SKFTA 1NC
SKFTA will pass - compromise over auto trade and a friendly Congress provides momentum
AgWired, 1/9/2011 (Korea free trade optimism, p. http://agwired.com/2011/01/09/korean-free-trade-optimism/)
Korea’s ambassador to the United States is optimistic that Congress will pass the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement when
it is submitted by the president. Han Duk-soo spoke at a town hall forum sponsored by American Farm Bureau during the Ag Connect Expo on Saturday and then held a
press conference, accompanied by AFBF’s Congressional Relations Director Chris Garza. “The
momentum is very high now, I would say
there’s no objections from US industry,” Han said during the press conference. “President Obama is very strong on
passing this agreement, so I think it will be submitted to congress by the administration soon and if it is submitted, I think
Congress should act within 60 days.” His hope is that it will be finished by the end of June.
Plan drains PC
Kotok, Mar. 16, 2009 (Alan, Congressional supporter backs away from increased h-1b visas, Science Careers
Blog, p. http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencecareers/2009/03/congressional-s.html)
Lofgren added, however, that congressional
action to raise the limits on H-1B visas would have to be part of a
comprehensive immigration reform bill, because other industries -- she cited Western farmers and Chesapeake Bay fisherman as
examples -- also have expressed a need for increasing the numbers of temporary immigrant workers. Measures that single out
high-tech immigrants for immediate action, she suggested, would not attract the needed support. But the prospects for such a
comprehensive immigration bill are slim, she continued: One such bill failed to pass in the last Congress, she pointed out, and there seems to be
little appetite now to revisit the issue. An alternative proposed and favored by Lofgren over lifting H-1B caps is to award permanent resident
(green card) immigration status to science and engineering masters and Ph.D. graduates with job offers. She introduced this measure in a bill during the last Congress,
but it stalled
in the contentious immigration debate in the last Congress. She noted that Barack Obama, while a candidate for
to comprehensive immigration reform, which he hoped to accomplish in his first term. "To do a bill of this
nature will take some presidential leadership," Lofgren added.
president in 2008, committed
PC key to SKFTA
Wall Street Journal ’10 (* DECEMBER 6, 2010 A Korea-U.S. Trade Deal, At Last The Korea pact is a step
forward, but now the President has to sell it. Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A18)
These caveats should not deter Congress from ratifying what is still an excellent deal. Mr. Obama
has asked GOP House Speaker-designate John Boehner
to assist in getting the pact approved, and we're told Mr. Boehner has suggested grouping this deal together with pending agreements with Colombia
and Panama in a single House vote. This would make it easier for pro-trade forces in Congress to concentrate their political capital. Mr. Boehner will bring a
majority or more of his GOP Members along, but Mr. Obama will have to spend his own political capital to
rebuild American public support for free trade and gain Democratic support. The President would have made more progress
toward his goal of doubling American exports if he had supported this deal in 2008 and pressed it through Congress in 2009. The failure in leadership was to side with
the United Auto Workers and other unions against the national interest. Those who think they'll lose from trade always have the strongest motivation to lobby, while the
consumers and businesses that benefit (such as American pickup truck buyers) are harder to organize. Every American President since Hoover in the 1920s has taken
U.S. public support for freer trade has eroded amid the recession and
the lack of Presidential leadership. It is crucial for U.S. competitiveness in particular, and the world economy
more broadly, that Mr. Obama and his allies make a strong and unapologetic case that trade is in the best
interests of American businesses and workers.
the broad view, speaking up for the many trade beneficiaries.
Ratifying SKFTA is critical to cement the US/South Korean alliance and heg.
Stangarone, 11/4/2010 (Troy - director of Congressional Affairs and Trade for the Korea Economic Institute,
On the sidelines of the g-20, Asia Pacific Bulletin, No. 79, p. 1-2)
The pending free trade agreement between the United States and South Korea, KORUS FTA, is heading into a defining period. After more than three years of delay,
Presidents Barack Obama and Lee Myung-bak have committed to resolving each side’s differences by the upcoming G-20 summit in Seoul on November 11-12, paving
the way for passage in 2011. However, for political reasons in both countries, 2011
may be the last opportunity to move forward on the
KORUS FTA for a period of years and falling short of that could have reverberations for the alliance. Timelines and the G20 The KORUS FTA’s prospects are inversely tied to the next US presidential election. As it draws nearer, the agreement’s chances of passing Congress grow slimmer.
For this reason, the FTA needs to be sent to Congress no later than this spring to ensure it is passed prior to the August recess, and thus avoids any budget showdown
next fall. If there is not a vote in 2011, the chances of a vote in a presidential election year are slim. Instead, the agreement might be facing the worst of all
possibilities—delay until the next administration. In that case, a vote might not occur until late 2013 or early 2014, as a reelected Obama administration or a new
Republican administration would want to move on any major campaign promises first. The only real window of opportunity is the first half of 2011. The Consequences
of Not Reaching a Deal The sinking of the Cheonan earlier this year focused the US administration’s thinking about the KORUS FTA and the US-ROK alliance. In
the face of North Korean aggression the Obama administration sought to signal its support for an embattled
US ally in the strongest terms possible. Continued delay on a key alliance issue such as the KORUS FTA would have signaled that there
was distance between the two governments, especially in light of the policy significance that South Korea places on the agreement. Having
publicly committed to a resolution on the FTA means that falling short will have a quantitatively different impact on relations than would have occurred in the absence
of a public commitment. As the G-20 approaches, its worth considering what this would mean. First, the alliance will not come to an end. Core security considerations
relating to North Korea and the Korean peninsula will not change. However, there is the possibility for policy divergence in other areas and a change in the conception
each side has for the future direction of the alliance. The first impact is the easiest to quantify—the continued decline of the United States as an economic actor on the
Korean peninsula. This is a process that is already taking place. The last decade has seen China rapidly surpass the United States in terms of trade with South Korea, as
well as the European Union. The European Union’s FTA with South Korea will come into force on July 1 of next year, while South Korea is expected to engage in FTA
negotiations with China in 2012. Along with South Korea’s other FTAs, these will continue to erode the United States’ position as an economic player on the Korean
peninsula. On a regional level, there
would be consequences to the U nited S tates’ economic position as well. The U nited S tates
would lose credibility as a negotiating partner on the most significant set of issues in Asia, trade and economic growth.
