moscow Center, is simply meant to keep up Russo-American
relations, which span far beyond the countries' disagreements over Ukraine and other international
issues. "We should not expect much to come from this visit, which should be understood as a routine encounter between high“Everything is sunny today in Sochi,” Zakharova wrote, embellishing her sentence with a slew of smiley emoticons.
ranking officials," Malashenko said. "Neither side is ready to change its position [on the Ukrainian crisis]." The Russian and
American foreign ministers have generally met on neutral territory, in Paris and Geneva, among other places. But this time, Kerry
landed on Russian territory amid the worst political crisis between Russia and the United States since the collapse of the Soviet
Union. Political analysts did not read any symbolism in Kerry's presence in Russia other than that it sent a clear message to
international players about the need to collectively address multilateral issues. "When Kerry and Lavrov meet, we are always faced
with a guessing game," Kremenyuk said. "Where will they meet? What will they talk about? This time everything is clear: Kerry is in
Russia to talk to Lavrov and Putin about Ukraine and other international issues. There is no ambiguity in that."
China Uniqueness
US- China Relations High
United States and China relations are good- President Jinping’s first state visit ensures
Tiezzi 2/12/15 (Shannon Tiezzi, foreign relations expert, “Why 2015 Will Be a Great Year for US-China
Relations”, 2/12/15, http://thediplomat.com/2015/02/why-2015-will-be-a-great-year-for-us-chinarelations/, 7/8/15)
It’s official: Chinese
President Xi Jinping’s first state visit to the U.S. is scheduled for September. Xinhua reported
Barack Obama, accepted the “invitation to pay a state visit to
the United States in September.” Xi is also expected to attend celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the United Nations in New York this
today that Xi, in a phone conversation with U.S. President
September. Now the race is on for both the U.S. and China to hammer out some deliverables over the course of the next seven months. My colleague Ankit Panda
provided some predictions of what topics might be on the agenda, including progress on a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). Other possible topics of discussion:
military confidence building measures and agreement on what approach to take at December’s climate change conference to be held in Paris. While the
announcements won’t be made until September, the discussions are already taking place. Two high-ranking U.S. State Department officials are in Beijing this week
to begin laying the groundwork for Xi’s visit: new Deputy
Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and
Pacific Affairs Daniel Russel. Blinken stopped in China as part of a larger tour of Northeast Asia, his first trip abroad since assuming
his post. Blinken was in Seoul from February 9-10 and will travel to Tokyo on February 12. The purpose of his visit, he announced on Twitter, was
“advancing the rebalance” to Asia. Russel, meanwhile, traveled only to China; he’s in Beijing for talks from February 9-12. Both Beijing and
Washington were vague on the specifics of these meetings, but the focus was on cooperation rather than airing differences. The U.S. State Department’s press
release on Blinken’s trip, for example, said only that the deputy secretary would “meet with senior Chinese government officials to discuss ongoing cooperation on a
wide range of bilateral, regional and global issues.” China’s official news release on Blinken’s meetings spoke of “significant and positive progress in China-U.S.
relations in 2014.” “China
expects both sides to keep up the pace this year and a successful visit by Xi will push
forward the new type of major country relationship,” the release added. In the past, preparations for a major
bilateral summit (such as Xi’s visit to the U.S.) have meant concerted attempts by both sides to keep the
relationship on an even keel. In October 2009, for example, Obama postponed a meeting with the Dalai Lama, not wanting to rock the boat before
his first presidential visit to China in November 2009. Then the relationship entered a rocky period in 2010 – but tensions were
carefully smoothed over in preparation for then-President Hu Jintao’s state visit to the United States in
January 2011. We saw more U.S.-China tensions build from late 2011, when the “pivot to Asia” was rolled out, through 2012 and 2013 – so much so that
many analysts began to worry that structural factors were causing a permanent change for the worse in the U.S.-China relationship. Even the “Sunnylands Summit”
between Obama and Xi in June 2013 couldn’t turn the tide – perhaps precisely because it was designed as an informal meeting, without the expectation of solid
progress that comes with formal state visits. It took new announcements on U.S.-China cooperation made during Obama’s visit to Beijing last year to right the ship.
Having two state visits in less than a year – Obama’s trip to China in November 2014 and Xi’s September visit to Washington – will help ensure that U.S.-China
relations stay positive. As Russel put it in a recent press briefing on U.S. policy priorities in the Asia-Pacific, “We
see 2015 as an important year
U.S.-China relations], and making headway both on areas of cooperation and making headway on areas of concern, not limited to maritime disputes,
are major objectives for the U.S.” The U.S. in particular is looking for breakthroughs on climate change negotiations and a BIT
(“areas of cooperation”) and on cybersecurity issues and how to handle military contacts in China’s near seas (“areas of concern”). What that means for
the next seven months is that both Beijing and Washington will try to keep their very real differences private as they seek
to craft at least one major agreement to showcase during Xi’s September visit. Having Xi’s visit
announced so early puts the pressure on both sides to keep the relationship steady for over half a year – a
[in
herculean task, given that a number of possible irritants in the relationship are out of the control of both Beijing and Washington.
US is holding back on pressuring China over human rights
Chen 15 (Dingding Chen, Assist Professor of Govt and Public Admin @ University of Macau, and Katrin
Kinzelbach, Assoc. Dir. of Global Public Policy Institute, “Democracy promotion and China: blocker or bystander?”
pg Taylor and Francis)
The US and the EU continue to support Chinese human rights activists through financial grants, quiet
diplomacy, and public statements, but both actors have scaled down their ambitions in recent years. This is not only
because financial regulations have changed. China's rapidly increasing international weight, which was further accelerated by
the subprime mortgage crisis in the US and the sovereign debt crisis in Europe, changed the dynamics of international politics,
and significantly decreased the party-state's vulnerability to international pressure. Accordingly, high-ranking
leaders in Beijing now dismiss Western criticism of China's governance model rather confidently. For example, according to
confidential accounts of EU officials, Wu Hailong (since 2014 China's Representative at the UN in Geneva) noted repeatedly in
closed-door meetings that China was no longer willing to be lectured on human rights and democracy
because “times have changed”.14 As this brief summary shows, the Chinese party-state has sought to countervail
external and domestic democracy promotion by using a wide range of tactics, ranging from domestic repression,
counter-discourse at home and abroad, to sticks and carrots at the international level. To what extent this policy extends beyond the borders of
mainland China will be discussed in the following two sections on Myanmar and Hong Kong.
U.S – Sino relations are good now- bilateral consensus on major country relationship
Jianmin, 2014 Wu. "The China-U.S. Relationship Is Basically Good’." China File. Asia Society, 24 Sept.
2014. Web. 10 July 2015.
A few days ago, I was in Washington, D.C. for a conference. While there, I met some American friends. We had an interesting discussion about
what seems to me to be a debate going on in the U.S. about China-U.S. relations: One side believes the China-U.S. relationship is going through
a rocky patch and is at a “low point,” with many tough issues surfacing. The other side maintains that
the overall China-U.S.
relationship is good, notwithstanding the present difficulties. I share the second viewpoint for the following reasons:
First, the foundation of the China-U.S. relationship remains strong. Let me quote President Xi Jinping’s speech at the
opening of the sixth round of the China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue on July 9: In the past 35 years since the
establishment of diplomatic ties, relations between China and the U.S. on the whole have moved
forward and made historic progress although there have been ups and downs. There are now over 90 mechanisms
for dialogue, and last year the bilateral trade volume exceeded $520 billion, bilateral investment accounted for over $100
billion. There are over 41 pairs of friendly provinces or states from both sides, and 202 sister cities. People-to-people exchanges exceeded 4
million every year. China-U.S. cooperation not only benefits our two peoples, but also promotes peace, stability, and prosperity in the AsiaPacific region and the world as a whole. In both China and the U.S. there are people complaining about the lack of strategic trust between the
two countries. They mention quite a few facts to illustrate their worries. No one can deny these facts, but a coin has two sides. A
comprehensive vision of the China-U.S. relationship is very much needed. I went to the United States for the first time in 1971 to attend the
United Nations General Assembly Session. At that time, trade between China and the U.S. was a mere 5 million U.S. dollars. Last year, it
amounted to 520 billion U.S. dollars. In the 1970s, ’80s and even ’90s, such a rapid growth in bilateral trade was beyond anybody’s imagination.
If there had been no mutual strategic trust, how could this growth have been achieved? It would simply have been inconceivable. I strongly
believe that the mutual strategic trust can be achieved and strengthened through practical projects of cooperation. The two sides countries
ought to make a greater effort to increase cooperation in all fields. Second,
President Xi Jinping and President Obama have
reached an important consensus on the new model of major country relationship. The two leaders held an
informal summit in Sunnylands, California, in June, 2013. They agreed to build a new model of major country
relationship. They were determined not to let the bilateral relationship slip into a Thucydides’ trap. The
summit had historic significance; never in history had an established power and a rising power made such an agreement. The two leaders
meant what they said and chose to steer the China-U.S. relationship towards a new model of major
country relationship, for the benefit of the two countries and the rest of the world. Third, we have a series of
mechanisms through which we can talk to each other and manage our differences. I don’t deny the existence of
many problems in our bilateral relationship. But the China-U.S. relationship is one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world and
no bilateral relationship is problem-free. There are problems when the relationship moves backward. There are problems when the relationship
stands still. There are also problems when the relationship moves forward. I think that most problems appear along with advances in the ChinaU.S. relationship. China and the United States are two quite different countries. We have different histories, traditions, and cultures. We have
different political and social systems. It is quite natural that we may have problems. What matters is that we have a series of mechanisms to
cope with those problems. President Xi Jinping and President Obama meet frequently. They call each other by telephone from time to time and
they exchange letters. At the ministerial level, our two sides meet regularly. In addition to track I exchanges, our “Track II” interactions are
active and dynamic on issues of mutual concern. U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice came to China not long ago to prepare for the
forthcoming visit of President Obama to China and his participation in the APEC Summit. She met President Xi Jinping, State Councilor Yang
Jiechi and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Her talks with Yang Jiechi lasted more than eight hours. Both sides are quite happy with that visit, because
it has enabled the two sides to enhance mutual understanding, coordinate policies on global issues, and pave the way for the success of
President Obama’s forthcoming visit to China. A few weeks ago, I gave an interview to an Asahi Correspondent based in Beijing about the
China-U.S. relationship. He focused on the problems. I said there was no denying that there were problems and even that one shouldn’t
underestimate them. However, what determine the quality of a bilateral relationship are common interests.
The common interests of
China and the U.S. far outweigh the differences. In trying to manage our differences properly, through various mechanisms,
summit meetings, strategic and economic dialogues, etc., the two sides are learning how best to deal with their differences, and consequently,
our bilateral relationship is growing mature. The U.S. is the only superpower in the world today. China is the largest developing country and the
second-largest economy. A good, stable, and robust China-U.S. relationship is not only good news for the two countries, but also for the rest of
the world
US- Sino relations are good and making progress now – despite South China Sea
dispute
Spitzer, 2015 Kirk. "Xi: U.S.-China Relations 'stable' despite Islands Dispute." USA Today. USA Today,
18 May 2015. Web. 10 July 2015.
TOKYO — Chinese
President Xi Jinping insisted Sunday that relations with the United States remain "stable"
despite a standoff over China's territorial claims in the disputed South China Sea. "I look forward to
continuing to develop this relationship with President Obama and to bring China-U.S. relations to a new
height along a track of a new model of major country relationship," Xi said, according to Reuters. His
comments came as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry wrapped up a two-day visit to Beijing. Chinese media
earlier warned that Kerry appeared ready to "pick a fight" over China's massive land reclamation program in the South China Sea, parts of which
are claimed by five other countries, including U.S. treaty ally Philippines. The U.S. says a string of artificial islands that China is building in the
region could be used as military bases from which China could attempt to restrict air and sea traffic. Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Saturday
that China would not change course. "The determination of the Chinese side to safeguard our own sovereignty and territorial integrity is as firm
as a rock, and it is unshakable," Wang said after meeting with Kerry, the Associated Press reported. Kerry was in China for talks on a range of
trade and security issues. But the South China Sea, home to some of the busiest air and sea routes in the world, dominated the agenda. China
claims virtually all of the 1.35 million square mile waterway. "We
are concerned about the pace and scope of China's land
reclamation in the South China Sea," Kerry said at a joint news conference with Wang. "I urged China through
Foreign Minister Wang to take actions that will join everybody in helping to reduce tensions and increase the prospect of a diplomatic solution."
The impasse is no surprise, said Ben Schreer, a defense specialist at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Canberra.
"Too much is at stake for both sides in order for one of them to back down. For the U.S., it's the reputational risk to its leadership in the region.
For China, it's the domestic reputation that is at stake," Schreer said. He said China's island-building campaign would continue to trouble U.S.China relations. "It is a serious problem since it challenges the rules-based order in the region and is also in violation with international law," he
said. Despite the
disagreement, Xi said Sunday, "In my view, the China-U.S. relationship has remained
stable," Reuters reported. Recent satellite images show that China is building artificial islands in seven locations, some with what
appear to be runways and port facilities that could accommodate large ships and aircraft. Tensions escalated last week with reports that U.S.
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter was considering a plan to send U.S. ships and planes within 12 miles of China's reclamation sites to
demonstrate U.S. commitment to freedom of navigation in the region. Also last week, a new, high-tech Navy warship was closely shadowed by
Chinese navy ships during what a senior Navy official said was a "routine," week-long patrol near the Spratly Islands, where the reclamation
activity is taking place. The encounters were described as "professional," and no untoward activity was reported. Earlier Saturday, the official
Xinhua News Agency said that Western news coverage indicated that Kerry was coming to China to "pick a fight" with Beijing over the South
China Sea and warned that it "smacks of a plot to force Kerry to take on an issue that should never become a concern in China-U.S. ties."
Nonetheless, on Saturday both Kerry and Wang stressed the importance of dialogue in resolving the
issue, and Kerry urged China to speed up talks with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on binding guidelines for how
maritime activity in disputed areas should be handled. "I think we agree that the region needs smart diplomacy in order to conclude the ASEANChina code of conduct and not outposts and military strips," Kerry said. Despite
the clear disagreements over the South
China Sea, Kerry and Wang said they were on track to make progress in other areas, notably on climate
change; the fight against violent extremism; and preparations for the next round of the U.S.-China
Strategic and Economic Dialogue in June and Xi's visit to Washington in September. They expressed pleasure
with their cooperation in the ongoing Iran nuclear talks, their solidarity in trying to denuclearize North Korea and combat diseases such as the
deadly Ebola virus.
U.S – Sino relations are improving – Iran Deal cooperation
Reuters, 2015 Associated Press. "China Says Iran Deal Good for Sino-U.S. Relations." Reuters.
Thomson Reuters, 03 Apr. 2015. Web. 10 July 2015.
This week's framework nuclear deal with Iran was also good for boosting relations between China and
the United States, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in a call with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. The agreement can be
attributed to all sides seizing a historic opportunity through concerted efforts, Wang told Kerry, China's foreign ministry said in a statement
released late on Friday. "China
and the United States, both taking on major responsibilities in safeguarding the
international nuclear non-proliferation system, maintained good contact with each other during the
negotiations, while instilling positive energy into bilateral relations," the statement cited Wang as
saying. "In a bid to finalize a comprehensive deal as scheduled, China will maintain close coordination
with all parties concerned, including the United States, and continue to play a constructive role during the process," Wang added.
While China and the United States are at loggerheads over everything from cybersecurity to the value of
China's yuan currency, the world's two largest economies also cooperate closely on certain international
issues, including the Iranian and North Korean nuclear disputes. The Chinese statement cited Kerry as saying that the
United States appreciates China's important and constructive role in the latest Iran nuclear talks. The tentative agreement, struck on Thursday
after eight days of talks between Iran and six world powers in Lausanne, Switzerland, clears the way for a settlement to allay Western fears that
Iran could build an atomic bomb, with economic sanctions on Tehran being lifted in return. It marks the most significant step toward
rapprochement between Washington and Tehran since the 1979 Iranian revolution, and could potentially end decades of international
isolation, with far-reaching political consequences in the Middle East. China and Iran have close diplomatic, economic, trade and energy ties.
China's crude oil imports from Iran jumped by nearly 30 percent last year to their highest average level since 2011, as Iran's largest oil client
boosted shipments after an interim deal eased sanctions on Tehran.
Brink- Now key time for Relations
Now is a key time in relations- decisions made now can affect the relationship for
years to come
Hamilton 6/30/15 (Lee Hamilton, distinguished scholar, “Despite Growing Tensions, US Must Move
Forward on Cooperation With China”, 6/30/15, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-hhamilton/despite-growing-tensions-us-must-move-forward-on-cooperation-withchina_b_7692276.html, 7/8/15)
We routinely slam each other's records on human rights. We accuse them of stealing commercial
secrets, as we unabashedly acknowledge our own attempts to uncover security secrets. We debate
which of our systems of government -- capitalism or communism -- truly works best, and we squabble over our respective
responsibilities in addressing the potential catastrophic impact of climate change. So goes the relationship between the U.S. and
China. Ours is the most important bilateral relationship in the world and one that continues to change
rapidly as China rises to the status of a major regional power. The rest of the international community watches this relationship
carefully and understands the importance of it. Indeed, it has become clear that almost every one of the world's problems become easier to solve if our relationship
Currently, our two nations are wading through a period of considerable tensions over a host of
major issues, including, among others, global warming, nuclear stockpiling in North Korea, Taiwanese independence, human rights
violations, cyber espionage, business regulation and maritime behavior. On most, if not all, of these issues, sizable gaps exist between the
U.S. and China. But the good news is that both countries want to avoid war and reject using lethal means
to change the status quo. We seek to avoid major confrontation, and, what's more, we actually have a number of complementary interests. Together,
is on solid footing.
we want to counter terrorism, though we have questions about whom we should be targeting. (We talk about ISIS and other Islamic militants; they talk about ethnic
minorities.) We want to reign in Iran's disputed nuclear program and contain nuclear proliferation. We share a desire for addressing climate change, and, though
we differ sharply in our opinions over the effectiveness of a capitalist or socialist market economy, generally
speaking we both aim for overall economic and financial stability. Still, focusing on our mutual interests is challenging when taking
into account the tension, contradictions, complexities and differences that mark our relationship. We
see a country that refuses to respect human rights and dignity for its people; a country moving
aggressively on its periphery, a country not likely to transition soon into a more democratic society. From its
perspective, China views an international order titled against it. Indeed, China regularly seeks to cast doubt on
our own human rights record, citing our torturing of terrorist suspects, mass electronic surveillance of foreign governments, episodes of police
brutality, economic inequality and racial discrimination. China also supports non-interference in the internal matters of other countries and bristles with our actions
toward Taiwan, while many in the U.S. have a difficult time restraining themselves from calling for the independence of Taiwan, meanwhile, many Chinese continue
to advocate for a forceful takeover of this sovereign state. By many measures China is leaping forward. Economically, China has invested unprecedented amounts
of money in research and development and has established an enormous and ever-growing pool of scientists and engineers. Its emphasis has been on the quality,
not just quantity, of growth and in making the state sector more efficient, and makes more room for market products. Militarily, even though troop recruitment
remains an issue, the
Chinese possess a large army, powerful missiles, impressive cyber-weaponry, improved
nuclear capabilities and a growing fleet of nuclear submarines that reflects the country's deep concern
over sea-lane security near its shores. Its military would, nonetheless, have problems fighting a modern war, and has severe challenges of
recruitment and modernization. China's president Xi Jinping has embraced a strong leadership position both on the domestic and foreign policy front. He
distributes economic aid, travels abroad frequently, and he speaks openly about establishing a new model that would place China front and center on the
international scene. His message is clear; China
is now a great power. As a subtle -- or not so subtle -- reminder of his state's influence in the region,
has become more
assertive with its neighbors. China has an underlying confidence that it will eventually replace the U.S.,
which it sees as a failing system, as the world's leading power. At the same time, many Western scholars believe that ethnic
he routinely presses the point that the people of Asia will solve the problems of Asia. To this end, under Xi's leadership, China
unrest, political repression, and disaffected Chinese elites will ultimately bring about the end of communist rule. Nevertheless, the words and actions coming from
China suggest a nation that is determined to continue its growth and embrace an even greater role in global affairs, whether we like it or not. For now, the
economies of our two nations remain deeply intertwined. U.S.-China trade represents more than $600 billion. Around 275,000 Chinese students now study in the
U.S., while 25,000 Americans study in China. China continues to serve as a major agricultural importer of U.S. food and grain and also as a massive financial lender.
Of course, China's economic problems, including deep-rooted corruption and environmental devastation, are huge negatives. Up to now, our policy of constructive
engagement, which spans several U.S. presidents, has centered on welcoming a peaceful and prosperous China, one that contributes to the stability of Asia and
chooses to play a responsible role in this region of the world. But that type of engagement has been thrown into doubt as insufficient. Moving forward, we must
build on our commonalities. We must keep talks going even when tensions arise, and we have to accept that change in China won't happen as quickly as we would
like. Most importantly, we need to persuade China that its interests lie in assuming shared responsibility for global leadership, and to take responsibility
commensurate with its wealth and power. Make no mistake: This is a challenging time in our relationship as the
U.S. seeks to maintain its
dominance in the world while China seeks to flex its growing economic and political power. As the
military forces are being ramped up on both sides, some in the U.S. argue for continued U.S. dominance
in Asia while others contend for, not a retreat from Asia, but for more of a balance of forces. Despite our disagreements, though,
we must look for avenues of greater cooperation and collaboration, avoid surprises, respect the realities of the region, maintain our leadership in all its phases, find
a seat for China at the international table, and deal from a position of strength. Again, the
world is watching, and where we go from
here in our relationship is the most important factor in the peace, security and stability in the new world
coming.
Link
Link- Curtail Surveillance
The Obama administration’s surveillance strategy undermines our credibility – he
continues the policies he vowed to end
Lynch, 2010 Lynch, Marc. "Rhetoric and Reality: Countering Terrorism in the Age of Obama." Center
for a New American Society (2010): n. pag. Web. 8 July 2015.
The fourth pillar of the administration’s strategy has been to restore American credibility and moral
authority by embedding its response to terrorism within a robust legal framework. The Guantanamo Bay prison camp and the
use of torture, Obama argued firmly throughout his election campaign and after his inauguration, were wrong on both moral and strategic
grounds. "They are not who we are, and they are not America," he declared in May 2009. And they do not work: "rather than keeping us safer,
the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies
to work with us."58 Obama’s
administration viewed adhering to a stricter interpretation of the rule of law as
an essential part of the wider strategy: restoring America’s moral authority and turning a page on the past while
rooting effective CVE and counterterrorism efforts within a more durable, legal foundation.59 The 2010 NSS doubles down on this
commitment, with repeated reference to the centrality of restoring America's adherence to the rule of law to its moral authority and
international leadership. This is not a new position. Even President Bush, after Supreme Court rulings forced his hand, acknowledged that
Guantanamo had harmed the war on terror by allowing al Qaeda to say that "the United States is not upholding the values that they're trying
[to] encourage other countries to adhere to."60 U.S.
Central Command Commander GEN David Petraeus has called
Abu Ghraib a "nonbiodegradable" stain on America’s image.61 BG Joseph Cullen (Ret.) articulates the logic of linking the
rule of law and counterterrorism clearly: "The rule of law is the best defense we possess, and the weapon that brings the most people to our
side."62 Obama made this contention a centerpiece of his publicly declared strategy against terrorism. For all his emphasis on change, Obama
largely built on reforms begun in the previous administration. On enhanced interrogation techniques, for instance, which Obama powerfully
opposed, Bush had already signed a 2007 executive order banning "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,"63 and the McCain Amendment to
the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act spelled out more stringent guidelines for interrogations.64 In summer 2009, the Obama
administration authorized a High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, an interagency team that would operate without those controversial
enhanced interrogation techniques, (although it reportedly only became operational in January 2010).65 Bush largely emptied the "black sites"
(secret prisons operated by the U.S. outside of its territory and legal jurisdiction) in the face of legal challenges, before Obama issued an
Executive Order closing them.66 Obama issued an executive order on January 22, 2009 ordering Guantanamo to be closed within a year, but
failed to meet this target in the face of legal and political challenges. Bush faced similar obstacles when he directed in a Principal’s Committee
meeting in April 2006 that Guantanamo be closed within a year; i.e., by April 2007.67 Although Guantanamo remains open, the administration
argues, conditions for detainees have improved and the military commissions were made fairer by the reforms in the 2009 Military
Commissions Act.68 It
remains to be seen whether the new military commissions will live up to the
expectations of rule-of-law advocates. Reportedly, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates only approved the new manual providing
guidelines for the new commissions on April 27, the day before Omar Khader’s much-anticipated hearing was scheduled to begin.69 To date,
the Obama administration has also retained several major Bush administration initiatives that he
previously pledged to change. Obama has retained the Bush administration’s legal conception of a
global war, which provides the foundation for the continuation of a wide range of practices.70 It supported
the extension of three controversial Patriot Act provisions scheduled to be sunseted in December 2009, including Sec. 206, allowing roving
wiretaps with FISA approval, and Sec. 215, allowing the seizure of "tangible things" related to an investigation.71 Obama’s changes
to
American policy on indefinite detention have been mixed, particularly with the decision to not extend the right of habeas
reviews to detainees at Bagram Air Base.72 The dramatic escalation of drone strikes against alleged leaders in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere has been seen as a serious potential gap in the
administration’s commitment to the rule of law. The administration has strongly defended the legality of these drone strikes,
but the legal foundations as to how drone strikes are carried out remain hotly contested.73 Drone strikes against sovereign territory, rather
than battlefield zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan, can only draw legal legitimacy either from a bilateral agreement with the host state or from
a doctrine such as the Bush administration’s – which essentially declares the entire world a potential combat theater in a "Global War on
Terror." While strikes outside an active war zone could arguably be justified, especially by the Bush-era claim of a global battlefield, there would
still be serious objections around targeted killings. The
revelation that Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen residing in
Yemen, had been added to the "hit list" raised even more legal concerns.74 Where Obama has made efforts to push
beyond those areas of change already enacted by the Bush administration, he has faced considerable opposition. The administration struggled
to defend its plans to put Khaled Shaikh Mohammed on civilian trial in New York, which it had cast as a key demonstration of its greater
commitment to the rule of law and, in Attorney General Eric Holder’s words, "a strong message, both to those who want to work with us and
those who seek to do us harm."75 Similarly, the administration took a great deal of (unjustified) political abuse for the Justice Department's
decision to treat the Christmas Day airplane bomber as a criminal with Miranda rights.76 On key issues, the administration has found itself
trapped by the legacy of the previous administration, and has found | 25 it harder to deliver on some of its key promises than expected. The
decisions made surrounding the creation of Guantanamo and the "Global War on Terror" formulation employed an architecture of entrenched
interests, legal rulings, Congressional authorities and institutional practices that defied easy change through directives from the top. The
bipartisan support that might have been expected given the real continuities between the two administrations has not materialized.
Administration officials bristle at the charge that they have failed to keep these promises given their considerable efforts to deliver in the face
of strong opposition. But at the same time, the failure is on a standard they themselves set through public promises invested with presidential
prestige. They also argue that quiet changes are taking place within the parameters of existing law: higher standards of evidence for National
Security Letters, more rigorous review processes, refraining from extraordinary rendition even while reserving the right to do so, better
treatment of Guantanamo detainees and so forth.77 The prisoner population at Guantanamo continues to shrink steadily as detainees are
slowly repatriated or transferred to other countries. At this point, the jury is very much out. If
the administration believes its
original arguments about the importance of the rule of law for creating a durable and legitimate
strategy, then it needs to act accordingly. The National Security Strategy reinforces the importance of these rule of law and civil
liberties issues, insisting that "we need durable legal approaches consistent with our identity and our values." The administration's
limited ability to live up to this self-proclaimed commitment to this point is arguably the single largest
hole in the current strategy.
Domestic surveillance undermines US human rights credibility- it creates a double
standard that violates the ICCPR
HRW Associated Press, 2014 "US: Surveillance Practices Violate Rights." Human Rights Watch.
Human Rights Watch, 12 Mar. 2014. Web. 7 July 2015.
