Cal EM Neg v. Emory BD – Texas R7
1NC
Extra T
Interpretation and violation – the resolution only mandates the legalization of
marihuana – the 1AC also has the states and territories establish the Cannabis
Exchange – that’s Extra-Topical
Vote negative –
First is presumption – the 1AC proves the resolution insufficient – no reason to vote
aff if their harms are dependent on an exchange system that’s not germane to the
topic
Second is limits – infinite number of actions can be taken alongside the plan which
means being negative impossible and obstructs topic education
Third is ground – allowing an extra action takes out all neg ground by tacking on
additional arbitrary plans which ruins clash
Governmentality K
Legalizing marijuana is a tactic of neoliberal governmentality that places the onus on
individuals to govern themselves while the government sits back and makes sure that
they’re doing it right – this increases state control through regulatory mechanisms
while minimizing its perception
O’Brien 13 - University of Wisconsin-Whitewater (February 25, Patrick, “Medical Marijuana and Social
Control: Escaping Criminalization and Embracing Medicalization” Deviant Behavior, 34: 423–443, Taylor
& Francis)
A latent outcome of this legal-medical system has been its adaptation to the new criminologies evidenced in late modern society (Garland
1996, 2001). The medicalization of cannabis has defined deviance down significantly (Moynihan 1993) and effectively reduced the demands
placed on the State’s criminal justice agencies. At the same time,
the State has increasingly embedded social controls
into the fabric of society , rather than inserting them from above in the form of sovereign command (Garland 2001).
Medical
dispensary owners, cultivators, investors, and employees, along with local politicians and affiliated
business owners, have
remained bound to State laws and policies, but have also been expected to proctor
themselves while government powers watch at a distance for a breakdown in control. The State has conceded
that it is unable to manage the illicit marijuana market alone and has redirected its control efforts away
from the sole authority of the police, the courts, and the prisons. The dispensary industry has provided the State
a situation in which it governs, but does not coercively control marijuana and its users. Instead, the State
manages the drug through the actors involved in the legal-medical industry, and has effectively mandated them as active partners in sustaining
and enforcing the formal and informal controls of the dispensary system.
resigned its power. On the contrary, it
The State
controls at an ostensibly distant fashion, but it has not
has retained its traditional command over the police and the prisons
while expanding its efficiency and capacity to control marijuana and its users . This new reality in crime control
has stratified itself across all facets of society, including its structural, cultural, and interactional dimensions. At the structural level, the
legal-medical model has reduced the strain of a substantial segment of society by institutionalizing
acceptable and lawful means of accessing marijuana, effectively shifting this population into an ecological
position where they can be watched and controlled . The groups once involved in the illicit market have
become visible, and the laws that govern the use, distribution, and production of cannabis have
actually become enforceable
by the State. Marijuana users have become patients, requiring a physician’s recommendation to con
sume the drug lawfully. The State has mandated what medical conditions warrant a registry card, monitoring people through licensing
applications, doctors’ files, government paperwork, and the medical marijuana registry. Dispensary owners have been required to grow 70%of
their own product, to provide live 24-hour surveillance camera feeds of their cultivation and distribution warehouses, and to subject
themselves to periodic inspection. Dispensary owners and employees have been fingerprinted and undergone extensive background checks,
and marijuana businesses only operate in State zoned locations. By
amassing knowledge about the social organization
of the marijuana industry and its users, the government has engaged in monitoring, aggregating, and
transmitting such information to law enforcement and the public. At the cultural level, the legal-medical system
has provided a greater degree of social order, stability, and integration by relocating marijuana users
into the fold of conventional norms and values. Cultural cohesion and conformity have been fostered
through legitimate business opera tions that cater to conventional lifestyles and work hours, that quell
concerns over safety and lawfulness, and reduce the alienation of a subculture of users. The State has
effectively aligned a once criminal population of people with dominant ideals of normality (Goffman 1983)
and dismantled a framework of deviant organization (Best and Luckenbill 1982) with
distinct ideol ogies and norms concerning
marijuana sales and use. The government has incorporated the norms and values of conventional society into the processes of
distributing and using cannabis, and now assists in controlling marijuana through the cultural transmission (Shaw and McKay 1972) of rituals
and sanctions now aligned with the normative social order. Both
of these macro- and meso-level shifts have augmented State
control of marijuana and its users at an interactional level. These structural and cultural changes have directly
influenced micro-level processes and mediated people’s differential associations and social learning
processes (Akers 2000; Sutherland 1949; Sutherland and Cressey 1955) as users have been increasingly socialized into a
conventional drug lifestyle. Marijuana users in the dispensary sys tem have decreased their contacts with deviant others and
increased their contacts with legitimate associations by purchasing lawfully from licensed distributors. Dispensary owners have
come to interact with banks, contractors, real estate firms, tax specialists, and lawyers because they exist in
legitimate occupational associations and lawful community relations. This legal-medical model has allowed the State to
further monitor interactional processes through receipts, taxes, and video surveillance. This continuous supervision
has led to growing discipline and normal ization. The State has prescribed conforming modes of
conduct upon marijuana users with new found power
(Foucault 1975). Zoning laws have mandated where transactions
occur, distribution laws have defined how much can be purchased, and monitored business hours have controlled the time sales occur. The
State has also strengthened individual bonds to society (Hirschi 1969) as a medical license protects users’ conventional
investments (i.e., education, career, and family) and caters to their time-consuming activities as they have decided the time, speed, and
location of their purchases. Finally, State medicalization of marijuana
has prompted people to endorse society’s rules as
progressively more politically and morally correct , since users are typically critical of cannabis
prohibition. This
legal-medical
system has also accommodated the ideals of neoliberalism . Through the
adaptive strategy of responsibilization (Garland 2001), the penalization
strategies (i.e., control mechanisms) regulating
marijuana have become increasingly privatized , operating through civil society. For example, although the
State has demanded 24-hour video surveillance over dispensary operations, it has also required these businesses to regulate
their own marijuana production and distribution, monitor their own employees and financial accounts, and direct their own
branding and promotional campaigns. Furthermore, by defining deviance down, marijuana has become legally sold through privately owned
dispensaries. In neoliberal fashion, marijuana has been deregulated for capital gain.
Biopower and neoliberalism combine to create a unique form of necropolitics that
drives endless extermination in the name of maintaining the strength of the market
Banerjee 6 - University of South Australia (Subhabrata Bobby, “Live and Let Die: Colonial Sovereignties
and the Death Worlds of Necrocapitalism,” Borderlands, Volume 5 No. 1,
http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol5no1_2006/banerjee_live.htm)
10. Agamben shows how sovereign power operates in the production of bare life in a variety of contexts:
concentration camps, 'human guinea pigs' used by Nazi doctors, current debates on euthanasia, debates on human rights
and refugee rights. A sovereign decision to apply a state of exception invokes a power to decide the
value of life, which would allow a life to be killed without the charge of homicide. The killings of mentally and physically handicapped
people during the Nazi regime was justified as ending a 'life devoid of value', a life 'unworthy to be lived'. Sovereignty thus becomes a decision
on the value of life, 'a power to decide the point at which life ceases to be politically relevant' (Agamben, 1998: 142). Life is
no more
sovereign as enshrined in the declaration of 'human' rights but becomes instead a political decision, an
exercise of biopower (Foucault, 1980). In the context of the 'war on terror' operating in a neoliberal economy, the
exercise of biopower results in the creation of a type of sovereignty that has profound implications for
those whose livelihoods depend on the war on terror as well as those whose lives become constituted as 'bare life' in the economy of the war
on terror. 11. However, it is not enough to situate sovereignty and biopower in the context of a neoliberal economy especially in the case of the
war on terror. In
a neoliberal economy, the colony represents a greater potential for profit especially as it is
this space that, as Mbembe (2003: 14) suggests, represents a permanent state of exception where sovereignty
is the exercise of power outside the law, where 'peace was more likely to take on the face of a war
without end'
and
where violence could operate in the name of civilization.
But these forms of necropolitical
power, as Mbembe reads it in the context of the occupation of Palestine, literally create 'death worlds, new and unique
forms of social existence in which vast populations are subjected to conditions of life conferring upon
them the status of theliving dead
' (Mbembe, 2003: 40). The
state of endless war is precisely the space
where profits accrue whether it is through the extraction of resources or the use of privatized militias or
through contracts for reconstruction. Sovereignty over death worlds results in the application of
necropower either literally as the right to kill or the right to 'civilize', a supposedly 'benevolent' form of
power that requires the destruction of a culture in order to 'save the people from themselves' (Mbembe,
2003:22). This
attempt to save the people from themselves has, of course, been the rhetoric used by the
U.S. government in the war on terror and the war in Iraq. 12. Situating necropolitics in the context of economy, Montag
(2005: 11) argues that if necropolitics is interested in the production of death or subjugating life to the power of death then it is possible to
speak of a necroeconomics - a space of 'letting die or exposing to death'. Montag explores the relation of the market to life and death in his
reading of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments. In Montag's reading of Smith, it is 'the dread of death, the great
poison to the happiness...which while it afflicts and mortifies the individual, guards and protects the society' (cited in Montag, 2005: 12). If
social life was driven solely by unrestrained self-interest then the fear of punishment or death through juridical systems kept the pursuit of
excessive self-interest in check, otherwise people would simply rob, injure and kill for material wealth. Thus, for Smith the universality of life is
contingent on the particularity of death, the production of life on the production of death where the intersection of the political and the
economic makes it necessary to exercise the right to kill. The market then, as a 'concrete form of the universal' becomes the 'very form of
universality as life' and requires at certain moments to 'let die'. Or as Montag theorizes it, Death establishes the conditions of life; death
as
by an invisible hand restores the market to what it must be to support life. The allowing of death of the
particular is necessary to the production of life of the universal. The market reduces and rations life; it not
only allows death ,
it demands death be allowed by the sovereign power , as well as by those who suffer it. In other
words, it
demands and required the latter allow themselves to die. Thus alongside the figure of homo sacer,
the one who may be killed with impunity, is another figure, one whose death is no doubt less spectacular than the first and is the object
of no memorial or commemoration: he who with impunity may be allowed to die, slowly or quickly, in the name of the
rationality and equilibrium of the market (Montag, 2005: 15). Montag, therefore, theorizes a necroeconomics
where the state becomes the legitimate purveyor of violence: in this scenario, the state can compel by
force by 'those who refuse to allow themselves to die'
(Montag, 2005: 15). However, Montag's concept of
necroeconomics appears to universalize conditions of poverty through the logic of the market. My concern however, is the creation of death
worlds in colonial contexts through the collusion between states and corporations. 13. If
states and corporations work in
tandem with each other in colonial contexts, creating states of exception and exercising necropower to
profit from the death worlds that they establish, then necroeconomics fails to consider the specificities of colonial capitalist practices. In this
sense, I would argue that necrocapitalism
emerges from the intersection of necropolitics and necroeconomics, as practices of
accumulation in colonial contexts by specific economic actors - multinational corporations for example - that
involve dispossession, death, torture, suicide, slavery, destruction of livelihoods and the general
management of violence. It is a new form of imperialism, an imperialism that has learned to 'manage
things better' . Colonial sovereignty can be established even in metropolitan sites where necrocapitalism may operate in states of
exception: refugee detention centres in Australia are examples of these states of exception (Perera, 2002). However, in the colonies (either
'post' or 'neo'), entire regions in the Middle East or Africa may be designated as states of exception.
The alternative is to refuse to imagine legality – only the formation of autonomous
geographies can challenge biopolitical neoliberalism
Pickerill & Chatterton 6 - Leicester University AND Leeds University (Jenny and Paul, “Notes
towards autonomous geographies: creation, resistance and self-management as survival tactics”
Progress in Human Geography30, 6 (2006) pp. 730–746)
In essence, autonomy is a coming together of theory and practice, or praxis. Hence, it is not solely an intellectual tool nor a guide for living;
it is a means and an end. Autonomous geographies represent the deed and the word, based around ongoing examples and
experiments. Autonomous
spaces are not spaces of deference to higher organizational levels
governmental organizations, political representatives or trade union officials. They
such as non-
are based around a belief that the
process is as important as the outcome of resistance , that the journey is an end in itself. As the Zapatistas say: ‘we
don’t know how long we have to walk this path or if we will ever arrive, but at least it is the path we have
chosen to take’. Autonomous geographies are based around a belief in prefigurative politics (summed up by
the phrase ‘be the change you want to see’), that
change is possible through an accumulation of small changes ,
providing much-needed hope against a feeling of powerlessness. Part of this is the belief in ‘doing it yourself ’ (see
McKay, 1998) or
creating workable alternatives outside the state . Many examples have flourished embracing ecological
direct action, free parties and the rave scene, squatting and social centres, and opensource software and independent media (Wall, 1999; Seel
et al., 2000; Plows, 2002; Chatterton and Hollands, 2003; Pickerill, 2003a; 2006). Resources are creatively reused, skills shared, and popular or
participatory education techniques deployed, aiming to develop a critical consciousness, political and media literacy and clear ethical
judgements (Freire, 1979). In
the terrain opened up by the failure of state-based and ‘actually existing
socialism’, autonomy allows a rethinking of the idea of revolution – not about seizing the state’s power
but, as Holloway (2002) argues, ‘changing the world without taking power’
(Vaneigem, 1979). Autonomy
does not
mean an absence of structure or order, but the rejection of a government that demands obedience
(Castoriadis, 1991). Examples of postcapitalist ways of living are already part of the present (Gibson-Graham, 1996). The documentation of the
‘future in the present’ has been a hallmark of work by anarchist, libertarian and radical scholars from Peter Kropotkin (1972) to Colin Ward
(1989) and Murray Bookchin (1996). Their
work looks for tendencies that counter competition and conflict,
providing alternative paths. Some of these disappear, others survive, but the challenge remains to find
them, encourage people to articulate, expand and connect them. Autonomous projects face the
accusation that, even if they do improve participants’ quality of living, they fail to have a transformative
impact on the broader locality and even less on the global capitalist system (DeFilippis, 2004). Consequently, in talking of local
resistance, Peck and Tickell (2002) suggest that ‘the defeat (or failure) of local neoliberalisms – even strategically important ones – will not be
enough to topple what we are still perhaps justified in calling “the system”’ (p. 401). However,
commentators make the mistake
of looking for signs of emerging organizational coherence , political leaders and a common programme that bids for
state power,
when the rules of engagement have changed . A plurality of voices is reframing the debate,
changing the nature and boundaries of what is taken as common sense and creating workable solutions
to erode the workings of market-based economies in a host of, as yet, unknown ways. Rebecca Solnit’s writings
on hope remind us that, while our actions’ effects are difficult to calculate, ‘causes and effects assume history
marches forward, but history is not an army . It is a crab scuttling sideways, a drip of soft water wearing
away stone’ (Solnit, 2004: 4).