This would likely have a direct impact on the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, as America’s partners would likely have concerns about the United States’ ability
to follow through on its commitments. On the political and strategic side, the nature of the outcome could create disappointment that would have political consequences
in South Korea. It
would be understandable for South Koreans to question the United States’ commitment to the
alliance and further a narrative, even if untrue, of the United States as an unreliable partner in some quarters. This would strengthen the position
of those in South Korea who believe that South Korea’s future is outside of the US-ROK alliance and weaken those
who want to work with the United States. At a time when China is growing more assertive as a regional power and South Korea’s economic ties to
the United States are loosening, it would give new context to the question of whether South Korea’s long- term future is tied to that of the United States, especially if
unification were to occur. Policy divergence might also occur in other areas such as trade, economics, nuclear proliferation and climate change, to name but a few. In
the absence of a close relationship with the United States the recent decision by South Korea to impose additional sanctions on Iran might have been different. This
In a less friendly
political environment it might be difficult for a South Korean government that wanted to work with the United
States. Let alone a government that did not, creating incentives to take a different course much as Turkey has done as it reorients its foreign policy in the light of
cooling relations with Washington and Europe. Concluding the FTA would provide an institutional structure to the alliance
and point to a commitment by both sides beyond the resolution of long-standing tensions on the peninsula. This would help the alliance
to weather changes in government better by providing an additional institutional framework. As has been the case before with South Korea and is
currently the case with Japan, every relationship goes through difficult periods and having additional ties between both
sides will help to make those periods easier to weather. The KORUS FTA as a First Step in Asia With South Korea being awarded the
decision was highly contentious in South Korea because of the potential consequences it had for South Korean interests in the Middle East.
distinction of hosting the G-20 summit this November and the 2012 nuclear summit attest, Seoul is beginning to come of age on the global stage. It is also doing so
during a time of significant change. The G-20 is already rewriting the global economic power structure and those same shifts in economic power will precipitate
changes in diplomatic and international power structures in the years ahead. While the KORUS FTA will not address all of the challenges the United States will face in
a changing international system, it is a key part of the strategic picture for the United States in South Korea and Asia more generally. If
the U nited S tates allows
itself to continue to lose ground as an economic presence on the peninsula and Asia, over time it will see the same
outcome on its diplomatic and military influence. The first step to avoiding that outcome is to reach an understanding
on the KORUS FTA.
Key to prevent North Korean aggression.
Pritchard et al, 09 – President of the Korea Economic Institute (Charles L, 6/16. With John H. Tilelli Jr., Chairman and CEO, Cypress International, and
Scott A. Snyder, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Korea Studies, CFR. “A New Chapter for U.S.-South Korea Alliance.” Council on Foreign Relations.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/19635/new_chapter_for_ussouth_korea_alliance.html)
While all eyes have been trained on North Korea's belligerent and aggressive actions in recent weeks, it is important to note that the
U.S.-South Korea
alliance has emerged as a linchpin in the Obama administration's efforts to successfully manage an overcrowded global agenda, and a pivotal tool
for safeguarding U.S. long-term interests in Asia. When South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak meets with President Barack Obama at the
White House Tuesday, the two leaders must effectively address three main areas: policy coordination to address North Korea's nuclear threat, the development of a
global security agenda that extends beyond the peninsula, and collaboration to address the global financial crisis as South Korea takes a lead on the G-20 process. By
conducting a second nuclear test in May, followed by a number of missile launches, North Korea has forced its way onto the Obama administration's agenda. First and
foremost, effective
U.S.-South Korea alliance coordination is critical to managing both the global effects of North
Korea's nuclear threat on the nonproliferation regime and the regional security challenges posed by potential
regime actions that lead to further crisis in the region. North Korea's internal focus on its leadership succession, and the apparent naming of
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's little-known and inexperienced youngest son as his successor, make the task of responding to North Korea's aggressive and
destabilizing actions all the more challenging. Both
deterrence and negotiation must be pursued on the basis of close
consultations. Presidents Obama and Lee must also develop coordinated contingency plans in the event of internal instability in
North Korea. Through effective U.S.-South Korea alliance coordination, it should be possible to forge a combined
strategy capable of managing the nuclear, proliferation, and regional security dimensions of North Korea's
threat. A coordinated position would also strengthen the administration's hand in its efforts to persuade China to put pressure on North Korea.