Geneva) – The United Nations Human Rights Committee should conclude that US
electronic surveillance and intelligence
gathering violate fundamental civil and political rights, including the right to privacy. The United States will
appear before the committee on March 13 and 14, 2014, for a periodic review of its compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR), a core international human rights treaty that the US ratified in 1992. “The mass
communications
surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden demonstrates a shocking disregard by the US for the privacy
rights of both those inside the country and those abroad,” said Andrea Prasow, senior national security counsel
and advocate at Human Rights Watch. “The US review is the perfect time for the Human Rights Committee to make clear that mass
communications surveillance, whether against a country’s own citizens or another country’s, violates basic rights.” Documents released by
Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, have revealed several programs that systematically gather private information on
many millions of people worldwide without any particular justification. The committee should urge the US to acknowledge its extraterritorial
obligations to respect the right to privacy, under article 17 of the ICCPR, given the extraordinary US ability to intercept in bulk the electronic
communications of people who live around the world. In
December 2012 Human Rights Watch submitted to the
committee a detailed analysis of US violations of its obligations under the ICCPR, which protects various
basic human rights, including the rights to a fair trial, to be free from torture, and to freedom of expression and
association. On February 14, 2014, Human Rights Watch filed a supplemental submission specifically on
surveillance practices, jointly with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. In its submissions, Human Rights Watch noted that the US
has taken some positive steps toward compliance with the ICCPR, including formally banning torture, taking measures
to address rampant prison rape, and making progress in protecting the rights of women and of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.
Several US states have abolished the death penalty in recent years, and the US government has made efforts to address disproportionate
sentencing in some areas. However,
the US engages in many practices that fail to respect human rights under
the ICCPR, as listed below. The US has failed to fully repudiate abusive counterterrorism policies developed after September 11, 2001. The
US government holds detainees indefinitely without charge at Guantanamo Bay, in violation of its obligations to extend the protections of the
ICCPR to people under its control but outside US territory. The US also prosecutes detainees before fundamentally flawed military commissions
at Guantanamo that do not comply with due process rights, and is blocking accountability for torture and other ill-treatment of terrorism
suspects. Targeted killings, including by aerial drones, conducted outside of an armed conflict may violate the right to life under article 6 of the
ICCPR. The US government refuses to acknowledge unlawful deaths, conduct appropriate investigations, or provide compensation when
warranted. The US fails to protect children by treating many as adults in the criminal justice system. Almost every US state allows officials to try
children as adults, and 15 states make it mandatory in some circumstances. An estimated 250,000 children are prosecuted as adults every year
for crimes ranging from shoplifting to homicide. While articles 10 and 14 of the ICCPR provide thatgovernments should take into account a
child’s age in all criminal proceedings, the US included a reservation when it adopted the ICCPR, asserting the right to try and sentence children
as adults in “exceptional circumstances.” This exception has been vastly overused to the detriment of the country’s children and broader
society. The US supports arbitrary and excessive sentencing and detention policies that do not take into account a person's individual
circumstances. The expansion of mandatory minimum sentences, especially for drug offenses, has caused the US prison population to skyrocket
in recent decades. Mandatory minimum laws often result in arbitrary sentences, since they eliminate judicial discretion and consideration of an
offender's individual circumstances. Immigration detention has also grown, driven by misguided mandatory detention laws that fail to consider
an offender's individual circumstances. In a landmark ruling, the US Supreme Court eliminated the sentence of life without parole in certain
cases involving youth offenders, and the federal government has passed legislation to reduce excessively harsh and racially disparate drug
sentencing for crack cocaine-related offenses. These sentencing reforms often do not apply retroactively, though, leaving many prisoners
serving what the US now recognizes to be unfair sentences. The US ignores the consequences of discriminatory state and federal laws, policies,
and practices. Profound racial disparities cut across the criminal justice system in the US, where racial and ethnic minorities have long been
disproportionately represented. Whites, African Americans, and Latinos have comparable rates of drug use but are arrested, prosecuted, and
incarcerated for drug offenses at vastly different rates. For example, African Americans are arrested for drug offenses, including possession, at
three times the rate of whites. The committee should press the US to act swiftly to bring its policies and practices in line with the prohibition
against discrimination in articles 2 and 26 of the ICCPR. “The
US holds itself out as a leader on civil and political rights,
but its record is rife with failings and contradictions,” Prasow said. “The US still has a long way to go
before its practice meets its rhetoric.”
U.S domestic surveillance violates international human rights doctrine- right to
privacy, interception of communications and collection of personal data
Sankin, 2015 Sankin, Aaron. "U.N. Report Slams NSA Surveillance for Potential Human Rights
Violations." The Daily Dot. The Daily Dot, 26 Jan. 2015. Web. 7 July 2015
A top United Nations human rights official released a report Wednesday that blasts the United States’ mass
surveillance programs for potentially violating human rights on a worldwide scale. U.N. High Commissioner
for Human Rights Navi Pillay said the surveillance activities of the National Security Agency (NSA) likely violate
international law, as well as the human rights of the individuals being surveilled, as defined under article
12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees individuals the right to avoid being subjected arbitrary or
unlawful violations of privacy. ‟Digital communications are vulnerable to electronic surveillance and interception—and it has become evident
that new technologies are being developed covertly to facilitate these practices, with chilling efficiency,” Pillay said during a press conference
on Wednesday announcing the report’s publication. Pillay added: ‟International
human rights law provides a clear and
universal framework for the promotion and protection of the right to privacy, including in the context of
domestic and extraterritorial surveillance, the interception of digital communications and the collection of
personal data. Practices in many [s]tates have, however, revealed a lack of adequate national legislation and/or enforcement, weak
procedural safeguards, and ineffective oversight. All of these have contributed to a lack of accountability for arbitrary or unlawful interference
in the right to privacy.” Pillay also praised whistleblower Edward Snowden, who is wanted on espionage charges in the United States and is
currently residing in Russia under the protection of assylum. "Those who disclose human rights violations should be protected, we need them,"
she said. "I see some of it here in the case of Snowden, because his revelations go to the core of what we are saying about the need for
transparency, the need for consultation. “We owe a great deal to him for revealing this kind of information," she added. Pillay’s report, entitled
"The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age," begins by noting that, just as people are increasing the size of the footprint they leave online, the
declining cost of technology and data storage has eliminated many of the roadblocks that previously stood in the way of governments from
collecting as much of that information as possible The 16-page report singled out programs run by the intelligence agencies of the U.S. and the
U.K. brought to light as a result of documents leaked by Snowden, a former NSA contractor: ‟When conducted in compliance with the law,
including international human rights law, surveillance of electronic communications data can be a necessary and effective measure for
legitimate law enforcement or intelligence purposes. Revelations about digital mass surveillance have, however, raised questions around the
extent to which such measures are consistent with international legal standards and whether stronger surveillance safeguards are needed to
protect against violations of human rights.” The report argues that the practice of requiring private firms, like telephone or Internet service
providers, to store metadata—such as the date and time a phone call is made or the addresses on either side of an email exchange—about
their customers’ communications governments can obtain it ‟appears neither necessary nor proportionate.” As part of a set of reforms to NSA
practices announced by President Obama late last year, there’s been a push to move the holding of phone metadata out from direct
government control and into the hands of the phone companies, which would then provide information to government officials in response to
specific queries. The
report went on to counter a common argument made in favor of U.S. mass surveillance
programs: that the majority of the information collected is in the form ofmetadata rather than the
actual content of a given conversation. ‟From the perspective of the right to privacy, this distinction is
not persuasive,” the report reads. ‟The aggregation of information commonly referred to as ‛metadata’
may give an insight into an individual’s behavior, social relationships, private preferences and identity
that go beyond even that conveyed by accessing the content of a private communication.” The 2008 FISA
Amendments Act allows U.S. intelligence agencies to to monitor the phone and electronic communications of anyone inside the country,
including U.S. citizens, without obtaining a warrant if one of the parties in the communication is located outside of the country. However, the
report notes, this may violate the Human Rights Committee’s prohibition on any nation “taking action outside its territory that it would be
prohibited from taking ‛at home.’” Human rights groups that have long been critical of the post-9/11 intelligence gathering practices in the U.S.
and U.K. were quick to trumpet the report’s conclusions. “Secret
government surveillance, especially mass surveillance,
is a serious human rights issue worldwide,” Sarah St. Vincent, a human rights lawyer with the Center for Democracy & Technology,
which is promoting the study, said in a statement. ‟The U.N.’s report could not be more frank in naming and criticizing many of today’s most
persistent and intrusive surveillance practices– including those of the U.S. government.” The report was created as a result of a U.N. resolution,
co-sponsored by 57 member states and approved by the U.N. General Assembly last December, which charges ‟that unlawful or arbitrary
surveillance and/or interception of communications, as well as unlawful or arbitrary collection of personal data, as highly intrusive acts, violate
the rights to privacy and to freedom of expression and may contradict the tenets of a democratic society.” While noting that the safety
concerns of member states could justify the collection of ‟certain sensitive information,” the resolution warned that the improper collection
and storage of that information could result in violations of international human rights law. One of the resolution’s co-sponsors was Germany, a
country whose leadership has reacted with public disdain to reports that U.S. intelligence services spied on Chancellor Angela Merkel. In an
recent interview, one top German official said some of the country’s leaders are seriously considering going back to typewriters to ensure that
their most sensitive communications are kept private from American spies.
The Unites States credibility is plummeting –surveillance policies undermine international
human rights regime
HRW ‘14 [Human Rights Watch, 3/13/14, IFEX, “U.S. surveillance practices violate human rights”]
Accessed Online: 6/29/15
https://www.ifex.org/united_states/2014/03/13/us_surveillance_practices/
The United Nations Human Rights Committee should conclude that US electronic surveillance and
intelligence gathering violate fundamental civil and political rights, including the right to privacy, Human
Rights Watch said today (March 13, 2014). The United States will appear before the committee on March 13 and 14, 2014, for a periodic
review of its compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a core international human rights treaty that the
US ratified in 1992. “The mass
communications surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden demonstrates a
shocking disregard by the US for the privacy rights of both those inside the country and those abroad,”
said Andrea Prasow, senior national security counsel and advocate at Human Rights Watch. “The US review is the perfect time for the Human
Rights Committee to make clear that mass communications surveillance, whether against a country's own citizens or another country's, violates
basic rights.” Documents released by Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, have revealed several programs that
systematically gather private information on many millions of people worldwide without any particular justification. The
committee
should urge the US to acknowledge its extraterritorial obligations to respect the right to privacy, under
article 17 of the ICCPR, given the extraordinary US ability to intercept in bulk the electronic
communications of people who live around the world, Human Rights Watch said. In December 2012 Human Rights Watch
submitted to the committee a detailed analysis of US violations of its obligations under the ICCPR, which protects various basic human rights,
including the rights to a fair trial, to be free from torture, and to freedom of expression and association. On February 14, 2014, Human Rights
Watch filed a supplemental submission specifically on surveillance practices, jointly with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. In its submissions,
Human Rights Watch noted that the US has taken some positive steps toward compliance with the ICCPR, including formally banning torture,
taking measures to address rampant prison rape, and making progress in protecting the rights of women and of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender people. Several US states have abolished the death penalty in recent years, and the US government has made efforts to address
disproportionate sentencing in some areas. However, the US engages in many practices that fail to respect human rights under the ICCPR, as
listed below. The
US has failed to fully repudiate abusive counterterrorism policies developed after
September 11, 2001. The US government holds detainees indefinitely without charge at Guantanamo Bay, in
violation of its obligations to extend the protections of the ICCPR to people under its control but outside
US territory. The US also prosecutes detainees before fundamentally flawed military commissions at Guantanamo
that do not comply with due process rights, and is blocking accountability for torture and other illtreatment of terrorism suspects. Targeted killings, including by aerial drones, conducted outside of an
armed conflict may violate the right to life under article 6 of the ICCPR. The US government refuses to acknowledge
unlawful deaths, conduct appropriate investigations, or provide compensation when warranted. The US fails to protect children by treating
many as adults in the criminal justice system. Almost
every US state allows officials to try children as adults, and 15
states make it mandatory in some circumstances. An estimated 250,000 children are prosecuted as
adults every year for crimes ranging from shoplifting to homicide. While articles 10 and 14 of the ICCPR
provide that governments should take into account a child's age in all criminal proceedings, the US
included a reservation when it adopted the ICCPR, asserting the right to try and sentence children as adults in
“exceptional circumstances.” This exception has been vastly overused to the detriment of the country's
children and broader society, Human Rights Watch said. The US supports arbitrary and excessive sentencing and
detention policies that do not take into account a person's individual circumstances. The expansion of mandatory
minimum sentences, especially for drug offenses, has caused the US prison population to skyrocket in recent decades. Mandatory minimum
laws often result in arbitrary sentences, since they eliminate judicial discretion and consideration of an offender's individual circumstances.
Immigration detention has also grown, driven by misguided mandatory detention laws that fail to
consider an offender's individual circumstances. In a landmark ruling, the US Supreme Court eliminated the sentence of life
without parole in certain cases involving youth offenders, and the federal government has passed legislation to reduce excessively harsh and
racially disparate drug sentencing for crack cocaine-related offenses. These sentencing reforms often do not apply retroactively, though, leaving
many prisoners serving what the US now recognizes to be unfair sentences, Human Rights Watch said. The US ignores
the
consequences of discriminatory state and federal laws, policies, and practices. Profound racial disparities cut across the criminal
justice system in the US, where racial and ethnic minorities have long been disproportionately represented. Whites, African
Americans, and Latinos have comparable rates of drug use but are arrested, prosecuted, and
incarcerated for drug offenses at vastly different rates. For example, African Americans are arrested for drug offenses,
including possession, at three times the rate of whites. The committee should press the US to act swiftly to bring its
policies and practices in line with the prohibition against discrimination in articles 2 and 26 of the ICCPR.
“The US holds itself out as a leader on civil and political rights, but its record is rife with failings and
contradictions,” Prasow said. “The US still has a long way to go before its practice meets its rhetoric.”
Link- War on Terror
The war on terror policies undermine US credibility, the plan fixes those policies and
restores credibility internationally
Tolbert in 2013(David is the President of ICTJ; “United States Must Ensure Accountability for “War on Terror”
Abuses” Published: 4/29/2013 Accessed: 7/7/15; https://www.ictj.org/news/united-states-must-ensureaccountability-%E2%80%9Cwar-terror%E2%80%9D-abuses)
The Constitution Project’s bipartisan Task Force on Detainee Treatment has found that the United States
government engaged in the widespread use of torture against suspects detained during the “War on
Terror.” Its 577-page report documents widespread abuses against detainees, including prolonged,
arbitrary detention; physical and sexual abuse; enforced disappearance by way of secret transfer to
undisclosed locations (“extraordinary rendition”); and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or
torture. The independent panel of distinguished legal and security experts, former members of Congress, academics, and diplomats
concluded that there had never before been “the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after September 11, directly
involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our
custody.” And yet, “despite this extraordinary aspect, the Obama
administration declined, as a matter of policy, to
undertake or commission an official study of what happened, saying it was unproductive to ‘look
backwards’ rather than forward.” This posture, if maintained, runs contrary to the US government’s
repeated assertions of its commitment to human rights as well as its obligations under law, including as
a signatory of the United Nations Convention against Torture. To regain its credibility in the eyes of the
world, the government must take steps to acknowledge and address past violations and provide redress
to victims of US-sanctioned abuses. This is the minimum that international law demands. Decades of
American discourse in support of human rights ring hollow in the silence of US inaction on these abuses.
The International Center for Transitional justice, through its Accountability Project, and other human rights groups have consistently advocated
for an official inquiry into allegations of US-sanctioned torture. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, of Vermont, proposed the establishment of a truth
commission to examine allegations of detainee abuse following the September 11 attacks as far back as February 2009; but Congress,
shamefully, has failed to act. Moreover, no senior figure has been brought to the bar of justice for acts in violation of international and national
law. While the commendable Constitution Project’s report has shone a light on serious and credible evidence of abuses, it is no substitute for
government action to get to the truth, hold perpetrators accountable, and provide redress to victims. ICTJ’s global experience, including in the
United States, points to the necessity of addressing legacies of serious human rights abuses. A society that prides itself on respecting the rule of
law cannot look the other way when abuses are sanctioned in its midst. The rule of law cannot be applied a la carte, with governments picking
and choosing when the law should or should not be applied, and to whom. “Closing the door” on serious crimes such as torture and arbitrary
detention is an illusion. Americans have learned this the hard way; one need only think of Japanese internment during World War II, and the
long delayed apology and compensation. It is a lesson not to be forgotten. Many
other countries have actively addressed
their history of government use of torture and other serious crimes, while solidifying, rather than
sacrificing, a commitment to democratic and human rights values. Those countries initially faced
arguments against accountability similar to those now made in the United States: that the facts were
known, that actions were justified, that looking into abuses would be politically divisive, and that the
focus should be on moving forward. Yet, transformative leaders in places as diverse as Latin America,
South Africa, and Eastern Europe have realized that change would not be possible without first looking
back and taking steps toward accountability. In many instances, these countries did so with the encouragement and support of
the United States. There is indeed a moral imperative to get to the bottom of this dark chapter in American history, both for the government
and the American people. The U.S. government has a duty to take a fresh look at creating a truth commission that could provide a
comprehensive view of the policies and practices behind abuses and the connections across institutions, as well as the human and political
consequences of policies and actions. This is all the more important in view of the fact that the Constitution Project’s Task Force did not have
access to classified records and that the Senate Intelligence Committee’s separate report on the CIA remains classified. "The U.S. Department of
Justice now has sufficient information to warrant a criminal investigation of those who commissioned and approved policies that resulted in
torture and illegal treatment of detainees." In addition to investigating and determining the facts and holding the architects of these abuses to
account, international law, including the Torture Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights require its adherents,
including the United States to provide redress to the victims of such serious rights violations. The United States has publicly lauded the rule of
law as it applies to other countries and offered significant financial and political support to torture victims of foreign regimes; yet it has failed to
acknowledge or address its obligation to victims of its own detention policies, particularly those who have never had charges brought against
them and who have been thus detained for lengthy periods of time. So far, claims for redress and reparations have largely run into a variety of
procedural and legal roadblocks. This is neither consistent with US law nor US obligations under international law. The Constitution Project’s
Task Force Panel asserts that a thorough understanding of what happened and the willingness to acknowledge wrongdoings will “strengthen
the nation, and equips us to better cope with the next crisis and ones after that. Moving on without such a reckoning weakens our ability to
claim our place as an exemplary practitioner of the rule of law.” The ICTJ and the entire human rights community can do little more than to
echo this message. If the US wants to be able to support human rights in other countries, it must first clean its own backyard. We have waited
too long to learn the unvarnished truth of this unsavory period of American history. It is past time for the US Government to make good on its
obligation to establish the truth, provide accountability, and redress victims. The good work of the Constitution Project’s Task Force, which calls
for “public acknowledgement of this grave error” provides just such an opening, and it is an opportunity that must not be missed.
Mass Surveillance undermines the United States HR credibility
HRW in 2013 (Human rights watch is a nonprofit, nongovernmental human rights organization, staff consists
of human rights professionals; “US: Urgent Need for Surveillance Reforms” Published: JUNE 11, 2013 Accessed:
7/7/15; http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/11/us-urgent-need-surveillance-reforms)
(New York) – Recent revelations about
the scope of US national security surveillance highlight how dramatic increases in
practices that impinge on privacy
in ways unimaginable just a few years ago. There is an urgent need for the US Congress to reevaluate and
rewrite surveillance laws in light of those technological developments and put in place better safeguards against
security agency overreach. A string of media reports describing secret US surveillance programs underscore
the degree to which laws originally designed to track phone records relating to criminal investigations
have been expanded to authorize the collection of vast quantities of new forms of data that intrude
much more deeply into the private lives of both citizens and non-citizens. “Existing laws do not seem to have kept
private digital communications and government computing power are fueling surveillance
up with the threat to privacy and other rights posed by the government’s relatively new capacity to collect and analyze quickly vast quantities
of personal information,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director at Human Rights Watch. “Because oversight
is secret and
inspires little confidence, there is every reason to fear that the scope of surveillance extends far beyond
what can be justified by the government’s legitimate interest in addressing terrorist or other security
threats.” A report in The Guardian says intelligence agencies are collecting information from phone
companies relating to the calls of millions of people, under orders granted in secret proceedings by the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. The leaked order requires Verizon Business Services, under Section 215 of the Patriot Act,
to produce information related to all telephone calls in its systems, both within the United States and between the US and other countries. The
order is valid for three months but appears to be regularly renewed. The information sought is “metadata,” which includes the numbers of both
parties to a call, their locations, the time and duration of the calls, and other identifying information. The contents of conversations are not
covered, but the government has an ever increasing capacity to analyze metadata to show the caller’s likely identity, social networks, and other
patterns or behavior the government may want to target. The
Wall Street Journal has reported that the National Security
Agency (NSA) is also collecting records from AT&T and Sprint, Internet service providers, and information about
credit card transactions. The government’s rapidly growing capacity to cross-reference and analyze this data enables it to paint a stunningly
complete picture of the life of almost anyone whose data it picks up. An
article in the Washington Post describes another
program under which US Internet companies, including Google, Facebook, and Microsoft, are compelled
through secret FISA court orders to facilitate collection of user data and monitoring of communications
by US government agencies. Training slides released by the Washington Post indicate that agencies can obtain a range information
through the program, including emails, voice chat, photos, and social networking details, from a number of major Internet companies.
Subsequent media reports and responses from Internet companies have called into question the exact mechanism that companies are using to
facilitate access to information. However, official statements issued June 6 and 8 from the director of national intelligence, James Clapper,
confirmed that Internet surveillance activities were being conducted under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. Given the secrecy
involved, it is not clear whether these court orders permit vacuuming up data on the same magnitude as the Verizon order. Companies that
receive orders under FISA and the Patriot Act are generally prohibited from disclosing the existence of these orders. The decisions and
authorizations of the FISA court are also secret and congressional oversight operates through highly classified and restrictive briefings that
prevent broad discussion. Human
Rights Watch is deeply troubled by the apparent lack of any consideration by
the US government for the privacy rights of non-US citizens. The US Constitution may have been
interpreted to grant privacy rights only to US citizens or people in the United States, but international
human rights law recognizes that everyone is entitled to respect for their privacy. With so many electronic
communications traveling through the United States, the lack of any regard for the privacy rights of non-US citizens
raises very troubling concerns. “The United States wants to be the Internet capital of the world, but it
undermines that status by giving no regard to the privacy rights of anyone who is not a US citizen or
physically in the United States,” Roth said. Congress should reassess whether FISA and the Patriot Act allow the government too
much latitude to engage in unjustifiably broad and arbitrary surveillance, Human Rights Watch said. Given concern about the vigor of
congressional oversight, Human Rights Watch urged the creation of an independent panel with subpoena power and all necessary security
clearances to examine current practices and to make recommendations to ensure appropriate protections for rights to privacy, free expression,
and association. The administration should also come forward to the public on the scope and specific controls on its various data surveillance
programs. Human Rights Watch also expressed concern about the precedent these programs might set globally because they could give other
governments a rationale for adopting widespread and arbitrary surveillance of phone and Internet activity. “The
US government’s
credibility as an advocate for Internet freedom is at serious risk unless it ensures that privacy is
protected along with security and acts with much greater transparency,” said Roth. “There is a real danger that
other governments will see US practice as a green light for their own secret surveillance programs. That should be chilling to anyone who goes
online or uses a phone.”
Link- Double Standards
The aff is a key first step in the US ramping up human rights pressure on Russia and
China- US hypocrisy prevents vocal challenges from having effect now
Kenneth Roth in 2009 Kenneth Roth is executive director of Human Rights Watch, Graduate of Yale
Law School and Brown University, “Taking Back the Initiative from the Human Rights Spoilers,” pg online
@ http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2009/taking-back-initiative-human-rights-spoilers
Shifts in global power have emboldened spoiler governments in international forums to challenge human rights
as a "Western" or "imperialist" imposition. The force of China's authoritarian example and the oil-fueled muscle of Russia
have made it easier to reject human rights principles. The moral standing of a country like South Africa by virtue of its own
dark past means that its challenge to the international human rights agenda is influential. Nevertheless, governments that care about
human rights worldwide retain enough clout to build a broad coalition to fight repression-if they are willing to use it.
Instead, these governments have largely abandoned the field. Succumbing to competing interests and credibility
problems of their own making, they have let themselves be outmaneuvered and sidelined in UN venues such as the
Security Council and the Human Rights Council, and in the policy debates that shape multilateral diplomacy toward Burma, Darfur, Sri Lanka,
Zimbabwe, and other trouble spots. For
the United States, that withdrawal is the logical consequence of the Bush
administration's decision to combat terrorism without regard to the basic rights not to be subjected to torture,
"disappearance," or detention without trial. Against that backdrop, Washington's periodic efforts to discuss rights have
been undercut by justifiable accusations of hypocrisy. Reversing that ugly record must be a first
priority for the new administration of Barack Obama if the US government is to assume a credible leadership role
on human rights. Washington's frequent abdication has often forced the European Union to act on its own. Sometimes it has done so
admirably, such as after the Russia-Georgia conflict, when its deployment of monitors eased tensions and helped protect civilians, or in eastern
Chad, where it sent 3,300 troops as part of a UN civilian protection mission. But the EU did a poor job of projecting its influence more broadly,
to places like Burma, Somalia, or the Democratic Republic of Congo. It often sought to avoid the political fallout of doing nothing by hiding
behind a cumbersome EU decision-making process that favors inaction. Moreover, its frequent reluctance to stand up to -the Bush
administration in protest against abusive counterterrorism policies opened the EU to charges of double standards that poisoned the global
debate on human rights and made it easier for spoilers to prevail. The US and the EU are not the only ones promoting human rights abroad.
Increasingly, some governments in Latin America, Africa, and Asia can be looked to for support on international rights initiatives. Those that
stand out include Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Uruguay in Latin America, and Botswana, Ghana, Liberia, and Zambia in Africa. In
Asia, Japan and South Korea tend to be sympathetic to rights but are generally reluctant to take strong public positions. Yet
forced to act
without the firm and consistent backing of the major Western democracies, these important voices are
rarely able to mount on their own a major international diplomatic effort to address serious human
rights abuses. Even the best-intentioned middle-sized powers cannot forge a solution to the world's most repressive situations without the
partnership of the larger Western powers that still dominate the United Nations, have large and active diplomatic corps, and can deploy
substantial military and economic resources. So by default, those often setting the human rights agenda in international forums are opponents
of human rights enforcement-governments of nations such as Algeria, China, Egypt, India, Pakistan, and Russia. They want to return to an era
when the defense of human rights was left to the discretion of each government, and violations carried little international cost. To resist that
aspiration will take a determination that too often has been lacking. First, because
the most effective human rights advocacy
is by example, governments hoping to defend human rights elsewhere must commit themselves to respect those
rights in their own conduct. As described in more detail below, that means, in the counterterrorism realm, a definitive end to such
abuses as the use of torture and other coercive interrogation techniques, the "disappearance" of suspects in secret detention facilities, and the
long-term detention of suspects without trial-as well as a willingness to speak out immediately if any government, including a close ally,
resumes these practices. It also means addressing such persistent abuses as racism in the criminal justice system, mistreatment of migrants, or
use of the death penalty. Second, as in the case of any serious human rights violation, offenders must be held to account. For example, only by
investigating, acknowledging, and repudiating the wrongdoing that has occurred, prosecuting serious crimes, and taking remedial steps to
ensure that these abuses never recur, will Washington begin to build credibility as a government that practices what it preaches in the human
rights realm. Third, serious efforts must be undertaken to build a broad global coalition in support of human rights. In the case of the United
States, it should seek to rejoin multilateral institutions such as the UN Human Rights Council and ratify key treaties such as those on women's
and children's rights, enforced disappearances, cluster munitions, and antipersonnel landmines. It should adopt a policy of embracing the rule
of law by re-signing the International Criminal Court treaty, actively supporting the court, and initiating a process for ultimate ratification. And it
should actively support-politically, financially, and militarily-multilateral efforts to protect civilians from mass atrocities. In the case of both the
European Union and the United States, vigorous efforts should be made to reach out to governments of the global South, especially those that
largely respect human rights at home but continue to resist the defense of human rights in their foreign policy. That requires addressing issues
of particular concern to Southern governments, such as economic and social rights, racism, and the rights of migrants. It also requires avoiding
double standards and remaining open to dialogue and appropriate political compromise. Governments of the global South, in turn, must
reconsider their reflexive stand shoulder to shoulder with the oppressors of the world rather than their victims. This misguided solidarity is
particularly disappointing in the case of governments such as India and South Africa, which today are democracies that on balance respect the
rights of their own people but pursue a foreign policy suggesting that others do not deserve similar rights. Bloc solidarity should not become a
substitute for embracing the more fundamental values of human rights. Finally, the
new Obama administration must abandon
the Bush administration's policy of hyper-sovereignty. It is music to the ears of the governments of
China, Russia, and India to hear Washington deflect human rights criticism on sovereignty grounds.