Cybersecurity Ptx
Cybersecurity’s the lone area of compromise—deal coming now
Swarts, 2-2—Phil, Washington Times, “Obama budget dedicates $14B to cybersecurity,”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/2/obama-budget-dedicates-14b-to-cybersecurity/ -BR
The Obama administration aims to ramp up the federal government’s cybersecurity arsenal, requesting
nearly $14 billion in its 2016 budget proposal — about $1 billion more than in previous budgets — to
combat what many have come to view as an increasingly significant weakness in American security and
infrastructure. The increased funding comes after a series of high profile attacks, which has drawn
national attention to the issue, including a massive breach at Sony Pictures which the government said
was carried out by North Korea. Likewise in January, the Twitter and YouTube accounts for the U.S.
military’s CENTCOM — which oversees operations in Iraq and Afghanistan — was hacked by supporters
of the Islamic State, a terrorist group often known by the acronyms ISIS or ISIL. “Cyber threats targeting
the private sector, critical infrastructure and the federal government demonstrate that no sector,
network or system is immune to infiltration by those seeking to steal commercial or government
secrets,” the White House said in a statement. Though the president’s budget proposal was met with
widespread criticism by GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill Monday, cybersecurity is likely going to be one
area where both parties find common ground. Much of the requested money will be split across major
government agencies that focus on cybersecurity, including the Departments of Homeland Security,
Justice and Defense.
The plan wrecks Obama’s PC
Jeremy Daw 12, J.D. from Harvard Law School, Dec 15 2012, “Marijuana Not A Priority For Obama,”
http://cannabisnowmagazine.com/current-events/politics/marijuana-not-a-priority-for-obama
Some hope for even more radical change. With the most recent polls suggesting that a majority of
Americans favor reform of pot laws, why not seize the moment and end federal prohibition entirely?
Obama could order the DEA to reschedule cannabis out of Schedule I to a less restrictive classification, which would effectively end the
conflict with the federal government in medical marijuana states. Such a move could harness political will for change and put the president on the winning side of
public opinion. But
such moves would have serious downsides . The politics of pot, rife with cultural and
political divisions since the tumultuous 1960s, remain bitterly divisive ; any politician who proposes
liberalization of cannabis laws risks becoming saddled with labels borne out of a long history of
ingroup/outgroup dynamics and which can rapidly drain a leader’s store of political capital . Given
Obama’s susceptibility to an even older tradition of racial stereotyping which associates cannabis use
with African Americans, any kind of green light to relaxed marijuana laws will cost the president dearly.
Obama has sufficient PC and momentum now—his push is vital to intel-sharing
Sorcher, 1-15—Sara, “Sony hack gives Obama political capital to push cybersecurity agenda (+video),”
Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/2015/0114/Sony-hack-givesObama-political-capital-to-push-cybersecurity-agenda-video --BR
“Sony hack gives Obama political capital to push cybersecurity agenda (+video)” Edward Snowden may
have doomed the prospects for cybersecurity legislation last Congress – but North Korea may revive
them in this one. After the leaks from the former National Security Agency contractor, privacy advocates
staunchly opposed cybersecurity bills that share information with the government, amid fears they
would increase the spy agency’s power to access and share even more private information from citizens.
The information-sharing bills stalled. Yet President Obama’s new push this week has so far been warmly
received on Capitol Hill – and on both sides of the aisle. Obama’s proposals, one week before his State
of the Union address, come after the destructive hack of Sony Pictures Entertainment, for which the
government has publicly blamed and sanctioned North Korea. It’s also on the heels of a maelstrom of
other high-profile data breaches last – including on Home Depot and JP Morgan Chase & Co. – and this
week’s brief takeover of the US military’s Central Command social media accounts by apparent Islamic
State supporters. All told, it may be enough momentum to break the logjam and give members of
Congress political cover to come together this session to support a controversial part of Obama’s
cybersecurity agenda: To give companies immunity from lawsuits if they share certain information about
cyber threats with the government with the Department of Homeland Security [DHS]. An informationsharing bill “has to pass this Congress,” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, a North
Carolina Republican, told Passcode. “It helps any time the president supports something.” Moving a
cybersecurity information-sharing bill “ has never been easy ,” he acknowledged, “but we’re committed
to go extremely quickly.” The Sony hack was a wake-up call on Capitol Hill, several lawmakers said. The
attackers not only stole private information, they destroyed company data and computer hardware, and
they also coerced Sony into altering its plans to release "The Interview," the comedy about the
assassination of the North Korean leaders. All of this may go a long way to persuade lawmakers that
mandating information sharing about cybersecurity threats will ultimately help defend private
companies. “I’m glad [Obama] is pushing to address cyber legislation,” said Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte
of New Hampshire. “We’ve stalled in the past, and if you look at what happened with the Sony attack, I
think we can’t afford to stall anymore . I think his timing is right on here… . I haven’t talked to anyone in
Congress who has said, ‘This shouldn’t be a priority for us.’” Sen. Angus King, an independent on the
Intelligence Committee, agreed. “I think everybody realizes the urgency.” Maryland Democratic Rep.
Dutch Ruppersberger, who already reintroduced his version of information-sharing legislation this
session, said in a statement that, “President Obama and I agree we can no longer afford to play political
games while rogue hackers, terrorists, organized criminals and even state actors sharpen their cyber
skills.” However, just because “everybody’s on board with the idea of it” – as Republican Sen. John
McCain puts it – doesn’t mean it will be easy to make progress on this controversial and complicated
issue. “I have been to more meetings on cyber than any other issue in my time in the Senate, and gotten
the least amount of result,” said Senator McCain, who chairs the Armed Services Committee. There are
already divisions emerging this time around. McCain opposes the White House’s proposal to route
cyberthreat information through the Department of Homeland Secu*rity. He said the National Security
Agency should take that role. “I’m glad to see a proposal of theirs, for a change, and we’ll be glad to
work on it – just not rubber stamp it,” said McCain.
Intel-sharing provisions are critical to halting catastrophic cyberattacks
Lev-Ram, 1-21—citing DeWalt, CEO of FireEye, a leader in cyber security, protecting organizations
from advanced malware, zero-day exploits, APTs, and other cyberattacks. “Does President Obama's bid
to bolster cyber security go far enough?” Forbes, http://fortune.com/2015/01/21/obama-state-unioncybersecurity/?icid=maing-grid7|ie8-unsupported-browser|dl31|sec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D602263 –BR
Sharing real-time threat intelligence and indicators of compromise–both between the private sector and
the government and among the private sector–is a critical component of a pro-active security strategy.
The timely sharing of threat intelligence improves detection and prevention capabilities and provides
organizations with the ability to mitigate and minimize the adverse consequences of a breach. Sharing
also provides enhanced situational awareness for the community at large. FireEye research
demonstrates that over 70% of malware is highly targeted and used only once. To better manage risk
stemming from this continuously evolving threat environment, FireEye recommends that organizations
conduct robust compromise risk assessments, adopt behavioral based tools and techniques such as
detonation chambers, actively monitor their networks for advanced cyber threats, stand ready to rapidly
respond in the event of a breach and share threat intelligence and lessons learned through active
engagement in information sharing organizations. As a final preventative measure, organization should
obtain a cyber insurance policy to help with catastrophic repercussions of a breach.
Cyber threats outweigh the aff
Thamboo, 14—Visha, citing Richard Clarke, a former White House staffer in charge of counterterrorism and cyber-security, “Cyber Security: The world’s greatest threat,” 11-25,
https://blogs.ubc.ca/vishathamboo/2014/11/25/cyber-security-the-worlds-greatest-threat/ -- BR
After land, sea, air and space, warfare had entered the fifth domain: cyberspace. Cyberspace is arguably
the most dangerous of all warfares because of the amount of damage that can be done, whilst
remaining completely immobile and anonymous. In a new book Richard Clarke, a former White House
staffer in charge of counter-terrorism and cyber-security, envisages a catastrophic breakdown within
15 minutes . Computer bugs bring down military e-mail systems ; oil refineries and pipelines explode;
air-traffic-control systems collapse; freight and metro trains derail; financial data are scrambled; the
electrical grid goes down in the eastern United States; orbiting satellites spin out of control. Society soon
breaks down as food becomes scarce and money runs out. Worst of all, the identity of the attacker may
remain a mystery. Other dangers are coming: weakly governed swathes of Africa are being connected
up to fibre-optic cables, potentially creating new havens for cyber-criminals and the spread of mobile
internet will bring new means of attack. The internet was designed for convenience and reliability, not
security. Yet in wiring together the globe, it has merged the garden and the wilderness. No passport is
required in cyberspace. And although police are constrained by national borders, criminals roam freely.
Enemy states are no longer on the other side of the ocean, but just behind the firewall. The illintentioned can mask their identity and location, impersonate others and con their way into the
buildings that hold the digitised wealth of the electronic age: money, personal data and intellectual
property. Deterrence in cyber-warfare is more uncertain than, say, in nuclear strategy: there is no
mutually assured destruction, the dividing line between criminality and war is blurred and identifying
attacking computers, let alone the fingers on the keyboards, is difficult. Retaliation need not be confined
to cyberspace; the one system that is certainly not linked to the public internet is America’s nuclear
firing chain. Although for now, cyber warfare has not spiralled out of control, it is only a matter of
time , before cyber warfare becomes the most prominent type of attack, and the most deadly
because of its scope and anonymity .
Treaties Adv CP
Text: The United States federal government should make an international public
declaration acknowledging that they are in open breach of international drug treaties.
The United States should end all current legalization of marihuana and ban future
legalization, until international drug treaties are amended to allow legalization.
Small Farms
Squo solves – Illegality prevents investment from big agribusiness now
CNBC 10 (April 20, “Small Growers Or Corporate Cash Crop?” http://www.cnbc.com/id/36179260)
Agribusiness In The Wings?
Most large agribusiness producers and distributors wouldn’t comment on any
marijuana cultivation plans while it’s still largely illegal . Seed and agri-chemical maker Monsanto isn’t focused
on it, says spokesman Darren Wallis, adding that even if that changed tomorrow, development of a mass-scale crop takes time. “We focus on
major crops for food, feed and biofuels—corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, wheat, sugarcane and vegetables,” he says. “It takes eight to ten years
of investment to bring a biotech product to market.” Other
big food and agricultural firms would not comment, saying
the proposition was too hypothetical or inappropriate given the largely illegal current status of the drug.
Consumer demand will drive cannabis farmers to harvest indoors
Lewis 13 - senior lecturer in international history at Stanford (October 22, Martin W., “Unnecessary
Environmental Destruction from Marijuana Cultivation in the United States ”
http://geocurrents.info/place/north-america/northern-california/unnecessary-environmentaldestruction-marijuana-cultivation-united-states)
Growing sun-loving plants in buildings under artificial suns is the height of environmental and economic
lunacy. Outdoors, the major inputs—light and air—are free . Why then do people pay vast amounts of
money to grow cannabis indoors, regardless of the huge environmental toll
and the major financial costs? The
reasons are varied. Outdoor
cultivation is climatically impossible or unfeasible over much of the country.
Everywhere, the risk of detection is much reduced for indoor operations. Indoor crops can also be gathered year-round,
whereas outdoor harvests are an annual event. But the bigger spur for artificially grown cannabis
appears to be consumer demand . As noted in a Huffington Post article “ indoor growers … produce the bestlooking buds, which command the highest prices and win the top prizes in competitions .” In California’s
legal (or quasi-legal) medical marijuana dispensaries, artificially
grown cannabis enjoys a major price advantage, due
largely to the more uniformly high quality of the product. Journalists have been noting the environmental harm of indoor
marijuana cultivation for some time. Unfortunately, few people seem to care. In 2011, the San Francisco Bay Guardian reported that
environmental concerns were leading some consumers to favor outdoor marijuana, but any such changes have not yet been reflected in market
prices.