Global nuclear war
Hayes and Green, 10 - *Victoria University AND **Executive Director of the Nautilus Institute (Peter and Michael, “-“The Path Not Taken, the Way Still
Open: Denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia”, 1/5, http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/10001HayesHamalGreen.pdf)
The consequences of failing to address the proliferation threat posed by the North Korea developments, and related political and economic
issues, are serious, not only for the Northeast Asian region but for the whole international community. At worst, there is the possibility of nuclear
attack1, whether by intention, miscalculation, or merely accident, leading to the resumption of Korean War
hostilities. On the Korean Peninsula itself, key population centres are well within short or medium range missiles. The whole of Japan is likely to come within
North Korean missile range. Pyongyang has a population of over 2 million, Seoul (close to the North Korean border) 11 million, and Tokyo over 20 million. Even a
limited nuclear exchange would result in a holocaust of unprecedented proportions. But the catastrophe within the region
would not be the only outcome. New research indicates that even a limited nuclear war in the region would rearrange our
global climate far more quickly than global warming. Westberg draws attention to new studies modelling the effects of even a limited nuclear
exchange involving approximately 100 Hiroshima-sized 15 kt bombs2 (by comparison it should be noted that the United States currently deploys warheads in the range
100 to 477 kt, that is, individual warheads equivalent in yield to a range of 6 to 32 Hiroshimas). The
studies indicate that the soot from the fires
produced would lead to a decrease in global temperature by 1.25 degrees Celsius for a period of 6-8 years.3 In Westberg’s
view: That is not global winter, but the nuclear darkness will cause a deeper drop in temperature than at any time during the
last 1000 years. The temperature over the continents would decrease substantially more than the global average. A decrease in rainfall over the continents would
also follow...The period of nuclear darkness will cause much greater decrease in grain production than 5% and it will continue for many years...hundreds of
millions of people will die from hunger...To make matters even worse, such amounts of smoke injected into the
stratosphere would cause a huge reduction in the Earth’s protective ozone.4 These, of course, are not the only consequences.
Reactors might also be targeted, causing further mayhem and downwind radiation effects, superimposed on a smoking, radiating ruin left by nuclear next-use. Millions
of refugees would flee the affected regions. The
direct impacts, and the follow-on impacts on the global economy via
ecological and food insecurity, could make the present global financial crisis pale by comparison. How the great
powers, especially the nuclear weapons states respond to such a crisis, and in particular, whether nuclear weapons are used in response to nuclear first-use,
could make or break the global non proliferation and disarmament regimes. There could be many unanticipated
impacts on regional and global security relationships5, with subsequent nuclear breakout and geopolitical
turbulence, including possible loss-of-control over fissile material or warheads in the chaos of nuclear war, and
aftermath chain-reaction affects involving other potential proliferant states. The Korean nuclear proliferation issue is not just a
regional threat but a global one that warrants priority consideration from the international community.
Oil 1NC
Oil prices rising – two-year high
Philadelphia Inquirer 1/4/2011 “Oil prices rise to highest level since 2008”
The price of crude oil rose Monday to a 27-month high on speculation the United States will sustain an economic
recovery this year, bolstering fuel demand in the world's biggest oil-consuming country. Benchmark oil for February delivery
rose 17 cents to settle at $91.55 a barrel, the highest close for crude futures since Oct. 3, 2008, when it was $93.88. Earlier in Monday's trading, the price reached
$92.66 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It gave up most of those gains later in the day. The early rise came when the Institute for Supply Management
reported that its U.S. factory index climbed to 57 in December, the best level in seven months. Fuel demand increased to the highest since May 2008 in the week ended
Dec. 24, Energy Department figures showed last week. "Oil looks like one of the best investments of 2011," said Carl Larry, president of Oil Outlooks & Opinions
L.L.C. in Houston. "Investors want to get in fast and get in early. Any way you look at it, oil is going to be in demand this year." At the pump, the national average for
regular gasoline was about $3.07 a gallon Monday, according to AAA, Wright Express, and the Oil Price Information Service. That's 3 cents more than it was a week
ago and about 41 cents higher than a year ago. In Philadelphia and its four suburban counties in Pennsylvania, Monday's average for regular-grade gasoline was $3.17 a
gallon, up 2 cents in the last week and 46 cents from a year ago, AAA Mid-Atlantic reported. In the three suburban counties in South Jersey, the average Monday was
$2.97 a gallon, up 1 cent in the last week and 45 cents in the last year. Oil
has been gaining ground on speculation that the global
economy will continue to grow in 2011. Many analysts expect the price to reach at least $100 a barrel this year,
which will mean higher prices not only for gasoline but also for diesel and heating oil.
Renewables would tank international oil prices causing global depression and destabilization
Newsday, April 7, 1996
IF SCIENTISTS discovered tomorrow that a clean and safe source of infinitely renewable energy could be cheaply derived
from, say, ordinary sea water, we all know it would be an unmitigated boon for mankind. Well, not exactly. Because any such
invention would necessarily cause a collapse of oil prices, and Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma would become basket states. In
Mexico, where petroleum is the chief national patrimony, the floor under a fragile economy, would disintegrate.
The Middle East would become a destabilized mess as oil-rich regimes lost the resources through which they
now control their populations. Russia and the many former constituent republics of the Soviet Union would
lose export earnings critically important to the survival of their democracies. Billions invested in the extraction of North Sea oil
would lose its value. Ripple effects running through the financial system as a result of the downsizing and bankruptcy
of much of the existing oil industry are simply too terrifying to contemplate.