That approach effectively pushes back the clock to an era before the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the many legal and institutional mechanisms it has spawned. A radical reappraisal of US policy is urgently needed. President
Obama has promised such changes, and none too soon. The test will be whether he can resist pressures
to sustain the Bush-led status quo.
Ending US double standards is the most important component of a renewed human
rights promotion strategy
The Atlantic 2013, Can the U.S. Help Advance Human Rights in China?,
http://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/06/can-the-us-help-advance-human-rights-inchina/276841/
But such
progress comes at a high price, especially for activists, and the question that U.S. policy makers face is
whether the U.S. should stand by Chinese people who are pushing their government to pay more
respect to fundamental rights and freedoms, or whether it should ignore them. It seems to me, irrespective of the
issue of moral imperatives, that it is clearly in the U.S. national interest that China inches towards a more open and less repressive system of
government than it has at present. The other approach, a form of engagement that mutes human rights, clearly has failed to yield any results in
the past two and a half decades. While this approach styled itself as being "realist" (as opposed to the supposed "idealism" of human rights
proponents) it is fairly clear today that the actual realists were those who predicted that such a low level of human rights engagement would
yield nothing and even encourage the Chinese government in its repressive ways. The
keys to effective promotion of the
human rights agenda in the U.S.-China relationship are relatively straightforward: First, what is most
important is for the United States to set the best possible example. The past few years have been
problematic in this respect, with issues ranging from the legality of the Iraq war to Abu Ghraib to the
C.I.A. renditions.
Link- Constitutionality
Human Right Credentials are increased through Constitutionality
John Shattuck 2008
(https://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol35_2008/human_rights_fall2008/hr_fall08_sha
ttuck.html ‘Restoring U.S. Credibility on Human Rights’)
First, you should make it clear that one of our country’s bedrock principles is the international rule of law. Human
rights are de-fined
and protected by the Constitution and international treaties ratified and incorporated into our domestic
law. In flaunting basic rules—such as habeas corpus, the Convention against Torture, and the Geneva Conventions—the previous
administration created a series of “law-free zones.” Within these zones, detainees were abused, thousands were held indefinitely without
charges, and human rights were trampled. Second, you should bring U.S. values and practices back into alignment. The United States in recent
years has lost credibility by charging others with the types of human rights violations that it has committed itself. In recent annual country
reports on human rights practices, the State Department has criticized other countries for engaging in torture, detention without trial,
warrantless electronic surveillance, and other abuses, even though the U.S. record in these areas also has been abysmal. Fortunately,
history shows that U.S. credibility on human rights can be restored when our government’s policies
reflect our na-tion’s values. A series of bipartisan initiatives during five recent presidencies––three Republican
and two Democratic––illustrates the point.
Link- Domestic Spillover
Increasing Human Rights at home is key to increase human rights abroad
Powell in 2008
(Catherine Powell; a fellow in the Women and Foreign Policy program at the Council on Foreign
Relations., “Human Rights at Home: A Domestic Policy Blueprint for the New Administration”,
ushrnetwork.org, American Constitution Society of Law and Policy 10/8, website, 7/8/15,
http://www.ushrnetwork.org/sites/ushrnetwork.org/files/acs_human_rights_at_home.pdf)
As a new Administration takes office in January 2009, it will have an opportunity to reaffirm and strengthen the
longstanding commitment of the United States to human rights at home and abroad. This commitment is one that has been
expressed throughout U.S. history, by leaders from both parties. In reality, however, when the idea of human rights is
discussed in the United States today, more often than not the focus is on the promotion of human rights abroad and
not at home. Indeed, human rights has come to be seen as a purely international concern, even though it is fundamentally the
responsibility of each nation to guarantee basic rights for its own people, as a matter of domestic policy. Reaffirming and
implementing the U.S. commitment to human rights at home is critical for two reasons. First, human rights
principles are at the core of America‘s founding values, and Americans (as well as others within our borders or in U.S.
custody), no less than others around the world, are entitled to the full benefit of these basic guarantees. That can hardly be
open to debate. The second reason is perhaps less obvious, but equally compelling. When the United States fails to
practice at home what it preaches to others, it loses credibility and undermines its ability to play an
effective leadership role in the world. Leading through the power of our example rather than through
the example of our power 3 is particularly critical now, at a juncture when the United States needs to cultivate
international cooperation to address pressing issues – such as the current economic downturn – that have global dimensions. Perhaps
not surprisingly, then, an overwhelming majority of Americans strongly embrace the notion of human rights: that s, the idea that every person
has basic rights regardless of whether or not the government recognizes those rights. 4 This Blueprint therefore suggests ways in which the new
Administration can take concrete steps to ensure that human rights principles are considered and implemented within the process of U.S.
domestic policymaking. It does not address in any detail the substance of particular policies in areas such as equality, health care, or the
prohibition on torture; 5 rather, it identifies and evaluates mechanisms by which human rights principles can be integrated into policymaking in
all areas of U.S. domestic policy where they are relevant.
Internals
HR Cred Hurts US-China Relations
US pressure on Chinese human rights leads to disputes that undermine relations
Reuters, 2015 Reuters. "China Issues Report Attacking US Human Rights Record." The Guardian. The
Guardian, 26 June 2015. Web. 7 July 2015.
China accused the United States on Friday of being “haunted by spreading guns” and racial discrimination, in its
annual tit-for-tat rebuttal to US criticism of China’s human rights record. In a lengthy report carried by the
official Xinhua news agency, China’s State Council Information Office said the United States “violated human
rights in other countries in a more brazen manner, and was given more ‘red cards’ in the international
human rights field”. “The US was haunted by spreading guns and frequent occurrence of violent crimes,
which threatened citizens’ civil rights,” the report said. The China section of the annual US State
Department report on human rights conditions globally, released on Thursday, said that “repression and
coercion were routine” against activists, ethnic minorities and law firms that took on sensitive cases.
Human rights have long been a source of tension between the world’s two largest economies, especially
since 1989, when the US imposed sanctions on China after a bloody crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators around Beijing’s
Tiananmen Square. While senior leaders periodically promise China’s citizens democracy and human rights, the last two years under President
Xi Jinping’s administration have been marked by a sweeping crackdown on dissidents and activists. China has long rejected criticism of its rights’
record, saying providing food, clothing, housing and economic growth are far more relevant for developing countries, pointing to its success at
lifting millions out of poverty. The State Department report came in the same week that the United States and China held three days of highlevel talks in Washington DC. The
Chinese report, which was mostly compiled from US media articles, said “racial
discrimination has been a chronic problem in the US human rights record”, adding that the United States
suppressed the voting rights of minorities. It cited a USA Today report that said preliminary exit polls showed that voters of
African origins accounted for 12% in the 2014 midterm election, down from 13% in the 2012 presidential election. “In 2014, multiple cases of
arbitrary police killing of African Americans have sparked huge waves of protests, casting doubts on the racial ‘equality’ in the US and giving rise
to racial hatred factors,” the report said. The
report also criticised the US for conducting surveillance on world
leaders and civilians and for allowing a few interest groups to influence the government’s decisionmaking.
US human rights promotion to China undermines relations
Bodeen, 2011 Christopher. "China Media Says Human Rights Pressure from U.S. Will Fail." Northwest
Asian Weekly. Northwest Asian Weekly, 07 May 2011. Web. 08 July 2015
BEIJING (AP) — China will
never allow the United States to dictate political reforms and any American
pressure over human rights will torpedo talks on such issues, a Communist Party-run newspaper said last Thursday. The
defiant editorial in the Global Times appeared on the second day of an annual China–U.S. human rights dialogue that comes amid a major
Chinese crackdown on government critics. Talks
have yielded little progress in recent years and are expected to be
even more testy than usual this year. Many human rights advocates are questioning the value of such diplomatic exchanges. The
Global Times said China would not accept requests from the United States and claimed that most Chinese “were
disgusted” by outside pressure on human rights. “As China is a sovereign nation, there is zero possibility
of it allowing the United States to dictate its political development,” the editorial said. “If the United
States adopts exerting pressure as the starting point of its ‘dialogue’ with China, that will ensure that
there is no progress,” it said. The two sides traded frosty language ahead of the closed-door talks, with the United States saying it
would focus on the ongoing campaign against dissent, as well as on the rule of law, religious freedom, and labor and minority rights. China’s
Foreign Ministry warned it would reject what it regards as U.S. meddling. “We also are opposed to the
United States using human rights as a pretext for interfering in China’s internal affairs,” spokesman
Hong Lei said, at a regularly scheduled briefing Thursday. Often an occasion for testy exchanges in years past, the dialogue is being buffeted
by the broadest clampdown in years by China’s Communist government. Hundreds of people, including well-known lawyers and activists, have
been questioned, detained, confined to their homes, or have simply disappeared, apparently to squelch any chances of the kind of popular
uprisings roiling the Middle East and North Africa. On Thursday, police in the eastern province of Jiangsu released singer Zuoxiao Zuzhou and
sports writer Zhang Xiaodan, who had been detained after leading fans at a music festival in calls for the release of a prominent artist, Ai
Weiwei. Ai, an outspoken government critic, has been in detention since being seized at a Beijing airport on April 3. Zuoxiao and Zhang were
questioned for 12 hours before their release, media reports and the Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy
said. On Thursday, organizers announced they were canceling a three-day music festival this weekend in the Jiangsu city of Suzhou because of
unspecified electrical problems. Organizers of cultural events have also reported pressure from authorities. With China determined not to yield
to foreign pressure, rights groups and activists have called on Washington to show real results or perhaps consider abandoning the process.
Beijing defines human rights primarily in terms of improving living conditions for its 1.3 billion people and maintains strict controls over free
speech, religion, political activity, and independent social groups. However, the Global Times said China remains open to exchanges with the
West over dealing with new challenges arising from economic development. It said Beijing would not be forced to choose between rejecting
foreign experience and adopting Western norms wholesale. While conceding that the effects of Western pressure were not “entirely negative
to China,” it said progress on rights issues was purely a result of the adaptability of Chinese culture and the results of 30 years of explosive
economic growth. ♦
Critique of Chinese human rights leads to political backlash
Associated Press., 2015 "China Lashes out at U.S. Racial Bias, Police Abuses in Human Rights
Report." Chicagotribune.com. The Chicago Tribune, 26 June 2015. Web. 08 July 2015.
Racial discrimination and police abuses are rife in the United States, China's Cabinet said Friday, in a
report intended as a counterpoint to U.S. criticism of Beijing's own human rights record. The report issued by
the State Council Information Office cited the killing of black teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and other cases in which AfricanAmericans were shot and killed by white police officers. Oft
targeted on human rights, China hits back at U.S. gun
culture, racism Oft targeted on human rights, China hits back at U.S. gun culture, racism Such cases
"exposed the feature, gravity and complexity of human rights problems in the U.S.," the report said.
America's institutionalized racial discrimination continues to negatively impact law enforcement and the
judicial system, it said. "Police killings of African-Americans during law enforcement have practically become 'normal' in the U.S.," the
report said. Lu Kang, spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said at a daily briefing Friday
that Washington failed to conduct dialogues on human rights on the basis of mutual respects and
equality. "Therefore, we would like to make some comments about what happens in the U.S. as well, as the principle of fairness," Lu said.
"It may also be regarded as an equal action." Other issues cited in the report included domestic violence, wage discrimination,
poverty, homelessness, income inequality and human rights abuses by U.S. forces and government agents abroad. The report mainly used as
sources official U.S. government figures, media reports and data from the United Nations. China began issuing such accounts several years ago
in response to annual reports by the U.S. government on human rights concerns in China and other countries demanded by Congress. U.S.
reports generally focus on China's restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly, religious observation and political participation, mainly citing
information collected by its own diplomats and independent monitoring groups.
U.S pressure on Chinese human rights causes backlash- Chinese exceptionalism
Wyne, 2013 Wyne, Ali. "Some Thoughts on the Ethics of China's Rise." Carnegie Council. Carnegie
Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 14 Aug. 2013. Web. 8 July 2015.
Any commentary with a title such as this one should begin with a disclaimer: distilling a country of 1.34 billion people down to a construct
called "China" is presumptuous, verging on preposterous. Who best represents "the views of China?" Its government? Its dissidents? The
individuals who may be critical of government policies, but choose to go about their daily business rather than investing the time and energy to
express their criticisms?1 For simplicity's sake—and fully recognizing the folly of such reductionism—I will use "China" and "Chinese
government" interchangeably in this piece.2 While China has come a long way since the events of Tiananmen Square nearly a quarter-century
ago, its human rights record remains poor, as Amnesty International's latest country report on China or a visit to Human Rights in China's
website establishes. If, however, one adopts a more expansive conception of "ethics," there are important respects in which Chinese conduct is
more challenging to appraise. International Order In an influential September 2005 speech, then-U.S. deputy secretary of state Robert
Zoellick called on China to become "a responsible stakeholder": in that role, he explained, "China would be more than
just a member—it would work with us [the U.S.] to sustain the international system that has enabled its success." Uncontroversial as
this proposition may sound to Americans, it irks China, which had little role in shaping the postwar
order's norms and institutions. It properly expects the contours of international order to evolve as the center of geopolitical gravity
shifts towards the Asia-Pacific. On the other hand, one could argue that there is a limit to how much China should criticize a system that has
been indispensable to its trajectory since the late 1970s. Until it is strong enough to anchor an alternative one, it is unlikely to possess the
credibility to do more than mold the postwar order gradually. Deng Yuwen, up until recently the deputy editor of the Central Party School's
Study Times, suggests how difficult it would be to displace it: "If China wants to become a leader, and not just a follower of the international
system, it needs to provide the world with an acceptable and universal set of values and doctrines and refine its reform experience into values
and paradigms that can be reproduced and promoted throughout the world." Humanitarian Intervention One of the principles that China may
find difficult to universalize is noninterference. Against the backdrop of a civil war in Syria in which over 100,000 have already perished, it may
be seen as a convenient justification for inaction in the face of humanitarian crises. In the case of human rights abusers that provide China vital
commodities—pre-partition Sudan being the clearest example—it may actually be seen as a pretext for complicity. On the other hand, can
countries that promulgate "righteous" doctrines such as "the responsibility to protect" lay claim to considerably higher moral ground if they fail
to act on such doctrines in times of crisis? Sustainable Growth China's rise represents one of the most important postwar contributions to a
more decent world: it lifted more than 627 million people—roughly twice America's population—out of poverty between 1981 and 2005,
leading the World Bank to conclude in August 2008 that while "the developing world as a whole is on track to achieving the Millennium
Development Goal [MDG] of halving the 1990 poverty rate by 2015," "the developing world outside China is not on track to reaching the MDG
for poverty reduction" [emphasis in original]. The environmental degradation that has accompanied China's growth, however, will continue to
exact a steep toll for generations to come. As recently as the early 1990s, China was estimated to have more than 50,000 rivers; according to
the Ministry of Water Resources, there were fewer than 23,000 at the end of 2011. Or consider climate change. According to a recent opinion
piece in The New York Times: China's greenhouse gas emissions are . . . growing at 8 percent to 10 percent per year. Last year, China increased
its coal-fired generating capacity by 50 gigawatts, enough to power a city that uses seven times the energy of New York City. By 2020 . . . China
will emit greenhouse gases at four times the rate of the United States, and even if American emissions were to suddenly disappear tomorrow,
world emissions would be back at the same level within four years as a result of China's growth alone. Air pollution in Beijing is now so severe—
the atmospheric concentration of PM 2.5 particulate matter in China's capital city peaked in the first three months of this year—that some fear
it will prompt expatriates and their families to leave for cleaner pastures. And, as Thomas Thompson argues in "Choking on China," the
consequences of environmental degradation in China extend far beyond its borders. On the other hand, the range and ambition of China's
environmental initiatives are breathtaking. The Pew Research Center reports that it attracted $65.1 billion in clean energy investment last year,
30 percent of the total that the G-20 countries received collectively. According to a new report by Australia's Climate Commission, China is
expected to launch seven pilot carbon emissions trading schemes this year, covering 256 million people, and is expected to launch a nationwide
trading scheme in 2016. Between 2005 and 2012, its installed wind power capacity grew from 1,300 megawatts to 63,000, and its installed
photovoltaic capacity increased from 100 megawatts to 7,000. A Word on U.S. Policy While it is China's policies, by definition, that will have the
greatest impact on its rise, the United States can make important contributions to it. To give China more of a stake in preserving today's
international system, for example, it should identify nerve centers of the global commons that it can supervise jointly with China (given China's
growing dependence on energy imports, the maritime commons would be a good place to begin). Furthermore, it should share ideas and
technologies that could help China transition to a more sustainable, consumption-oriented growth model. The
more contentious
topic, of course, is the role that human rights should play in U.S.-China relations. While the United States
should neither hesitate to articulate its differences with China on issues of human rights, nor refrain from
encouraging those trends within China that are promoting greater citizen empowerment, it should not urge China to
democratize or condition its interactions with China on the leadership's acceptance of core American
values. A country that is not yet 250 years old should appreciate the possibility that a country several millennia old may have its own strain of
exceptionalism. Furthermore, attempts to democratize China could backfire. One of the foremost China watchers,
former prime minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew, declares that it will not "become a liberal democracy;
if it did, it would collapse." While the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is willing to experiment with
democratic reforms in "villages and small towns," he explains, it fears that large-scale democratization "would lead
to a loss of control by the center over the provinces, like [during] the warlord years of the 1920s and
'30s.3 Whatever challenges an increasingly capable and assertive China might pose, a weak China in the
throes of chaos would be even more problematic, especially now that its growth is vital to the health of the global economy. It is China's
ongoing integration into the international system and attendant exposure to information technology that hold the greatest promise for
improvements to its human rights climate. Since the late 1970s, the CCP has implicitly conditioned its delivery of rapid growth to the Chinese
people on their acquiescence to its rule. The problem is that citizens' priorities become more sophisticated as their day-to-day situations grow
less exigent. Those in dire poverty are quite likely to censor themselves in exchange for food, shelter, and other necessities. As they enter the
middle class, however, and become less preoccupied with the demands of survival, they naturally think more about critiquing government
policy. Within this transition lies a fundamental challenge for the CCP: the very bargain that it implemented to forestall challenges to its rule is
enabling greater numbers of Chinese to pose such challenges. There were only 20 million Internet users in China in 2000; today, there are more
than 560 million.4 Talk of "an Arab Spring" in China, however, remains premature. Freedom House director Jennifer Windsor notes that it has
"the most sophisticated internet censorship and surveillance apparatus in the world." In a recently published paper, Harvard's Gary King and
two of his colleagues illustrate its scope: To comply with the government, each individual [social media] site privately employs up to 1,000
censors. Additionally, approximately 20,000 – 50,000 Internet police (wang jing) and Internet monitors (wang guanban) as well as an estimated
250,000 – 300,000 "50 cent party members" (wumao dang) at all levels of government—central, provincial, and local—participate in this huge
effort. King et al. demonstrate that Chinese censors are focused less on curtailing criticism of government policy than they are on curtailing
expression that might mobilize collective action. Indeed, the CCP has partly been able to immunize itself from serious threats because it has
allowed criticism of its policies to flourish on the country's vibrant microblogging websites. With rare exceptions such as Bo Xilai, the former
mayor of Chongqing, it tends to punish local officials when citizens complain—whether about water contamination or police abuses. Chinese
political commentator Michael Anti observes that the "Chinese have a longtime myth that the emperor is good, all the thugs are local. So that
myth is important to keep the regime's legitimacy. I think Weibo justice is a showcase for the government to tell the people [that] the emperor .
. . is still good." It is unclear how much longer the CCP will be able to sustain its current form of governance. Lee predicts that technology will
make it "obsolete" by around 2030. Whether or not his forecast proves accurate, one hopes that China can continue to rise without
experiencing the sorts of convulsions that marred its history in the past century.
HR Cred Hurts US- Russia Relations
Russia perceives US human rights promotion as a direct tradeoff with their powerensures relations collapse
Kuchins ’11(Andrew Kuchins, 10/8/2011, “Reset expectations: Russian assessments of U.S. power”
http://valdaiclub.com/usa/29520.html)
The Russian perceptions of the United States and its role in the world provide a powerful lens not only
for framing how Russia conceives its foreign and security policies—far more broadly than U.S.- Russia
bilateral relations—but also for understanding deeply rooted notions of contemporary Russian identity
and even its domestic political system. For most of the second half of the twentieth century the United States and the Soviet
Union were locked in a competitive struggle for global power and hegemony, and each country viewed its adversary as the principal “other”
around which much of each country’s identity and foreign policy revolved. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a searing event for citizens of
Russia as well as the other newly sovereign states of the region, yet for most policymakers and elites in Moscow old habits of measuring
success or failure through a U.S.-centric prism have endured. Now,
nearly 20 years past the Soviet collapse, perceptions of
the United States probably remain more significant for Russia than for any other country in this study. As
in other countries in this study, the dominant paradigm for Russian government officials and political elite is
realism with probably a higher relative weight for the value of economic and military indices of power
and lower relative weight for factors of soft power. In the traditional Russian calculus (czarist, Soviet, and post-Soviet), it is
not the power of attraction that dominates; instead, it is the power of coercion, typically through intimidation or buying support—a very hardedged realism. When
Westerners emphasize values such as human rights and democracy, the default
Russian reaction is deep skepticism that their interlocutors, especially the Americans, are being
disingenuous. U.S. promotion of democracy, liberal capitalism, a rules-based system of global
governance, and the like is interpreted as a collection of ideological fig leaves designed to conceal the
naked U.S. ambition to expand its own power and influence abroad. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union nearly 20 years
ago, there has been a quite dynamic evolution in Moscow toward the role of U.S. power in the world. For a brief period that definitively
concluded with the defeat of Russian liberal reformist parties in the December 1993 parliamentary elections, the United States was
regarded as a model for Russian development, and key Russian government officials had high hopes for
a “new world order” that would be comanaged by Washington and Moscow, with Russia even playing the role of junior partner. The
defeat of the liberal reformers, caused principally by the economic crisis in the early 1990s, shifted Russian foreign policy
to more traditional realist concepts of asserting national interests and expanding power and influence.
Increasingly the U.S. liberal democratic model was viewed as, if not inappropriate for Russia, then at least needing to be introduced far more
gradually with Russian traditions and values. From 1993 to 2003, Russian foreign policy was dominated by great-power realists who were joined
by many liberals disappointed with reform and the West. The leading figure in the Russian realist camp was Yevgeny M. Primakov, who served
as foreign minister in the mid-to-late 1990s and briefly as prime minister after the August 1998 financial crisis. Primakov, both as a statesman
and as a straightforward realist in the world of international affairs, is most likened to Henry Kissinger in the United States. His signature
moment came in March 1999 when on a flight to Washington he learned of the U.S. launching of war against Serbia; he demanded that his
plane not land in the United States but turn back to Moscow. Primakov is pragmatic and nonideological, but his most significant time in Russian
politics came in the late 1990s when Russia’s power was at its weakest and U.S. unipolar dominance, arguably, at its peak. Like
many
other nations in the world, Russia sought means to balance or, more correctly, contain U.S. unipolar
hegemony. The United States was not viewed as malign, but as often misguided and overbearing. This
perspective on the United States endured almost through the first term of Vladimir Putin’s presidency. For the purposes of this exercise, it is
especially important to keep in mind the foreign policy conducted by Vladimir V. Putin during his first term as Russia’s president because it
sheds light on the current U.S.-Russian rapprochement and its potential path in the future. Putin is conventionally characterized as deeply
opposed to U.S. interests. For some, their analysis is based on his authoritarian centralization of power; in other words, dictatorial rulers are
inherently anti-American. For others, their analysis is based more on the rift in U.S.-Russian relations that was growing during Putin’s second
presidential term. In my view however, this characterization is flawed. It is conveniently forgotten that in
2001–2002 Putin pursued
his own version of a “reset” in U.S.-Russia relations, and his foreign policy orientation was at least as
amenable to U.S. interests as that of Dmitri A. Medvedev’s presidency today. Russia’s circumstances changed, but at least as
important, Moscow’s disappointment with the policies of the George W. Bush administration led to Putin’s
increasing willingness to oppose Washington on a number of issues. Russian public opinion grew more
negative on the role of the United States, but this was fairly consistent with the rest of the world,
including our NATO allies. The period from 2003 to 2008 marked another shift in Russian foreign policy and
Moscow’s perception of U.S. power capacity and intentions. Russia’s confidence about its own reemergence
strengthened as economic growth accelerated. The watershed moment came in 2006 when Moscow paid off its Paris Club debt early, and this
sense of financial sovereignty equated with a renewed emphasis on political sovereignty. Differences beginning in 2003 over the Yukos affair
and especially over the series of “color revolutions” in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan gave more sustenance to the argument that the United
States sought to weaken Russia and thwart Moscow’s interests in a comprehensive manner. Russian
foreign policy remained
embedded in a realist and pragmatic framework for the most part; the most significant change was the
perception that Russian power was growing while the U.S. “unipolar moment” was receding into history.
Putin’s position moved from being a centrist power balancer with Western inclinations to being more steeped in efforts to appeal to Russian
nationalism and more opposed to U.S. policy, especially in post-Soviet space. This phase concluded in the second half of 2008 with the near
concurrence of the Georgia War and the global financial crisis. Although the Georgia War was a shock, the global economic crisis has had a far
more deep impact on Russian leadership and elite perceptions on Russian interests in the ongoing changing balance of power in the world. In
short, Russian elites are more unsure about the capacity and durability of U.S. power but also less confident that the shifting global balance of
power in which China appears to be the principal beneficiary redounds to Moscow’s favor and thus how to respond to it. The almost knee-jerk
inclination of the Russian leadership to identify the United States as the primary global threat to Russian interests on issues such as NATO
expansion and missile defense has eroded. The policies of the Barack Obama administration have also helped to convince the Russian
leadership that the United States does not seek to weaken Russia and that the role of U.S. power in the world is not counter to Russian
interests.
Human rights are contentious component of US-Russian relations- future promotion
will worsen ties
Weitz in 2015 (Richard is a senior fellow and director of the Center for Political-Military Affairs at Hudson
Institute; “Nemtsov Killing Puts Human Rights in Spotlight of U.S.-Russia Tensions” Published: Tuesday, March 3,
2015 Accessed: 7/8/15; http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/15203/nemtsov-killing-puts-human-rightsin-spotlight-of-u-s-russia-tensions)
The assassination last week of Boris Nemtsov, a former Russian deputy prime minister and opposition
political leader, in downtown Moscow, just a stone’s throw from the Kremlin, presents a challenge for Washington. The
current tensions in U.S.-Russia relations over crises ranging from Ukraine to Syria make a successful
engagement with Moscow on human rights even more unlikely. Yet the U.S. must somehow find ways to support the
democratic vision for Russia advocated by Nemstov and other political and civil society activists. Nemstov’s murder is in some ways reminiscent
of 1990s-era Russia under then-President Boris Yeltsin. At the time, law and order had broken down on many levels, with an increase in
assassinations being one prominent illustration. Many of these murders involved business deals gone awry, as in the absence of a functioning
court system at the time, commercial disputes were routinely settled through coercion. Ironically perhaps, given the current state of rule of law
in Russia, President Vladimir Putin initially won popularity in part for cracking down on such violent crimes in Moscow and other major Russian
cities, as well as for boosting Russia’s economy and global status. If Putin’s human rights record has always been problematic, his post-2010
presidency has seen increased constraints on Russians’ freedom of expression, assembly and access to the media. Russian
authorities
regularly harass the political opposition and other independent civil society actors. The government has adopted
legislation to criminalize actions designed to “insult religious feelings” or that “promote lesbian, gay and transsexual values.” And a new law has
designated all Russian civil society activists receiving any foreign funding as “foreign agents,” even when
they pursue nonpolitical
goals like environmental protection. Putin’s policies have also become strongly anti-Western. He blames the
West for the current tensions between Russia on one side and Europe and the U.S. on the other, citing NATO’s membership enlargement; U.S.
military operations in Kosovo, Iraq and Libya without Moscow’s approval; and the U.S. decision to deploy strategic missile defenses close to
Russia as the causes of these tensions. But Putin’s nationalist stance also aims to enhance his authority at home by exploiting Russian
patriotism. Nemtsov challenged this agenda, advocating for a more democratic line at home and a less confrontational stance abroad, but his
assassination is still hard to explain. While Nemtsov was Putin’s main rival to become Russia’s second president in the late 1990s, Putin’s
policies have since deprived Nemtsov of popularity and other resources. U.S. President Barack Obama may be correct that, over time, Western
sanctions and other blows to the Russian economy will lead more Russians to demand a new course, but Nemtsov was hardly a political threat
to Putin at the time of his death. Meanwhile, the assassination will certainly further damage relations between Russia and the U.S., serving as a
reminder of the many journalists and other Kremlin critics who have met violent—and unexplained—demises under Putin. Moreover, Nemtsov
was a respected figure in Washington. Of note, he was the sole Russian to testify in a June 2013 Senate hearing on Russia’s deteriorating human
rights situation. Sen. John McCain presciently ended that session by warning Nemtsov, who had just explained why Putin had not imprisoned
him, about the potential personal costs of his anti-regime agitation. The
Obama administration tried during its first term to
compartmentalize the U.S.-Russia human rights dialogue and opposed linking its progress to
negotiations on other areas of greater mutual interest, such as Afghanistan and arms control. The
administration also limited the application of the 2012 Magnitsky Law, which sanctions Russian officials responsible for the death of Russian
lawyer Sergei Magnitsky and other gross human rights violations, by keeping the number of individuals on its target list small. But Russia’s
human rights problems exerted an increasingly unavoidable drag on relations. For example, Obama declined to attend the 2014 Olympic Games
in Sochi, a high-profile event for Putin, partly to protest Russian government policies toward gays and lesbians. For their part, Russian leaders
have attacked the United States for encouraging popular protests to overthrow Russia-friendly regimes in post-Soviet states like Georgia and
Ukraine, as well as in the Arab world. Fearing a similar approach in Russia itself, Russian officials launched a sustained campaign to curtail U.S.
government ties with Russian civil society, end cooperation between Russian and U.S. NGOs, and derail various academic exchange programs.