In the cannabis industry, as in the oil industry, ecological damage does not seem to be much of
an issue.
Industrial model is sustainable and small farms aren’t net better
-lower yields: 20-50%
-land use
-acidification
-soil erosion/tillage
-rotenone x fish
-zero-sum: aff model T/O
Miller 14 (Dr. Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, was the founding director of the
FDA's Office of Biotechnology and is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution,
“Organic Farming Is Not Sustainable,” May 15,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304431104579550002888434432, Groot)
You may have noticed that the organic section of your local supermarket is growing. Advocates tout organic-food production—in everything
from milk and coffee to meat and vegetables—as a "sustainable" way to feed the planet's expanding population. The Worldwatch
Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental group, goes
so far as to say organic farming "has the potential
to contribute to sustainable food security by improving nutrition intake and sustaining livelihoods in rural areas, while
simultaneously reducing vulnerability to climate change and enhancing biodiversity ." The evidence
argues otherwise . A study by the Institute for Water Research at Ben-Gurion University in Israel, published last year in the journal
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, found that "intensive organic
agriculture relying on solid organic matter, such as composted
manure that is implemented in the soil prior to planting as the sole fertilizer, resulted in significant down-leaching of
nitrate" into groundwater. With many of the world's most fertile farming regions in the throes of drought, increased nitrate in
groundwater is hardly a hallmark of sustainability. Moreover, as agricultural scientist Steve Savage has documented on the Sustainablog
website, wide-scale composting generates significant amounts of greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide. Compost may also
deposit pathogenic bacteria on or in food crops, which has led to more frequent occurrences of food poisoning in the U.S. and elsewhere.
of land and
conventional agriculture—impose
Organic farming might work well for certain local environments on a small scale, but its farms produce far less food per unit
water than conventional ones. The low yields of organic agriculture—typically 20%-50% less than
various stresses on farmland and especially on water consumption. A British meta-analysis published in the Journal of Environmental
Management (2012) found that "ammonia
emissions, nitrogen leaching and nitrous oxide emissions per
product unit were higher from organic systems" than conventional farming systems, as were
"land use, eutrophication potential and acidification potential per product unit." Lower crop yields are inevitable
given organic farming's systematic rejection of many advanced methods and technologies. If the scale of organic production
were significantly increased, the lower yields would increase the pressure for the conversion of
more land to farming and more water for irrigation, both of which are serious environmental issues. Another
limitation of organic production is that it disfavors the best approach to enhancing soil
quality—namely, the minimization of soil disturbances such as tilling, combined with the use of
cover crops. Both approaches help to limit soil erosion and the runoff of fertilizers and
pesticides. Organic growers do frequently plant cover crops, but in the absence of effective herbicides, often
they rely on tillage (or even labor-intensive hand weeding) for weed control. One prevalent myth is that organic
agriculture does not employ pesticides. Organic farming does use insecticides and fungicides to
prevent predation of its crops. More than 20 chemicals (mostly containing copper and sulfur) are
commonly used in the growing and processing of organic crops and are acceptable under U.S.
organic rules. They include nicotine sulfate, which is extremely toxic to warm-blooded animals, and
rotenone , which is moderately toxic to most mammals but so toxic to fish that it's widely used for the mass
poisoning of unwanted fish populations during restocking projects. Perhaps the most illogical and least sustainable
aspect of organic farming in the long term is the exclusion of " g enetically m odified o rganism s ," but only
those that were modified with the most precise and predictable techniques such as gene
splicing. Except for wild berries and wild mushrooms, virtually all the fruits, vegetables and grains in our diet have
been genetically improved by one technique or another, often through what are called wide crosses, which move
genes from one species or genus to another in ways that do not occur in nature. Therefore, the exclusion from organic
agriculture of organisms simply because they were crafted with modern, superior techniques makes no sense. It also denies
consumers of organic goods nutritionally improved foods, such as oils with enhanced levels of omega-3 fatty acids. In recent decades,
we have seen advances in agriculture that have been more environmentally friendly and
sustainable than ever before. But they have resulted from science-based research and tech nological
ingenuity by farmers, plant breeders and agribusiness companies , not from social elites opposed to
modern insecticides, herbicides, genetic engineering and "industrial agriculture."
Small farms fail
McWilliams 09 (James, historian at Texas State University, 10/7,
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/let-the-farmers-market-debatecontinue/?apage=2)
Some academic critics are starting to wonder. Writing in the Journal of Rural Studies, sociologist C. Clare
Hinrichs warns that “[m]aking ‘local’ a proxy for the ‘good’ and ‘global’ a proxy for the bad may
overstate the value in proximity.” Building on this suspicion, she acknowledges that many small farms
are indeed more sustainable than larger ones, but then reminds us that “Small scale, ‘local’ farmers are
not inherently better environmental stewards.” Personal experience certainly confirms my own inability
to make such a distinction. Most of us must admit that in many cases we really haven’t a clue if the local
farmers we support run sustainable systems. The possibility that, as Hinrichs writes, they “may lack the
awareness or means to follow more sustainable production practices” suggests that the mythical sense
of community (which depends on the expectation of sound agricultural practices) is being eroded. After
all, if the unifying glue of sustainability turns out to have cracks, so then does the communal
cohesiveness that’s supposed to evolve from it. And this is not a big “If.” “[W]hile affect, trust, and
regard can flourish under conditions of spatial proximity,” concludes Hinrichs, “this is not automatically
or necessarily the case.” At the least, those of us who value our local food systems should probably take
the time to tone down the Quixotic rhetoric and ask questions that make our farmer friends a little
uncomfortable.
Tech development solves agriculture
Thompson 11 –senior fellow for The Chicago Council on Global Affairs and professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. (Robert, “Proving Malthus Wrong, Sustainable agriculture in 2050”
http://scienceblogs.com/tomorrowstable/2011/05/proving_malthus_wrong_sustaina.php)//SQR
Tools available today, including plant breeding and biotechnology, can make presently unusable soils productive
and increase the genetic potential of individual crops - enhancing drought and stress tolerance, for
example - while also producing gains in yields. Existing tools can also internalize plants' resistance to disease, and
even improve a plant's nutritional content - meaning consumers can get more nutritional value without increasing their
consumption. Furthermore, modern high-productivity agriculture minimizes farmers' impact on the
environment. Failure to embrace these technologies will result in further destruction of remaining forests. Adoption of
technologies that produce more output from fewer resources has been hugely successful from an
economic standpoint: prior to the price spike in 2008, there was a 150-year downward trend in the real price of food. The jury is still
out on whether the long-term downward trend will resume, prices will flatten out on a new higher plateau, or they will trend upward in the
future. The key is investing in research in the public and private sectors to increase agricultural productivity faster than global demand grows.
Long ago, British scholar Thomas Malthus
predicted that the human population would eventually outgrow its
ability to feed itself. However, Malthus has been proven wrong for more than two centuries precisely
because he underestimated the power of agricultural research and technology to increase
productivity faster than demand. There is no more reason for Malthus to be right in the 21st century
than he was in the 19th or 20th - but only if we work to support, not impede, continued agricultural
research and adoption of new technologies around the world.
Countries will cooperate over food
Burger et al. 10 -Development Economics, Corresponding author, Wageningen University (Kees, “Governance of the world food
system and crisis prevention” http://www.stuurgroepta.nl/rapporten/Foodshock-web.pdf ) //SQR
Both European water and agricultural policies are based on the belief that there will always be cheap food aplenty on the world market. A
recent British report 23 reflects this optimism. Although production is now more prone to world market price shocks, their effects on farm
incomes are softened by extensive income supports (van Eickhout et al. 2007). Earlier, in a 2003 report, a European group of agricultural
economists wrote: Food
security is no longer a prime objective of European food and agricultural policy. There
is no credible threat to the availability of the basic ingredients of human nutrition from domestic and
foreign sources. If there is a food security threat it is the possible disruption of supplies by natural disasters
or catastrophic terrorist action. The main response necessary for such possibilities is the appropriate
contingency planning and co-ordination between the Commission and Member States (Anania et al. 2003). Europe, it
appears, feels rather sure of itself, and does not worry about a potential food crisis. We are also not aware of any
special measures on standby. Nevertheless a fledgling European internal security has been called into being that can be deployed should (food)
crises strike. The Maastricht Treaty (1992) created a quasi-decision-making platform to respond to transboundary threats. Since 9/11 the
definition of what constitutes a threat has been broadened and the protection capacity reinforced. In the Solidarity Declaration of 2003
member states promised to stand by each other in the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or human-made calamity (the European
Security Strategy of 2003). Experimental
forms of cooperation are tried that leave member-state sovereignty
intact, such as pooling of resources. The EU co-operates in the area of health and food safety but its mechanisms remain
decentrslised by dint of the principle of subsidiarity. The silo mentality between the European directorates is also unhelpful, leading to
Babylonian confusion. Thus, in the context of forest fires and floods the Environment DG refers to ‘civil protection’.
Emissions in developing countries make CO2 reduction impossible – modeling is
irrelevant
Koetzle, 08 – Ph.D. and Senior Vice President of Public Policy at the Institute for Energy Research
(William, “IER Rebuttal to Boucher White Paper”, 4/13/2008,
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/04/13/ier-rebuttal-to-boucher-white-paper/)
For example, if the United States were to unilaterally reduced emissions by 30% or 40% below 2004 levels[8] by 2030; net global CO2 emissions
would still increase by more than 40%. The reason is straightforward: either of these reduction levels is offset by the increases in CO2 emissions
in developing countries. For example, a 30% cut below 2004 levels by 2030 by the United States offsets less than 60% of China’s increase in
emissions during the same period. In fact, even if
the United States were to eliminate all CO2 emissions by 2030,
without any corresponding actions by other countries, world-wide emissions would still increase by 30%.
If the United States were joined by the other OECD countries in a CO2 reduction effort, net emissions
would still significantly increase. In the event of an OCED-wide reduction of 30%, global emissions increase by 33%; a reduction of
40% still leads to a net increase of just under 30%. Simply put, in order to hold CO2 emissions at 2004 levels, absent any reductions by
developing nations like China and India, all OECD emissions would have to cease.[9] The lack of participation
by all significant
sources of GHGs not only means it is unlikely that net reductions will occur; it also means that the cost
of meaningful reductions is increased dramatically. Nordhous (2007) for example, argues that for the “importance of nearuniversal participation to reduce greenhouse gases.”[10] His analysis shows that GHG emission reduction plans that include, for example, 50%
of world-wide emissions impose additional costs of 250 percent. Thus, he find’s GHG abatement plans like Kyoto (which
does not include significant emitters like the United States, China, and India) to be “seriously flawed” and “likely to be ineffective.” [11] Even if
the United States had participated, he argues that Kyoto would make “but a small contribution to slowing global warming, and it would
continue to be highly inefficient.”[12]The data on emissions and economic analysis of reduction programs make it clear that GHG emissions are
a global issue. Actions
by localities, sectors, states, regions or even nations are unlikely to effectively reduce
net global emissions unless these reductions are to a large extent mirrored by all significant emitting
nations.
No impact – empirics
Willis et. al, 10 [Kathy J. Willis, Keith D. Bennett, Shonil A. Bhagwat & H. John B. Birks (2010): 4 °C and
beyond: what did this mean for biodiversity in the past?, Systematics and Biodiversity, 8:1, 3-9,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14772000903495833, ]
The most recent climate models and fossil evidence for the early Eocene Climatic Optimum (53–51 million
years ago) indicate that during this time interval atmospheric CO2 would have exceeded 1200 ppmv and
tropical temperatures were between 5–10 ◦ C warmer than modern values (Zachos et al., 2008). There is also
evidence for relatively rapid intervals of extreme global warmth and massive carbon addition when
global temperatures increased by 5 ◦ C in less than 10 000 years (Zachos et al., 2001). So what was the
response of biota to these ‘climate extremes’ and do we see the large-scale extinctions (especially in the
Neotropics) predicted by some of the most recent models associated with future climate changes (Huntingford
et al., 2008)? In fact
opposite.
the fossil record for the early Eocene Climatic Optimum demonstrates the very
All the evidence from low-latitude records indicates that, at
least in the plant fossil record, this was one of
the most biodiverse intervals of time in the Neotropics (Jaramillo et al., 2006). It was also a time when the tropical
forest biome was the most extensive in Earth’s history, extending to mid-latitudes in both the northern
and southern hemispheres – and there was also no ice at the Poles and Antarctica was covered by
needle-leaved forest (Morley, 2007). There were certainly novel ecosystems, and an increase in community
turnover with a mixture of tropical and temperate species in mid latitudes and plants persisting in areas
that are currently polar deserts. [It should be noted; however, that at the earlier Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal
Maximum (PETM) at 55.8 million years ago in the US Gulf Coast, there was a rapid vegetation response
to climate change. There was major compositional turnover, palynological richness decreased, and regional extinctions occurred
(Harrington & Jaramillo, 2007). Reasons for these changes are unclear, but they may have resulted from continental drying, negative feedbacks
on vegetation to changing CO2 (assuming that CO2 changed during the PETM), rapid cooling immediately after the PETM, or subtle changes in
plant–animal interactions (Harrington & Jaramillo, 2007).]