H1B cap hurts the clean tech industry – limited workforce
Norman C. Plotkin March 16, 2009 partner in the immigration law firm of Jackson & Hertogs LLP “Time to
plan for the H-1B visa filing deadline” http://cleantech.com/news/4270/time-plan-h-1b-visa-filing-deadline
companies in the U.S. may find themselves in the unusual position of receiving federal stimulus
funding while at the same time not being able to hire and retain key employees. The economic downturn has stopped
many employers across all industries from making new hires, but cleantech companies are gearing up for even
greater hiring to meet the challenges of our changing economy. However, many of the best potential hires will be
foreign nationals who require employment authorization issued by U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) to legally work in the
U.S. Many times the most appropriate visa for these workers is the H-1B visa. The H-1B nonimmigrant visa is for highly skilled workers
and is one of the few visas available to foreign scientists and engineers to work for U.S. companies. The predicament is that H-1B visas are not always
available. Strict annual quotas have meant that many more H-1B visas have been requested in each of the last
few years than available numbers. What this means for cleantech companies is that they in particular may be barred from hiring key personnel because
Clean technology
of strict reductions in visa numbers. Since most cleantech companies are startups, they may not be prepared to deal with this hiring issue because they do not have the
infrastructure in human resources to make them aware of the restrictions. For individuals who have not already been counted against the annual H-1B cap, there is only
a short window in which to file H-1B visa petitions: between April 1 and 7, 2009. Given the relative youth of cleantech, cleantech companies are particularly vulnerable
to being shut out by the H-1B cap. How many F-1 students (recent Masters and PhD candidates) has your company hired in the past year? If you even have one, you
should be looking at a long term solution to keeping the F-1 student on board. What are your hiring needs going into the balance of the calendar year? Annual limits for
H-1B visas There is a limit of 65,000 H-1B visas available each fiscal year for first-time H-1B status holders. Some visas from this category are reserved for H-1B1
visas for citizens of Chile and Singapore. There are 20,000 additional visas made available for individuals who hold advanced degrees from U.S. universities. Both sets
of visas are typically oversubscribed and subjected to a lottery by the USCIS. The government’s fiscal year runs from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30, and H-1B visa petitions may be
filed no earlier than six months before the proposed employment would commence. That means that for FY 2010 cap subject H-1B nonimmigrant visa petitions, the
earliest start date on the petition would be Oct. 1, 2009, and the earliest date on which USCIS would accept H-1B visa petitions is April 1, 2009. Because of the volume
of petitions filed each year, the USCIS has implemented a system where they will accept H-1B filings for, at minimum, the first 5 business days of April. If a sufficient
number of petitions are received during that filing window, then no more visa petitions will be accepted. If more petitions are received during that filing window than
the number of available visas, then the received petitions will be subjected to a random lottery. There is no way to increase the odds of selection under the lottery;
duplicate filings are barred and will result in both petitions being denied without filing fees being returned. What happened last year? Last year’s FY 2009 filing season
(April 2008) saw an unprecedented number of applications—approximately 163,000—during the five day filing period from April 1 to 7, 2008, for regular cap H-1B
visas. There were only 58,200 available after the allocation citizens of Singapore and Chile. For the 20,000 “advanced degree” H-1B cap visas, the quota was also met
during the initial five day filing period, meaning both categories were subject to lotteries. H-1B visas likely to be oversubscribed again in 2009 Despite the economic
downturn, this year’s upcoming H-1B visa filing season will likely be similar to past years, as demand has historically increased every year, while the quota limit has
remained the same. Cleantech hiring managers and recruiters must be mindful of H-1B visa cap issues so that, as they interview candidates, they can identify
individuals who may not only require immigration sponsorship, but may also be subject to the annual H-1B numerical quota. Managers
should understand
the pitfalls of hiring individuals holding only temporary work authorization that expires before Oct. 1, 2009.
Additionally, employers who hire researchers and scientists should know that individuals currently in H-1B
status are not necessarily exempt from this year’s H-1B cap quotas. If an individual’s current H-1B employer is a university or a notfor-profit research institute, that employer is exempt from the cap and therefore the H-1B employee has not yet been counted. This means that the
individual is H-1B cap-subject and may or may not be successful in the coming H-1B visa lottery. Even if
someone is in H-1B status, you have to look at who the petitioner on the previous H-1B visa petition was and determine whether or not the individual was
counted in prior years. Why is this critical to cleantech companies? The H-1B category has continued to be one of
the most useful visa categories for bringing in to work and keeping skilled professionals working in the United
States. While there are other categories for work authorization, the H-1B is in many respects the most versatile even with the annual limit for new H-1Bs. There
is a shortage of qualified U.S. workers to work in cleantech industries because science, math and engineering
majors are typically not taken by U.S.-born students, while foreign students seem to flock to these fields. Therefore, many of the
most qualified individuals needed to fill professional positions in America are not U.S. citizens or permanent
residents of the U.S. despite the fact that many of them graduated from U.S. universities. Therefore, they would need to be
sponsored for H-1B visas. If the individuals are not presently in H-1B status and you miss the five-day window of
opportunity, obtaining work authorization for these individuals will be difficult, if not impossible, until the next fiscal year.
Lower oil prices devastate the Russian economy.
The National Interest, Summer 2003. “A low, dishonest decadence - Letter from Moscow,”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_72/ai_105369906/pg_1.
The improved appearance of Moscow (although not the rest of the country) is indisputable, but it is mainly a product of the high
price of oil. Every dollar difference in the price of oil translates into roughly $1 billion in budget revenue; a high
price for oil has therefore become the key to the government's ability to balance the budget, pay state
employees and repay Russia's foreign debt. If the price should fall significantly and stay relatively low, as it did in much of the 1980s
and 1990s, Russia will be plunged into a severe economic crisis.