The Obama administration has sought to minimize ties with Russia’s political opposition to avoid making the
latter appear like a U.S.-sponsored fifth column that could justify countermeasures by the Russian government. Nonetheless, Russian
officials have attacked Russian democracy advocates as foreign stooges and denounced U.S.
interference in Russia’s internal affairs, while depicting U.S. efforts to support Russian civic activists as subversive interference
aimed at regime change. At the end of 2013, Putin briefly adopted a softer line on some human rights issues. For instance, he released some
high-profile prisoners, including the oligarch-turned-critic Mikhail Khodorkovsky and the punk rock band Pussy Riot. However, the war in
Ukraine has blocked further human rights dialogue between both governments. Further confrontations between
Russia and the
U.S. over human rights during the remainder of the Obama administration, and beyond, now seem
unavoidable. American values and domestic politics require some U.S. government support for
democracy and human rights in foreign countries, while the Russian political system will not evolve into
a genuine multiparty democracy as long as Putin remains president. In addition, the Kremlin has increasingly appealed
to conservative Russian values regarding sexual orientation and other issues, while Americans have become more tolerant regarding such
issues. In denouncing U.S. double standards on human rights and democracy issues, Russian officials correctly complain that Washington holds
Russia to a higher standard on these issues than it does with its Middle East and Persian Gulf allies or China. But influential Americans see
Russia as essentially a European country that would have evolved into a Western-style democracy, more open and attractive to Western
investors and other partners, were it not for Putin’s policies. The Obama administration should demand a complete and independent
investigation not only of those who shot Nemstov, but also those who orchestrated his killing. Washington also should send the U.S.
ambassador to Russia to Nemtsov’s funeral to underscore the event’s importance. In any eventual oration, the ambassador and other U.S.
officials would do well to remind listeners of Nemtsov’s positive vision of a liberal democratic Russia joined in partnership with the Western
world. Over the long term, the United States can promote Russia’s positive political evolution by resuming efforts to integrate Russians more
deeply into international institutions that uphold liberal democratic values. The current suspension of official bilateral contacts as well as
multinational engagement through the suspended NATO-Russia Council and the Group of Eight, though justified as a short-term response to
Russian aggression in Ukraine, is helping Putin build alternative multinational structures with China and other non-Western partners based on
authoritarian values. One can doubt that the Russian authorities will ever bring those who ordered Nemtsov’s killing to justice, but human
rights and democracy issues will certainly remain an enduring element of the U.S.-Russia relationship. The
challenge for Washington remains finding channels to engage Russian civil society while continuing to steadfastly oppose Putin’s creeping
authoritarianism at home and adventurism abroad.
Russia sees any instance of pressure exerted from the US as a threat to their domestic
policy and increasing US credibility directly trades off with Russian relations
Bugajski in 2013 (Janusz is a policy analyst, writer, lecturer, and television host based in the United States,
and the author of 18 books on Europe, Russia, and trans-Atlantic relations; Russia’s Soft Power Wars Published: 8
February, 2013 Accessed: 7/8/15; http://ukrainianweek.com/World/71849)
The stark contrast between Western and Russian understanding of “soft power” has become evident during President Vladimir Putin’s third
presidency. For
the Kremlin, “soft power” is part of its arsenal of foreign policy tools designed to reintegrate Russia’s neighbors around a Moscow orbit. Western “soft power” influences are therefore
viewed as a form of geostrategic competition that must be curtailed and eventually eliminated. As a result, in
recent months Moscow has mounted a campaign to sever links between Russian NGOs and Western institutions and is encouraging its
neighbors to do likewise. Simultaneously to its anti-Western offensive, Moscow
deploys its own “soft power” weaponry to
achieve specific regional integrationist ambitions. These have ranged from diplomatic offensives and informational warfare
to energy blackmail and the exploitation of ethnic disputes. President Putin is also injecting a new form of “soft power” pressure by pursuing
claims that Russian culture, language, history, and values should all predominate among the post-Soviet states. In
Moscow’s
calculations, Russia and the West are embroiled in a long-term competition over zones of dominance in
the wider Europe and in Central Asia, despite the fact that the US and its European allies have refused to acknowledge or legitimize such a
“great game.” Russia’s drive for its own sphere in a "multipolar" world contributes to retarding the formation of stable democratic states along
its borders. Governments in these countries turn to authoritarianism to maintain the integrity and stability of the state or simply to cling to
power. Such a process is invariably supported by Moscow as it contributes to disqualifying these countries from the process of Western
integration. Moscow
opposes any “encroachment” by outside powers in its self-proclaimed “privileged”
zone of interests or the further expansion of NATO, EU, and US influence. Russia views itself as a regional
integrator, expecting neighbors to coalesce around its leadership, rather than a country to be integrated
in multi-national institutions in which its own sovereignty is diminished. In this context, Russian “soft power” in all its
manifestations is understood as a means for supplementing Russia’s foreign policy objectives and enhancing regional integration under
Moscow’s tutelage. In marked contrast, the West’s “soft power” approach is intended to generate reform, internal stability, external security,
democratic development, and open markets to make targeted states compatible with Western systems and institutions. In the case of the EU,
the prospect of membership itself has been the primary “soft power” tool as it entices governments to meet the necessary legal, economic, and
regulatory standards to qualify for Union accession. However, EU or NATO membership remain voluntary and are not pressured by
inducements and threats, as is the case with Moscow-centered organizations. While the West promotes the pooling of sovereignty among
independent states, Russia pushes for the surrender of sovereignty within assorted “Eurasian” organizations. To advance its strategic goals, the
Kremlin needs to demonstrate that it is in competition with the West and that Washington and Brussels are seeking to impose their political
structures and value system on the gullible Eurasian countries. This is a classic form of psycho-political projection, with Russia’s leaders acting
as if Western objectives were similar to their own in undermining national independence and eliminating countervailing foreign influences.
Putin launched a blistering attack on Western “soft power” in an article in Moskovskiye Novosti (Moscow News) in February 2012. He claimed
that this weapon was being increasingly used as a means for achieving foreign policy goals without the use of force, but by exerting
informational and other levers of influence. According to Putin, Western "soft power" is deployed to “develop and provoke extremist,
separatist, and nationalistic attitudes, to manipulate the public and to conduct direct interference in the domestic policy of sovereign
countries.” Evidently, for the Kremlin, democratic pluralism is a form of extremism, national independence is a form of separatism, and state
sovereignty is a form of nationalism. Putin contends that there must be a clear division between “normal political activity” and “illegal
instruments of soft power." Hence, he engages in scathing attacks on "pseudo-NGOs" inside Russia and among the post-Soviet neighbors that
receive resources from Western governments and institutions, viewing this as a form of subversion. In reality, the Kremlin is envious that
Western values are often more appealing to educated and ambitious segments of the population than traditional Russian values. The global
human rights agenda is berated by Putin as a Western plot, because the US and other Western states
allegedly politicize human rights and use them as a means for exerting pressure on Russia and its neighbors.
Human rights campaigns are depicted as a powerful form of “soft power” diplomacy intended to
discredit governments that are more easily influenced by Moscow. Russia supposedly offers a legitimate political alternative to these
countries - a quasi- authoritarian “sovereign democracy” and a statist-capitalist form of economic development. “Sovereign democracy” is
presented as a viable option to the alleged Western export of democratic revolutions. Russia’s support for strong-arm governments is intended
to entice these countries under its political and security umbrella and delegitimize the West for its criticisms of autocratic politics. In Putin’s
version of “soft power," an assortment of tools can be deployed to achieve strategic goals. These include culture, education, media, language,
minority protection, Christian Orthodoxy, pan-Slavism, and Russo-focused assimilation. All these elements can supplement institutional
instruments, economic incentives, energy dependence, military threats, and the political pressures applied by the Kremlin. In a landmark article
on 23 January 2012 in Nezavisimaya Gazeta (The Independent Newspaper) Putin promoted his plan for uniting Russia’s multi-ethnic society and
stressed the central importance of Russian culture for all former Soviet states. In sum, for Eastern Slavs Russia is supposed to be the model
“older brother,” while for non-Slavs it is evidently the enlightened “father figure.” The stress is on uniting various ethnic communities in the
Russian Federation and former USSR under the banner of Russian culture and values. Putin criticizes multiculturalism as a destabilizing force
and instead supports integration through assimilation, a veiled term for Russification. According to Putin, Russian people and culture are the
binding fabric of this “unique civilization.” He extolls the virtues of "cultural dominance," where Russia is depicted as a “poly-ethnic civilization”
held together by a Russian “cultural core.” The President notes with satisfaction that many former citizens of the Soviet Union, “who found
themselves abroad, are calling themselves Russian, regardless of their ethnicity.” Russian people are evidently “nation-forming” as the “great
mission of Russians is to unite and bind civilization” through language and culture. According to such ethno-racist thinking, Ukrainians,
Belarusians, Georgians, and other nationalities simply do not match the historical importance of the Great Russian nation. For Putin, the
Russian state has a key role to play in “forming a worldview that binds the nation.” He has called for enhancing education, language use, and
national history to buttress Russia’s tradition of cultural dominance and lists numerous tools for promoting Russian culture, including television,
cinema, the Internet, social media, and popular culture. All these outlets must evidently shape public opinion and set behavioral norms.
US pressure on human rights undermines US-Russia relations
Weitz, 2015 Weitz, Richard. "Nemtsov Killing Puts Human Rights in Spotlight of U.S.-Russia Tensions."
World Politics Review. N.p., 03 Mar. 2015. Web. 7 July 2015.
The assassination last week of Boris Nemtsov, a former Russian deputy prime minister and opposition political leader, in downtown Moscow,
just a stone’s throw from the Kremlin, presents a challenge for Washington. The current tensions in U.S.-Russia relations over crises ranging
from Ukraine to Syria make a successful engagement with Moscow on human rights even more unlikely. Yet the U.S. must somehow find ways
to support the democratic vision for Russia advocated by Nemstov and other political and civil society activists. Nemstov’s murder is in some
ways reminiscent of 1990s-era Russia under then-President Boris Yeltsin. At the time, law and order had broken down on many levels, with an
increase in assassinations being one prominent illustration. Many of these murders involved business deals gone awry, as in the absence of a
functioning court system at the time, commercial disputes were routinely settled through coercion. Ironically perhaps, given the current state
of rule of law in Russia, President Vladimir Putin initially won popularity in part for cracking down on such violent crimes in Moscow and other
major Russian cities, as well as for boosting Russia’s economy and global status. If Putin’s human rights record has always been problematic, his
post-2010 presidency has seen increased constraints on Russians’ freedom of expression, assembly and access to the media. Russian authorities
regularly harass the political opposition and other independent civil society actors. The government has adopted legislation to criminalize
actions designed to “insult religious feelings” or that “promote lesbian, gay and transsexual values.” And a new law has designated all Russian
civil society activists receiving any foreign funding as “foreign agents,” even when they pursue nonpolitical goals like environmental protection.
Putin’s policies have also become strongly anti-Western. He blames the West for the current tensions between Russia on one side and Europe
and the U.S. on the other, citing NATO’s membership enlargement; U.S. military operations in Kosovo, Iraq and Libya without Moscow’s
approval; and the U.S. decision to deploy strategic missile defenses close to Russia as the causes of these tensions. But Putin’s nationalist stance
also aims to enhance his authority at home by exploiting Russian patriotism. Nemtsov challenged this agenda, advocating for a more
democratic line at home and a less confrontational stance abroad, but his assassination is still hard to explain. While Nemtsov was Putin’s main
rival to become Russia’s second president in the late 1990s, Putin’s policies have since deprived Nemtsov of popularity and other resources.
U.S. President Barack Obama may be correct that, over time, Western sanctions and other blows to the Russian economy will lead more
Russians to demand a new course, but Nemtsov was hardly a political threat to Putin at the time of his death. Meanwhile, the assassination will
certainly further damage relations between Russia and the U.S., serving as a reminder of the many journalists and other Kremlin critics who
have met violent—and unexplained—demises under Putin. Moreover, Nemtsov was a respected figure in Washington. Of note, he was the sole
Russian to testify in a June 2013 Senate hearing on Russia’s deteriorating human rights situation. Sen. John McCain presciently ended that
session by warning Nemtsov, who had just explained why Putin had not imprisoned him, about the potential personal costs of his anti-regime
agitation. The
Obama administration tried during its first term to compartmentalize the U.S.-Russia human
rights dialogue and opposed linking its progress to negotiations on other areas of greater mutual interest, such as Afghanistan and arms
control. The administration also limited the application of the 2012 Magnitsky Law, which sanctions Russian officials responsible for the death
of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky and other gross human rights violations, by keeping the number of individuals on its target list small. But
Russia’s human rights problems exerted an increasingly unavoidable drag on relations. For example, Obama
declined to attend the 2014 Olympic Games in Sochi, a high-profile event for Putin, partly to protest Russian government policies toward gays
and lesbians. For their part, Russian leaders have attacked the United States for encouraging popular protests to overthrow Russia-friendly
regimes in post-Soviet states like Georgia and Ukraine, as well as in the Arab world. Fearing a similar approach in Russia itself, Russian officials
launched a sustained campaign to curtail U.S. government ties with Russian civil society, end cooperation between Russian and U.S. NGOs, and
derail various academic exchange programs. The Obama administration has sought to minimize ties with Russia’s political opposition to avoid
making the latter appear like a U.S.-sponsored fifth column that could justify countermeasures by the Russian government. Nonetheless,
Russian officials have attacked Russian democracy advocates as foreign stooges and denounced U.S. interference in Russia’s internal affairs,
while depicting U.S. efforts to support Russian civic activists as subversive interference aimed at regime change. At the end of 2013, Putin
briefly adopted a softer line on some human rights issues. For instance, he released some high-profile prisoners, including the oligarch-turnedcritic Mikhail Khodorkovsky and the punk rock band Pussy Riot. However, the war in Ukraine has blocked further human rights dialogue
between both governments. Further
confrontations between Russia and the U.S. over human rights during the
remainder of the Obama administration, and beyond, now seem unavoidable. American values and domestic
politics require some U.S. government support for democracy and human rights in foreign countries, while the Russian political system will not
evolve into a genuine multiparty democracy as long as Putin remains president. In addition, the Kremlin has increasingly appealed to
conservative Russian values regarding sexual orientation and other issues, while Americans have become more tolerant regarding such issues.
In denouncing U.S. double standards on human rights and democracy issues, Russian officials correctly
complain that Washington holds Russia to a higher standard on these issues than it does with its Middle
East and Persian Gulf allies or China. But influential Americans see Russia as essentially a European
country that would have evolved into a Western-style democracy, more open and attractive to Western
investors and other partners, were it not for Putin’s policies. The Obama administration should demand a complete and
independent investigation not only of those who shot Nemstov, but also those who orchestrated his killing. Washington also should send the
U.S. ambassador to Russia to Nemtsov’s funeral to underscore the event’s importance. In any eventual oration, the ambassador and other U.S.
officials would do well to remind listeners of Nemtsov’s positive vision of a liberal democratic Russia joined in partnership with the Western
world. Over the long term, the United States can promote Russia’s positive political evolution by resuming efforts to integrate Russians more
deeply into international institutions that uphold liberal democratic values. The current suspension of official bilateral contacts as well as
multinational engagement through the suspended NATO-Russia Council and the Group of Eight, though justified as a short-term response to
Russian aggression in Ukraine, is helping Putin build alternative multinational structures with China and other non-Western partners based on
authoritarian values. One can doubt that the Russian authorities will ever bring those who ordered Nemtsov’s killing to justice, but human
rights and democracy issues will certainly remain an enduring element of the U.S.-Russia relationship. The
challenge for Washington remains finding channels to engage Russian civil society while continuing to steadfastly oppose Putin’s creeping
authoritarianism at home and adventurism abroad.
US double standards undermine human rights credibility
Associated Press., 2010 "America’s Human Rights Hypocrisy." RT. Russia Tv, 09 Nov. 2010. Web. 7
July 2015
The human rights record of the United States was put under an international microscope, as the UN Human Rights Council issued 228
recommendations on how Washington can address violations. America has
long been the self appointed global leader on
human rights, pointing out the shortcomings of others. But now the tables have turned. According to
the United Nations Human Rights Council, incidents of injustice are taking place on US soil. The point was
made in Geneva, Switzerland at the Human Rights Council’s first comprehensive review of Washington’s record. The council released a
Universal Periodic Review Tuesday, listing 228 recommendations on how the US can do better. “Close Guantanamo and secret detention
centers throughout the world, punish those people who torture, disappear and execute detainees arbitrarily,” said Venezuelan delegate
German Mundarain Hernan. The
US has dismissed many recommendations calling them political provocations
by hostile countries. Yet even America’s allies are highlighting grave flaws. France and Ireland are demanding Obama
follow through on the promise to close Guantanamo Bay. Britain, Belgium and dozens of others have called on the US to abolish the death
penalty. For
many, it’s the ultimate hypocrisy. How can a state with roughly 3,000 people on death row
lecture the world about humanity? Many say the prime example is Mumia abu Jamal, viewed by some as America’s very own
political prisoner. “The United States, the perpetrator of gross human right violations is using human rights as
a political football against its enemies.Its enemies are not enemies because they violate human rights
necessarily, but because the US wants to change the government in their country,” said Brian Becker, Director of
A.N.S.W.E.R Coalition in Washington, DC. The country often criticizing adversaries like Syria, Iran and North Korea for oppressing its citizens, is
now faced with defending domestic practices like indefinite detention, poor prison conditions, and racial profiling. America is home to the
world's largest prison population, with 2.3 million people currently behind bars. Children can be sentenced to life in prison and more than 100
undocumented immigrants have died behind bars while awaiting deportation from the US. Increasing discrimination against Muslims has
become another blemish on America’s human rights record. Hundreds have been arrested in so-called FBI foiled terror plots involving
government paid informants accused of manufacturing and setting up the crime. It is a practice other countries term entrapment.
Human rights credibility undermines relations- Russia sees it as meddling in internal
affairs
Firstpost ’14 (Firstpost, Indian based international news source, “Don't interfere in Russia's internal
affairs: Putin to new US envoy”, firstpost.com, http://www.firstpost.com/world/dont-interfere-inrussias-internal-affairs-putin-to-new-us-envoy-1811277.html, 11/19/2014)//HW
Moscow, Russia: President Vladimir Putin
urged Washington's new envoy on Wednesday not to interfere in
Russia's affairs as he accepted credentials from US ambassador John Tefft amid raging tensions.¶ "We are ready for practical
cooperation with American partners along various directions guided by the principles of respect for each
other's interests, equal rights and non-interference into domestic affairs," Putin said.¶ He spoke at the Kremlin where Tefft,
Washington's new ambassador to Russia, presented his letter of credence along with envoys from several other countries including North
Korea.¶ Tefft -- known for backing the pro-Western aspirations of former Soviet states -- succeeded Michael McFaul, who abruptly quit his post
in February after just two years on the job. Tefft served as US ambassador to Ukraine from 2009 to 2013 and was Washington's representative
in Georgia during its five-day war with Russia in 2008.¶ His
predecessor McFaul, a Stanford university professor,
frequently sparked Russia's fury with critical comments on Twitter and meetings with Russian opposition
activists.¶ Cold War-era rivals Russia and the United States are locked in a tug-of-war over the fate of exSoviet republic Ukraine, with Washington imposing sanctions and US President Barack Obama branding Moscow's actions over Ukraine
a "threat to the world".¶ Meeting with his supporters on Tuesday, Putin claimed the United States wanted to subjugate
Russia but would never succeed.¶ "They want to subdue us, want to solve their problems at our
expense," the Russian president said.¶ "No one in history ever managed to do this to Russia, and no one ever
will."
Human rights pressure on Russia risks relations collapse
Burkhalter ’13 (Holly, International Justice Mission VP for government relations, “The U.S. should use
its ability to pressure Russia to end orphan trafficking”, The Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-should-use-its-ability-to-pressure-russia-to-endorphan-trafficking/2013/05/24/d93596e0-c2ff-11e2-914f-a7aba60512a7_story.html, 5/24/2013)//HW
Meanwhile,
Russian authorities are methodically dismantling the country’s once-robust civil society. Human rights
groups are required to register as foreign agents if they receive foreign assistance, and their leaders are
increasingly harassed, hounded and jailed. The U.S. government has financially supported Russian antitrafficking organizations in the past but can no longer do so because of restrictions enacted in November.¶ Russia has been
on a ranking watch list for nine years and, under the law, must be moved either up to Tier II or down to Tier III. Diplomats
recognizing that the United States needs Russian cooperation on a host of national security matters
aren’t eager to irritate Putin. Obama administration officials are reportedly debating whether to
graduate Russia to Tier II or to rank the country where Russia watchers understand it belongs — and risk
roiling a complicated bilateral relationship.
HR Cred Hurts US- Russ/China Relations
China and Russia are being pushed by pressure from the US’s HR international
framework harming our relations
Migranyan in 2014 (Andranik is the director of the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation in New York;
“Washington's Creation: A Russia-China Alliance?” Published: July 10, 2014 Accessed: 7/8/15;
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/washingtons-creation-russia-china-alliance-10843?page=2)
In June, I participated in a seminar called “The Dynamic of Trilateral Relations among Russia, China, and the United States in the Context of the
Ukrainian Crisis and Western Sanctions against Russia” in China itself. The participants supported the assertion—frequently repeated by Russian
and Chinese leaders—that relations between Russia and China have never been friendlier. Indeed, despite the fact that U.S. imposed sanctions
on Russia do not directly affect China, Beijing is keenly aware of U.S. policies directed at containing it. The United States has unequivocally
stated its support for China’s opponents in a series of conflicts concerning Chinese-Japanese, Chinese-Filipino, and Chinese-Korean squabbles.
In addition, the
American pivot to Asia has as its primary objective to preserve the status quo in Asia and
contain a rising China. Despite internal concerns in both Russia and China that prevent both countries
from announcing loudly and decidedly their support for each other—as was in the case of China’s restraint in
recognizing the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia or the reincorporation of Crimea, and as in the reciprocal case when Russia has
not voiced outright support for China in Chinese territorial disputes with neighbors—the two
countries act as allies on a host of
issues in world politics. These issues include stabilizing Syria, the Iranian nuclear program, U.S. regime
change around the world, and the hard attempts of the United States to interfere in Chinese and
Russian internal affairs masked as support for human rights. Russian-Chinese relations are entering a
qualitatively new stage. They are more than merely partnership relations, but are not quite those of
allies. However, it is entirely possible that increasing U.S. sanctions on Russia and attempts to contain
China will push the two countries into a full-blown alliance. The present situation in trilateral U.S.-Chinese-Russian
relations is at odds with the strategy articulated by Henry Kissinger during the Nixon Administration, which held that American relations with
either Russia or China had to be substantially better than the bilateral relations between Russia and China themselves. Today the opposite is
occurring. U.S. relations with either of the other two countries are considerably worse than bilateral Russia-China relations. Therefore, the
potential for America pitting one against the other is decidedly smaller than the potential of the two countries uniting their efforts and
resources to oppose American pressure in the spheres each country considers most sensitive. In both the U.S. and in Russian liberal circles, it is
not uncommon to hear the tired assertions that further rapprochement between Russia and China will render Russia a junior partner in the
Russo-Chinese relationship and that Russia should keep this in mind when choosing between China and the West. I believe such
pronouncements stem more from their authors’ ideological convictions than from real political facts. They are meant to scare Moscow and to
cow it into avoiding the strategic alliance with a growing China that is asserting its interests against the status quo in the face of American
containment, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, where it faces conflicts with virtually all of its neighbors—Japan, the Philippines, South
Korea, Vietnam, India—and needs an alliance with Russia, with whom it lacks any potential conflicts in the foreseeable future. In talking about
the threat of Moscow becoming Beijing’s junior partner, and in pressuring Moscow to choose the West over China, our Western partners have
never articulated their vision of Russia in the world, the character of Russian relations with the West and especially with the United States. We
are, of course, grateful to our Western partners for their espoused worry that Russia may “inadvertently” become a junior partner to China. But
they have never articulated the place of Russia in the Western world, particularly in the Western economic and security frameworks. Since the
1990s, Western, and especially American, policy towards Russia followed a clear line according to which Moscow was to be treated as a
whipping boy. Since the collapse of the USSR, the United States has not once, in words or deeds, demonstrated its readiness for an equal
partnership with Russia. And by the way, in the context of the Ukrainian crisis, the West, and U.S. politicians and military officials, hurried to
place Russia not in the role of a partner, but that of an adversary, which, in their understanding, is practically indistinguishable from that of an
enemy. Recently, various analysts have been busy using statistics to prove yet another unsubstantiated claim frequently invoked to discourage
Russo-Chinese relations, namely, the alleged prospect of large Chinese populations pouring into Siberia and the Far East, thereby presenting a
threat to Russia’s territorial integrity. As we can see from migratory tendencies in the northern border regions of China, the vast majority of
migrants flock not to Russia’s Siberia and the Far East, but rather to the central regions of China and the new large cities, where lifestyle
conditions are more comfortable. And, thanks to China’s demographic policies during last decades, the population in the border regions close
to Russia is projected to decline rather than grow. In the foreseeable future, Russia has plenty of space for maneuver in its relations with China.
Russia’s next steps with regard to Beijing will largely depend on Washington’s readiness to impose tougher sanctions because of Ukraine.
Russo-Chinese relations have great potential for development. We cannot exclude the possibility that
Russia and China will enter into a military-political alliance that can shift the global balance of power.
The military, technological, and resource potential of Russia propped up by the economic and colossal
labor resources of China would allow the two countries to make decisions on many global issues in a
way that would rattle the current balance of power in international relations. Apparently, there is some sort of
instinctive understanding of this in Washington, which is why the U.S. is not pushing Japan to adopt strict sanctions against Russia. Should Japan
impose such sanctions, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe would have to forget his ambition to solve the question of the “Northern territories” in his
relations with Russia, as he might force Russia’s hand in supporting China’s claim over the contentious Senkaku islands. A
potential
alliance of Russia and China can present many new and unexpected developments for both Washington
and Brussels in economic and military-political relations. Today, there are many politicians and analysts in Washington who, on
the one hand, desperately thirst to punish Russia and China, and on the other, consciously or not, avoid calculating the consequences of their
actions and remain blind to the real preconditions for a closer partnership between Russia and China on all leading global problems. A
continued refusal to contemplate such a partnership could have profound consequences for the U.S.
foreign policy.