Treaties
States don’t violate treaties
Humphreys 13 – prof @ stanford
(Keith, “Can the United Nations Block U.S. Marijuana Legalization?” 11/15,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-humphreys/can-the-united-nations-bl_b_3977683.html)
1. Is the U.S. currently in violation of the UN treaties it signed agreeing to make marijuana illegal? No. The U.S. federal
government is a signatory to the treaty, but the States of Washington and Colorado are not. Countries with
federated systems of government like the U.S. and Germany can only make international commitments regarding their national-level policies.
Constitutionally, U.S. states are simply not required to make marijuana illegal as it is in federal law. Hence,
the U.S. made no such
commitment on behalf of the 50 states in signing the UN drug control treaties.¶ Some UN officials believe that the
spirit of the international treaties requires the U.S. federal government to attempt to override state-level marijuana legalization. But in
terms of the letter of the treaties, Attorney General Holder's refusal to challenge Washington and Colorado's marijuana
policies is within bounds.
But the plan does and creates a precedent for a pick and choose approach to
international law which spills over across all treaty areas – turns case.
Hasse 13 [10/14/13, Heather Hasse is a New York consultant for International Drug Policy Consortium
and the Harm Reduction Coalition, “The 2016 Drugs UNGASS: What does it mean for drug reform?”
http://drogasenmovimiento.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/13-10-14-the-2016-drugs-ungasse28093what-does-it-mean-for-drug-reform_.pdf]
But why? With all of the progress made in reform around the world lately, many – especially in the US – are asking if the UN is even
relevant to domestic drug reform at this point. With the recent marijuana laws passed in Colorado and
Washington and the proposed legislation in Uruguay – not to mention decriminalization measures enacted in Portugal and a
growing number of other countries – reform seems inevitable. At some point, the argument goes, the UN system will
simply be overtaken by “real world” reform on the ground. Why even bother with advocacy at the
UN? This is not an easy question to answer; however, I truly believe that to be effective, reform efforts must be made at
every level
– locally, nationally, and
globally . It may be true that reform efforts in the US and around the world have made significant
progress in the last 10 years. But there is still a long way to go – marijuana
is still not completely legal anywhere in the
world (despite state laws to the contrary, marijuana still remains illegal under federal law throughout
the US), and many human rights abuses continue to be carried out against drug users throughout the
world in the name of drug control. Meanwhile, the international drug control treaties – the 1961 Single Convention
on Narcotic Drugs and its progeny – remain
in place and, in fact, enjoy nearly universal adherence
by 184 member states.
That so many countries comply – at least technically, if not in “spirit” – with the international drug treaty
system, shows just how highly the international community regards the system.
As well it should – the
UN
system is invaluable and even vital in many areas, including climate change, HIV/AIDS reduction, and,
most recently, the Syrian chemical weapons crisis (and don’t forget that the international drug treaty system also governs
the flow of licit medication). While it is not unheard of for a country to disregard a treaty, a system in which countries pick and
choose which treaty provisions suit them and ignore the rest is, shall we say, less than ideal . But beyond
the idea of simple respect for international law, there are practical aspects of reform to consider. The drug problem is a global one, involving
not only consuming countries but producing and transit countries as well. Without global
cooperation, any changes will at
best be limited (marijuana reform in Washington and Colorado hardly affects the issue of human rights abuses in Singapore or the
limitations on harm reduction measures in Russia). At worst, reform efforts enacted ad hoc around the world could be
contradictory and incompatible - as might be the result if, for example, Colombia and the US opted for a regulated market without
the cooperation of Costa Rica or Honduras, both transit countries. Finally,
no matter what you think about the treaties and
the UN drug control system, or how significant you believe them to be in the grand scheme of things,
they are here for the time being, and are necessary to any discussion about drug reform.
U.S. I-Law credibility is terminally dead – way too many alt causes
Carasik 14 (Lauren Carasik, clinical professor of law and the director of the international human rights
clinic at the Western New England University School of Law, Al Jazeera, “Human rights for thee but not
for me”, 3/12/14, 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. North-south schism 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 creating this international framework, it has 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 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. 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. Evading treaties 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. American exceptionalism 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,
global rights framework.
the U.S. exempts itself from surrendering its sovereignty to any
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.
International law fails
Hiken 12, "The Impotence of International Law", Associate Director Institute for Public Accuracy, Luke,
7-17, http://www.fpif.org/blog/the_impotence_of_international_law
Whenever a lawyer or historian describes how a particular action “violates international law” many people stop listening or reading further. It
is a bit
alienating to hear the words “this action constitutes a violation of international law” time and time again
– and especially at the end of a debate when a speaker has no other arguments available. The statement is inevitably followed by: “…and it is a war crime and it
denies people their human rights.” A
plethora of international law violations are perpetrated by every major power
in the world each day, and thus, the empty invocation of international law does nothing
but reinforce our
own sense of impotence and helplessness in the face of international lawlessness. The
United States, alone, and on a daily basis
violates every principle of international law ever envisioned: unprovoked wars of aggression; unmanned
drone attacks; tortures and renditions; assassinations of our alleged “enemies”; sales of nuclear
weapons; destabilization of unfriendly governments; creating the largest prison population in the world – the
list is virtually endless. Obviously one would wish that there existed a body of international law that could put an end to these abuses, but
such laws
exist in theory, not in practice. Each time a legal scholar points out the particular treaties being
ignored by the superpowers (and everyone else) the only appropriate response is “so what!”
or “they always say that.”
If there is no enforcement mechanism to prevent the violations, and no military force with the power to
intervene on behalf of those victimized by the violations, what possible good does it do to invoke
principles of “truth and justice” that border on fantasy? The assumption is that by invoking human rights principles, legal scholars ho pe to reinforce the
importance of, and need for, such a body of law. Yet, in reality, the invocation means nothing at the present time, and goes
nowhere. In the real world, it would be nice to focus on suggestions that are enforceable, and have some potential to prevent the atrocities taking place
around the globe. Scholars who invoke international law principles would do well to add to their analysis, some form of action or conduct at the present time that
might prevent such violations from happening. Alternatively,
praying for rain sounds as effective
and rational as
citing
international legal principles to a lawless president, and his ruthless military.
Gridlock dooms effectiveness
Goldin 13 – Ian, Director of the University of Oxford’s Oxford Martin School world-leading centre of
pioneering research, debate and policy for a sustainable and inclusive future (Divided Nations, Oxford
University Press, 2013, google books)
The 20th century was characterized by at least four terrible global tragedies. Two brutal world wars, a global
pandemic, and a worldwide depression affected almost everyone on the planet. In response to these and other crises the United
Nations (UN), Bretton Woods (the World
Bank and I nternational M onetary F und), and other international institutions
were created which aimed to ensure that humanity never faced crises on the same scale again. These
institutions have enjoyed some success. After all, we are yet to witness another global conflict despite decades of Cold War tension
between competing superpowers. Until 2008, modern-day recessions had not come close to the deep worldwide contraction created by the
Great Depression, for which the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank can claim some credit. The World Health Organization
(WHO) and other agencies may also take pride in having overcome polio, smallpox, and a number of other devastating communicable diseases
and preventing a significant global pandemic despite increasing connectivity and population density. The
future, however, will be
unlike the past. We face a new set of challenges. The biggest of these is that our capacity to manage global
issues has not kept pace with the growth in their complexity and danger. Global institutions which may
have had some success in the 20th century are now unfit for purpose. The repurposing of global
governance to meet the new challenges is a vital and massive undertaking. Responsibility for this revolution lies not just with
the global governance organizations themselves, or indeed with national governments. Nations are divided and cannot agree a
common approach, and within the leading nations there is no consensus or leadership on critical global
issues. The continued failure to resolve the financial crisis which started in 2007, the impasse in climate and
environment negotiations at the Rio+20 conference in 2012 and the Durban conference in 2011, as well as the stymied 'development
round’ of trade negotiations initiated in Doha in 2001 should be a wake-up call to us all. Global governance is at a
crossroads and appears
incapable of overcoming the current gridlock in the most significant global
negotiations. The number of countries involved in negotiations (close to 200 now) and the complexity of the
issues and their interconnectedness have grown rapidly, as has the effect ofinstant media and other pressures on politicians. These
and other factors have paralysed progress, so the prospect of resolving critical global challenges appears
ever more distant. We have reached a fork in the road. New solutions must be found. Resolving questions of global governance urgently
requires an invigorated national and global debate. This necessitates the involvement of ordinary citizens everywhere. For without the
engagement and support of us all, reform efforts are bound to fail. Structural
changes in the world have led to
fundamental shifts in the nature of the challenges and their potential for resolution. In this book I select five key
challenges for this century—climate change, cybersecurity, pandemics, migration, and finance—to illustrate the need for fundamental reform
ofglobal governance. I am not suggesting that these issues are completely new. It is the radical change in the nature of these challenges and the
complexity and potential severity of their impact that defines them as 21st-century challenges. The
UN, WHO, IMF, World Trade
Organization (WTO), and other institutions charged with global governance have undertaken reform at a painfully
slow pace. The growing disconnect between the need for urgent collective decision making to meet
21st-century challenges and the evolutionary progress in institutional capability has led to a yawning
governance gap.
Cooperation overwhelmingly fails
Krisch 14, The Decay of Consent: International Law in an Age of Global Public Goods Nico Krisch ICREA
Research Professor Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2335938
Interdependence. The trajectory of international law found in the present study is markedly different, and it reflects the fact that greater
needs for cooperation – obvious in all three issue areas under analysis – are not always, or not even typically , satisfied by
international law. It highlights Miles Kahler’s observation that legalization ‘is a complex and varied mosaic rather
than a universal and irreversible trend’.229 But it also suggests that international law faces particular
limitations when confronted with highly intractable public goods problems . In that it seems to confirm the
views – of many economists and lawyers alike – that the
classical international legal order, with its emphasis on
consent, is ill-equipped to deal with such problems . Instead of being transformed towards nonconsensualism, as expected
by many, international
law is surrounded and sidelined by alternative regulatory structures
minilateral, informal kind, and often with hierarchical elements.
of a unilateral,
2NC
Add-On
Multiple barriers mean bioterror is extremely unlikely
Schneidmiller, Global Security Newswire, 1-13-09 (Chris, “Experts Debate Threat of Nuclear,
Biological Terrorism,” http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090113_7105.php)
Panel moderator Benjamin Friedman, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, said academic and governmental discussions of acts of nuclear or biological terrorism have tended to focus on
"worst-case assumptions about terrorists' ability to use these weapons to kill us." There is need for consideration for what is probable rather than simply what is possible, he said. Friedman
took issue with the finding late last year of an experts' report that an act of WMD terrorism would "more likely than not" occur in the next half decade unless the international community
takes greater action. "I would say that the report, if you read it, actually offers no analysis to justify that claim, which seems to have been made to change policy by generating alarm in
headlines." One panel speaker offered a partial rebuttal to Mueller's presentation. Jim Walsh, principal research scientist for the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, said he agreed that nations would almost certainly not give a nuclear weapon to a nonstate group, that most terrorist organizations have no interest in seeking out the bomb, and
that it would be difficult to build a weapon or use one that has been stolen. However, he disputed Mueller's assertion that nations can be trusted to secure their atomic weapons and
materials. "I don't think the historical record shows that at all," Walsh said. Black-market networks such as the organization once operated by former top Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul
Qadeer Khan remain a problem and should not be assumed to be easily defeated by international intelligence services, Walsh said (see GSN, Jan. 13). It is also reasonable to worry about
extremists gaining access to nuclear blueprints or poorly secured stocks of highly enriched uranium, he said. "I worry about al-Qaeda 4.0, kids in Europe who go to good schools 20 years from
now. Or types of terrorists we don't even imagine," Walsh said. Greater consideration must be given to exactly how much risk is tolerable and what actions must be taken to reduce the threat,
he added. "For all the alarmism, we haven't done that much about the problem," Walsh said. "We've done a lot in the name of nuclear terrorism, the attack on Iraq, these other things, but we
have moved ever so modestly to lock down nuclear materials." Biological Terrorism Another two analysts offered a similar debate on the potential for terrorists to carry out an attack using
Leitenberg, a senior research scholar at the Center for International and
Security Studies at the University of Maryland, played down the threat in comparison to other health risks.
Bioterrorism has killed five U.S. citizens in the 21st century -- the victims of the 2001 anthrax
attacks, he said. Meanwhile, at least 400,000 deaths are linked each year to obesity in this country.