Russian economic collapse causes a civil war that escalates and goes nuclear
Steven David, political scientist, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, January/February 1999, p.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19990101faessay955/steven-r-david/saving-america-from-the-coming-civilwars.html
If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime cause. From 1989 to the present, the GDP has fallen
by 50 percent. In a society where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in 1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be
much higher. Twenty-two percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers
only half the revenue it is due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers tout privatization as the country's cure-all, but in a land without well-defined property rights or
contract law and where subsidies remain a way of life, the prospects for transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massive
devaluation of the ruble and the current political crisis show, Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared. If
conditions get worse, even the
stoic Russian people will soon run out of patience. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the
Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist Party out of office, what little civilian control remains relies on an
exceedingly fragile foundation -- personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a
dangerous low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medical care. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split
between the old and new guard in the military leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled generals may enter the political fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers
who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly enhanced ties between military units and local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow ever more
dependent on local governments for housing, food, and wages. Draftees serve closer to home, and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces. Were a
conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow, it is not at all clear which side the military would support. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial,
however, since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts
grow ever more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even
that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in
return. Three-quarters of them already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted
Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for
autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds with force, civil war is likely. Should Russia succumb to internal
war, the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe. A
major power like Russia -- even though in decline -- does not suffer
civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such
as China. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its
neighbors. Damage from the fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the environment of much of Europe
and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet
communism, a second civil war might produce another horrific regime. Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia
could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear precedent
the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,000 nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scattered
throughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much material. If war erupts, however, Moscow's already weak grip
on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of anti-American groups and states. Such
dispersal of nuclear
weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is hard to think of anything that
would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war.
CP 1
Text: The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services should grant advance parole with all
necessary extensions to applicants for H-1B visas.
Solves 100% of case
Endelman and Mehta ‘10
(Gary Endelman, practices immigration law at BP America Inc, serves on the Editorial
Advisory Board of Immigration Daily, and Cyrus D. Mehta, nationally recognized in the field
of immigration law. He represents corporations and individuals from around the world in
business and employment immigration, family immigration, consular matters, naturalization,
federal court litigation and asylum. He also advises lawyers on ethical issues. Based on 18
years of experience in immigration law, He is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at Brooklyn
Law School where he teaches a course, Immigration and Work, Chair of the American
Immigration Lawyers Association’s (AILA) National Pro Bono Committee and Co-Chair of
the AILA-NY Chapter Pro Bono Committe COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM
THROUGH EXECUTIVE FIAT, April 25, 2010,
http://cyrusmehta.blogspot.com/2010/04/comprehensive-immigration-reform.html)
For instance, there is nothing that would bar the USCIS from allowing the beneficiary of an approved employment
based I-140 or family based I-130 petition, and derivative family members, to obtain an employment authorization document
(EAD) and parole. The Executive, under INA § 212(d)(5), has the authority to grant parole for urgent humanitarian
reasons or significant public benefits. The crisis in the priority dates where beneficiaries of petitions may need to wait for green
cards in excess of 30 years may qualify for invoking § 212(d)(5) under “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefits.”
Similarly, the authors credit David Isaacson who pointed out that the Executive has the authority to grant EAD under INA
§274A(h)(3), which defines the term “unauthorized alien” as one who is not “(A) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence,
or (B) authorized to be so employed by this Act or by the Attorney General” (emphasis added). Under sub paragraph (B), the USCIS
may grant an EAD to people who are adversely impacted by the tyranny of priority dates. Likewise, the beneficiary of an I-130 or
I-140 petition who is outside the U.S. can also be paroled into the U.S. before the priority date becomes current. The
principal and the applicable derivatives would enjoy permission to work and travel regardless of whether they
remained in nonimmigrant visa status. Even those who are undocumented or out of status, but are beneficiaries of
approved I-130 and I-140 petitions, can be granted employment authorization and parole. The retroactive grant of parole
may also alleviate those who are subject to the three or ten year bars since INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(ii) defines “unlawful presence” as
someone who is here “without being admitted or paroled.” Parole, therefore, eliminates the accrual of unlawful presence.
While parole does not constitute an admission, one conceptual difficulty is whether parole can be granted to an individual who is
already admitted on a nonimmigrant visa but has overstayed. Since parole is not considered admission, it can be granted
more readily to one who entered without inspection. On the other hand, it is possible for the Executive to rescind
the grant of admission under INA §212(d)(5), and instead, replace it with the grant parole. As an example, an
individual who was admitted in B-2 status and is the beneficiary of an I-130 petition but whose B-2 status has expired
can be required to report to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). who can retroactively rescind the grant of
admission in B-2 status and instead be granted parole retroactively.
CP 2
The United States federal government should reduce H-1B visa fees to their most recent level before the
fees were hiked.
Solves case
Economic Times, “US visa fee hike can sour ties with India: US experts,” 9/16/2010, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-byindustry/services/travel/visa-power/US-visa-fee-hike-can-sour-ties-with-India-US-experts/articleshow/6564089.cms
Two noted US economic
experts have warned that the new US law steeply hiking visa fees could sour US relations
with India and send wrong signals about US attitudes to open global markets.
"Regrettably, what might be good politics is bad policy for America," wrote Jacob F. Kirkegaard and Arvind Subramanian, senior fellows at the Peterson Institute for
International Economics, in Foreign Policy magazine about the law to hike visa fees to raise $600 million to help secure the US-Mexico border.
"It
is unlikely to raise revenue, will inflict damage to American competitiveness, sour US relations with India,
and above all send the wrong signals about US attitudes to open global markets," they say noting that the Congress's budget neutrality
numbers simply don't add up.
"Without explicitly saying so, the
law clearly targets India, home of the world's fastest growing IT services companies,"
the experts wrote noting Indians received about half of all H-1B and L-1 visas in 2009, and comprise most of the
roughly 50 percent of all H-1B and L-1 recipients who work in computer-related occupations in the US.
"Despite US President Barack Obama's endless declarations that the US-India 'strategic partnership will
continue to grow', this is a direct snub to India's most powerful domestic advocates of economic liberalisation,"
Kirkegaard and Subramanian wrote.