Russia Impacts
US Pressure = War
Conflict with Russia and China is likely- continued US pressure ensures tensions
escalate
Roberts ‘15 (Craig Roberts, Global Research, June 02,2015. “Nuclear War our Likely Future: Russia and
China won’t accept US Hegemony, Paul Craig Roberts” - See more at:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/nuclear-war-our-likely-future-russia-and-china-wont-accept-ushegemony-paul-craig-roberts/5453098#sthash.ulvg728G.dpuf)
The White House is determined to block the rise of the key nuclear-armed nations, Russia and China,
neither of whom will join the “world’s acceptance of Washington’s hegemony,” says head of the
Institute for Political Economy, Paul Craig Roberts. The former US assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy, Dr Paul
Craig Roberts, has written on his blog that Beijing is currently “confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the
construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington’s control of the South China Sea, now
defined as an area of American National Interests.” Roberts writes that Washington’s commitment to contain
Russia is the reason “for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian
propaganda.” Read more US mulls sending military ships, aircraft near South China Sea disputed islands – report The author of several
books, “How America Was Lost” among the latest titles, says that US “aggression and blatant propaganda have
convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two
countries into a strategic alliance.” Dr Roberts believes that neither Russia, nor China will meanwhile accept the socalled “vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia.” According to
the political analyst, the “price of world peace is the world’s acceptance of Washington’s hegemony.” “ On the
foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America’s self-image as the ‘exceptional, indispensable’
country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war,” Roberts writes.
He gives a gloomy political forecast in his column saying that “unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to
break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future.” Russia’s farreaching May 9 Victory Day celebration was meanwhile a “historical turning point,” according to Roberts who says that while Western
politicians chose to boycott the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, “the Chinese were there in their place,” China’s president
sitting next to President Putin during the military parade on Red Square in Moscow. A recent poll targeting over 3,000 people in France,
Germany and the UK has recently revealed that as little as 13 percent of Europeans think the Soviet Army played the leading role in liberating
Europe from Nazism during WW2. The majority of respondents – 43 percent – said the US Army played the main role in liberating Europe.
“Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated
Hitler,” Roberts points out, adding that “in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army’s destruction
of the Wehrmacht.” Read more Perverted history: Europeans think US army liberated continent during WW2 The head of the presidential
administration, Sergey Ivanov, told RT earlier this month that attempts to diminish the role played by Russia in defeating Nazi Germany through
rewriting history by some Western countries are part of the ongoing campaign to isolate and alienate Russia. Dr Roberts has also stated in his
column that while the US president only mentioned US forces in his remarks on the 70th anniversary of the victory, President Putin in contrast
“expressed gratitude to ‘the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.’” The
political analyst notes that America along with its allies “do not hear when Russia says ‘don’t push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We
want to be your partners.’”
US- Russia War Escalates
US-Russia conflict escalates and goes nuclear- too much is at stake for Russia
Tikhonova 4/20/15 (Polina Tikhonova, “Russia vs. US: The World War 3, 4/20/15”,
http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/04/russia-vs-us-the-world-war-3/, 7/7/15)
In case the United States and Russia engage in nuclear confrontation, the US will be completely wiped
off the face of the Earth, editor of Europesolidaire Jean-Paul Baquiast wrote. US Russia Estonia Russia
and China stand better chances in a possible nuclear war against the US, which would mean complete
destruction of the United States’ territory, the French journalist said. His comments come as the Russian
President Vladimir Putin threatens to use his nuclear force against the United States and its allies if
NATO moves more forces into the Baltic states or if attempts are made to return Crimea to Ukraine.
That information as well as the Washington’s potential intent to perform a preemptive nuclear attack on
Russia’s territory led to a wide Internet discussion whether it is something that might happen or not.
What also fueled these speculations was General Robin Rand’s appointment as head of the US Air Force
Global Strike Command. Knowing the nature of this General, it is possible that he might follow the steps
of US General Curtis LeMay, who was meticulously preparing a large nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.
And let’s not forget that Russia currently poses a bigger threat than USSR did, and that it is far more
dangerous than the union, which collapsed in 1991. According to NATO’s former secretary general
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, “Russia of today is more dangerous than the Soviet Union. The USSR was
more predictable than the current leadership.”A Nuclear War between Russia and US is Very Likely Over
a week ago, ValueWalk interviewed a retired Russian Army General and a Military Strategies and
Technologies expert, Evgeni Solovyov, who said that Russia is clearly “testing the West, particularly the
United States.” “It also seems like Russia is okay with the fact that World War 3 can be easily started any
day. I mean, could we possibly imagine some country threatening other countries – not just one
country! – to use its nuclear force without getting a robust and cohesive response, like, one and a half
years ago?” he added. There are a lot of indications that a nuclear confrontation between Moscow and
Washington could indeed happen: Russian military aircraft have been repeatedly invading into NATO
airspace, particularly the Baltic states’ airspace. Putin admitting he was ready to ready up his nuclear
forces in Crimea. Then, of course, there was this meeting between the US and Russia’s military and
intelligence experts, which revealed Putin’s willingness to view any attempt from NATO’s side to return
Crimea to Ukraine or to increase its presence in the Baltic states as declaration of war and threatened a
“spectrum of responses from nuclear to non-military” to retain his control in the region. And just a
month ago, Russia sent its nuclear Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad, which the President of Lithuania
Dalia Grybauskaite said that it could “reach even Berlin.” Furthermore, Russia’s ambassador has recently
warned Denmark that if its ships decide to join a NATO missile defense force, Denmark would be nuked.
Relations !- War
US-Russia relations collapse will lead to great power war- we are on the brink
Cohen 2014
(Roger Cohen; a columnist for The New York Times, “Yes, It Could Happen Again”, theatlantic.com, no
date, website, 7/8/15, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/08/yes-it-could-happenagain/373465/)
Let us indulge in dark imaginings, then, in the cause of prudence. Here is one possible scenario:
Clashes intensify between
Ukrainian government forces and paramilitary formations organized by Russian fifth columnists. The death toll rises. The ongoing
NATO dispatch of troops and F‑16s to Poland and the Baltic states, designed as a deterrence, redoubles anger in
Russia—“a great and humble nation besieged,” a Russian general might declare. The American president, saying his war-weary
country will not seek conflict, imposes sanctions on the entire Russian oil-and-gas sector. European states dependent on Russian
energy grumble; a former German chancellor working in natural gas says his country’s interests lie with Moscow.
Then, say, an independence movement of the Russian minority gains momentum in Estonia, backed with
plausible deniability by Moscow’s agents, and announces support for the Donetsk People’s Republic. A wave of cyberattacks disables Estonian
After an
assassination attempt on the Estonian foreign minister at a rally in the capital, calls grow louder for the
American president to invoke Article 5. He insists that “drawing red lines in the 21st century is not a useful exercise.” The
unimaginable can occur. Indeed, it has just happened in Crimea. Let us further imagine that shortly after the
president delivers his speech, in a mysterious coincidence, a Chinese ship runs aground on one of the uninhabited
Senkaku Islands, administered by Japan, in the East China Sea. China dispatches a small force to what it calls the Diaoyu Islands “as
a protective measure.” Japan sends four destroyers to evict the Chinese and reminds the American president that he has said
the islands, located near undersea oil reserves, “fall within the scope” of the U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. A
Republican senator, echoing the bellicose mood in Washington, declares that “Estonia is more than a couple of rocks in the East China Sea”
and demands to know whether “the United States has torn up the treaty alliances in Europe and Asia that have
been the foundation of global security since 1945.” The president gives China an ultimatum to leave the Japanese
islands or face a military response. He also tells Russia that another act of secessionist violence in Estonia will trigger
NATO force against Russian troops massed on the Estonian border. Both warnings are ignored. Chinese and Russian leaders accuse
the United States of “prolonging Cold War hostilities and alliances in pursuit of global domination.” World War III begins.
government facilities, and an Estonian big shot calls the Russian leader an “imperialist troglodyte trapped in a zero-sum game.”
Relations !- Stability
Relations between the US and Russia key to international security and stability
Reuters 7/4/25
(Reuters, “Putin tells Obama he wants dialogue based on equality and respect”, reuters.com, 7/4/15,
website, 7/8/15, http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/04/us-usa-russia-putinidUSKCN0PE0CO20150704)
relations between Moscow and Washington remain the most important
factor in ensuring stability and security in the world. Russian President Vladimir Putin called for dialogue
based on equal treatment and mutual respect with the United States on Saturday in a congratulatory message to
President Barack Obama marking U.S. Independence Day. Putin said U.S.-Russian relations remained important for solving
global crises. The two countries have disagreements over the conflict in Ukraine, defense matters and
democracy. "In his message of congratulations, the Russian President noted that, despite the differences between the two
countries, Russian-American relations remain the most important factor of international stability and
security," the Kremlin said in a statement. Putin expressed confidence that Russia and the United States could find
solutions to the most complicated international issues and meet global threats and challenges together
if they based their relationship on the principles of equality and respect for each other's interests, the
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said
Kremlin added. The statement did not provide further details and did not mention Western sanctions imposed over Russia's role in the Ukraine
crisis and Moscow's annexation of Crimea peninsula from Ukraine in 2014. The wording of the message was similar to last year's congratulatory
message to Obama.
Escalation- Extinction
Bostrom 2 (Nick Bostrom, Ph.D. and Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University, March 2002, Journal
of Evolution and Technology, Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related
Hazards)
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An
all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences
that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry among
those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would
occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and
the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or
deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India
and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind’s potential permanently. Such a war might however be a local
terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the
existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century
China Impacts
US- China- War
US- China relations collapse risks crises that escalate to military conflict
Goldstein 13 (2013, Avery, Professor of Global Politics and International Relations, Director of the
Center for the Study of Contemporary China, University of Pennsylvania, “First Things First: The Pressing
Danger of Crisis Instability in U.S.-China Relations,” International Security, vol. 37, no. 4, Spring, muse)
Two concerns have driven much of the debate about international security in the post-Cold War era. The first is the
potentially deadly mix of nuclear proliferation, rogue states, and international terrorists, a worry that became dominant after the terrorist
attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.1 The
second concern, one whose prominence has waxed and waned since the
mid-1990s, is the potentially disruptive impact that China will have if it emerges as a peer competitor of the
United States, challenging an international order established during the era of U.S. preponderance.2 Reflecting this second concern, some
analysts have expressed reservations about the dominant post-September 11 security agenda, arguing that China
could challenge U.S.
global interests in ways that terrorists and rogue states cannot. In this article, I raise a more pressing issue, one to which
not enough attention has been paid. For at least the next decade, while China remains relatively weak, the
gravest danger in Sino-American relations is the possibility the two countries will find themselves in a
crisis that could escalate to open military conflict. In contrast to the long-term prospect of a new great power rivalry
between the United States and China, which ultimately rests on debatable claims about the intentions of the two countries and uncertain
forecasts about big shifts in their national capabilities, the
danger of instability in a crisis involving these two nucleararmed states is a tangible, near-term concern.3 Even if the probability of such a war-threatening crisis
and its escalation to the use of significant military force is low, the potentially catastrophic consequences of this
scenario provide good reason for analysts to better understand its dynamics and for policymakers to fully consider its
implications. Moreover, events since 2010—especially those relevant to disputes in the East and South China Seas—
suggest that the danger of a military confrontation in the Western Pacific that could lead to a U.S.-China
standoff may be on the rise. In what follows, I identify not just pressures to use force preemptively that pose the most serious risk
should a Sino-American confrontation unfold, but also related, if slightly less dramatic, incentives to initiate the limited use of force to gain
bargaining leverage—a second trigger for potentially devastating instability during a crisis.4 My discussion proceeds in three sections. The first
section explains why, during the next decade or two, a
serious U.S.-China crisis may be more likely than is currently
recognized. The second section examines the features of plausible Sino-American crises that may make them so dangerous. The third
section considers general features of crisis stability in asymmetric dyads such as the one in which a U.S. superpower would confront an
increasingly capable but still thoroughly overmatched China—the asymmetry that will prevail for at least the next decade. This more stylized
discussion clarifies the inadequacy of focusing one-sidedly on conventional forces, as has much of the current commentary about the
modernization of China's military and the implications this has for potential conflicts with the United States in the Western Pacific,5 or of
focusing one-sidedly on China's nuclear forces, as a smaller slice of the commentary has.6 An assessment considering the interaction of
conventional and nuclear forces indicates why escalation resulting from crisis instability remains a devastating possibility. Before proceeding,
however, I would like to clarify my use of the terms "crisis" and "instability." For the purposes of this article, I define a crisis as a confrontation
between states involving a serious threat to vital national interests for both sides, in which there is the expectation of a short time for
resolution, and in which there is understood to be a sharply increased risk of war.7 This definition distinguishes crises from many situations to
which the label is sometimes applied, such as more protracted confrontations; sharp disagreements over important matters that are not vital
interests and in which military force seems irrelevant; and political disputes involving vital interests, even those with military components, that
present little immediate risk of war.8 I define instability as the temptation to resort to force in a crisis.9 Crisis
stability is greatest
when both sides strongly prefer to continue bargaining; instability is greatest when they are strongly
tempted to resort to the use of military force. Stability, then, describes a spectrum—from one extreme in which neither side
sees much advantage to using force, through a range of situations in which the balance of costs and benefits of using force varies for each side,
to the other extreme in which the benefits of using force so greatly exceed the costs that striking first looks nearly irresistible to both sides.
Although the incentives to initiate the use of force may not reach this extreme level in a U.S. China crisis,
the capabilities that the two countries possess raise concerns that escalation pressures will exist and
that they may be highest early in a crisis, compressing the time frame for diplomacy to avert military conflict.
US- China- Stability
Having US China Relations prevent military escalation in Asia, solve climate change,
and help on issues of global security
YUNBI and WEIHUA in 2014 (YUNBI ZHANG and CHEN WEIHUA are both correspondents for China Daily
USA; “China, US militaries working to build trust” Updated: 2014-09-26 05:28 Accessed: 7/8/15;
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/us/2014-09/26/content_18664169.htm)
China and the United States are making progress on two trust-building mechanisms for their militaries
ahead of the two defense authorities starting their 15th round of talks in October. Ministry of National Defense spokesman Geng Yansheng
indicated that the two powers are moving quickly toward a military cooperative agenda for better communication between them. China and
the US will hold the 15th annual Defense Consultative Talks in mid-October in Washington, said Geng at a news conference in Beijing on
Thursday. "Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Chinese People's Liberation Army Wang Guanzhong will co-chair the talks with US
Undersecretary of Defense Christine Wormuth," he said.The previous talks were held on Sept 9, 2013, in Beijing. The spokesman also confirmed
that "the strategic planning departments of the two militaries will hold their first dialogue" during the talks. Wang and Wormuth met in Beijing
in early July in a strategic security dialogue as part of the sixth round of the China-US Strategic and Economic Diaologue (S&ED). The outcome
document of the S&ED stated that the two sides noted the dialogue was beneficial to enhancing mutual understanding and trust. The
two
sides decided to continue in-depth and sustained dialogue and to work together to establish a stable
and cooperative strategic security relationship. It also reaffirmed commitment to develop notification
mechanism for major military activities and a set of rules of behavior for air and maritime encounters as
China-US confidence-building measures as soon as possible. "It is much wiser for the two sides to engage more attention to the tangible
cooperative agenda rather than the issues of huge dispute," said Yuan Peng, vice-president of the China Institute of Contemporary International
Relations. Washington and Beijing traded barbs last month regarding the frequent close-in reconnaissance by US military aircraft along China's
coast, but they did not halt the cooperative agenda between the two militaries. As part of Washington's effort to repair the rift, US President
Barack Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, visited Beijing early this month and talked to President Xi Jinping and senior Chinese
defense officials. Fan Changlong, vice-chairman of China's Central Military Commission, told Rice that the US military should reduce and
ultimately stop "close-in reconnaissance". China has long regarded the reconnaissance as provocative and has repeated raised objection. But
Jonathan Greenert, chief of US Naval Operations, expressed in Washington two weeks ago that the US has no intention to reduce or stop the
close-in surveillance. Geng from China's Ministry of National Defense told China Daily that during the meeting between Rice and Fan, the two
sides endorsed the consensus made by the two leaders in June 2013 about building two mutual trust mechanisms. The mechanisms are a
mutual report mechanism of major military actions and a code of conduct for military security in, and over, international waters. After Xi and
Obama met at the Sunnylands estate in California, in June 2013 for an informal summit, top defense officials from both sides have met several
times and spoken positively about the two mechanisms. "Both sides agreed the two trust-building mechanisms are conducive and meaningful
to strengthening the strategic mutual trust between China and the US. The progress should be accelerated, and periodical results are expected
to be achieved soon," Geng said. While frictions between the Chinese and US militaries made headlines in the past year, the two militaries have
also witnessed substantial progress in mutual exchanges, such as visits and joint exercises. Admiral Wu Shengli, commander of the PLA Navy,
was in the US Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, last week for the 21st International Seapower Symposium and met with his US
counterparts. It was the first time China attended the meeting. The PLA Navy also for the first time participated in the Rim of the Pacific
exercise (RIMPAC) from June to August in and off the Hawaiian Islands. Jeffrey Bader, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a special
assistant to Obama at the National Security Council from 2009-2011, said in an article posted on Brookings' website on Wednesday that one of
the fundamental elements of Obama's rebalancing strategy is to
maintain a positive and stable relation with China in
which cooperation on global issues develops and competition on security and economic issues is
contained and managed. Noting the tensions between China and the US, Bader said such frictions are nothing like
the tensions during the Taiwan Strait crisis in 1996, the US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999 and the EP-3 spy plane collision
in 2001. "The US
and China continue to expand trade and investment ties dramatically; to develop
rudimentary military-to-military relations; to consult and cooperate to varying degrees on global issues
such as the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, anti-piracy, and climate change, and to develop
people-to-people, scientific, professional, and scholarly exchanges to the degree that there is substantial
interdependence between the two countries," he wrote.
U.S.-China relations are key to increase peace, security, and the economy
Hamilton ’15(Lee Hamilton, Distinguished Scholar, Indiana University 06/30/2015 “Despite Growing
Tensions, US Must Move Forward on Cooperation With China” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-hhamilton/despite-growing-tensions-us-must-move-forward-on-cooperation-withchina_b_7692276.html)
We routinely slam each other's records on human rights. We accuse them of stealing commercial secrets, as we unabashedly acknowledge our
own attempts to uncover security secrets. We
debate which of our systems of government -- capitalism or
communism -- truly works best, and we squabble over our respective responsibilities in addressing the
potential catastrophic impact of climate change. So goes the relationship between the U.S. and China.
Ours is the most important bilateral relationship in the world and one that continues to change rapidly as China rises to the status of a major
regional power. The rest of the international community watches this relationship carefully and understands the importance of it. Indeed,
it
has become clear that almost every one of the world's problems become easier to solve if our
relationship is on solid footing. Currently, our two nations are wading through a period of considerable
tensions over a host of major issues, including, among others, global warming, nuclear stockpiling in
North Korea, Taiwanese independence, human rights violations, cyber espionage, business regulation and
maritime behavior. On most, if not all, of these issues, sizable gaps exist between the U.S. and China. But
the good news is that both countries want to avoid war and reject using lethal means to change the
status quo. We seek to avoid major confrontation, and, what's more, we actually have a number of complementary interests. Together,
we want to counter terrorism, though we have questions about whom we should be targeting. (We talk
about ISIS and other Islamic militants; they talk about ethnic minorities.) We want to reign in Iran's disputed nuclear
program and contain nuclear proliferation. We share a desire for addressing climate change, and, though
we differ sharply in our opinions over the effectiveness of a capitalist or socialist market economy, generally speaking we both aim for
overall economic and financial stability. Still, focusing on our mutual interests is challenging when taking into account the
tension, contradictions, complexities and differences that mark our relationship. We see a country that refuses to respect human rights and
dignity for its people; a country moving aggressively on its periphery, a country not likely to transition soon into a more democratic society.
From its perspective, China views an international order titled against it. Indeed, China regularly seeks to cast doubt on our own human rights
record, citing our torturing of terrorist suspects, mass electronic surveillance of foreign governments, episodes of police brutality, economic
inequality and racial discrimination. China also supports non-interference in the internal matters of other countries and bristles with our actions
toward Taiwan, while many in the U.S. have a difficult time restraining themselves from calling for the independence of Taiwan, meanwhile,
many Chinese continue to advocate for a forceful takeover of this sovereign state. By many measures China is leaping forward.
Economically, China has invested unprecedented amounts of money in research and development and
has established an enormous and ever-growing pool of scientists and engineers. Its emphasis has been on the
quality, not just quantity, of growth and in making the state sector more efficient, and makes more room for market products. Militarily,
even though troop recruitment remains an issue, the Chinese possess a large army, powerful missiles, impressive
cyber-weaponry, improved nuclear capabilities and a growing fleet of nuclear submarines that reflects the country's deep concern over sealane security near its shores. Its military would, nonetheless, have problems fighting a modern war, and has severe challenges of recruitment
and modernization. China's president Xi Jinping has embraced a strong leadership position both on the domestic and foreign policy front. He
distributes economic aid, travels abroad frequently, and he speaks openly about establishing a new model that would place China front and
center on the international scene. His message is clear; China is now a great power. As a subtle -- or not so subtle -- reminder of his
state's influence in the region, he routinely presses the point that the people of Asia will solve the problems of Asia. To this end, under Xi's
leadership, China has become more assertive with its neighbors. China has an underlying confidence that it will eventually replace the U.S.,
which it sees as a failing system, as the world's leading power. At
the same time, many Western scholars believe that
ethnic unrest, political repression, and disaffected Chinese elites will ultimately bring about the end of
communist rule. Nevertheless, the words and actions coming from China suggest a nation that is determined to continue its growth and
embrace an even greater role in global affairs, whether we like it or not. For now, the economies of our two nations remain
deeply intertwined. U.S.-China trade represents more than $600 billion. Around 275,000 Chinese students now study
in the U.S., while 25,000 Americans study in China. China continues to serve as a major agricultural importer of U.S.
food and grain and also as a massive financial lender. Of course, China's economic problems, including deep-rooted
corruption and environmental devastation, are huge negatives. Up to now, our policy of constructive engagement, which spans several U.S.
presidents, has centered on welcoming a peaceful and prosperous China, one that contributes to the stability of Asia and chooses to play a
responsible role in this region of the world. But that type of engagement has been thrown into doubt as insufficient. Moving forward, we must
build on our commonalities. We
must keep talks going even when tensions arise, and we have to accept that
change in China won't happen as quickly as we would like. Most importantly, we need to persuade China that its interests
lie in assuming shared responsibility for global leadership, and to take responsibility commensurate with its wealth and power. Make no
mistake: This is a challenging time in our relationship as the U.S. seeks to maintain its dominance in the world while China seeks to flex its
growing economic and political power. As the military forces are being ramped up on both sides, some in the U.S. argue for continued U.S.
Despite our disagreements,
though, we must look for avenues of greater cooperation and collaboration, avoid surprises, respect the
realities of the region, maintain our leadership in all its phases, find a seat for China at the international
table, and deal from a position of strength. Again, the world is watching, and where we go from here in
our relationship is the most important factor in the peace, security and stability in the new world
coming.
dominance in Asia while others contend for, not a retreat from Asia, but for more of a balance of forces.
US China relations critical for Asian Stability
South China Morning Post in 2015 (The South China Moring Post is a Hong Kong based newspaper;
“Despite other relationships, Sino-US ties remain key to regional stability” UPDATED: Thursday, 09 July, 2015,
4:49am Accessed: 7/8/15; http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1834882/despite-otherrelationships-sino-us-ties-remain-key-regional)
Vietnam and the US have proven the point that common interests can overcome the biggest of obstacles. Their shared concern is China's
economic and strategic rise and countering it is enough to put memories of a devastating war and ideological differences to one side. More
than 40 years after the American withdrawal and on the 20th anniversary of the restoration of diplomatic relations, ties on Tuesday took a
major step forward with the first visit by a Vietnamese Communist Party chief to Washington. But it is not such trips that will determine the
extent of Asian stability; rather, it depends on how the significantly more important Sino-US relationship develops. US
President Barack Obama and Vietnamese party general secretary Nguyen Phu Trong met at the White House to strengthen relations by
overcoming differences and building on common ground. Trade is their biggest success, with Vietnam in the past two years becoming the US'
largest trading partner in Southeast Asia. Their discussion included the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership, a
proposed Asia-Pacific
trade deal including Vietnam that the American leader hopes to conclude this month. For now excluding
China, the accord, along with a rebalancing of military forces, is a major part of Obama's push to
reassert his country's influence in the region. Bilateral agreements included health and aviation safety and more will be signed
on trade and investment in coming days. Political differences were discussed and the US voiced concern over Vietnamese human rights and
outstanding war issues. But
a shared strategic concern over China is drawing them closer. Former enemies
have to make every effort to move forward and trust can be built through talks, trade and economic
interests. Vietnam, the Philippines and other nations sceptical about China's regional intentions may see turning to the US as security
insurance. But peace and stability lies most in the US and China improving ties. President Xi Jinping's trip to
the US in September is key to determining the direction.
US China Relations Critical to solve conflict globally
Bendtsen in 2013 (Daniel is a writer for The Lantern; “United States-China relations ‘key to peace and
stability” Published: October 28, 2013 Accessed: 7/8/15; http://thelantern.com/2013/10/us-china-relations-keypeace-stability/)
As the relationship between China and the U.S. evolves, how the two will work together on a global
scale is becoming increasingly important. “As we look to the future, the key question is ‘Can the U.S. and China work together to
solve the world’s important challenges despite different economic systems and divergent views on such matters as democracy, religious
freedom, civil liberties and the rule of law?’” former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said during an event about the U.S.-China
relationship Monday. “In my view, this is certainly possible, so long as we recognize our disagreements and core differences with maturity,
confront our challenges directly, and have leaders on both sides that are committed to this relationship.” The seventh annual China Town Hall,
during which Ohio State and 65 other venues hosted local speakers Monday in a two-hour event, featured a webcast discussion on the subject
of U.S.-China relations between Albright in Washington, D.C., and Stephen Orlins, president of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations.
“U.S.-China
relations are the defining relationship of the 21st century, and getting that relationship right
is the key to peace and stability throughout the world,” Orlins said. On OSU’s campus, a few dozen students and others
gathered at the Mershon Center for International Security Studies to watch the discussion and hear from former American diplomat Lloyd
Neighbors, who spoke about his time in China before fielding questions from the audience. Compared to the fear some Americans have of
China’s swift economic rise, Neighbors spoke of the relationship in a much more lighthearted tone, keeping the audience engaged with quips
and recollections about the challenges of diplomacy between the two world powers. Neighbors recounted his four-decade tenure in China that
left him with a catalogue of behind-the-scenes stories about U.S.-China affairs, like former U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s propensity for
rambling on with personal anecdotes while ambassadors tried to brief him about the country. Despite concern from the public, Neighbors told
The Lantern before the
event that China’s rise is unlikely to create major economic problems for the U.S. “It’s
possible, but trade partners always have all sorts of conflicts and disagreements. There could be some
disagreements, but I don’t see it as a profoundly negative influence. I see it as a positive one, binding us
to one another,” he said. Instead, the biggest challenges for the two nations’ relationships lies in how they
handle disputes regarding other countries. Like Neighbors, Albright said the relationship between the U.S. and China is generally
positive, and the major concerns stressing the relationship are China’s economic imbalance, its tightening of free expression and its controversy
over currency exchanges. Albright said the world needs China to step up on the world stage. Although the U.S. is the “indispensable nation,”
Albright said the issues of terrorism and nuclear proliferation require input from all major powers. Max Mauerman, a third-year in political
science and economics, said he came to the event after getting involved in international affairs through the OSU Collegiate Council on World
Affairs. “The Albright thing was interesting, but I feel like it was nothing I hadn’t heard before. I thought the question and answer with Mr.
Neighbors was actually more interesting though, and to get the chance to talk to someone in person about that,” Mauerman said. Jeff Chan,
assistant director of OSU’s Institute for Chinese Studies, told The Lantern there were no costs to OSU for the event, aside from snacks provided
to attendees. Chan said he hopes Neighbors’ presentation gave the audience a credible perspective on topics concerning China. “Not everyone
can ask Madeleine Albright questions, but at least there’s a local speaker who can hopefully illuminate issues that they have concerning China,”
Chan said.
Instability Escalates
Asian instability escalates to nuclear armed conflict- major powers will be drawn in
Campbell 8 (Kurt M, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Dr. Campbell served in several capacities in government, including
as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia and the Pacific, Director on theNational Security Council Staff, previously the Chief Executive Officer and cofounder of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), served as Director of the Aspen Strategy Group and the Chairman of the Editorial Board of
the Washington Quarterly, and was the founder and Principal of StratAsia, a strategic advisory company focused on Asia, rior to co-founding CNAS, he served as
Senior Vice President, Director of the International Security Program, and the Henry A. Kissinger Chair in National Security Policy at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, doctorate in International Relation Theory from Oxford, former associate professor of public policy and international relations at the John F.