The United States has authorized $57 billion in spending since the anthrax mailings for biological
prevention and defense activities, Leitenberg said. Much of the money would have been better used to
prepare for pandemic flu, he argued. "Mistaken threat assessments make mistaken policy and
make mistaken allocation of financial resources," Leitenberg said. The number of states with offensive biological weapons programs appears to
infectious disease material. Milton
have stabilized at six beginning in the mid-1970s, despite subsequent intelligence estimates that once indicated an increasing number of efforts, Leitenberg said. Caveats in present analyses of
There has been minimal
proliferation of biological expertise or technology to nations of concern in recent decades, Leitenberg
those states make it near-impossible to determine the extent to which their activities remain offensive in nature, he added.
said. He identified roughly 12 Russian scientists who ended up in Iran and shipments of technology and pathogen strains to Iraq from France, Germany, the former Soviet Union and the United
No evidence exists of state assistance to nonstate groups in this sector. Two
prominent extremist organizations, al-Qaeda and Aum Shinrikyo in Japan, failed to produce
pathogenic disease strains that could be used in an attack, according to Leitenberg. Terrorists would have to
acquire the correct disease strain, handle it safely, correctly reproduce and store the material
and then disperse it properly, Leitenberg said. He dismissed their ability to do so. "What we've found so
far is that those people have been totally abysmally ignorant of how to read the technical,
professional literature," Leitenberg said. "What's on the jihadi Web sites comes from American poisoners' handbooks sold here at gun shows. Which can't make anything
States between 1980 and 1990.
and what it would make is just garbage."
Small Farms
Federal illegality prevents corporate takeover
Bienenstock 2013 – west coast editor of High Times (May 29, David, “GET RICH OR HIGH TRYING”
http://www.vice.com/read/get-rich-or-high-trying-the-coming-age-of-corporatecannabis?Contentpage=-1)
“ Capitalism
is definitely going to change cannabis , because it's been completely in the shadows and totally unregulated,”
Kris agrees, after I describe the story I've been working on. “At the same time, while I'm not idealistic enough to believe that legal cannabis will
change the way that capitalism works and people behave, I do hope that within the cannabis industry, the way that things are rolling out will
provide us with a buffer period to get it right. Obviously,
if cannabis were made completely legal at the federal level
and in every state all at once, the big alcohol and tobacco companies would swoop in and dominate
the market by resorting to the same tactics they use in their core businesses, but that's not what's
happening . Instead we're seeing cannabis legalized state-by-state, while remaining federally illegal ,
which keeps those kinds of players largely on the sidelines.” So call it a grey market. Or better yet call it a
chance to nurture a new American industry from the green shoots up. One that breaks the Wall Street greed mold by
embracing the higher ideals so many of us associate with getting high. Like cooperation, compassion, creativity, empathy, innovation, inclusion,
tolerance and a feeling of interconnectedness that transcends the bottom line.
The possibility of ecologically grown weed is irrelevant – producers decide against it
Lewis 13 - senior lecturer in international history at Stanford (October 22, Martin W., “Unnecessary
Environmental Destruction from Marijuana Cultivation in the United States ”
http://geocurrents.info/place/north-america/northern-california/unnecessary-environmentaldestruction-marijuana-cultivation-united-states)
Cannabis can be raised in an environmentally responsible manner, as it often is by individual growers. Healthy outdoor
plants suffer little damage from insects and other invertebrates. Mammals seldom eat the leaves, and wood-rat gnawing causes only minor
damage in most areas. The highest yields, moreover, are obtained by those who avoid chemicals in favor of compost, manure, and biochar
(buried charcoal). The liberal use of biochar, moreover, can actually generate a negative carbon footprint, as it involves sequestering carbon in
the soil. Biochar is also one of the best long-term agricultural investments imaginable; the tierra preta soils of the Amazon, made by indigenous
peoples before 1500, have maintained their fertility for centuries in an environment otherwise characterized by impoverished soils that cannot
retain nutrients.
Given these advantages , why is organic cannabis cultivation in general, and the use of
biochar more specifically, not more widespread ? One crucial issue, which holds for organic farming the
world over, is the amount of labor required , which is considerable . But equally important is the lack
of consumer demand . In the cannabis market, relatively few buyers consider environmental costs,
focusing instead on quality and appearance. And even those who do care about ecological
consequences are thwarted by the impossibility of certifying sustainable production. Perhaps carbonnegative biochar-produced cannabis could command a price premium in some markets, but consumers
have no way to know if such methods were actually used.
Corn proves.
Hurst 09 (Blake, farmer in Missouri. The American, Journal of the American Enterprise Institute, 7/30,
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/the-omnivore2019s-delusion-against-the-agriintellectuals)
The most delicious irony is this: the
parts of farming that are the most “industrial” are the most likely to be
owned by the kind of family farmers that elicit such a positive response from the consumer. Corn farms are almost all
owned and managed by small family farmers. But corn farmers salivate at the thought of one more
biotech breakthrough, use vast amounts of energy to increase production, and raise large quantities of
an indistinguishable commodity to sell to huge corporations that turn that corn into thousands of industrial products. Most
livestock is produced by family farms, and even the poultry industry, with its contracts and vertical integration, relies on family
farms to contract for the production of the birds. Despite the obvious change in scale over time, family farms, like ours, still meet around the
kitchen table, send their kids to the same small schools, sit in the same church pew, and belong to the same civic organizations our parents and
grandparents did. We may be industrial by some definition, but not our own. Reality is messier than it appears in the book my tormentor was
reading, and farming more complicated than a simple morality play.
New tech and adaption solve food shortages
Michaels 11 Patrick Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the CATO Institute. " Global
Warming and Global Food Security," June 30, CATO,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/global-warming-global-food-security
While doing my dissertation I learned a few things about world crops. Serial adoption of new technologies produces a nearly
constant increase in yields. Greater fertilizer application, improved response to fertilizer, better
tractor technology, better tillage practices, old-fashioned genetic selection, and new-fashioned
genetic engineering all conspire to raise yields, year after year.¶ Weather and climate have
something to do with yields, too. Seasonal rainfall can vary a lot from year-to-year. That's
"weather." If dry years become dry decades (that's "climate") farmers will switch from corn to
grain sorghum, or, where possible, wheat. Breeders and scientists will continue to develop more
water-efficient plants and agricultural technologies, such as no-till production.¶ Adaptation even
applies to the home garden. The tomato variety "heat wave" sets fruit at higher temperatures than traditional cultivars.¶ However, Gillis claims that "[t]he rapid
growth in farm output that defined the late 20th century has slowed" because of global warming.¶ His own figures show this is wrong. The increasing trend in
world crop yields from 1960 to 1980 is exactly the same as from 1980 to 2010. And per capita grain
production is rising, not falling.
They don’t come close to solving warming
1AC Author Cummins 10 Founder and Director of the Organic Consumers Association [Ronnie
Cummins “Industrial Agriculture and Human Survival: The Road Beyond 10/10/10,” Organic Consumers
Association, October 7, 2010, http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_21747.cfm
The currently catastrophic, but largely unrecognized, GHG damage from GMO crops and industrial food
production and distribution must be reversed. This will involve wholesale changes in farming practices,
government subsidies, food processing and handling. In the U.S. it will require the conversion of a
million chemical farms and ranches to organic production. It will require the establishment of
millions of urban backyard and community gardens, and the restoration of prairielands, forests, and
wetlands. If consumer rebellion and grassroots mobilization cannot force U.S. factory farmers to
change the way they farm, process, and ship their products it will be
catastrophic U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and
climate change .
almost
impossible to deal with
Developing countries, lax regulation, and profit maximization means warming is
inevitable
Porter 2013 - writes the Economic Scene column for the Wednesday Business section (March 19,
Eduardo, “A Model for Reducing Emissions” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/business/usexample-offers-hope-for-cutting-carbon-emissions.html?_r=1&)
Even if every American coal-fired power plant were to close , that would not make up for the coalbased generators being built in developing countries like India and China. “Since 2000, the growth in coal has
been 10 times that of renewables,” said Daniel Yergin, chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates.¶ Fatih Birol, chief
economist of the International Energy Agency in Paris, points out that if civilization is to avoid catastrophic climate change,
only about one third of the 3,000 gigatons of CO2 contained in the world’s known reserves of oil, gas and coal can
be released into the atmosphere.¶ But the world economy does not work as if this were the case — not
governments, nor businesses, nor consumers.¶ “In all my experience as an oil company manager, not a single oil
company took into the picture the problem of CO2,” said Leonardo Maugeri, an energy expert at Harvard
who until 2010 was head of strategy and development for Italy’s state-owned oil company, Eni. “They are all totally devoted to
replacing the reserves they consume every year.”
Treaties
The conventions have sovereignty and federalism exceptions
Sullum 14 [03/05/14, Jacob Sullum, “Does Marijuana Legalization Violate International Law?”,
http://reason.com/archives/2014/03/05/is-marijuana-legalization-illegal]
In other words, our government is required to impose marijuana prohibition on recalcitrant states, regardless of
what the Constitution says. Can that be true? Only if you believe that international treaties can give Congress
authority that was not granted by the Constitution, which would obliterate the doctrine of enumerated
powers and the state autonomy that depends on it. Even if treaties could override federalism, the
agreements that the INCB cites do not purport to do so . The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs
says compliance is subject to "constitutional limitations" and undertaken with "due regard to
[signatories'] constitutional, legal and administrative systems." The 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances and
the 1988 Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances contain similar provisions. In light of such language,
how can the INCB insist that "internal legislation" and "federal structures" have no bearing on a
country's obligations under these treaties? " The INCB is just flat-out wrong in making such a claim,"
Richard Elliott, executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. "The
says
INCB's claim that its narrow, restrictive
interpretations of the conventions override domestic constitutional law cannot stand in light of the
actual wording of the conventions. " The INCB cites Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which says "a
party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty." It also mentions Article 29, which says
"unless
a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, a treaty is binding upon
each party in respect of its entire territory." Yet "it’s a basic principle of statutory interpretation that a
specific statute or command trumps a general one," notes Alex Kreit, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of law who
specializes in drug policy. In this case, the drug treaties make allowances for the constitutional principles that the
INCB says are irrelevant. So is the U.S. government violating international law by letting Colorado and
Washington do what they have every right to do? No , and that desperate claim is yet another sign
that pot prohibitionists are panicking.
The plan’s pick and choose approach violates “pacta sunt servanda” which is the most
fundamental principle of international law
Lopez 14
(German, “How much of the war on drugs is tied to international treaties?”
http://www.vox.com/cards/war-on-drugs-marijuana-cocaine-heroin-meth/war-on-drugs-internationaltreaties)
There is a lot of disagreement among drug policy experts, enforcers, and reformers about the stringency of the treaties. Several sections of the
conventions allow countries some flexibility so they don't violate their own constitutional protections. The US, for example, has
never enforced penalties on inciting illicit drug use on the basis that it would violate rights to freedom of speech. ¶ Many argue that
move toward legalization
of use, possession, and sales
is in violation of international treaties.
any
Under this
argument, Colorado, Washington, and Uruguay are technically in violation of the treaties because they legalized marijuana for personal
possession and sales.¶ Others say that countries have a lot of flexibility due to the constitutional exemptions in the conventions. Countries
could claim, for instance, that their protections for right to privacy and health allow them to legalize drugs despite the conventions. When it
comes to individual states in the US, the federal government can also argue that America's
federalist system allows states
some flexibility as long as the federal government keeps drugs illegal.¶ "It's pretty clear that the war on drugs was
waged for political reasons and some countries have used the treaties as an excuse to pursue draconian policies," said Kasia MalinowskaSempruch, director of the Open Society Global Drug Policy Program. "Nevertheless, we've seen a number of countries drop criminal penalties
for minor possession of all drugs. We've seen others put drugs into a pharmaceutical model, including the prescription of heroin to people with
serious addictions. This seems completely possible within the treaties."¶ Even if a country decided to dismantle prohibition and violate the
treaties, it's unclear how the international community would respond. If the US, for example, ended prohibition, there's little other countries
could do to interfere; there's no international drug court, and sanctions would be very unlikely for a country as powerful as America.¶ Still,
Martin Jelsma, an international drug policy expert at the Transnational Institute, argued that ignoring
or pulling out of the
international drug conventions could seriously damage America's standing around the world . "Pacta
sunt servanda ('agreements must be kept') is the most fundamental principle of international law
and it would be very undermining if countries start to take an 'a-la-carte' approach to treaties they
have signed; they cannot simply comply with some provisions and ignore others without losing the
moral authority to ask other countries to oblige to other treaties,"
Jelsma wrote in an email. "So our preference is
to acknowledge legal tensions with the treaties and try to resolve them."¶ To resolve such issues, many critics of the war on drugs hope to
reform international drug laws in 2016 during the next General Assembly Special Session on drugs.¶ "There is tension with the tax-and-regulate
approach to marijuana in some jurisdictions," Malinowska-Sempruch said. "But it's all part of a process and that's why we hope the UN debate
in 2016 is as open as possible, so that we can settle some of these questions and, if necessary, modernize the system."
That starts a cycle of treaty violations that wrecks the whole system
Harold Hongju Koh 3, Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law, Yale Law
School, May 2003, “FOREWORD: On American Exceptionalism,” Stanford Law Review, 55 Stan. L. Rev.