Competitiveness
The economy is growing and it’s stable now.
Neil Irwin, Washington Post, “Economy forecast to keep growing in 2011,” 12/31/2010,
http://www.startribune.com/business/112734409.html?elr=KArks:DCiU1OiP:DiiUiacyKUnciaec8O7EyUr
As 2011 begins, the United States appears poised for its strongest year of economic growth since the recession
began three years ago.
While plenty of risks remain that could undermine the recovery, signposts for the economy are generally
looking up: The pace of growth accelerated in the final months of 2010, according to a variety of indicators,
following a lull over the summer. A wave of government efforts to boost growth is starting to take effect,
including a payroll tax cut beginning Jan. 1 and the delayed benefits of a massive Federal Reserve action
announced Nov. 3. American consumers have made progress paying down their debts and increasing savings.
And the stock market has risen steadily in recent months, lifting businesses' confidence and consumers' wealth.
More generally, a recovery that seemed tentative and halting a year ago now appears to be durable and more
entrenched, having weathered its soft patch earlier in the year. Macroeconomic Advisers, one leading
forecasting firm, estimates the U.S. economy will grow 4.4 percent in 2011; Moody's Analytics expects 3.9
percent growth; IHS Global Insight envisions 3 percent growth.
Any of those numbers would represent an improvement over 2010. Although official government numbers are
not out yet, gross domestic product looks to have grown 2.7 percent over the past year, Moody's estimates.
"The economy is on sturdier legs now," said Robert Dye, senior economist at PNC Financial Services Group.
"We're making a transition to a broader, more durable recovery."
Turn – Goldilocks – the economy is growing at a rate that isn’t too hot or too cold; speeding it up could
risk an inflationary spiral that would collapse growth.
Mark Gongloff, Wall Street Journal, “Investors' Forecast: Sunny With Chance of Overheating,” 1/2/2011,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703384504576055950354533470.html
Investor optimism is almost as much of a New Year's tradition as hangovers and resolutions: This
January, like last, forecasters see the U.S.
economy growing at a rate that is neither too hot nor too cold.
For many Americans, with unemployment hovering near 10%, it's hard to feel optimistic in the midst of the current recovery, but investors
see things differently: They believe the economy has more to fear from growing too quickly rather than too
slowly.
"Overheating is the biggest worry," said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank in Chicago. "Though it's not the most likely
outcome, my fear is that rates rise too much, or prices rise too much, and snuff out the incipient recovery."
The big concern at the dawn of 2010 was the economy's budding comeback would take a nosedive—concerns that
were borne out over the summer but were put to rest as the economy rebounded in the final months of the year with the help
of the Federal Reserve. Investors worried about the economy overheating this year say it will be far harder for the Fed to mount
another rescue mission, which could lead to a spike in inflation and interest rates that could derail the recovery
and torpedo market gains.
Despite those fears, the vast majority of economists, market strategists and money managers say they see indicators
pointing to a scenario of modest growth and low inflation in 2011. Stocks are at a two-year high, commodities
are rising and bond yields are still very low by historic standards—all bolstering investors' normal start-of-the-year optimism.
Last year, analysts also put high odds on a similarly optimistic scenario, only to be sideswiped by the European debt crisis, the flash
crash in the U.S. stock market and a stalled economy. This year, the forecasters put the chance of another slowdown at only about 10%, but said there was a roughly
20% chance of the economy growing too fast.
Investors may have gotten a foretaste this fall of too-rapid growth, when Treasury bonds suffered one of their worst selloffs in decades, driving interest rates abruptly
higher. Rates move in the opposite direction of bond prices and usually rise when investors worry about inflation. Some commodity prices surged as well near the end
of the year, a sign that strong growth is boosting demand to a level that could spur inflation.
Unemployment is widely forecast to fall only slowly, which should help keep inflation pressures in check.
But an unexpected surge in hiring in 2011 would put the economy on a much faster track, raising the inflation
threat, and the bond market could respond by pushing rates higher.
Rates didn't rise enough this fall to threaten the economy, but a too-quick surge in borrowing costs could slow
growth, or at minimum rattle investors. The real worry among investors is the Fed, which has been focused for nearly two years on getting the
economy growing again, won't react quickly enough.
Outsourcing is declining now and will continue to slow.
Nick Heath, Silicon, “Outsourcing: New deals are in decline,” 7/22/2010, http://www.silicon.com/technology/it-services/2010/07/22/outsourcing-new-deals-arein-decline-39746128/
Cash-strapped companies are holding off on signing new outsourcing contracts, according to research released
this week.
Figures from outsourcing advisory firm TPI showed a global fall in the value of new or restructured outsourcing deals
signed during the second quarter of 2010.
The value of new or restructured outsourcing deals signed during the second quarter of 2010 was $18.1bn, a drop of about 13
per cent compared to the value of deals agreed during the first quarter of the year.
Demand for IT outsourcing (ITO) fell particularly sharply during the second quarter, with the value of ITO deals dropping by almost 30 per
cent compared to the first quarter of 2010.
The value of new or restructured deals for business process outsourcing (BPO) - where a third party takes charge of an entire division of an organisation such as HR or
finance - rose by 60 per cent in Q2 compared to Q1, however.
However BPO growth remained weak by historical standards, according to TPI.
When divided by sector, the figures showed a fall in the value of new outsourcing contracts in the financial services, manufacturing and telecom and media industries,
with growth in the travel, transport, hospitality and retail sectors.
Looking ahead, Mark Mayo, partner and president with TPI Global Operations, said in a statement that the global outsourcing market will
continue the "slow and uneven recovery that it began last year".