Kennedy School of Government and Assistant Director of the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, member of Council on Foreign
Relations and International Institute for Strategic Studies, “The Power of Balance: America in iAsia” June 2008,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CampbellPatelSingh_iAsia_June08.pdf)
Asian investment is also at record levels. Asian countries lead the world with unprecedented infrastructure projects. With over $3 trillion in
foreign currency reserves, Asian nations and businesses are starting to shape global economic activity. Indian firms are purchasing industrial
giants such as Arcelor Steel, as well as iconic brands of its once-colonial ruler, such as Jaguar and Range Rover. China’s Lenovo bought IBM’s
personal computer We call the transformations across the Asia-Pacific the emergence of “iAsia” to reflect the adoption by countries across Asia
of fundamentally new strategic approaches to their neighbors and the world. Asian
nations are pursuing their interests with real
power in a period of both tremendous potential and great uncertainty. iAsia is: Integrating: iAsia includes increasing economic
interdependence and a flowering of multinational forums to deal with trade, cultural exchange, and, to some degree, security. Innovating: iAsia
boasts the world’s most successful manufacturing and technology sectors and could start taking the lead in everything from finance to
nanotech to green tech. Investing: Asian nations are developing infrastructure and human capital at unprecedented rates. But the
continent remains plagued by: Insecurity: Great-power rivalry is alive in Asia. Massive military investments along
with historic suspicions and contemporary territorial and other conflicts make war in Asia plausible. Instability: From
environmental degradation to violent extremism to trafficking in drugs, people, and weapons, Asian nations have much to worry about.
Inequality: Within nations and between them, inequality in Asia is more stark than anywhere else in the world. Impoverished minorities in
countries like India and China, and the gap in governance and capacity within countries, whether as backward as Burma or as advanced as
Singapore, present unique challenges. A traditional approach to Asia will not suffice if the United States is to both protect American interests
and help iAsia realize its potential and avoid pitfalls. business and the Chinese government, along with other Asian financial players, injected
billions in capital to help steady U.S. investment banks such as Merrill Lynch as the American subprime mortgage collapse unfolded. Chinese
investment funds regional industrialization, which in turn creates new markets for global products. Asia now accounts for over 40 percent of
global consumption of steel 4 and China is consuming almost half of world’s available concrete. 5 Natural resources from soy to copper to oil
are being used by China and India at astonishing rates, driving up commodity prices and setting off alarm bells in Washington and other
Western capitals. Yet Asia
is not a theater at peace. On average, between 15 and 50 people die every day from causes tied to
conflict, and suspicions rooted in rivalry and nationalism run deep. The continent harbors every traditional and nontraditional challenge of our age: it is a cauldron of religious and ethnic tension; a source of terror and extremism; an accelerating driver
of the insatiable global appetite for energy; the place where the most people will suffer the adverse effects of global climate change; the
and the most likely theater on Earth for a major conventional confrontation and even a
nuclear conflict. Coexisting with the optimism of iAsia are the ingredients for internal strife, non-traditional threats like
terrorism, and traditional interstate conflict, which are all magnified by the risk of miscalculation or poor decisionprimary source of nuclear proliferation;
making.
War in Asia escalates to great power involvement, and goes nuclear
Mead 14 – Walter Russell Mead, Professor of Foreign Affairs and the Humanities at Bard College,
“Obama in Asia”, The American Interest, 11-9, http://www.the-americaninterest.com/2010/11/09/obama-in-asia/
The decision to go to Asia is one that all thinking Americans can and should support regardless of either party or ideological affiliation. East and
South Asia
are the places where the 21st century, for better or for worse, will most likely be shaped; economic
growth, environmental progress, the destiny of democracy and success against terror are all at stake
here. American objectives in this region are clear. While convincing China that its best interests are not served by a rash, Kaiser Wilhelm-like
dash for supremacy in the region, the US does not want either to isolate or contain China. We want a strong, rich, open and free China in an
Asia that is also strong, rich, open and free. Our destiny is inextricably linked with Asia’s; Asian
success will make America
stronger, richer and more secure. Asia’s failures will reverberate over here, threatening our prosperity, our
security and perhaps even our survival. The world’s two most mutually hostile nuclear states, India and
Pakistan, are in Asia. The two states most likely to threaten others with nukes, North Korea and aspiring
rogue nuclear power Iran, are there. The two superpowers with a billion plus people are in Asia as well.
This is where the world’s fastest growing economies are. It is where the worst environmental problems
exist. It is the home of the world’s largest democracy, the world’s most populous Islamic country (Indonesia — which is also among the most
democratic and pluralistic of Islamic countries), and the world’s most rapidly rising non-democratic power as well. Asia holds more oil
resources than any other continent; the world’s most important and most threatened trade routes lie
off its shores. East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia (where American and NATO forces are fighting the Taliban) and West Asia
(home among others to Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and Iraq) are the theaters in the world today that most directly
engage America’s vital interests and where our armed forces are most directly involved. The world’s
most explosive territorial disputes are in Asia as well, with islands (and the surrounding mineral and fishery resources)
bitterly disputed between countries like Russia, the two Koreas, Japan, China (both from Beijing and Taipei), and
Vietnam. From the streets of Jerusalem to the beaches of Taiwan the world’s most intractable political problems are found on the Asian
landmass and its surrounding seas. Whether you view the world in terms of geopolitical security, environmental sustainability,
economic growth or the march of democracy, Asia is at the center of your concerns. That is the overwhelming reality of world
politics today, and that reality is what President Obama’s trip is intended to address.
US- China- Economy
The U.S. must maintain stable relations with China in order to protect its economy –
economies are too intertwined to risk a falling out
Zhong circa 2010 (Shan Zhong, Mr. Zhong is vice minister of commerce of the People's Republic of
China. Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the United States of America “U.S.-China Trade Is
Win-Win Game” http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/xw/t675646.htm)
A sound and stable China-U.S. economic and trade relationship is more important than ever. China-U.S.
trade and economic cooperation has generated huge and real benefits for the United States, while China
has been gaining a lot from it as well. In 2009 China jumped to become the third biggest market for U.S. exports. American
companies have cumulatively invested over $62.2 billion in 58,000 projects in China and reaped bumper harvests. Their profits in China
amounted to nearly $8 billion in 2008 alone. Since the outbreak of the international financial crisis, China has been supporting the efforts of the
American people to tackle the crisis. On the one hand, China has increased imports from the U.S. While overall U.S. exports dropped 17.9% in
2009, exports to China hardly decreased. Many U.S. manufacturing firms have found comfort in the Chinese market as a shelter against the
global financial storm. On the other hand, good value-for-money, labor-intensive goods imported from China have helped keep the cost of
living down for Americans even when they become increasingly cash-strapped. Without consumer goods from China, the U.S. price index would
go up an extra two percentage points every year. How should we approach the trade deficit, a heated topic in the China-U.S. trade and
economic relationship and an issue closely tied to many others? To start with, Chinese and U.S. interests in bilateral trade are roughly balanced.
China-U.S. trade and economic relations include services and investment as well as goods. From 2004 to 2008, the U.S. surplus in services with
China grew by a phenomenal 35.4% annually, dwarfing the growth in China's surplus in goods with the U.S. In 2008, the total sales of American
goods in the Chinese market, including goods exported from the U.S. to China, amounted to $224.7 billion, close to the value of goods China
exported to the U.S. in 2008, which stood at $252.3. The two countries were almost balanced in terms of sales after adjustment for valueadding freight and insurance fees. Next, the renminbi exchange rate is not the key to addressing China-U.S. trade imbalance. From 2005 to
2008, the renminbi appreciated by 21% against the dollar but China's trade surplus with the U.S. increased by 20.8% annually. Since 2009 the
renminbi exchange rate has remained basically stable, but China's surplus with the U.S. has fallen by 16.1%. Globally speaking, this is not an
exceptional case. In 2009 the dollar depreciated against the euro, the Japanese yen and the South Korea won, which did not bring about
fundamental changes in the trade between the U.S. and these countries. As a matter of fact, only a basically stable renminbi and dollar are
conducive to the overall interest of the international community. Finally, China always upholds and seeks balanced trade. The U.S. should
vigorously expand exports to China.
Only balanced China-U.S. trade could bring about sustained development,
mutual benefits, and a win-win relationship. The achievement of this goal rests not with restricting
China's exports to the U.S. but with increasing U.S. exports to China. We hope that the U.S., while implementing its
strategy to boost exports, can scrap the Cold War mentality, relax its export control against China, and expand the export of competitive
products to China. Where should China-U.S. trade and economic relations go from here? First, we
should refrain from politicizing
economic and trade issues. We should vigorously oppose trade protectionism, and give full play to the
platforms of the China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue and the Joint Commission on Commerce
and Trade. We hope that the U.S. can recognize China's market-economy status as soon as possible and include export-controls revision in
the priority action plan of the U.S. National Export Initiative. Second, we should expand the convergence of our interests in
economic and trade cooperation. The two economies are highly complementary with huge potentials. At
present, both are restructuring their industries and therefore their growth potential. We should give full play to our respective advantages in
capital, technology and markets, and actively explore cooperation in trade in services, low-carbon economy and high-tech products. Third, we
should enhance trade and investment facilitation. The Chinese government will adhere to the opening-up policy as one of its basic state
policies, and continuously improve policy transparency and trade and investment facilitation. The government protects the legitimate rights
and interests of foreign investors in accordance with laws. We hope that the U.S. will ease irrational restrictions on Chinese companies'
investment in the U.S., and facilitate the movement of businesspeople between the two countries. Fourth, we should promote the multilateral
trading system. China
and the U.S. should jointly push for a substantive progress in the Doha Round talks,
and lock in the agreed outcomes from previous negotiations. As Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, recently reiterated,
it is always better to have a dialogue than a confrontation, cooperation than containment, and a
partnership than a rivalry. As long as we approach the China-U.S. commercial relationship in a
responsible manner we will definitely be able to make it more stable and sound. Mr. Zhong is vice minister of
commerce of the People's Republic of China.
Relations with China are vital to the US economy – strong trade ties and investments
Xinhua ’15 (Xinhua, 5-21-2015, Global Times, “Chinese investment boosts US economy: report”
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/922854.shtml)
Growing Chinese direct investment is vital to the US economy today, marking a new chapter in US-China economic
relations, a report said Wednesday. The report, New Neighbors, co-released by the National Committee on US-China Relations and the
Rhodium Group consultancy, said that from 2000 to 2014, Chinese firms have spent nearly 46 billion US dollars on
new establishments and acquisitions in the United States, most of them over the past five years.
Acquisitions mostly with a shift in ownership made up the majority of Chinese direct investment across the United States. The Chinese
takeovers have saved companies from bankruptcy, provided new financial solutions, and in most cases, led to expansions, according to the
report. Chinese-affiliated
businesses now directly employ more than 80,000 Americans, said Daniel Rosen,
partner of the Rhodium Group. This long payroll was compared to less than 15,000 people five years
ago, while excluding indirect employment, or an addition of tens of thousands of jobs. There was no loss of
innovation and competitive power for the US companies with new Chinese owners, who were drawn to the United States mainly by its talent
pool and strong protection of intellectual property rights, and are now investing a lot of money each year on research, according to the report.
The report also cited technology investors Tencent and Alibaba as important sources of capital for US startups and early stage growth
companies. However, the current level of Chinese direct investment in the United States is only at a par with that of Japanese firms in the
1980s, according to the report. It predicted an inflow of between 100 billion and 200 billion dollars by 2020, and consequently an increase of
between 200,000 and 400,000 full-time jobs, as long as the United States remains a destination for China's booming outward investment.
At: Aff Args
At: HR Cred Good Impacts
Human Rights Credibility has no influence over Human Rights- UN proves
Posner 14’ (Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, a professor at the
University of Chicago Law School", “The case against human rights”, December 4th 2014,
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against-human-rights, 7/8/15)
it is hard to avoid the conclusion that governments continue to violate human rights with impunity.
countries (out of 193 countries that belong to the UN) engage in torture?
Why has the number of authoritarian countries increased in the last several years? Why do women remain a
subordinate class in nearly all countries of the world? Why do children continue to work in mines and
factories in so many countries? The truth is that human rights law has failed to accomplish its objectives.
There is little evidence that human rights treaties, on the whole, have improved the wellbeing of people. The
reason is that human rights were never as universal as people hoped, and the belief that they could be
forced upon countries as a matter of international law was shot through with misguided assumptions
from the very beginning. The human rights movement shares something in common with the hubris of development economics,
And yet
Why, for example, do more than 150
which in previous decades tried (and failed) to alleviate poverty by imposing top-down solutions on developing countries. But where
development economists have reformed their approach, the
human rights movement has yet to acknowledge its
failures. It is time for a reckoning. Although the modern notion of human rights emerged during the 18th century, it was on December 10,
1948, that the story began in earnest, with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the
UN general assembly. The declaration arose from the ashes of the second world war and aimed to launch a new,
brighter era of international relations. It provided a long list of rights, most of which are the familiar “political”
rights that are set down in the US constitution, or that have been constructed by American courts over the years. The
declaration was not dictated by the United States, however, and showed the influence of other traditions of legal
thought in its inclusion of “social” rights, such as the right to work. The weaknesses that would go on to undermine
human rights law were there from the start. The universal declaration was not a treaty in the formal sense: no
one at the time believed that it created legally binding obligations. It was not ratified by nations but approved by the
general assembly, and the UN charter did not give the general assembly the power to make international law. Moreover, the rights were
described in vague, aspirational terms, which could be interpreted in multiple ways, and national governments – even the liberal democracies –
were wary of binding legal obligations. The US did not commit itself to eliminating racial segregation, and Britain and France did not commit
themselves to liberating the subject populations in their colonies. Several authoritarian states – including the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and
Saudi Arabia – refused to vote in favour of the universal declaration and instead abstained. The
words in the universal declaration
may have been stirring, but no one believed at the time that they portended a major change in the way
international relations would be conducted; nor did they capture the imagination of voters, politicians,
intellectuals or anyone else who might have exerted political pressure on governments
Aff Side
Uniqueness Answers
US Pressuring Now
The US is pressuring China and Russia on their human rights violations
Gaouette 6/25
(Nicole Gaouette, “U.S. Lambastes China on Human Rights Once Visitors Head Home”, Bloomberg.com,
6/25/15, website, 7/7/15, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-25/u-s-lambastes-chinaon-human-rights-once-visitors-head-for-home
Repression, coercion, corruption and persecution are routine tools of China’s government, according to
a U.S. human rights report released a day after high-level talks between the countries ended in
Washington. The State Department presented its “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2014” on Thursday, four months after
Congress’s Feb. 25 deadline. Republican critics have suggested the delay was intended not only to smooth the way for the China talks -- which
ended with few tangible results -- but also to avoid roiling nuclear talks with Iran that are in their final stages. Secretary of State John Kerry
unveiled the annual report a day before heading to Vienna for efforts to reach agreement with Iranian officials by a June 30 deadline. This
year’s version finds that Iran employed arbitrary detention, torture and killings; that its security forces operated with impunity; and that
politically motivated violence and repression was rife. In May, Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who’s running for president, and five
colleagues wrote Kerry about the delayed report, saying that Iran’s human rights record was “inextricably intertwined” with its nuclear
ambitions. “The history of the twentieth century elucidates a dangerous axis between internal suppression of human rights and external
aggression,” the senators wrote. Iran’s Executions Iran metes out the death penalty for offenses including “outrage against high-ranking
officials” and “insults against the memory of Imam Khomeini” who led the 1979 revolution that toppled the Shah of Iran and ended relations
with the U.S., according to the report. Iran defends its use of flogging and amputation as “punishment,” not torture, it said. The 45-page section
on Iran notes that individuals have been arbitrarily killed and detained, but it doesn’t mention Americans by name. Washington Post bureau
chief Jason Rezaian, referred to only as “a dual-citizen journalist,” was arrested in July 2014, and has been denied access to consular visits, legal
representation and release on bail, the report said. “With respect to Iran, I can’t say we’ve seen any meaningful improvement” since the
election of President Hassan Rouhani, said Tom Malinowski, the assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, who
briefed reporters on the department’s findings. Cuba’s Abuses The report also repeats criticism of Cuba, despite President Barack Obama’s
moves toward normalizing relations with the island nation. Cuba, the report found, remains a place where human rights abuses are committed
with impunity by officials at the behest of the government. The 31-page section describes arbitrary detentions and arrests; restrictions on
travel, academic freedom and the Internet; and violent government-organized counterprotests against peaceful dissent. The U.S. has “not seen
a letup in day-to-day harassment” in Cuba, Malinowski said. He and other administration officials have said their decision to engage Cuba
eventually will improve the human rights situation there, and that they regularly raise the subject in talks with their counterparts worldwide.
“The United States will continue to stand up for universal human rights and freedoms that all people desire and should enjoy,” Kerry said at the
close of the talks with China on Wednesday. “These rights and freedoms are vital to stability and prosperity.” Findings Ignored China, as it has in
years past, responded with a rights report of its own, criticizing the U.S. for “showing not a bit of regret for or intention to improve its own
terrible human rights record.” Evidence cited by China included gun violence, police discrimination, Central Intelligence Agency torture and the
influence of money in politics. Rights groups praised the U.S. report as an objective assessment of the performance of the country’s allies and
enemies. The problem, said John Sifton, an advocacy director at Human Rights Watch in Washington, was that the government “too often
disregards its findings in formulating U.S. foreign policy.” While the report includes summaries on particularly abusive regimes, including Iraq
and Saudi Arabia, Sifton said, in places it “allows the emphasis on non-state actors,” such as Islamic State and Boko Haram, “to upstage abuses
by governments which are fighting those groups.” “The U.S. government needs to do a better job incorporating this report’s findings into its
The report portrays modern-day China as a ruthlessly
repressive political system that regularly deploys extralegal measures to keep dissent in check,
particularly among groups such as Uigurs, a Muslim minority group, and Tibetans. The report noted the disappearance of
influential Tibetan monk Tenzin Lhundrup, who advocated for the preservation of Tibetan identity. Throughout China, officials use
“enforced disappearance and strict house arrest, including house arrest of family members, to prevent public
expression of independent opinions,” the report said. Attempts to exert control extended to cyberspace, the report found, as
China’s “authorities continued to censor and tightly control public discourse on the Internet.” In Russia,
significant human rights problems include restrictions on freedoms of assembly, expression and
association, the report said. President Vladimir Putin’s government has increasingly suppressed dissent, the report said. “The
government passed new repressive laws and selectively employed existing ones systematically to
relationships with countries around the world,” Sifton said. China, Russia
harass, discredit, prosecute, imprison, detain, and fine individuals and entities that engaged in activities
critical of the government,” it said.
US- China Relations Low
Current Chinese leadership will keep relations low- they have distrust of US culture
Economy in 2015 (Elizabeth is a writer for Forbes Asia she specializes in US-China relations; “Poisoning the
Well of U.S.-China Relations” Published: 7/08/2015 @ 3:44PM Accessed: 7/8/15;
http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabetheconomy/2015/07/08/poisoning-the-well-of-u-s-china-relations/)
It was bound to happen. As China’s stock market continued its wild ride, dropping 30% by early July from a seven-year high only a month prior,
rumors started swirling that Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and George Soros, among other vague forces of international capital, were to
blame for the stock market plunge. No matter that foreign investors have only limited access to mainland Chinese stock exchanges, the
current Chinese leadership has become addicted to the foreigner blame game. The phrase “hostile
foreign forces” has become a catch-all for Chinese officials, scholars and media commentators who cannot
acknowledge the reality of China’s current political and economic situation. In the past few years, virtually no area of Chinese policy has
remained untouched by the influence of “hostile foreign forces.” China’s
education minister Yuan Guiren argues that
“young teachers and students are key targets of infiltration by enemy forces” and condemned Western concepts
such as the rule of law, civil society and human rights. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) accused “hostile Western
forces” of exaggerating the number of people who died during the Great Leap Forward in order to
undermine the legitimacy of the party. CASS also worked with the Chinese Defense University and
General Staff department to produce a film that claims U.S.-China military-to-military exchanges offer
Americans a chance for infiltration and attacks the longstanding Fulbright program as an element of “America’s
cultural invasion.” Western reports of police violence in Xinjiang were attributed to hostile foreign forces in August 2014. The vice
chairman of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, Li Yufu, blamed hostile foreign forces for attempting toundermine the solidarity of the
Chinese workers. Early in China’s clean air movement, as well, some officials argued that the activists were being used by hostile foreign forces.
And, of course, hostile foreign forces were a major contributor to the protests in Hong Kong. Even President
Xi Jinping has warned
against outside forces intruding on Chinese religions, although virtually all major religions in China today came to the
country from outside its borders, and two of the largest, Buddhism and Catholicism, are led by religious figures who reside outside China. This
flurry of anti-Western rhetoric has also been accompanied by a number of legislative efforts designed to limit Western influence. A broadreaching new National Security Law is tasked to “safeguard national security, defend the people’s democratic dictatorship and the socialist
system with Chinese characteristics” as well as to realize “the great rejuvenation of the nation.” China’s national security commission is also
drafting legislation to severely regulate foreign-based nonprofits for fear that Western governments will use these organizations to undermine
the Communist Party. A cybersecurity law presented earlier this year, since put on hold, would have required the banking industry to use
equipment deemed “secure and controllable” by Beijing, essentially closing the door for foreign IT firms. Meanwhile, a separate proposed antiterrorism law would require technology firms to provide encryption keys and install backdoors to allow law enforcement to access information.
While the Chinese leadership may see such rhetoric and policies as a cheap and easy way of deflecting attention from their inability to address
the challenges before them, this strategy trades short-term gain for long-term pain. As the political atmosphere turns sour, China will become a
less attractive destination for many foreigners. Overall, twice as many foreigners left China than arrived in 2014, and while the United States is
still supplies more expats to China than any other country, 22% fewer Americans moved to China in 2014 than in 2013. Beijing also risks losing
credibility with the most educated segments of Chinese society. Even as less informed Chinese may buy into the anti-Western narrative, each
time the “hostile foreign forces” argument is introduced, Chinese netizens fight back. Chinese labor union activists, for example, have argued
that their discontent derives not from the infiltration of foreign forces but from the failure of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions to
protect their interests. And certainly the constant drumbeat of anti-Western sentiment emanating from senior Chinese officials does little to
support their claim that they want a trust-based “new relationship among major powers.” The China Dream may eventually come to represent
a unique and compelling combination of Chinese traditional values, Marxism, and Xi Jinping Thought; but in the meantime, Chinese leaders
shouldn’t take the easy, but ultimately self-defeating and poisonous, path of using anti-Western values to fill the void.
US-China relations are dismal – Tibet, Taiwan, political arrests, conflict in the South
China Sea and cyber attacks
Schell 15
Schell, Orville. (Schell is the Arthur Ross Director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia
Society in New York.) "Can the U.S. and China Get Along?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 09
July 2015. Web. 10 July 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/opinion/can-the-us-and-china-getalong.html
Despite meetings between Presidents Xi and Obama, and a yearly Strategic and Economic Dialogue, the level of
discouragement and pessimism, especially among China specialists, about the future of Chinese-American
relations is at its highest since the bloodshed of 1989. To the litany of the old problems — Taiwan, Tibet,
human rights, intellectual property, currency policy — a host of new ones have been added. In China,
advocates for civil and political rights have been arrested; civil society groups harassed; controls on free
expression in academia, the media and civil society tightened; and “universal values” attacked. Outside China, Beijing’s new
assertiveness has inflamed disputes in the East and South China Seas even as new controversies have
multiplied over hacking and other cyberattacks, harassment of political and social activists, blockage of news media
websites, and punitive denials of visa applications for American journalists, writers and scholars who want to work
in China.
US-China relations are threatened by activity in the South China Sea and cybersecurity
Labott 15
Labott, Elise. (Labott is CNN's global affairs correspondent, covering US foreign policy and international affairs "U.S., China Begin Annual
Dialogue under Cloud of Mistrust." CNN. N.p., 22 June 2015. Web. 10 July 2015. http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/22/politics/united-states-chinarelations/
The scale of Chinese building and militarization of man-made islands in the South China Sea has raised
concern in the region about Beijing's territorial ambitions. Last month the U.S. flew a rare and highly
publicized military surveillance flight in the area to highlight the massive scale of activity. China calls the
islands its sovereign territory, but the U.S. has said China is building in disputed waters and is
threatening freedom of navigation in sea lanes which are key for international trade. Russel called last
week's announcement by China that it planned to continue and expand construction on reclaimed
outposts "troubling." "Neither that statement, nor that behavior, contributes to reducing tensions," Russel
said. "We consistently urge China to cease reclamation to not construct further facilities and certainly not to further it." The
already tense relationship between the U.S. and China over cybersecurity has recently become more
fraught after the Chinese suspended a separate track of talks to discuss the issue a year ago when the U.S. charged five Chinese military
officers with hacking. Although the cyber working group has not met since, Russel and other U.S. officials have said cybersecurity would be
raised throughout the talks, both from a security context and an economic one.
US-China relations are rocky – South China Sea, cybersecurity, business and human
rights
Pennington 15
Pennington, Matthew. "Relations between the US and China Are Getting Tense." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 20 June 2015. Web. 10
July 2015. <http://www.businessinsider.com/relations-between-the-us-and-china-are-getting-tense-2015-6>.
But it's a model with cracks in it.
Relations between the world's two largest economies, with their divergent political
systems and priorities, rarely run smoothly. But recent months have been particularly rocky. China's reclamation of more
than 2,000 acres of land on disputed islands and atolls in the South China Sea since last year has raised
international alarm over its territorial ambitions. Washington took the unusual step last month of publicizing a U.S. military
surveillance flight that showed the massive scale of China's island-building. China says the islands are its sovereignty
territory, but Washington argues that the continuation of building work and militarization of the islands
could enflame complex territorial disputes with China's neighbors, with whom the U.S. is seeking to
forge closer ties while preserving freedom of navigation in sea lanes crucial for world trade. "Nobody is interested in conflict here and
there's no reason why it needs to devolve into conflict. Again, that's why next week's meeting is so important," State Department spokesman
John Kirby told reporters Thursday. Cybersecurity
is another source of acrimony that's up for discussion, given
fresh urgency by the massive security breach that led to the theft of personal information of as many as
14 million current and former U.S. federal employees. The Obama administration believes that China's
government, not criminal hackers, was responsible for the breach that included detailed background
information on military and intelligence personnel. China has denied involvement in the break-in and says it is also a victim
of cyberattacks. The U.S. business community, meanwhile, is concerned that regulatory barriers in China are
growing, not easing, despite Xi's promise to advance economic reforms. Progress has been slow on the bilateral
investment treaty the U.S. and China agreed to pursue two years ago, and China has reportedly submitted a
long list of sectors it wants excluded. Daniel Russel, top U.S. diplomat for East Asia, said that the U.S. and China
wouldn't ignore their differences, including on human rights issues. Since taking power two years ago, Xi has
consolidated China's authoritarian system, squelching dissent and civil society.
US- Russ Relations Low
Despite cooperation in Iran – U.S. Russia relations will only become increasingly
aggravated in 2015
Ibragimova ’15 (Galiya Ibragimova, Jan 7, 2015. “What's next for US-Russia relations in 2015?”
http://www.russia-direct.org/debates/whats-next-us-russia-relations-2015)
As the year draws to a close, it is customary for Russia Direct to poll experts about the prospects for U.S.-Russian relations in the coming year.
In 2014, the military confrontation in the southeast of Ukraine and Crimea’s incorporation into Russia
prompted the West to impose sanctions against Russia and sharply aggravated U.S.-Russian relations.
There was even talk of a new Cold War. Not surprisingly, when it comes to relations between the two
countries in 2015, expert forecasts are not overly optimistic. However, all recognize the importance of maintaining at
least a minimum level of dialogue between Moscow and Washington. Andrei Kortunov, general director of the Russian
International Affairs Council (RIAC) I see no grounds to be optimistic about U.S.-Russian relations in
2015. The main problem will be the impact of anti-Russian sanctions on relations between Moscow and Washington. It is not a
question of whether relations between the Kremlin and the White House will be neutral or bad, but of
how bad. The main thing is to avert a worsening of the crisis and to try to maintain a dialogue. Issues such as combating terrorism,
preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, Iran’s nuclear program and Syria could provide a way to extend opportunities for
dialogue. Environmental issues and climate change could also be points of tentative contact between Russia and the West next year. But
under U.S. President Barack Obama’s present administration, no one should expect U.S.-Russian
relations to stabilize. Evgeny Buzhinsky, senior vice president of the PIR Center for Policy Studies AS LONG AS CRIMEA REMAINS PART OF
RUSSIA (APPARENTLY FOREVER), U.S.-RUSSIAN RELATIONS WILL BE VERY STRAINED. Relations between Russia and the United
States in 2015 will become increasingly aggravated. As long as Crimea remains part of Russia (apparently forever), U.S.Russian relations will be very strained. Even if sanctions are lifted eventually, there will be no partnership between Moscow and Washington in
the foreseeable future. I do not rule out the fact that cooperation will continue on Iran’s nuclear program and the fight against terrorism, but
with far less enthusiasm than before. Moscow’s political support for the international coalition will be the only avenue of collaboration in the
fight against Islamic State, and only then, on condition that the purpose is not to overthrow the regime of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad.