1479
Similarly, the oxymoronic concept of "imposed democracy" authorizes top-down regime change in the
name of democracy. Yet the United States has always argued that genuine democracy must flow from
the will of the people, not from military occupation. n67 Finally, a policy of strategic unilateralism seems
unsustainable in an interdependent world. For over the past two centuries, the United States has
become party not just to a few treaties, but to a global network of closely interconnected treaties
enmeshed in multiple frameworks of international institutions. Unilateral administration decisions to
break or bend one treaty commitment thus rarely end the matter, but more usually trigger vicious
cycles of treaty violation . In an interdependent world, [*1501] the United States simply cannot afford
to ignore its treaty obligations while at the same time expecting its treaty partners to help it solve the
myriad global problems that extend far beyond any one nation's control: the global AIDS and SARS
crises, climate change , international debt, drug smuggling, trade imbalances , currency coordination,
and trafficking in human beings, to name just a few. Repeated incidents of American treaty-breaking
create the damaging impression of a United States contemptuous of both its treaty obligations and
treaty partners. That impression undermines American soft power at the exact moment that the United
States is trying to use that soft power to mobilize those same partners to help it solve problems it simply
cannot solve alone: most obviously, the war against global terrorism , but also the postwar construction
of Iraq, the Middle East crisis, or the renewed nuclear militarization of North Korea.
It’s super slow
Ottawa 7 “Time to get on with the job” Ottawa Citizen- Most popular groundbreaking news for Canada, July 16,
2007 Monday, lexis
The secretary general of the United Nations meets tomorrow with the president of the United States to
discuss some of the most urgent problems facing humanity. It has been six months since Mr. Ban took
office. He seems to enjoy his reputation as a cautious bureaucrat. He took his time filling key positions,
and most of his statements have been uncontroversial. His name shows up in the third paragraphs of
news stories, rather than in the headlines. The UN, though, has not receded from the world stage during
Mr. Ban's first months. The newly reconstituted Human Rights Council took its first faltering steps and
met with deserved criticism for failing to speak out about blatant abuses. UN agencies have steered the
debate on drugs in Afghanistan and climate change. There are more UN peacekeeping personnel in the
field than ever. On Darfur -- an immediate threat to security and development that the UN could help
solve -- Mr. Ban's quiet diplomacy has been overshadowed by U.S. President George W. Bush's much
stronger leadership. At one point, Mr. Ban suggested he needed more time ; time is a luxury the
displaced and dying do not have. The issue of UN reform was close to Kofi Annan's heart and seems
equally dear to his successor. It's been slow going on that front, too, although it's not Mr. Ban's fault
that getting any change through the U nited N ations system is like walking through molasses.
Gridlock makes cooperation impossible
Hale et al 13 [05/24/13, Thomas Hale is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Blavatnik School of
Government, Oxford University. David Held is master of University College, Durham University,
professor of politics and international relations there and general editor of Global Policy. Kevin Young is
Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst,
“Gridlock: the growing breakdown of global cooperation” https://www.opendemocracy.net/thomashale-david-held-kevin-young/gridlock-growing-breakdown-of-global-cooperation]
Global cooperation is gridlocked across a range of issue areas . The reasons for this are not the result of
any single underlying causal structure , but rather of several underlying dynamics that work together.
previous phases of global
cooperation have been incredibly successful, producing unintended consequences that have
Global cooperation today is failing not simply because it is very difficult to solve many global problems – indeed it is – but because
overwhelmed the problem-solving capacities of the very institutions that created them . It is hard to
see how this situation can be unravelled, given failures of contemporary global leadership , the
weaknesses of NGOs in converting popular campaigns into institutional change and reform, and the
domestic political landscapes of the most powerful countries . A golden era of governed globalization In order to understand why
gridlock has come about it is important to understand how it was that the post-Second World War era facilitated, in many respects, a successful form of ‘governed globalization’ that
contributed to relative peace and prosperity across the world over several decades. This period was marked by peace between the great powers, although there were many proxy wars fought
out in the global South. This relative stability created the conditions for what now can be regarded as an unprecedented period of prosperity that characterized the 1950s onward. Although it
is by no means the sole cause, the UN is central to this story, helping to create conditions under which decolonization and successive waves of democratization could take root, profoundly
altering world politics. While the economic record of the postwar years varies by country, many experienced significant economic growth and living standards rose rapidly across significant
parts of the world. By the late 1980s a variety of East Asian countries were beginning to grow at an unprecedented speed, and by the late 1990s countries such as China, India and Brazil had
gained significant economic momentum, a process that continues to this day. Meanwhile, the institutionalization of international cooperation proceeded at an equally impressive pace. In
in 2011, the number of institutions and their various off-shoots had grown
to 7608 (Union of International Associations 2011). There was substantial growth in the number of international treaties in
force, as well as the number of international regimes, formal and informal. At the same time, new kinds of
institutional arrangements have emerged alongside formal intergovernmental bodies, including a variety of types of transnational governance arrangements
1909, 37 intergovernmental organizations existed;
such as networks of government officials, public-private partnerships, as well as exclusively private/corporate bodies. Postwar institutions created the conditions under which a multitude of
actors could benefit from forming multinational companies, investing abroad, developing global production chains, and engaging with a plethora of other social and economic processes
These conditions, combined with the expansionary logic of capitalism and basic technological innovation, changed the nature of
the world economy, radically increasing dependence on people and countries from every corner of the world. This interdependence,
in turn, created demand for further institutionalization, which states seeking the benefits of cooperation provided, beginning the cycle anew. This is not
associated with globalization.
to say that international institutions were the only cause of the dynamic form of globalization experienced over the last few decades. Changes in the nature of global capitalism, including
breakthroughs in transportation and information technology, are obviously critical drivers of interdependence. However,
all of these changes were allowed to
thrive and develop because they took place in a relatively open, peaceful, liberal, institutionalized world
order. By preventing World War Three and another Great Depression, the multilateral order arguably did just as much
for interdependence as microprocessors or email (see Mueller 1990; O’Neal and Russett 1997). Beyond the special privileges of the great powers
Self-reinforcing interdependence has now progressed to the point where it has altered our ability to
engage in further global cooperation.
That is,
economic and political shifts in large part attributable to the
successes of the post-war multilateral order are now amongst the factors grinding that system into
gridlock . Because of the remarkable success of global cooperation in the postwar order, human interconnectedness weighs much more heavily on politics than it did in 1945. The
need for international cooperation has never been higher.
Yet the “supply” side of the equation, institutionalized multilateral
cooperation, has stalled . In areas such as nuclear proliferation, the explosion of small arms sales,
terrorism, failed states, global economic imbalances, financial market instability, global poverty and
inequality, biodiversity losses, water deficits and climate change, multilateral and transnational
cooperation is now increasingly ineffective or threadbare. Gridlock is not unique to one issue domain,
but appears to be becoming a general feature of global governance: cooperation seems to be
increasingly difficult and deficient at precisely the time when it is needed most. It is possible to identify four reasons for this
blockage, four pathways to gridlock: rising multipolarity, institutional inertia, harder problems, and institutional fragmentation. Each pathway can be thought of as a growing trend that
embodies a specific mix of causal mechanisms. Each of these are explained briefly below. Growing multipolarity.
The absolute number of states has increased
by 300 percent in the last 70 years, meaning that the most basic transaction costs of global governance have
grown . More importantly, the number of states that “matter” on a given issue—that is, the states without whose cooperation a global
problem cannot be adequately addressed—has expanded by similar proportions. At Bretton Woods in 1945, the rules of the world economy could essentially be written by the United States
with some consultation with the UK and other European allies. In the aftermath of the 2008-2009 crisis, the G-20 has become the principal forum for global economic management, not
because the established powers desired to be more inclusive, but because they could not solve the problem on their own. However, a consequence of this progress is now that
many
more countries, representing a diverse range of interests, must agree in order for global cooperation
to occur . Institutional inertia. The postwar order succeeded, in part, because it incentivized great power involvement
in key institutions. From the UN Security Council, to the Bretton Woods institutions, to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, key pillars of the global order explicitly grant special
privileges to the countries that were wealthy and powerful at the time of their creation. This hierarchy was necessary to secure the participation of the most important countries in global
governance. Today,
South,
the gain from this trade-off has shrunk while the costs have grown.
As power shifts from West to East, North to
a broader range of participation is needed on nearly all global issues if they are to be dealt with effectively. At the same time,
following decolonization, the end of the Cold War and economic development, the idea that some countries should hold more rights and privileges than others is increasingly (and rightly)
regarded as morally bankrupt. And yet, the architects of the postwar order did not, in most cases, design institutions that would organically adjust to fluctuations in national power. Harder
problems. As independence has deepened, the types and scope of problems around which countries must cooperate has evolved. Problems are both now more extensive, implicating a
broader range of countries and individuals within countries, and intensive, penetrating deep into the domestic policy space and daily life. Consider the example of trade. For much of the
postwar era, trade negotiations focused on reducing tariff levels on manufactured products traded between industrialized countries. Now, however, negotiating a trade agreement requires
also discussing a host of social, environmental, and cultural subjects - GMOs, intellectual property, health and environmental standards, biodiversity, labour standards—about which countries
often disagree sharply. In the area of environmental change a similar set of considerations applies. To clean up industrial smog or address ozone depletion required fairly discrete actions from
a small number of top polluters. By contrast, the threat of climate change and the efforts to mitigate it involve nearly all countries of the globe. Yet, the divergence of voice and interest within
both the developed and developing worlds, along with the sheer complexity of the incentives needed to achieve a low carbon economy, have made a global deal, thus far, impossible (Falkner
et al. 2011; Victor 2011). Fragmentation. The institution-builders of the 1940s began with, essentially, a blank slate. But efforts to cooperate internationally today occur in a dense institutional
The exponential rise in both multilateral and transnational organizations has
created a more complex multilevel and multi-actor system of global governance. Within this dense web of institutions
mandates can conflict, interventions are frequently uncoordinated, and all too typically scarce resources are
ecosystem shaped by path dependency.
subject to intense competition . In this context, the proliferation of institutions tends to lead to
dysfunctional fragmentation, reducing the ability of multilateral institutions to provide public goods .
When funding and political will are scarce, countries need focal points to guide policy (Keohane and Martin 1995), which
can help define the nature and form of cooperation. Yet, when international regimes overlap,
these positive effects are weakened. Fragmented
institutions, in turn, disaggregate resources and political will, while increasing transaction costs.
Bias towards inaction means it can’t solve global public goods
Krisch 14, The Decay of Consent: International Law in an Age of Global Public Goods Nico Krisch ICREA
Research Professor Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2335938
Public Goods and International Law International law in its classical form appears as particularly illsuited to tackling this challenge; its consent-based structure imposes high hurdles and thus creates a
structural bias against effective action on global public goods , especially in light of the large number
of sovereign states today. Increasingly, commentators have thus urged an overhaul of the international
legal order in favour of a more effective problem-solving mechanism, able to counter problems of freeriding in similar ways as domestic government does. As influential economist, William Nordhaus, has
noted, ‘the Westphalian system leads to severe problems for global public goods . The requirement for
unanimity is in reality a recipe for inaction . … To the extent that global public goods may become more
important in the decades ahead, one of our major challenges is to devise mechanisms that overcome
the bias toward the status quo and the voluntary nature of current international law in lifethreatening issues.’ 12
1NR
Politics
Likelihood, usability and scale outweigh
Connolly, 14—Jennifer, Assistant Professor of Political Science at University of Miami, PhD in Public
Policy @ USC, along with Pew Center authors Lee Rainie and Janna Anderson. “Cyber Attacks Likely to
Increase,” Pew Research Center – Internet, Science and Technology, 10-29,
http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/29/cyber-attacks-likely-to-increase/ --BR
Geoff Livingston, author and president of Tenacity5 Media, responded, “ Cyberwar is the battlefield of
now . Don’t kid yourself. Battlefields in Sudan, Afghanistan, and Syria are real, but there is a new
battlefield and every day wars are won and lost between individuals, businesses, and countries. The
Pentagon and China’s military are regularly engaged in digital spats. We really have no idea how deep
this goes, but we are much closer to William Gibson’s vision in the seminal cyberpunk novel
Neuromancer than any of us would like to admit.” Herb Lin, chief scientist for the Computer Science and
Telecommunications Board at the National Research Council of the US National Academies of Science,
replied, “More likely is cyber sabotage of individual enterprises. On a large scale, cyber attacks may be
combined with kinetic attacks and the combination may cause large-scale damage .” Christian Huitema,
a distinguished engineer with Microsoft, observed, “We are already witnessing the theft of trade
secrets, with impact well worth tens of billions of dollars. We are also seeing active development of
cyber weapons by many world powers. Historically, such new weapons are always used at least once or
twice before nations realize it is too dangerous and start relying on diplomacy.” Stewart Baker, a
partner at Steptoe & Johnson, a Washington law firm, wrote, “Cyberwar just plain makes sense.
Attacking the power grid or other industrial control systems is asymmetrical and deniable and
devilishly effective. Plus, it gets easier every year . We used to worry about Russia and China taking
down our infrastructure. Now we have to worry about Iran and Syria and North Korea. Next up:
Hezbollah and Anonymous.”