Turn – H-1Bs cause outsourcing – even if companies don’t leave, they send their workers overseas.
Hira 09 [Ron Hira, an assistant professor of public policy at Rochester Institute of Technology, is co-author, with Anil Hira, of Outsourcing America, “It's Time to
Overhaul H-1B Visas”, April 2, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_15/b4126063331942.htm]
Then there's the mistaken belief that granting H-1B visas helps prevent the outsourcing of American jobs. In
fact, the program is expediting that offshoring, and not just because of "knowledge transfer." Offshore
outsourcing firms with U.S. operations, including Infosys (INFY) and Wipro Technologies (WIT), now dominate the top ranks of
employers getting H-1B workers. In 2008, such firms accounted for 7 of the top 10 H-1B visa recipients, getting
almost 12,000 of the 85,000 quota. They use their U.S. operations to train their foreign workers, who learn more
about U.S. clients and then rotate back to their home countries to provide service more effectively.
US is still the dominant innovative force in the world.
Tom Price, Miller-McCune Magazine, “U.S. Challenged for High-Tech Global Leadership,” 3/13/2010, http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-environment/u-schallenged-for-high-tech-global-leadership-10818/
Despite negative trends, U.S. R&D continues to lead the world by a large margin. In 2007, America’s $369 billion
R&D spending exceeded all of Asia’s $338 billion and all of the European Union’s $263 billion. The United States spent
more than the next four countries — Japan, China, Germany and France — combined.
America’s share of all high-tech manufacturing has risen — and it continues to lead the world — even though
the U.S. share of exports has declined. That’s because the United States consumes so much of its product
domestically. The United States makes nearly a third of the world’s high-tech goods, compared with the European Union’s 25
percent and China’s 14 percent. It’s the world leader in communications, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and aerospace.
It trails only the EU in scientific instruments and China in computers.
U.S. inventors obtained 81,000 U.S. patents in 2008, more than double Japan’s 35,000 and all of Europe’s 23,000. America’s 49 percent share of those patents dropped
from 55 percent in 1995.
U.S. inventors also led in what the report calls “high-value” patents — those that were given protection by the EU and Japan as well as
by the United States. The U.S. share of 30 percent was down from 34 percent in 1997.
China obtained just about 1 percent of both kinds of patents. But its scientists have become the second-most-prolific contributors to
scholarly journals, another area in which the United States continues to lead the world.
The globalization of science is illustrated by the worldwide growth in many measures of scientific prowess, no matter which countries dominate, the board said. For
example, high-tech exports more than tripled to $2.3 trillion worldwide between 1995 and 2008. The estimated number of researchers increased to 5.7 million in 2007
from 4 million in 1995. Global R&D expenditures totaled $1.1 trillion in 2007, up from $525 billion in 1996. Cross-boarder co-authorship also increased from 8 percent
of scientific articles published in 1988 to 22 percent in 2007.
Foreign corporations actually invested more in U.S.-based research ($34 billion) in 2006 than U.S. firms invested
overseas $28.5 billion. Both more than doubled since 1995.
Can’t access heg – Deemed Export controls prevent visa holders from innovating military tech.
Deemed Export Advisory Committee, “The Deemed Export Rule in the Era of Globalization,” 12/20/2007,
http://tac.bis.doc.gov/2007/deacreport.pdf
In its simplest context, a
“Deemed Export” can be defined as (1) the release (2) of technology or source code (3) having both
military and civilian application (4) to a foreign national (5) within the United States. [1] Thus, even though the transfer
of the knowledge in question takes place within the confines of the United States, the transaction is “deemed” to
be an export and therefore subject to certain export regulations. The role assigned to the Deemed Export Advisory Committee (DEAC)
was to provide recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce for possible improvements to Deemed Export regulations, policies, and processes.
The federal regulations governing Deemed Exports of dual-use items are set forth in certain provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), which are
administered by the United States Department of Commerce’s (DOC) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). The EAR is the set of Federal rules that implement
controls on the export of “dual-use” items, meaning items that have a predominantly commercial application but can also have military or other strategic purposes [2],
thus potentially impacting United States security and foreign policy. The EAR differs from the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), administered by the
United States Department of State, in that the ITAR oversees the export of articles, services, and technical data (including all classified information) that have a
primarily military application as defined by the United States Munitions List (USML).
The Deemed Export rule is a unique export control implemented unilaterally by the United States Government (USG). The Deemed Export rule is not a part of any
international treaty or obligation, so it can be enhanced, modified, or eliminated at the sole discretion of the USG. It should be noted that other treaty allies with the
United States do not implement a Deemed Export licensing regime, but rely largely on their visa issuance process -- or simply do not regulate “intangible exports.”
Deemed Export controls traditionally impact national security by precluding sensitive information (in the form of source code or technology) from being transferred to
foreign nationals who might use that information to the United States’ disadvantage. However, as other nations begin to move to the forefront of many technologic
fields, an important secondary and potentially conflicting impact of deemed exports is emerging. Because a relatively large percentage of America’s brightest minds in
advanced areas of science and technology (S&T) are foreign nationals studying or working in the United States under student or work visas [3], the Deemed Export rule
may be denying highly qualified persons from fully participating in time-sensitive research or technology development projects of importance to the United States. This
may place the nation at a disadvantage vis-a-vis its own national security as well as commercial use of the technology. The United States may miss or be late to
capitalize on new breakthroughs in science and technology discovered by foreign national students, researchers, or workers. These foreign nationals are not infrequently
the best, and occasionally the only, candidates available to fill the voids left by United States citizens who are increasingly foregoing studies in science and technology
for pursuing of higher paying professions. To illustrate how Deemed Exports can present a quandary for United States national (and economic) security, the following
notional example is offered of a
foreign national from a country of concern to the United States Government who has nonetheless been allowed to study in
the United States on a student visa.