Cooperation on the International Space Station will continue until 2020, but overall, joint efforts in space will be gradually phased out. Nikolai
Zlobin, president of the Center on Global Interests (CGI) The United States and Russia are set for further confrontation, so the development
scenario for bilateral relations in 2015 is negative. The events in Ukraine are merely a pretext to lock horns over what system will replace the
so-called “post world order” and what geopolitical niches Moscow and Washington will occupy in it. The United States still has more allies, as
well as financial and ideological clout, so its vision of the new world order will prevail, but Russia will continue to actively resist. The
antagonisms will become more acute across a range of regional issues. A crisis similar to the one in Ukraine could flare up anywhere from the
Baltics to the Caucasus, provoking a new wave of international tension. MOSCOW AND WASHINGTON WILL INCREASINGLY VIE FOR THE
SYMPATHIES OF CHINA, INDIA AND EVEN CUBA In 2015 Russia
will explore ways to split the Western world, driving a
wedge between the U.S. and the EU on one side, and between Japan and the West on the other. The
U.S., meanwhile, will try to make the Western world close ranks on all international issues, including
sanctions against Russia, the continued existence of the G20 and G7, and the fight against Ebola. Moscow and Washington
will increasingly vie for the sympathies of China, India and even Cuba. Terrorism, nuclear non-proliferation and
energy security are the three classic areas in which dialogue is possible, but the corridor is too narrow to improve bilateral interplay. The
jaundiced relationship between Russia and the United States will last at least a decade, until the next
generation of politicians takes over. Ariel Cohen, director of the Center for Energy, Natural Resources and Geopolitics of the
Institute of Analysis of Global Security, director of International Market Analysis Ltd. The development scenario for U.S.-Russian relations in
2015 will be 90 percent dependent on Moscow. A resumption of hostilities and an offensive on Melitopol by pro-Russian separatists eager to
punch a corridor through to Crimea will further aggravate U.S.-Russian relations. However, a restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and a
truce in the Donbas region could mark the beginning of negotiations on the gradual abolition of sanctions and counter sanctions. And if the
Kremlin were to tone down the anti-American rhetoric, stop searching for “internal enemies” and initiate a democratic dialogue with the
Russian opposition, relations could improve not only with the United States, but also with the West in general. Rationally speaking, I believe
that all international issues, including the fight against Islamic State, the curtailment of Iran’s nuclear program, negotiations on the future of
Afghanistan and, above all else, Ukraine and European security, offer scope for cooperation between Russia and the United States in 2015.
US-Russia relations are deteriorating because of the crisis in Ukraine
Tim Marcin July 2, 2015, Amid Ukraine Tension, Russia Condemns 'Confrontational' US Military
Strategy, International Business Times, http://www.ibtimes.com/amid-ukraine-tension-russiacondemns-confrontational-us-military-strategy-1993932
The worn relationship between Russia and the United States reportedly took another step backward this
week. The Kremlin said Thursday that a recently announced United States military strategy was confrontational and
would further strain relations already tense over the conflict in Ukraine, reported Reuters. The Pentagon's new
strategy, released Wednesday, said Russia had shown it was willing to use force to reach its goals and did not respect the sovereignty of its
neighbors. The document specifically mentioned Russia alongside Iran and North Korea as threats to global
peace, reported Defense News. Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin's spokesman, expressed his displeasure concerning the
strategy to reporters in a conference call, saying it suggested a "confrontational attitude, devoid of any objectivity towards
our country," according to Reuters. "Of course this will hardly contribute to attempts to steer bilateral relations in
the direction of normalization," he said. Relations between Russia and the United States have frayed over
the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine between the Ukrainian government and pro-Russia separatists, in which some 6,400
military people and civilians have died. Western leaders and the Ukrainian government have suggested that Russia has been involved in the
conflict by sending troops and arms, but the Kremlin has repeatedly denied any direct involvement.
US- Russia Relations Inevitable
Moscow wants to cooperate with Washington on global challenges despite tensions
over Ukraine
MACINTYRE and ISACHENKOV In 2015 (Vladimir Isachenkov and Sandy Macintrye are both
correspondents at associated press; “Putin criticizes US but offers to cooperate on global crises” Updated: 12:08
am, Monday, June 22, 2015 Accessed: 7/8/15; http://www.timesunion.com/news/world/article/Putin-urgespolitical-settlement-for-Ukrainian-6337421.php)
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (AP) — Despite
the showdown with the West over Ukraine, Moscow wants to cooperate
with Washington and its allies in dealing with the threat posed by the Islamic State group and other
global challenges, President Vladimir Putin said Friday as he tried to allay investors' fears over Russia's course. Putin blamed the
United States for ignoring Russia's interests and trying to enforce its will on others, but he also sent
conciliatory signals, saying that Moscow wants a quick settlement to the Iranian nuclear standoff and a
peaceful political transition in Syria. Speaking at a major economic forum, Putin also insisted that Russia wants February's Ukraine
peace agreement to succeed. Fighting there will stop, he said, once Ukraine provides broader rights to its eastern regions, gives amnesty to the
rebels and calls local elections there. The annual event, intended to burnish Russia's image before global investors, was tarnished by the
freezing of Russian accounts in France and Belgium on Thursday as part of an effort to enforce a $50 billion judgment to compensate
shareholders of the now-defunct Yukos oil company. At a meeting with top executives of global news agencies, including The Associated Press,
which began nearly three hours behind schedule at around midnight, Putin sought to downplay the freeze and said that Russia will contest it.
US-Russia Relations are resilient now- Mutual disinterest in rivalry proves
Andrei Sushentsov, Jan 7, 2015 (head of the Foreign Policy agency, Valdai Club expert, associate professor of MGIMO
http://www.russia-direct.org/debates/whats-next-us-russia-relations-2015 ‘What's next for US-Russia relations in 2015?’)
The Ukraine crisis in 2014 hit U.S.-Russian relations very hard indeed. But despite the sanctions and heightened antagonism across a range of
issues, I think relations
between Moscow and Washington have stood firm. Neither country is interested in
geopolitical rivalry; therefore, in 2015 I predict a positive scenario for U.S.-Russian relations. The United
States has conditioned better relations with Russia (in particular, the lifting of sanctions) on the
implementation of the Minsk agreements, although it is not a party to the negotiation process in Minsk. If the truce between the selfproclaimed republics in the Donbas region and the authorities in Kiev holds, Ukraine will cease to dominate the international agenda, and
Russia and the United States will gradually establish a dialogue on issues of common interest. Russia has
initiated many effective solutions in the Middle East. 2015 will be a watershed moment for a deal with
Iran. Moscow’s participation in the talks with Tehran is very important, and its Western partners
understand that. The situation in and around Afghanistan is also unclear following the withdrawal of NATO troops. Russia’s involvement
in maintaining security is vital. Thus, in 2015 Russia and the United States will strengthen cooperation, if not on a
bilateral basis, then at least on a multilateral basis, with the involvement of other parties.
Link Answers
US Won’t Pressure China
US won’t pressure China on human rights- leaders will dodge the issue to maintain
relations
Richardson, ’15(Sophie Richardson, JULY 7, 2015 “U.S. Should Make More Public Statements About
China’s Human Rights” https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/07/07/us-should-make-more-publicstatements-about-chinas-human-rights)
When China’s leader Xi Jinping comes to the United States for his first state visit in September, will U.S. leaders use the summit to address the
country’s deteriorating human rights conditions? Not if the U.S. performance at June’s Strategic and Economic Dialogue with China is any
indication. Some
plaudits are in order for U.S. efforts, particularly for Secretary of State John Kerry and Deputy Secretary of
State Antony Blinken’s raising the many flaws in China’s proposed Foreign NGO Management Law and its
many problematic consequences for civil society inside and outside China. But even these relatively
strong remarks betray a growing problem in U.S.-China high-level interactions: the unwillingness of
American diplomats to raise publicly with their Chinese counterparts specific cases of human rights
abuses. Neither Kerry nor Blinken raised Beijing’s concerted efforts to destroy Yirenping, an anti-discrimination group, or the New Citizens’
Movement, a civic rights forum. There was no public mention in this setting of well-known cases, such as
imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, or even of Li Tingting, Wang Man, Wei Tingting, Wu Rongrong, and Zheng
Churan, the five feminists detained (and later released) this spring, on whose behalf U.S. officials spoke up
in April. As a result, there were few facts offered to challenge Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi’s
insistence that, “In advancing human rights, China’s achievements are there for all to see.” And there
was little evidence that courageous activists in China could see, of the U.S. taking seriously its purported
“whole of government” approach. U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden lowered the bar in his opening remarks. Biden didn’t remind
his audience that China has freely undertaken a slew of legally-binding human rights commitments, or the extent to which it’s violating those.
Instead, Biden
gingerly introduced the topic by cautioning that he wasn’t “lecturing,” and then rattled off a
list of human rights abuses—without specifying that those abuses are taking place right now in China,
enabled or tolerated by some of the very Chinese officials listening to the speech. Having side-stepped the opportunity to
challenge those officials, or at least make a principled argument, Biden concluded that “responsible
competitors”—by which he presumably meant governments that respect human rights—do so “not just
because it’s the right thing to do, but because it’s absolutely economically necessary.” He then mentioned his
“friendships” with people in the leadership, but named no human rights defenders from China. Even China’s plans to host a commemoration
this September of the landmark 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women on women’s rights went unchallenged: U.S.
officials did not
in public sessions challenge China’s ongoing harassment of the five feminists, who are released but
remain criminal suspects, but opted instead to call the September gathering a “critical opportunity.”
Instead, they opted for broad references to restrictions on civil society, exclusion of women from opportunities for “economic success,” and
domestic violence. But no specifics were given—only broad, vague principles which posed no meaningful challenge to the Chinese officials
present. The White House’s readout of President Obama’s meeting with Chinese representatives to the Dialogue contains no reference to
human rights. On top of this,
the U.S. “committed to enhance…counterterrorism cooperation” with China. Such
an agreement gives credibility where it is manifestly not due, given China’s proposed counterterrorism
law, which is nothing more than a legal veneer for human rights abuses. Although China does suffer a number of
deadly and apparently politically motivated attacks directed against the general population, the Chinese government long has
manipulated the threat of terrorism to justify its crackdown on the 10 million ethnic Uyghurs in Xinjiang.
United States officials will no doubt insist that it is better to have discussions that create opportunities to raise precisely those concerns. But
clearly whatever concerns the U.S. raised at last year’s Counterterrorism dialogue were brushed aside in the drafting of this law.
The U.S.
should set far higher standards for China to meet before engaging in any sort of cooperation on this
issue. No doubt U.S. officials will point to their naming of individual cases at the overdue release of the State Department’s human rights
report—the day after the Dialogue finished—and describe which cases they raised behind closed doors. These are necessary, but far from
sufficient. If publicly identifying individual cases and using them to challenge the Chinese government is a good enough strategy to use
sometimes, it ought to be good enough to use in the forums where it matters most: at high level summits where it has the power to potentially
embarrass Chinese officials into behaving differently. Some senior U.S. officials shy away from causing embarrassment to senior Chinese
officials, arguing that it is counterproductive. It's hard to know that definitively, especially when former political prisoners tell us and others
that their treatment improved when their cases were publicly raised, suggesting that embarrassment does prompt a change in behavior. And
these U.S. officials' logic concern about causing discomfort doesn't seem to apply when discussing equally tense, non-human rights-related
issues like cybersecurity or currency manipulation. Some may think that raising individual cases or major issues like democracy will interfere
with other priorities in the relationship. But both sides regularly state that the sum of the relationship is far greater than any individual issue,
suggesting that bilateral ties will not collapse if the U.S. publicly calls for the release of a half-dozen critics of the Chinese government. In fact,
some U.S. officials note with surprise that an unusual number of the non-human rights related issues in the June 2012 Strategic & Economic
Dialogue were dealt with efficiently—despite the parallel, global headline-making story of Chen Guangcheng's escape from house arrest in
Shandong province to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. And some may think it more effective to be bland in public and push hard in private—as we
know many U.S. diplomats have done. But despite those and other efforts, the results are there for all to see: a manifestly deteriorating human
rights environment. The U.S. shares this view, but is inexplicably unwilling to use all the tools at its disposal—despite its claims to a "whole of
government" approach—to change that reality. Above
all, speaking about individuals also gives critical hope to those
in China who are suffering or jailed for trying to assert their rights, and no diplomat should ever shy
away from an opportunity to mitigate that torment. That no single U.S. diplomat saw fit to do so publicly
is a betrayal of all those in China fighting for their rights.
Aff Doesn’t Increase HR Cred
The fear of terror has caused the US to violate basic human rights
Rohde in 2013
(Stephen Rohde; constitutional lawyer and Chair of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, “More
to Fear than Fear Itself: The War on Terror's War on Human Rights”, truth-out.org, 3/6/13, website,
7/7/15, http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14955-more-to-fear-than-fear-itself-the-war-onterrors-war-on-human-rights)
In his first inaugural address on March 4, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt famously said: "So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that
the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into
Emmerson, UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human
rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, in a report to the UN Human Rights Council, called on the
United States to publish its findings on the CIA's Bush-era program of rendition and secret detention of
terrorism suspects. Emmerson could well expand his demand to a far wider array of human rights violations that span far more that
what the United States has done under the Bush and Obama administrations. America's nameless, unreasoning, unjustified fear of
terror has caused us to launch immoral wars, slaughter innocent civilians with bombs and drones, impose an
undeclared military draft on the poor and people of color, violate civil liberties and human rights, demonize
Muslims and Islam, divert precious resources from desperate human needs into weapons of mass destruction,
delay for generations the prospects of peace, and, most recently, shamefully refuse to investigate and prosecute
any of these crimes against humanity. Emmerson expressed grave concern that while Obama's administration has rejected CIA
advance." Eighty years later to the day, Ben
practices conducted under his predecessor, there have been no prosecutions. "Despite this clear repudiation of the unlawful actions carried out
by the Bush-era CIA, many of the facts remain classified, and no public official has so far been brought to justice in the United States,"
The war on terror led to "gross or
systematic" violations involving secret prisons for Islamic militant suspects, clandestine transfers and torture, Emmerson
Emmerson said in a report to the UN Human Rights Council, which he will address on March 5.
said. In response to Attorney General Eric Holder's position that the Department of Justice would not prosecute any official who acted in good
faith and within the scope of legal guidance given by its Office of Legal Counsel on interrogation, Emmerson pointed out that using a "superior
orders defense" and invoking secrecy on national security grounds was "perpetuating impunity for the public officials implicated in these
crimes." Emmerson said he believed that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), which
has investigated the CIA's secret detention and interrogation practices, including waterboarding, has had unrestricted access to classified
information. He urged the US government "to publish without delay, and to the fullest extent possible" the Senate report, except for any
information strictly necessary to protect legitimate national security interests or the safety of people identified in it. "There is now credible
evidence to show that CIA black sites were located on the territory of Lithuania, Morocco, Poland, Romania and Thailand, and that the officials
of at least 49 other states allowed their airspace or airports to be used for rendition flights," Emmerson said. He urged those five countries to
conduct "effective independent judicial or quasi-judicial inquiries" into the allegations. Any public officials who may have authorized or helped
in setting up such facilities should be held accountable, he added. In January, Emmerson announced he would investigate the use of unmanned
drones in counterterrorism operations, given the number of innocent civilians killed. Emmerson's nonbinding report has only moral authority,
but it will add pressure on the Obama administration not to allow what he called a "blanket of official impunity" to descend. Fear - that
"nameless, unreasoning, unjustified fear" FDR spoke of (and which even he could not resist, as he would later send 120,000 innocent Japanese
has blinded the American people to
accept the new normal as all around us, cherished human rights are sacrificed on the altar of national
security. Benjamin Franklin's dire warning cannot be repeated often enough. "Any Society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little
Americans into internment camps), fomented every day by politicians and warmongers -
security will deserve neither and lose both."
Internal Link Answers
No HR Cred Doesn’t = Relations
No internal link- holding back on human rights doesn’t lead to progress on other issue
in US China relations
HRF in 2012, Human Rights First, How to Integrate Human Rights into U.S.-China Relations,
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/blueprints2012/HRF_China_blueprint.pdf
With China’s power rising and the scope of the U.S. relationship with China broadening, two assumptions
have taken root among American policymakers. The first is that of a zero sum game—that progress on human rights
comes at the expense of other issues that are often viewed as more critical. The Obama Administration’s
experiences with China and the Chen case suggest otherwise. The administration’s efforts in the first two
years to avoid antagonizing Chinese leaders did not result in progress on critical issues. Secretary Clinton’s
tough approach in the Chen case no doubt irritated Chinese leaders. They retaliated by withholding written
responses to the case list submitted in the previous Human Rights Dialogue. But they did not walk out. They permitted Chen
to leave the country. Chinese leaders calculated the totality of their interests in the overall relationship.
China Impact Answers
No US-China War
The United States and China will not go to war no matter what – nuclear weapons and
geography assure peace
Keck ’13 (Zachary Keck, July 12, 2013. “Why China and the US (Probably) Won’t Go to War”
http://thediplomat.com/2013/07/why-china-and-the-us-probably-wont-go-to-war/)
As I noted earlier in the week, the diplomatic summits between China and the U.S. over the past month has renewed conversation on whether
Beijing and Washington, as rising and established power, can defy history by not going to war. Xinhua was the latest to weigh in on this
question ahead of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue this week, in an article titled, “China, U.S. Can Avoid ‘Thucydides Trap.’” Like many
others, Xinhua’s argument that a U.S.-China war can be avoided is based largely on their strong economic relationship. This logic is deeply
flawed both historically and logically. Strong
economic partners have gone to war in the past, most notably in
WWI, when Britain and Germany fought on opposite sides despite being each other’s largest trading
partners. More generally, the notion of a “capitalist peace” is problematic at best. Close trading ties can
raise the cost of war for each side, but any great power conflict is so costly already that the addition of a
temporarily loss of trade with one’s leading partner is a small consideration at best. And while trade can create
powerful stakeholders in each society who oppose war, just as often trading ties can be an important source of friction. Indeed, the fact
that Japan relied on the U.S. and British colonies for its oil supplies was actually the reason it opted for
war against them. Even today, China’s allegedly unfair trade policies have created resentment among large political constituencies in the
United States. But while trade cannot be relied upon to keep the peace, a U.S.-China war is virtually
unthinkable because of two other factors: nuclear weapons and geography. The fact that both the U.S.
and China have nuclear weapons is the most obvious reasons why they won’t clash, even if they remain
fiercely competitive. This is because war is the continuation of politics by other means, and nuclear
weapons make war extremely bad politics. Put differently, war is fought in pursuit of policy ends, which
cannot be achieved through a total war between nuclear-armed states. This is not only because of nuclear weapons
destructive power. As Thomas Schelling outlined brilliantly, nuclear weapons have not actually increased humans destructive capabilities. In
fact, there is evidence to suggest that wars between nomads usually ended with the victors slaughtering all of the individuals on the losing side,
because of the economics of holding slaves in nomadic “societies.” What
makes nuclear weapons different, then, is not
just their destructive power but also the certainty and immediacy of it. While extremely ambitious or
desperate leaders can delude themselves into believing they can prevail in a conventional conflict with a
stronger adversary because of any number of factors—superior will, superior doctrine, the weather
etc.— none of this matters in nuclear war. With nuclear weapons, countries don’t have to prevail on the battlefield or defeat an
opposing army to destroy an entire country, and since there are no adequate defenses for a large-scale nuclear attack, every leader can be
absolute certain that most of their country can be destroyed in short-order in the event of a total conflict. Since
no policy goal is
worth this level of sacrifice, the only possible way for an all-out conflict to ensue is for a miscalculation
of some sort to occur. Most of these can and should be dealt by Chinese and the U.S. leaders holding
regularly senior level dialogues like the ones of the past month, in which frank and direct talk about
redlines are discussed. These can and should be supplemented with clear and open communication channels, which can be especially
useful when unexpected crises arise, like an exchange of fire between low-level naval officers in the increasingly crowded waters in the region.
While this possibility is real and frightening, it’s hard to imagine a plausible scenario where it leads to a nuclear exchange between China and
the United States. After all, at each stage of the crisis leaders know that if it is not properly contained, a nuclear war could ensue, and the
complete destruction of a leader’s country is a more frightening possibility than losing credibility among hawkish elements of society. In any
case, measured means of retaliation would be available to the party wronged, and behind-the-scenes diplomacy could help facilitate the
process of finding mutually acceptable retaliatory measures. Geography
is the less appreciated factor that will mitigate
the chances of a U.S.-China war, but it could be nearly as important as nuclear weapons. Indeed, geography
has a history of allowing countries to avoid the Thucydides Trap, and works against a U.S.-China war in a couple of ways. First, both the
United States and China are immensely large countries—according to the Central Intelligence Agency,
the U.S. and China are the third and fourth largest countries in the world by area, at 9,826,675 and 9,596,961
square km respectively. They also have difficult topographical features and complex populations. As such, they are virtually
unconquerable by another power. This is an important point and differentiates the current strategic
environment from historical cases where power transitions led to war. For example, in Europe where many of the
historical cases derive from, each state genuinely had to worry that the other side could increase their power capabilities to such a degree that
they could credibly threaten the other side’s national survival. Neither China nor the U.S. has to realistically entertain such fears, and
this
will lessen their insecurity and therefore the security dilemma they operate within. Besides being
immensely large countries, China and the U.S. are also separated by the Pacific Ocean, which will also
weaken their sense of insecurity and threat perception towards one another. In many of the violent power
transitions of the past, starting with Sparta and Athens but also including the European ones, the rival states were located in close proximity to
one another. By contrast, when great power conflict has been avoided, the states have often had considerable distance between them, as was
the case for the U.S. and British power transition and the peaceful end to the Cold War. The reason is simple and similar to the one above: the
difficulty of projecting power across large distances—particularly bodies of waters— reduces each side’s concern that the other will threaten its
national survival and most important strategic interests. True, the U.S. operates extensively in China’s backyard, and maintains numerous
alliances and partnerships with Beijing’s neighbors. This undeniably heightens the risk of conflict. At the same time, the British were active
throughout the Western Hemisphere, most notably in Canada, and the Americans maintained a robust alliance system in Western Europe
throughout the Cold War. Even with the U.S. presence in Asia, then, the fact that the Chinese and American homelands are separated by the
largest body of water in the world is enormously important in reducing their conflict potential, if history is any guide at least. Thus, while every
effort should be made to avoid a U.S.-China war, it is nearly unthinkable one will occur.
China and the U.S. will not go to war – mutually assured destruction and economic
dependence
Crowley ’14 (Michael Crowley June 20, 2014 “It's unlikely the U.S.–China relations will spiral into a
second Cold War.” http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2014/06/20/a-uschina-coldwar-wont-happen)
Last week, the Center for Strategic and International Studies released a report, "Decoding China’s Emerging ‘Great Power’ Strategy in Asia,"
which poses the question: What kind of great power does China want to be? The question contains an implied recognition that China may have
more control over the terms of its rise than the U.S. would like to admit.
Despite a shift towards a more muscular Chinese
foreign policy, the report underscores why the U.S.-China relationship is unlikely to develop into a second Cold
War. The report’s principal author, Christopher K. Johnson, discussed how the Chinese Communist Party’s current General Secretary, Xi
Jingping, has placed a premium on consolidating singular authority over areas of the government – specifically the military and intelligence
services – over which past general secretaries did not exercise sole control. He has also been moving towards, in Johnson’s words, “a robust
and adroit” and “active” Chinese foreign policy. The discussion centered on the importance of Xi’s departure from China’s traditionally passive
role on the world stage. Less discussed was the fact these developments are not surprising in themselves; in fact they have parallels in U.S.
history. [READ: Toiling in Shanghai's Shadows] While the
power of the U.S. presidency has always encompassed
command of the armed forces, the creation of the National Security Council and the growth of the U.S.
intelligence apparatus after World War II were changes aimed at securing primary control of military
and foreign policy within the executive. The U.S. also linked its role on the world stage to its economic
growth. Until the early years of the 20th century, America was recovering from the Civil War and consolidating it domestic economic power.
President Theodore Roosevelt’s role in negotiating the Treaty of Portsmouth to end the Sino-Japanese War in 1905 is viewed by many as
America’s first “great power” move. The country’s entry into World War I and World War II followed, amid debates over what constituted the
proper U.S. role in world affairs. China’s Communist Party leadership has traditionally favored what the U.S. might label “isolationism.” Xi’s
shift in policy reflects a debate among China’s elites that is recognizable in U.S. history: whether China
should conduct a more robust foreign policy commensurate with its growing economic power. What
that more robust foreign policy means for Asia and the U.S. is the key question. Some in the U.S.
advocate preparing for a great power showdown along the lines of the Cold War. There are, however, more
differences than similarities between the current state of Sino-U.S. relations and the Cold War model. First, relations
between the
two countries are not built on struggles for territory stemming from a prior conflict, as the U.S. and
Soviet Union struggled over post-World War II Europe. Where China is catching up with the U.S. and no
longer keen to “accede to U.S. hyper power” (in the words of he report’s authors), the U.S. and Soviet Union were strategic
rivals and peers from the latter days of World War II. [SEE: Cartoons on Chinese Hacking] Second, while China is fast developing
conventional military capabilities of a great power – for example, a blue water navy – there is no razor’sedge “arms race” or mutually-assured destruction dynamic comparable to U.S.-Soviet competition over
nuclear missile capability. Instead, China is looking, over time, to marginalize U.S. influence in Asia.
China’s Asian neighbors, by and large, want the U.S. to stay engaged in Asian affairs to check its rise. They
fear, in Johnson’s words, that China may not feel compelled over time “to adhere to international norms it had no role in creating.” In turn
China, according to the report’s authors, sees a period of “strategic opportunity” defined by few external threats to its own security or role in
the region, in which it may develop domestically and develop a more “active” foreign policy. Contained within this assumption of a “strategic
opportunity” is a judgment on China’s part that the U.S. is more likely to dial back its own foreign policy footprint than expand it. At the same
time, as Johnson and the report’s other authors discussed, China is setting strategic benchmarks around upcoming anniversaries (2021 – the
100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party) and ones further off (2049 – the 100th anniversary of the Chinese nation) that are aimed at
assuring the world that it is on a course towards development and not dissolution. These strategic benchmarks point to a fundamental
difference between the U.S. and Chinese systems. China assumes a long-view made possible by a one-party regime unburdened by electoral
cycles. American democracy is more focused on near-term goals. The Obama administration’s “pivot” towards Asia, maligned by some as, by
definition, a “pivot away” from other parts of the world, was nonetheless an effort to establish a long-view in U.S. foreign policy that China
comes by more naturally. It will be important for the U.S. to maintain it.