Obama’s quick push, bully pulpit, and bartering are vital to intel-sharing
Bennett, 1-20—Cory, “President makes unprecedented cybersecurity pitch,” The Hill,
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/230157-obama-makes-unprecedented-cyber-pitch --BR
President Obama made an historic push for cybersecurity action during his State of the Union address
Tuesday night. “If we don’t act, we’ll leave our nation and our economy vulnerable,” Obama said. “If we
do, we can continue to protect the technologies that have unleashed untold opportunities for people
around the globe.” Although the president previously called for cybersecurity legislation during his
annual address in 2013, Tuesday night’s plea easily surpassed any previous cyber mention in
specificity , breadth and urgency . "No doubt about it," Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), ranking
member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told The Hill in an interview. "He
made the case for a bipartisan, strong effort to address cybersecurity." It was the third issue Obama
mentioned while discussing national security during the speech. The president also hit nearly every
aspect of the new White House cyber agenda, which was rolled out last week. “No foreign nation, no
hacker, should be able to shut down our networks, steal our trade secrets, or invade the privacy of
American families, especially our kids," Obama said to a bipartisan standing ovation. The
administration’s legislative cyber proposals include measures intended to facilitate cyber threat
information-sharing between the public and private sectors; to protect student data; to raise the
punishments for cyber crime; and to create a federal breach notification standard and nationwide cyber
defense standards. The agenda was unveiled strategically to take advantage of the bump in
cybersecurity awareness following the destructive cyberattack on Sony Pictures. Hackers allegedly
backed by North Korea wiped the film studio’s computers, released internal documents and emails and
made violent threats that almost caused the cancellation of a big-budget comedy release. The incident
led to a full-scale government investigation and the unprecedented blaming of a foreign regime for a
destructive cyberattack on U.S. soil. “We are making sure our government integrates intelligence to
combat cyber threats, just as we have done to combat terrorism,” Obama said. The security industry
and privacy advocates alike appreciated the president using one of the country's biggest bully pulpits
to promote national awareness of cybersecurity, even if they quibble with the administration’s policy
specifics. Roughly 33 million viewers watch the State of the Union each year, although viewership has
been declining. “It’s every American’s job to get involved” on cybersecurity, said Tony Cole, the global
government chief technical officer at cybersecurity firm FireEye. For lawmakers who have spent years
struggling to convince colleagues of the colossal dangers of weak cybersecurity, the president’s remarks
were quite welcome, if not a bit late. “I welcome him to the conversation,” said Rep. Michael McCaul (RTexas), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. “Confronting the cyber threat has been a
priority of mine for the past 10 years.” Attention now turns to those same lawmakers, as the White
House looks for allies to introduce its legislative offerings. “Tonight, I urge this Congress to finally pass
the legislation we need to better meet the evolving threat of cyber-attacks, combat identity theft, and
protect our children’s information,” Obama said. "That should be a bipartisan effort," he added, going
off script briefly. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), the ranking member on the Senate Commerce Committee, has
already said he will introduce a data breach notification bill that closely resembles the White House
proposal. It would require companies to notify consumers within 30 days that their information had
been breached. Companies would also have to notify the government of certain breaches and adhere to
cybersecurity standards set by the Federal Trade Commission. Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), co-chair of the
Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus, said after the speech that he will soon introduce a House version of
the president's data breach proposal. "I am particularly excited to see cybersecurity come center stage
in the State of the Union and in the public dialogue," he added. Obama on Tuesday only mentioned the
initiative in passing, with his reference to legislation to combat “identity theft.” The most contentious
issue will be Obama’s proposal to enhance cybersecurity information-sharing between the government
and private sector. The offering would provide limited liability protections for companies sharing cyber
threat indicators with the Department of Homeland Security. The measure has been at the top of
industry group’s cyber wish list for years. But cybersecurity firms caution that a rushed, non-specific bill
could prove ineffective. “How are you going to implement limited liability?” Cole wondered. “What does
that mean?” Privacy advocates worry those same vagueries could give the government another way to
collect personal information on U.S. citizens. They’ve pushed for National Security Agency (NSA) reform
to come before any cyber information sharing bill. Obama insisted he would not let NSA reform fall to
the wayside. “While some have moved on from the debates over our surveillance programs, I haven’t,”
he said. “As promised, our intelligence agencies have worked hard, with the recommendations of
privacy advocates, to increase transparency and build more safeguards against potential abuse.” Privacy
advocates remained wary after hearing Obama's remarks. "It's heartening that President Obama's
address focused on Americans' privacy, but the only way to fulfill that promise is to pass surveillance
reform before taking up cyber [info sharing] legislation," said Robyn Greene, policy counsel for the Open
Technology Institute. The congressional calculus on the cyber threat sharing issue is also quite complex.
Different committees have pushed their own sharing proposals, creating intra-party squabbles and
jurisdictional turf wars. Key Democrats on cyber issues have also broken with the White House on their
own cyber threat sharing bills. Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) recently reintroduced the Cyber
Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which would enable sharing between the private sector
and the NSA, not the DHS. Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
was also a big proponent of a Senate version of CISPA last Congress. The two recently installed chairmen
on the Senate Intelligence Committee and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee will play a big role in setting the legislative agenda. Both Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr
(R-N.C.) and Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) have indicated they’re willing to work
with the White House on a joint cyber proposal. In the Republican response to Obama's speech, Sen.
Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) made only passing reference to the issue. “We’ll advance solutions to prevent the
kind of cyberattacks we’ve seen recently," she said. Cummings told The Hill that Congress doesn't "have
the right not to get something done on this." “In fact, I would consider it political malpractice not to do
something," he added. The White House has insisted it will barter with a wide range of lawmakers in
both parties to achieve its cyber goals. Obama reiterated Tuesday that the administration can’t go it
alone on cyber. "We’re looking beyond the issues that have consumed us in the past to shape the
coming century," he said.
Obama’s push and prioritization is key to consensus-building
Kelly, 1-25—Erin, USA Today, “Obama, Congress may find cybersecurity consensus,”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/25/cybersecurity-information-sharingbill/22229049/ --BR
President Obama and Congress appear to have found a rare area of potential agreement: cybersecurity.
In his State of the Union speech, Obama called on lawmakers to pass legislation to encourage businesses
to share cyber-threat information with the federal government. The idea is to alert the Department of
Homeland Security quickly when private companies are hacked so federal law enforcement officials can
help stop cyber criminals from striking again. Congress tried to pass information-sharing bills in the last
Congress, but the bills stalled in the Senate. Now key committee leaders in the House and Senate say
they plan to introduce updated legislation soon. "The president's proposal is an important first step in
developing that legislation," said Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., the new chairman of the Senate Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Johnson has scheduled a hearing Wednesday on the
importance of information-sharing in protecting Americans from cyberattacks. The White House and
lawmakers from both parties are feeling pressure to act in the wake of the high-profile hack attacks
against Sony Pictures, Target, Home Depot, and JPMorgan Chase, said Darrell West, director of the
Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institution. "Cybsecurity is not a Republican or
Democratic problem," he said. "It's a serious problem that both parties have the same self-interest to
solve before something really devastating happens like an attack against our electric grid." That doesn't
mean that there are no conflicts between the White House and Congress on the issue. House Republican
leaders are still angry that the president threatened to veto an information-sharing bill they passed in
the last Congress. Obama said the bill did not do enough to protect the privacy of Americans' personal
data in the information-sharing process. Privacy is likely to be an issue again. The president's proposal
would give businesses protection from lawsuits for sharing their data with the Department of Homeland
Security and other businesses to try to thwart hackers. To gain that protection, companies would be
required to remove "unnecessary personal information" and take other measures to protect any
personal information that must be shared. Business leaders say it would be difficult for small companies
to remove personal data from their systems while trying to quickly share information about cyberattacks
with federal officials. Civil liberties groups say they fear any information-sharing bill will end up handing
Americans' personal data over to the government to use in law enforcement investigations that have
nothing to do with hack attacks. "We don't think any bill is necessary," said Gabe Rottman, legislative
counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "The high-profile hacks we're hearing about tend to be
cases where the companies need to more careful in defending their own systems. An informationsharing bill would not have stopped any of those hacks." But business groups say that sharing
information quickly could stop a hacker from going after other companies. They are hopeful that
Obama's support for a bill will help speed passage of legislation this year. "We think it's very
important that the administration wants to get engaged and wants a seat at the table to discuss the bill
with lawmakers and the private sector," said Matt Eggers, who handles cybersecurity issues at the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce. "It's good that the administration has made the cybersecurity informationsharing bill a priority . Once the Senate and House pass the bill and send it to the president's desk, we
would expect that he would sign it.
Cybersecurity’s the lone area of compromise—deal coming now
Swarts, 2-2—Phil, Washington Times, “Obama budget dedicates $14B to cybersecurity,”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/2/obama-budget-dedicates-14b-to-cybersecurity/ -BR
The Obama administration aims to ramp up the federal government’s cybersecurity arsenal, requesting
nearly $14 billion in its 2016 budget proposal — about $1 billion more than in previous budgets — to
combat what many have come to view as an increasingly significant weakness in American security and
infrastructure. The increased funding comes after a series of high profile attacks, which has drawn
national attention to the issue, including a massive breach at Sony Pictures which the government said
was carried out by North Korea. Likewise in January, the Twitter and YouTube accounts for the U.S.
military’s CENTCOM — which oversees operations in Iraq and Afghanistan — was hacked by supporters
of the Islamic State, a terrorist group often known by the acronyms ISIS or ISIL. “Cyber threats targeting
the private sector, critical infrastructure and the federal government demonstrate that no sector,
network or system is immune to infiltration by those seeking to steal commercial or government
secrets,” the White House said in a statement. Though the president’s budget proposal was met with
widespread criticism by GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill Monday, cybersecurity is likely going to be one
area where both parties find common ground. Much of the requested money will be split across major
government agencies that focus on cybersecurity, including the Departments of Homeland Security,
Justice and Defense.
Cyber info-sharing has momentum now—vital to prevent catastrophic attacks
Thune, 2-4—John, (R-S.D.) and Chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee,
the group tasked with drafting a bill on cybersecurity, “Building a More Secure Cyber Future: Examining
Private Sector Experience with the NIST Framework,”
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=eb8d0d69-bf71-4052-9675-ad6d4c507782&Statement_id=fe307132-6121-458c-93b1ec139b22b6bc&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=2&YearDisplay=2015 –BR
"Good morning and welcome. We are here today to examine the private sector’s experience working
with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop and utilize the “Framework
for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity,” and also to look forward to additional steps that can
be taken to help improve our nation’s cybersecurity. "No country, company, or consumer is immune to
cybersecurity threats. The United States (US) faces a growing array of threats from hackers, criminals,
terrorists, and nation-states who seek to gain access to sensitive or classified information. This also
includes efforts to steal intellectual property or consumers’ personal information, deny the availability
of normally accessible online services, or potentially sabotage the networks and control systems of
critical infrastructure. "While cyber threats are not new, we saw a number of notable cyber events last
year. In 2014, security flaws such as Sandworm, Shellshock, POODLE, and Heartbleed compromised
millions of servers and systems. Attacks on point of sale systems sent ripples through the retail industry,
not to mention the significant cyber hack on Sony Pictures. "In 2014, after a decade without passage of
major cybersecurity legislation, Congress passed five cybersecurity bills that were signed into law. I am
especially pleased that our Committee’s work on the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014, which I worked on with former
Chairman Rockefeller was one of those bills the President signed into law. "Our Committee’s bill ensures the continuation of a
voluntary and industry-led process for identifying cybersecurity standards and best practices for critical infrastructure –
codifying elements of the successful process that NIST undertook to create its Cybersecurity Framework, and ensuring NIST’s
continued involvement in this public-private collaboration. "The law also included important provisions for research and
development, workforce development, and increased public awareness. It will help to protect the public and private sectors
against the growing number of cyber threats from around the world by, among other things, strengthening and directing better
cooperation across Federal agencies in research and development, improving our test beds and cloud computing security, and
authorizing the National Science Foundation’s successful Cybercorps scholarships. "I am proud to note that Dakota State
University in my home state is a leading institution of higher education in the area of cybersecurity. I appreciate that Dr. Josh
Pauli, an Associate Professor of Cyber Security at DSU, has provided written remarks discussing that work, and I will submit that
as part of the record. "I called today’s hearing primarily to hear from stakeholders about their experience with the NIST
Framework. Released almost one year ago, the Framework provides a common language regarding security issues to facilitate
discussions within a company between the technical IT security managers and senior management. While the Framework
targets organizations that own or operate critical infrastructure, businesses across all sectors may find use of the Framework
beneficial. "The success of the Framework thus far is due in large part to NIST’s collaborative relationship and engagement with
the private sector. As a non-regulatory agency dedicated to promoting U.S. innovation and industrial competiveness in ways
that enhance economic security, NIST has been a genuine partner and has successfully combined its technical expertise in
standards with the know-how of the private sector to help advance the nation’s technology infrastructure. "Congress is
now tasked with important questions about what actions the federal government should take next,
including: o How do we assess the effectiveness of the Framework going forward? o What incentives do
businesses and consumers need to improve their cyber defenses? o What type of cyber threat
information sharing legislation is needed to help industry defend against more sophisticated cyber
attacks? o What should we do to better secure our supply chain? o And what more can be done in
related areas? "These questions are relevant to both the private and public sectors. According to the
U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal agencies have significant weaknesses in information
security controls…” Last year, I along with Senator Rockefeller sent letters to every agency under our
committee’s jurisdiction asking targeted questions about the measures being taken to protect systems
using unsupported operating systems, as well as compliance with the Federal Information Security
Management Act. As Chairman, I will be continuing to conduct such oversight of agencies’ information
security management. "While I am pleased that Congress took a positive step to improving our
cybersecurity posture by passing a number of bills in December, I believe an absolutely necessary
missing piece for this Congress is finally passing legislation to spur greater cyber threat information
sharing. It is my hope that the Senate can find a path forward in this area soon . The hearing being held
today underscores the seriousness of the threat and our commitment to passing information sharing
legislation that did not get done last Congress."