No Escalation
Asian conflicts won’t escalate because of strong deterrence by all major powers
Alagappa 12-19-14 (Muthiah Alagappa, Nonresident Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, Washington, D.C., “International Peace in Asia: Will it Endure?,”
http://www.theasanforum.org/international-peace-in-asia-will-it-endure/)
In contrast to those dire warnings, this article makes two claims. First, Asia has witnessed a substantial reduction
in the number of major and minor inter-state wars. After reaching a peak in the 1970s, major inter-state war has
declined in number, frequency, and intensity measured in terms of battle deaths. From 1979 to 2014, there were
only two major inter-state wars compared to 13 in 1945 to 1979. Connected to earlier wars, the nature, purpose, scope, and outcome of these
wars since 1979 reinforce rather than undermine my central claim that Asia
has witnessed substantial decline in major wars.6 It has even
enjoyed a long period of peace, comparable in duration, nature, and complexity to the “long peace” of the Cold War in Europe.7
Second, the long peace in Asia will continue in the foreseeable future. Entrenched conflicts will likely remain unresolved
with a few becoming even more acute. The Asian strategic environment will become more complex with growing economic interdependence,
cross-cutting links, and some new security challenges. And, armed clashes cannot be ruled out. Nevertheless, major
war in Asia is
unlikely in the coming decade or two. I made these claims about a decade ago.8 I am now even more convinced and set them out in this
article to balance the growing chorus—now, also in Asia—of conflict and war in Asia. What explains the substantial decline in the frequency of
major war in Asia and the claim that the inter-state peace that has endured in Asia since 1979 will continue in the foreseeable future? These are
the central questions animating this article, which advances three related arguments: 1. Decline
in the number and intensity of
inter-state wars in Asia since 1979 is due largely to the growing legitimacy of the Asian political map, rising
nationalism, focus on and success in economic growth, and the development of effective deterrence in relevant
dyads. Together, these developments reduced the salience as well as altered the role of force, more specifically war, in the international politics
of Asia. 2. Factors
that underpinned the decreasing frequency of inter-state war will continue to be
salient in the foreseeable future and sustain the long peace in Asia. A development that could substantially alter the
strategic environment would be a shift in military technology and strategy from deterrence to offense. Such a shift would make war more
costly, but also restore it as a rational instrument of policy in pursuit of certain political objectives. 3. The
international peace that
has prevailed in Asia, as in Europe during the Cold War, is of the minimal type (absence of major war but not devoid of
competition, conflict, minor war, and military incidents). That is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Stronger
peace would require resolution of outstanding disputes, which appears unlikely.
There is no risk of war in Asia- strong institutions and interdependence check
Nick Bisley 14, Professor of IR @ La Trobe University (Australia) and Executive Director of La Trobe
Asia, 3/10/14, “It’s not 1914 all over again: Asia is preparing to avoid war,”
http://theconversation.com/its-not-1914-all-over-again-asia-is-preparing-to-avoid-war-22875
Asia is cast as a region as complacent about the risks of war as Europe was in its belle époque. Analogies are an understandable way of trying to make sense of unfamiliar circumstances. In this
case, however, the historical parallel is deeply misleading. Asia is experiencing a period of uncertainty and strategic risk unseen since the US and China reconciled their differences in the mid1970s. Tensions among key powers are at very high levels: Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe recently invoked the 1914 analogy. But there are very good reasons, notwithstanding these
Asia is not about to tumble into a great power war. China is America’s second most important
trading partner. Conversely, the US is by far the most important country with which China trades. Trade and investment’s “golden straitjacket” is a basic reason
to be optimistic. Why should this be seen as being more effective than the high levels of interdependence between Britain and Germany before World War One? Because
Beijing and Washington are not content to rely on markets alone to keep the peace. They are acutely aware of how much they have
at stake. Diplomatic infrastructure for peace The two powers have established a wide range of institutional links to manage
their relations. These are designed to improve the level and quality of their communication, to lower the risks of misunderstanding spiralling out
issues, why
of control and to manage the trajectory of their relationship. Every year, around 1000 officials from all ministries led by the top political figures in each country meet under the
auspices of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue. The dialogue has demonstrably improved US-China relations across the policy spectrum, leading to collaboration in a wide range of areas.
These range from disaster relief to humanitarian aid exercises, from joint training of Afghan diplomats to marine conservation efforts, in which Chinese law enforcement officials are hosted on
Unlike the near total absence of diplomatic engagement by Germany
and Britain in the lead-up to 1914, today’s two would-be combatants have a deep level of interaction and
practical co-operation. Just as the extensive array of common interests has led Beijing and Washington to do a lot of bilateral work, Asian states have been busy
the past 15 years. These nations have created a broad range of multilateral institutions and mechanisms intended to improve
trust, generate a sense of common cause and promote regional prosperity. Some organisations, like the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), have a high profile with its annual
US Coast Guard vessels to enforce maritime legal regimes.
leaders’ meeting involving, as it often does, the common embarrassment of heads of government dressing up in national garb. Others like the ASEAN Regional Forum and the ASEAN Defence
there are more than 15 separate multilateral bodies that have a focus on regional
build what might be described as an infrastructure for peace in the
region. While these mechanisms are not flawless, and many have rightly been criticised for being long on dialogue and short on action, they have been
crucial in managing specific crises and allowing countries to clearly state their commitments and priorities.
Ministers’ Meeting Plus Process are less in the public eye. But
security concerns. All these organisations are trying to
US-China War- Alt Causes
China U.S. war is inevitable – Obama not backing off territorial disputes
Durden ’15 (Tyler Durden, 05/25/2015, “Chinese State Paper Warns "War Will Be Inevitable" Unless U.S.
Stops Meddling In Territorial Dispute” http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-25/war-will-be-inevitable-unlessus-stops-meddling-terrotorial-dispute-chinese-state-ne)
Whereas over the past year, ever since the outbreak of the hostilities over the fate of Ukraine following the Victoria Nuland orchestrated
presidential coup, relations between Russia and NATO have devolved to a Cold War 2.0 state as manifested by countless interceptions of
Russian warplanes by NATO jets and vice versa as depicted in the following infographic at least China was mercifully allowed to stay out of the
fray between the Cold War enemies. This all changed this month when first the
Pentagon's annual report to Congress this
month cast China as a threat to regional and international peace and stability, followed several weeks ago when,
with China aggressively encroaching into territories in the South China Sea claimed by US allies in the
region such as Philippines, Vietnam and Japan, the US decided to get involved in yet another regional
spat that does not directly involve it, and started making loud noises about China's territorial expansion
over the commodity-reach area. China promptly retaliated by threatening a US spy plane during a routine
overflight, while immediately thereafter the US retaliated at China's escalation, and warned that
building sea "sandcastles" could "lead to conflict." Far from shutting China up, earlier today China said it had lodged a
complaint with the United States over a U.S. spy plane that flew over parts of the disputed South China Sea in a diplomatic row that has fueled
tension between the world's two largest economies.
Quoted by Reuters, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua
Chunying said on Monday China had lodged a complaint and that it opposed "provocative behavior" by
the United States. "We urge the U.S. to correct its error, remain rational and stop all irresponsible words
and deeds," she said. "Freedom of navigation and overflight by no means mean that foreign countries' warships and military aircraft can
ignore the legitimate rights of other countries as well as the safety of aviation and navigation." China had noted “ear-piercing voices” from
many in the U.S. about China’s construction on the islands and reefs. In other words, China
just imposed an effective "no fly
zone" for US spy planes, a dramatic shift from its recent posture when it tolerated and turned a blind
eye to US spy plane overflights. Going forward, the US has been explicitly warned not to fly over China
or risk the consequences. This handout photo taken on March 16, 2015 by satellite imagery provider Digital Globe shows a satellite
image of vessels purportedly dredging sand at Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands in the disputed South China Sea And just to confirm that if
the US had hoped it could threaten Beijing into submission and force the Politburo into curbing its
expansionist appetite, it was dead wrong, the nationalist Global Times, a paper owned by the ruling Communist
Party’s official newspaper, the People’s Daily, said in a Monday editorial that war was “inevitable” between China
and the United States unless Washington stopped demanding Beijing halt the building of artificial islands
in the disputed waterway. Press TV has more details: A war between the United States and China is “inevitable” unless Washington
stops demanding Beijing halt its construction projects in the South China Sea, a Chinese state-owned newspaper warns. “If the United
States’ bottom line is that China has to halt its activities, then a US-China war is inevitable in the South
China Sea,” The Global Times, an influential newspaper owned by the ruling Communist Party’s official newspaper the People’s Daily, said in
an editorial Monday. “We do not want a military conflict with the United States, but if it were to come, we
have to accept it,” said The Global Times, which is among China’s most nationalist newspapers. Beijing last
week said it was “strongly dissatisfied” after a US spy plane defied multiple warnings by the Chinese navy and flew over the Fiery Cross Reef,
where China is reportedly building an airfield and other installations.
“The intensity of the conflict will be higher than what
people usually think of as ‘friction’,” it warned. The paper also asserted that China was determined to
finish its construction work in the South China Sea, calling it Beijing’s “most important bottom line.” Such
commentaries are not official policy statements, but are sometimes read as a reflection of government thinking. More importantly, they serve
as populism-timestamped warnings that US demands for a Chinese retreat over what the world's most populous nation considers' its own
national interest, will backfire dramatically and the next time a US spy plane flies over the Spratly Islands, or Beijing's smog for that matter, a
very serious diplomatic incident may ensue.
US-Sino Relations Resilient
Economic interdependence checks relations- geography, oil and manufacturing
Follett, 2014 Follett, Andrew. "China and the US: Destined to Cooperate?" The Diplomat. The
Diplomat, 24 June 2014. Web. 8 July 2015.
The 21st century will be defined by the relationship between the American superpower and rising China.
A new Cold War would threaten the world order while a mutually beneficial association could bring all prosperity. The latter scenario is more
likely. The geography, economies, and energy resources of the U.S and China align their “core interests.”
First, geography. The U.S. is located on the most resource and capital-rich continent, North America. The American Midwest consists of valuable
arable land and is bisected by the world’s largest navigable rivers, allowing the export of food and products at bargain prices. Nearby nations
have either historically been on friendly terms (Canada) or lack the ability to present a threat (Central America and the Caribbean) without an
external sponsor. This benign environment has allowed America to focus on projecting power and dominating global merchant marine traffic.
Since China lies across an ocean dominated by the American Navy, neither directly threatens the other. China, meanwhile, is a populous and
vast land power with a long coastline. Yet China’s focus has historically turned inward, with only sporadic efforts to build a naval presence.
China’s heartland is exposed to Russia from the north, Japan to the east, various fractious states to the west, and the rising powers of Thailand,
India, and Vietnam to the south. In other words, China is surrounded, and its biggest threats are from other land-based powers, particularly
Russia and India. China
therefore cannot afford to antagonize America, since it would require American
support or tacit neutrality in any conflict with Russia or India. Geography ensures that China does not
see American naval dominance on its shores as a comparable threat. A Chinese move against American interests
would open it to aggression from its neighbors while simultaneously cutting off a needed ally. No Chinese government is foolish
enough to risk multiple high-intensity wars. The geography of China and the U.S. dictate their “core
interests” as mutually non-threatening states, and make cooperation more likely since both have an interest in opposing
Russia. Secondly, the American and Chinese economies are destined to become more interdependent, and
integrated economies usually lead to geostrategic alliances. The U.S. follows a laissez-faire economic
model, entailing a boom-and-bust cycle that is harsher than in more planned systems. When the free market
dictates economic apportionment, at the height of the cycle resources are often applied to unwise projects. During recessions, companies
either downsize or go out of business, resulting in short spurts of high unemployment. America tolerates these fluctuations because she long
ago decided to trade economic stability for higher long term growth. This has succeeded over the past century. This growth, combined with
other advantages, ensures the U.S. will endure as a superpower. America utilizes its advantages to maintain a global maritime “trade order” in
the form of organizations like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organization, resulting in economic growth for
the world and a successful consumption-based economy at home. Contrastingly,
China’s economy is a sort of “state
capitalism” distinct from the European “state champion” model. The economy is based around
exporting finished manufactured goods to America, further integrating both economies. China’s two-decadeplus surge in economic growth will soon end, yet given the lack of progress in transitioning to a more consumption-based economy, China has
not achieved what its large population considers an equitable distribution of resources and benefits. Such imbalances foster domestic tensions.
The growth constraints facing China’s economy will only create additional problems with fewer new resources at Beijing’s disposal. The Chinese
slowdown has already led to political infighting, and this is likely to continue in the future. Addressing this problem while transitioning to a
consumption-based economy may reduce the ability of the ruling Communist Party to project power abroad while retaining it at home.
Economically, America is strong in areas like food production, education, technology, and precision
industrial manufacturing. China, by contrast, is strong in areas like heavy industry, light manufacturing,
and cheap labor. This presents a recipe for complementary economic interdependence. Finally, both
countries will move closer geopolitically due to their complementary energy interests. Most of China’s
foreign policy centers on attempts to acquire new energy resources, particularly oil. Over the following decades,
China will seek to become more self-sufficient by expanding its hydropower capacity and coal plants. America shares this goal, and
with the shale revolution will likely end up exporting energy to China, including oil and liquid natural gas.
This gives America a geopolitical “lever” over China by increasing economic interdependence. The American situation on energy resources,
particularly oil and natural gas, outclasses China’s. Oil is non-renewable, and OPEC nations will likely be unable to meet China’s growing
demand. However, America now controls the world’s largest
untapped oil reserve, the Green River Formation. This
formation alone contains up to 3 trillion barrels of untapped oil-shale, roughly half of which may be recoverable. This single geologic
formation could contain more oil than the rest of the world’s proven reserves combined. As Chinese
demand rises, Beijing will likely become the top importer of this oil. No other oil source can supply China’s needs as
efficiently. Eastern European and Russian oil shale reserves are smaller and less politically and economically extractable than America’s
emerging sources. If
America invests a comparatively small portion of its new energy-based wealth into a
larger Navy to secure a Pacific trade route to China, the economic integration of the two nations will be
virtually irreversible. Already foreign investments are pouring into the “new Middle East” of America and Canada, despite strong
opposition from the current administration. American control over future markets for natural gas is almost as certain as for oil. The U.S.
produces natural gas abundantly and is building the facilities to export it to foreign markets, including China. China imports roughly 56 percent
of its oil and this number grows each year. Beijing plans to increase reserves by acquiring new offshore resources and “secure” reserves abroad.
Since between 60-70 percent of its imported oil originates in Africa or the Middle East, the only way to inexpensively transport it is by sea. This
makes China vulnerable to economic warfare from India, which can sever much of its supply at will. This is a strategic concern and makes war
with India more likely. China doesn’t have many other domestic energy options with the exception of coal, which carries high health and
environmental risks. Renewable energy is too expensive, hydraulic power creates instability in rural areas, and social biases prohibit nuclear
power. For technical reasons, China’s untapped oil shale reserves, though large, would be prohibitively expensive to process. They are
estimated to be economically recoverable at $345 a barrel, more than triple the price of American oil shale. An American boom in natural gas
cannot fully “bail out” China; nonetheless it will certainly be part of the solution. Domestic political pressures, environmental concerns and
rising demand for portable fuels mean the crux of Chinese foreign policy for the foreseeable future will be aimed at acquiring new oil supplies
and protecting existing supply lines across the Indian Ocean. The South China Sea is critical to China’s goals because most imported oil from
Africa must cross it and the sea contains its own marginal reserves close to China. Inadequate naval forces guarantee China will continue to
depend upon the American Navy to protect its oil trade. The dispute surrounding the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands does not change that. In any case,
heightened regional competition for energy assets will diminish as American reserves come online over the next five to ten years. In
the
energy sector, America will ultimately transition to an energy and fuel exporter and China will ultimately
import American resources. This will further connect their economies and build strong economic ties.
Both China and America hope for a mutually beneficial arrangement to meet their security and
development goals. Geographic, economic, and energy considerations ensure these two nations will
become more interdependent throughout this century.
Economic interdependence stabilizes U.S –Sino Relations
Tung, 2003 Chen-yuan. "The Impact of Bilateral Economic Interdependence on U.S.-China Relations."
The Graduate Institute of American Studies 21st ser. 11.04 (2003): n. pag. Web. 8 July 2015.
U.S.-China economic interdependence has significantly changed Beijing’s perception of national interests, and thus, has shaped
U.S.-China relations. A commentary in the Renmin Ribao in May 2001 pointed out, “The fast-developing Sino-U.S. economic
cooperation and trade has become the main stabilizing factor and driving force in bilateral relations.” An
international relations scholar in Beijing expounded, “Some criticized Beijing was too weak in dealing with the U.S. and Japan. But those critics did not see a
historical change. China
is heavily interdependent with the U.S. and West. The interdependence has significantly constrained Chinese
foreign relations. China can not comprehensively antagonize the West.” At a joint meeting with members of the Chinese People’s
Political Consultative Conference on March 6, 2001, Vice Premier Qian Qichen said that it was impossible to change the U.S. basic standpoint on the Taiwan and
human rights issues, but China and the United States had common economic interests. He emphasized that China should bring the contradictions between China
and the United States “under control and not have an outburst. We should reason things out and, if we fail, we should put aside minor differences so as to seek
common ground [economic interests].” An international relations senior scholar in Beijing stressed, “Sino-U.S. relations reflect the importance of economic
development to China. China
makes every effort to maintain stable Sino-U.S. relations. It is impossible for China
to face off with the United States. The Sino-U.S. relationship is not an issue of face, but of economic
development.” An American studies senior scholar in Beijing elaborated, “The Sino-U.S. economic relationship is very important for China. Trade accounts
for 40 percent of China’s GDP, and 40 percent of China’s trade goes to the United States. As a result, China must maintain a good relationship
with the United States. The importance of the U.S. to China is much greater than China’s importance to
the United States. If Sino-U.S. relations worsen, it will bring severe damage to China.” In the two case
studies, Beijing tried to minimize the impact of surging nationalism and public overreaction on its overall
economic development and U.S.-China relations. In the case of the embassy bombing, Beijing only allowed “controlled” demonstrations
and protests for two days, and then strictly prohibited any follow-up demonstrations. Afterward, Beijing tried to control the damage by reassuring the foreign
investors and diverting the people’s focus back to economic development. Moreover, Beijing pragmatically and gradually normalized relations with the United
States, despite its tough gesture of rejecting U.S. explanation of the bombing incident and demanding the U.S. severely punish the perpetrators. In the case of the
reconnaissance plane incident, the U.S. government obviously did not meet China’s three demands: apologizing, taking responsibility, and stopping reconnaissance
flights in airspace off China’s coastal areas. However, China strictly prohibited protests against the United States for fear of damaging its economic development.
Furthermore, China frequently publicly expressed that China took a calm, restrained, and responsible attitude in handling the incident. In order to minimize a
possible backlash from the Chinese public, Beijing twisted the language of a U.S. letter of regret into a fully-fledged apology, and thus, declared it a victory for
Chinese dignity. Regarding the sharp contrast between Beijing’s rhetoric assertiveness and actual prudence, a Taiwan studies senior scholar in Beijing frankly stated,
“The most important priority for China is economics. This is a prevailing consensus among the public and elite. Beijing should have acted stronger against the United
States, Japan, and Taiwan, but Beijing had economic interests in mind.” Since Beijing was not willing to sternly respond to Washington because of economic interest
concerns, Beijing had to at least rhetorically assure the Chinese people of its firm position, and then prudently minimize the impact of the incidents on U.S.-China
relations. In the reconnaissance plane incident, because Washington did not meet any of three initial demands Beijing raised, Beijing finally twisted the language
and declared a moral victory in order to bolster its domestic position, as well as to normalize U.S.-China relations. Many other Chinese scholars had the same
perspective. For instance, an American studies senior scholar in Beijing emphasized, “Regarding the issue of the U.S. bombing of the Chinese embassy and the
airplane collision, China does not want conflict. All China wants is to develop its economy!” Four international relations senior scholars in Beijing and an
international relations senior scholar in Shanghai all agreed that economic interest is the essential consideration for China to deal with the issues of the U.S.
bombing of both the Chinese embassy and the airplane collision. An U.S. senior official explained, “Since the mid-1990s, Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui’s visit to
the States, the U.S. mistaken bombing incident of Chinese embassy in Belgrade, and the collision incident between an U.S. reconnaissance plane and a Chinese
fighter jet, all stirred strong reaction from Chinese officials and scholars. Nevertheless, with the prerequisite of maintaining U.S.-China economic interests, President
Jiang Zemin finally intervened and emphasized that China had to do its best to maintain friendly relations with the United States. Beijing clearly recognized that
Chinese economy heavily depended on U.S. economy. Sometimes, Washington reminded Beijing of this fact.”
Russia Impact Answers
No US- Russia War
Nuclear War with Russia very unlikely
Fisher in 2015 (Max is a writer for Vox; “How likely is nuclear war with Russia?” Published: July 6, 2015, 12:10
p.m. ET Accessed: 7/7/15; http://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8900237/russia-war-odds)
I spent much of this spring obsessed with a question: Could
the United States and Russia stumble into war, perhaps even
nuclear war? It was a concern I'd first heard in late 2014, shortly after Russia's covert invasion of eastern Ukraine and its military harassment of neighboring
NATO member states, which the United States is treaty-bound to defend. As I spoke to analysts and policymakers, I found a growing and increasingly alarmed
community, in the US and Western Europe as well as in Russia, warning that war has once again become a real possibility. They compare Europe of today to that
before World War I. If war does happen, they say, recent changes to Russia's nuclear thinking mean such a war could easily go nuclear. I outlined these threats, how
they came to be, and how it would all happen in a long article published last week. But there was one question I was not able to satisfactorily answer: Exactly how
peace is still much likelier than war: The
scenarios for war all involve several overlapping events, such as a cross-border provocation and an
accidental midair collision. But they stressed that the odds of a war, while remote, are no longer negligible, and are real enough that the world
likely is all this? To the extent that there was broad agreement among my sources, it was that
should take them seriously and respond accordingly. "The atmosphere is a feeling that war is not something that's impossible anymore," the well-placed Russian
analyst Fyodor Lukyanov told me, describing a growing concern within Moscow's foreign policy elite. "A question that was absolutely impossible a couple of years
ago, whether there might be a war, a real war, is back. People ask it." Lukyanov's assessment was representative of what I heard in researching the story: a feeling, a
question, a fear hanging in the background like a storm cloud. What he could not offer me, what no one I spoke to could really say for sure, is a rigorous assessment
of precisely how likely this was. It was high enough that people should be concerned and take it seriously, but how much higher than that, no one could say. That
didn't satisfy Jay
Ulfelder, a political scientist who specializes in political forecasting and instability, and who runs an
up a two-question survey, pushing it out to a couple of online political science expert
communities. The first question asked respondents to estimate the odds that that the US and Russia would go
to war in the next four and a half years. The second asked for the odds that, if such a conflict occurred,
one or both sides would use nuclear weapons. Ulfelder took the first 100 responses and ran them through some statistical analysis (you
can read more about his methodology here). Here is the aggregate assessment he found: Ulfelder cautions that his survey is not
particularly scientific (he called it "rinky dink" in a later email exchange) and that we shouldn't put too much stock in it, though he points out
that the results about track with those from a much more rigorous 2014 William & Mary survey of
2,000-plus experts on the likelihood of war. While none of my sources ventured anything as specific as a numerical probability, for what it's
excellent blog. He set
worth these estimates track with the sense I got from speaking to them. So we now have the William & Mary survey, Ulfelder's survey, and my research all roughly
lining up. That's not conclusive, of course — you're never going to get a conclusive assessment for something as complex and multilayered as an unintended
escalation to major interstate warfare — but the consistency of the data so far seems to suggest there is something there. So what do these numbers mean? Is an
11 percent probability of war and a 2 percent probability of nuclear war a lot? On the one hand, that seems pretty small
— a 1-in-50 chance of nuclear war. On the other, that's significantly higher than other things we consider serious threats; it's twice the
odds of dying in a car accident, for example. And when you consider the stakes of a nuclear war between the two great nuclear powers, even 2
percent seems way, way too high. In looking at those numbers, I think back to a formula that every international relations student learns in the first week of
undergrad: Threat equals intent multiplied by capability. In other words, you figure out how threatening something is by multiplying its intention to hurt you by its
capability to hurt you. There's no such thing as intent when it comes to accidental escalations to nuclear war. But you can substitute that 2 percent probability of
occurrence for "intent." That's a small number, but when you multiply it by the "capability" of major nuclear war, which potentially includes millions of dead or even
the literal end of the world, it looks more significant. To me, it looks alarming.
US-Russia or China war probability is at the lowest it has ever been- global trade and
free market incentives prove.
John Aziz March 6, 2014 (‘Don't worry: World War III will almost certainly never happen’ John Aziz is the economics and business
correspondent at TheWeek.com. He is also an associate editor at Pieria.co.uk. Previously his work has appeared on Business Insider, Zero
Hedge, and Noahpinion. http://theweek.com/articles/449783/dont-worry-world-war-iii-almost-certainly-never-happen)
Next year will be the seventieth anniversary of the end of the last global conflict. There have been points on that
timeline — such as the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, and a Soviet computer malfunction in 1983 that erroneously suggested that the U.S. had
attacked, and perhaps even the Kosovo War in 1999 — when
a global conflict was a real possibility. Yet today — in the shadow
of a flare up which some are calling a new Cold War between Russia and the U.S. — I believe the
threat of World War III has
almost faded into nothingness. That is, the probability of a world war is the lowest it has been in
decades, and perhaps the lowest it has ever been since the dawn of modernity. This is certainly a view
that current data supports. Steven Pinker's studies into the decline of violence reveal that deaths from war have fallen
and fallen since World War II . But we should not just assume that the past is an accurate guide to the future. Instead, we must look
at the factors which have led to the reduction in war and try to conclude whether the decrease in war is sustainable. So what's changed? Well,
the first big change after the last world war was the arrival of mutually assured destruction. It's no
coincidence that the end of the last global war coincided with the invention of atomic weapons. The possibility of complete
annihilation provided a huge disincentive to launching and expanding total wars. Instead, the great powers now
fight proxy wars like Vietnam and Afghanistan (the 1980 version, that is), rather than letting their rivalries expand into full-on, globe-spanning
struggles against each other. Sure, accidents could happen, but the
possibility is incredibly remote. More importantly,
nobody in power wants to be the cause of Armageddon. But what about a non-nuclear global war?
Other changes — economic and social in nature — have made that highly unlikely too. The world has become
much more economically interconnected since the last global war. Economic cooperation treaties and free trade
agreements have intertwined the economies of countries around the world. This has meant there has been a huge rise in the
volume of global trade since World War II, and especially since the 1980s. Today consumer goods like smartphones, laptops, cars, jewelery,
food, cosmetics, and medicine are produced on a global level, with supply-chains criss-crossing the planet. An example: The laptop I am typing
this on is the cumulative culmination of thousands of hours of work, as well as resources and manufacturing processes across the globe. It
incorporates metals like tellurium, indium, cobalt, gallium, and manganese mined in Africa. Neodymium mined in China. Plastics forged out of
oil, perhaps from Saudi Arabia, or Russia, or Venezuela. Aluminum from bauxite, perhaps mined in Brazil. Iron, perhaps mined in Australia.
These raw materials are turned into components — memory manufactured in Korea, semiconductors forged in Germany, glass made in the
United States. And it takes gallons and gallons of oil to ship all the resources and components back and forth around the world, until they are
finally assembled in China, and shipped once again around the world to the consumer. In
a global war, global trade becomes a
nightmare. Shipping becomes more expensive due to higher insurance costs, and riskier because it's
subject to seizures, blockades, ship sinkings. Many goods, intermediate components or resources — including energy supplies
like coal and oil, components for military hardware, etc, may become temporarily unavailable in certain areas. Sometimes — such as occurred
in the Siege of Leningrad during World War II — the supply of food can be cut off. This is why countries hold strategic reserves of things like
helium, pork, rare earth metals and oil, coal, and gas. These kinds of breakdowns were troublesome enough in the economic landscape of the
early and mid-20th century, when the last global wars occurred. But in today's ultra-globalized and ultra-specialized economy? The level of
economic adaptation — even for large countries like Russia and the United States with lots of land and natural resources — required to adapt
to a world war would be crushing, and huge numbers of business and livelihoods would be wiped out. In other words, global
trade
interdependency has become, to borrow a phrase from finance, too big to fail. It is easy to complain about the
reality of big business influencing or controlling politicians. But big business has just about the most to lose from breakdowns in global trade. A
practical example:
If Russian oligarchs make their money from selling gas and natural resources to Western
Europe, and send their children to schools in Britain and Germany, and lend and borrow money from the
West's financial centers, are they going to be willing to tolerate Vladimir Putin starting a regional war in
Eastern Europe (let alone a world war)? Would the Chinese financial industry be happy to see their
multi-trillion dollar investments in dollars and U.S. treasury debt go up in smoke? Of course, world wars have
been waged despite international business interests, but the world today is far more globalized than ever before and
well-connected domestic interests are more dependent on access to global markets, components and
resources, or the repayment of foreign debts. These are huge disincentives to global war. But what of the militaryindustrial complex ? While other businesses might be hurt due to a breakdown in trade, surely military contractors and weapons
manufacturers are happy with war? Not necessarily. As the last seventy years illustrates, it is perfectly
possible for weapons contractors to enjoy the profits from huge military spending without a global war.
And the uncertainty of a breakdown in global trade could hurt weapons contractors just as much as
other industries in terms of losing access to global markets. That means weapons manufacturers may be
just as uneasy about the prospects for large-scale war as other businesses.