Bipartisan support for info-sharing but Obama has to push to assuage privacy
concerns
The Hill, 2-4—“Defense nominee: US 'not where it should be' on cybersecurity,”
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/231781-defense-nominee-us-not-where-it-should-be-on-cyber -BR
The Defense Department's network security “is not where it should be,” said Ashton Carter, the
nominee for Defense secretary, during his Wednesday nomination hearing. “We’re not anywhere near
where we should be as a country,” Carter said before the Senate Armed Forces Committee. “Not only is
our civilian infrastructure susceptible to cyberattack, but we have to be concerned about our military
infrastructure.” While the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and Russian aggression in Ukraine
dominated much of Carter’s hearing, the Pentagon pick also fielded questions on cybersecurity. “A
number of countries out there, including Russia, China, North Korea, probably many others, have very
sophisticated means of attacking networks,” said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa). Russia and China are both
widely suspected of ongoing cyber campaigns to steal U.S. military secrets. Moscow is believed to be
behind a 2008 cyberattack on the DOD. The government also recently blamed North Korea for a massive
cyberattack on Sony Pictures. “How do we best protect our equipment, protect our personnel moving
forward?” Ernst asked. “There’s no point in having planes and ships and armored vehicles in today’s
world if the network itself is vulnerable,” Carter responded. “I hope we can work together if I’m
confirmed by this committee on improving our cyber defenses, many aspects of cyber.” While there is
bipartisan agreement that the DOD must improve the nation’s cyber defenses, privacy advocates have
pushed back on some of the tactics used by its agencies, including the National Security Agency (NSA). In
2013, government leaker Edward Snowden disclosed secret NSA spy programs that were bulk collecting
data on people in the U.S. “Do you have an opinion on where the federal government should be in
regards to protecting our national security interests versus the privacy of individuals out there that
might be using the network?” Ernst asked. “The federal government does have a role in protecting the
country from a cyberattack in the same way it has a role in protecting the country from other kinds of
attacks,” Carter replied. “I think it can do a lot more to exercise that responsibility without causing
concerns over invasions of people’s privacy.” Carter emphasized the need for the DOD and private
sector to exchange more cyber threat information. “I think if people fully understood ... how vulnerable
we are in cyberspace, they would want us to do more,” Carter said. “Not in a way that compromised
anybody’s privacy, but they would want us to do a lot more than I believe we are doing now.”
Lawmakers have been trying to pass legislation that would provide legal liability protections for
companies sharing cybersecurity information with the government. But concerns that the NSA could
access the data to gather personal information on Americans have stalled the efforts. The White House
recently put support behind its own legislative proposal to encourage public-private cyber threat
information-sharing. The offering attempts to assuage privacy advocates’ concerns by funneling all the
data through the less controversial Department of Homeland Security (DHS), not the NSA.
Expert consensus that deadly cyberattacks are inevitable—magnitude is exponential
Estes, 14— Adam Clark, BA @ Harvard, formerly of The Atlantic, Senior Writer at Gizmodo, “Why
Cybersecurity Threats Are About to Get Much, Much Worse,” Gizmodo, 10-30,
http://gizmodo.com/cybersecurity-threats-are-about-to-get-much-much-worse-1652889589 --BR
Let me state the obvious just to get it out of the way: our nation's cybersecurity sucks and everybody
knows it. The president knows it. The Pentagon knows it. And, worst of all, the hackers know it, too.
That's why I'm so alarmed by a new Pew Internet survey that says we'll likely get hit with a deadly
cyberattack by 2025. I don't mean to sensationalize this news, but this is scary. Because it's probably
true! Ultimately, 1,642 cybersecurity experts participated in the Pew survey, which included this
question: By 2025, will a major cyber attack have caused widespread harm to a nation's security and
capacity to defend itself and its people? (By "widespread harm," we mean significant loss of life or
property losses/damage/theft at the levels of tens of billions of dollars.) According to many of the
experts, the answer is "yes." It's not really a yes or no question when you think about it, though,
because it's difficult anticipate the extent of the damage such an attack would cause. However, the
vast majority of the experts do think a big attack will happen, because the battlefield is about to get
a lot bigger . Up until now, many people think that cyberattacks just amount to stolen credit card
numbers or computer viruses or something. That's not really the case. While your Mastercard and
MacBook are valuable things to protect, the technology that relies on the industrial internet are much
more valuable. That includes things like high-speed trains, water treatment facilities, and nuclear power
plants. The list goes on and on. The scary truth of all this is that the list is about to grow exponentially ,
as new internet-connected technology comes into play. The reality of the internet of things is that
connecting more things to the internet means creating more vulnerabilities. "Current threats include
economic transactions, power grid, and air traffic control," Mark Nall, a program manager for NASA, told
Pew. "This will expand to include others such as self-driving cars, unmanned aerial vehicles, and building
infrastructure." Well, damnit. We should've seen this coming sooner, but internet technology evolved
terrifically quickly. As for NSA counsel Joel Brenner explained in a column last weekend, "The Internet
was not built for security, yet we have made it the backbone of virtually all private-sector and
government operations, as well as communications." The one comforting thing about this pretty
frightening survey is the simple fact that a lot of very smart people are working improving cybersecurity.
Even NASA's lending a hand! However, the notion of a catastrophic attack is especially scary because
there doesn't seem to be anything that you or I could do about it.
PC’s about what Obama pushes—he’s pushing cybersecurity at the top of the agenda
World Bulletin, 1-25—“Obama seeks enhanced cybersecurity laws to fight hackers,”
https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=d18Wk7pdT12gzkMYIWiZcnt4xXomM&q=obama+cybersecuri
ty&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wovNVJioNJClyQTqxIKgBA&ved=0CCoQqgIwAw –BR
President Barack Obama on Tuesday will announce a renewed push to beef up U.S. cybersecurity laws
after recent headline-grabbing hacks against companies like Sony Pictures and Home Depot. Obama will
throw his support behind efforts to give liability protection to companies that quickly share
information about attacks, but will require strict protections for personal information, the White House
said in a statement. Obama also will propose new powers for law enforcement to investigate and
prosecute cybercrime. The White House will build momentum for the legislative move at a
cybersecurity summit slated for Feb. 13, an event that will take place not at the White House, but in
Silicon Valley, at Stanford University. Obama has elevated cybersecurity to the top of his 2015 agenda ,
seeing it as an area where cooperation is possible with the Republican-led Congress, and will send the
legislation to Capitol Hill immediately .
Top of the agenda and focus
The Hill, 2-2—“White House cyber budget targets industry outreach,”
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/231519-white-house-cyber-budget-targets-industry-outreach -BR
The White House budget released Monday includes a number of cybersecurity investments intended to
strengthen the government’s partnerships with the private sector. The public-private exchange of
cybersecurity information has been a top priority for the administration of late, and that continued in
its fiscal 2016 budget. In addition to the agency-by-agency cyber investments, the White House
emphasized several cross-government programs to enhance government outreach to industry. The
budget promotes the “enhancement of government information sharing capabilities with the private
sector so that they can be more vigilant and better protect themselves against emerging threats,” the
White House said. Specifically, Obama is pushing for $227 million to start construction on a Civilian
Cyber Campus, which would bring together the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FBI’s cyber
workforce. The new campus would “provide a secure and modern technical footing, and improve the
ability to collaborate with private industry and external partners,” the White House said. The private
sector has complained of the logistical difficulties of sharing cyber information with the government.
Having DHS and FBI's cyber mission on the same grounds would "improve collaboration and efficiency,"
the White House said. The White House also wants another $149 million “to support ongoing proactive
efforts to improve the cybersecurity posture of our private sector partners.” The focus is in line with a
recent slate of cyber policy proposals the White House revealed in January. The centerpiece of the
initiative is a legislative offering that would give legal liability protections for private companies sharing
cyber threat information with the DHS. In addition to the logistical barriers to sharing cyber information,
companies worry they are exposing themselves to lawsuits or regulatory action by giving cyber data to
the government. But both industry groups and government officials believe the two sides need to
exchange more cyber threat details to better defend the country’s networks. “The problem is that
government and the private sector are still not always working as closely together as we should,”
Obama said when revealing the measure.
Obama already made his pitch last week—now it’s just bargaining chips he already put
in the budget
DePillis, 2-3— reporter focusing on labor, business, and housing. She previously worked at The New
Republic and the Washington City Paper. Washington Post. “Obama’s proposal to help workers who lose
out on trade deals probably won’t win Democratic votes,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/03/obamas-proposal-to-help-workerswho-lose-out-on-trade-deals-probably-wont-win-democratic-votes/ --BR
If President Obama's budget is a message to the world about what he’d like to see happen over the next
year, Republicans aren’t his only audience — he’s talking to Democrats, too. And if there’s one thing he
disagrees with congressional Democrats on most right now, it’s trade. Specifically, Obama wants the
power — known as trade promotion authority, or “fast track” — to bring Congress an alreadynegotiated agreement for an up-or-down vote. Congress has to grant that power, and right now some
lawmakers are balking, nervous that Obama is about to sign a massive agreement with Pacific Rim
countries that could make it even easier for American companies to move production overseas. Obama
made the case personally to congressional Democrats at their issues retreat last week in Philadelphia,
with indeterminate results. But the president has some bargaining chips. One of them is trade
adjustment assistance (TAA), the half-century-old program that compensates people who lose their jobs
because of trade liberalization. Historically, it has been a way for free-traders to gain the consent of
those whose constituents get shafted when trade barriers fall. This time around, it looks as though the
White House may be trying to use it in the same way, in an attempt to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership
agreement once negotiations conclude. Buried deep in the president’s budget is a paragraph that backs
a proposal put forth by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), the Senate’s most outspoken advocate of trade
adjustment assistance (TAA), that would boost funding for the program to the level it was before
Congress allowed it to lapse in 2014. If adopted — which is as unlikely as any of the president’s bolder
requests — the plan would cost $986 million, up from $658 million in fiscal 2015. That could amount to
a substantial gift for the individuals and communities hit hardest by trade deals. But would it be enough
to entice nervous democrats to get behind trade promotion authority? Not likely , says Lori Wallach,
who serves as a muse to the trade-skeptic progressive caucus from her perch at Public Citizen’s Global
Trade Watch. The size of a TAA package, she thinks, is beside the point. In fact, the bigger it is, the
plainer the admission that trade liberalization has had starkly negative effects. "TAA is like burial
insurance. The thing to do, in the first place, is avoid dying,” Wallach says. "The members of Congress
who are against fast track and against the TPP are not going to switch positions because of a robust
TAA program. They’re looking for a different kind of trade policy, so you don’t have so many losers that
need a safety net.” In other words, a generous TAA budget line is table stakes for those already inclined
to support the White House trade agenda, but not enough to entice many who aren't.
All talk, no action
Lansing State Journal, 2-2—“Editorial: Keystone debate symbolic, not substantive,”
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/opinion/editorials/2015/02/02/editorial-keystone-debatesymbolic-substantive/22760235/ --BR
The GOP traditionally supports such deals. The president’s party will be tougher to deliver — but that’s a
challenge for him. The two main proposals, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership, have been in the works for years. Negotiators reportedly are making
progress, particularly on the Pacific agreement. ... Obama talks like a free-trader, but he hasn’t exactly
made it a priority in his six years in the White House. In his recent State of the Union address, the
president made his most straightforward plea to date for what’s known as Trade Promotion Authority.
That’s the legislation he needs to give him flexibility to seal these agreements. TPA, as it’s called,
obligates Congress to consider trade deals on a reasonable timetable: No stalling. TPA also prevents
lawmakers from attaching amendments that would, in effect, overturn promises that U.S.
representatives made at the bargaining table. ... Not every Republican trusts Obama with TPA. But most
understand the benefits of free trade. ... There are more protectionists in the Democratic ranks,
members of Congress who argue that free trade undercuts U.S. wages and environmental protection. ...
Obama acknowledges the skeptics. “But 95 percent of the world’s customers live outside our borders,”
he said in the State of the Union. ... He’s right. Now he needs to get his party to “yes.”
There’s not even a bill—won’t happen until late February at the earliest
Guda, 2-5—POLITICO Pro, “President Barack Obama amps up personal trade pitch,”
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/obama-trade-democrats-congress114933.html#ixzz3QvXMcUZ0 –Br
For now, negotiations on the Asia trade deal are continuing, and a fast-track bill has yet to be
introduced . But that all could change in a matter of months. Lawmakers are planning to begin marking
up the legislation later this month or early next, and once that happens, the trade talks are expected to
speed to a conclusion, spurred on by the existence of legislation that gives participating nations some
assurance that their victories on the negotiating table won’t be undone by Congress.