The hypothetical foreign national, having achieved a Ph.D. from a United States university, is hired by a United States company as the most
qualified candidate to be the lead researcher on a cutting edge project that will produce a commercial product. A
representative of the United States Department of Defense has expressed to the company its interest in the
project because multiple potential military applications for the material have been identified. The company has no current
plans to export the material once produced.
In this “dual-use” example, the
foreign national researcher would require a Deemed Export license to participate in the
project due to the individual’s country of citizenship (and the possible military application of the product). Such a license can
contain provisos that prevent the researcher from having further access to certain information dealing
with the research in question. Because of this limitation, the individual may no longer be a reasonable
candidate for the job -- even though he or she is the most qualified. In this scenario, both the company and the military lose. If the individual is
granted the job but does not have full access to the needed information because of the provisos, then the project
is handicapped. However, if the individual gets the job without limitations and the project succeeds, the
individual may repatriate to his home country (or to any other country) and divulge what is known to a foreign
manufacturer. There are thus risks involved with each alternative.
The simplest solution in this scenario is to hire a qualified United States person (citizen or “green card” holder) with the requisite engineering or scientific skills.
However, according to most independent assessments, such as the “Skills Gap Report 2005” performed by Deloitte Consulting, “... the vast majority of American
manufacturers are experiencing a serious shortage of qualified employees... the research show[s] that engineers and scientists are in short supply, with 65 percent of
manufacturers reporting deficiencies -- 18 percent severe and 47 percent moderate.” [4] Foreign
nationals with H-1B or similar visas are
potential candidates to fill these positions, but, as noted, this approach poses a potential for significant S&T
leakages. As the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security stated in 2001:
“...[T]he inadequacies of our system of research and education pose a greater threat to United States national security over the next quarter century than any potential
conventional war that we might imagine. American national leadership must understand these deficiencies as threats to national security.”
The US benefits from innovation in other countries, and our educational model insures a competitive
economy.
John Kay, Financial Times, “The east’s innovators are no threat to the west,” 12/2/2008, http://www.bhide.net/venturesome_press/John_Kay_FT_Dec_3_08.pdf
Techno nationalism is
derived from the belief that economic growth depends on high technology and that we will benefit fully from it
only if it is our own high technology. Techno nationalism is as common in Europe, which believes it is falling behind, as in America, which fears it
Such policies are described as “techno nationalism” in an important recent book called The Venturesome Economy by Amar Bhidé.
may be overtaken. But the fear that western economic prosperity is endangered by China’s flood of engineering graduates is not only exaggerated: it may be the reverse
of the truth.
The central fallacy of the New Economy bubble was that most of the benefits of new technologies would go to
pioneering companies. But the repeated experience of economic history is that competition ensures that the larger
part of the benefits of these technologies accrue to users. In an admittedly speculative calculation, the American economist Bill Nordhaus
has suggested that consumers get more than 97 per cent of the value of innovations.
What is true of companies is also true of states. The US has a world leading position in information technology
but the products of that technology are available everywhere with minimal delay. And cheaply: the profits of Microsoft, though
large in absolute terms, are less than 0.1 per cent of the national income of the US and Europe.
That is why economist Paul Romer can observe that: “In 1985, I paid $1,000 per million transistors for memory in my computer. In 2005 I paid less than $10 per
million and yet I did nothing to deserve or help pay for the windfall.” But Prof Bhidé is not so sure that Prof Romer did nothing to deserve it and nor am I.
What distinguishes the US is not just its innovative technologists, but its innovative manufacturers, retailers and
consumers. Discoveries are made in an environment that is responsive to ideas, ready to embrace change and
always willing to try out something new. People who are likely to invent things want to be part of a culture that is open to novelty, and cultures that
are open to novelty are those that will reward innovators best. That is why there are so many entrepreneurs of Chinese and Indian origin in the US – and Britain – even
as more and more mundane jobs are outsourced to China and India.
The pesky American students who are ready to challenge every assertion the instructor makes contrast with
students from other cultures who believe their aim is to transcribe every authoritative statement that is
delivered. These voluble business students are the bane of the MBA teacher’s life. They are also the people who
make American business great.
Commercial and economic success, even in technological industries, depends not on the quality of technology,
but on the match between technology and the needs of its customers. That is why the growing technological
capabilities of China and India create more commercial opportunities than threats for American and European
businesses.
Heg is self-reinforcing and there’s no impact to decline.
Brooks and Wohlforth – 2 (Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth, Both are Associate Professors in the Government Department at Dartmouth,
“American Primacy in Perspective,” Foreign Affairs, July / August 2002)
TO UNDERSTAND just how dominant the United States is today, one needs to look
at each of the standard components of national power in succession. In the military arena, the United States is poised to spend
more on defense in 2003 than the next 15 -- 20 biggest spenders combined. The United States has overwhelming nuclear superiority,
PICK A MEASURE, ANY MEASURE
the world's dominant air force, the only truly blue-water navy, and a unique capability to project power around the globe. And its military advantage is even more
apparent in quality than in quantity. The United States leads the world in exploiting the military applications of advanced communications and information technology
and it has demonstrated an unrivaled ability to coordinate and process information about the battlefield and destroy targets from afar with extraordinary precision.
Washington is not making it easy for others to catch up, moreover, given the massive gap in spending on military research and development (R&D), on which the
United States spends three times more than the next six powers combined. Looked at another way, the United States currently spends more on military R&D than
No state in the modern history of international politics has come close to
the military predominance these numbers suggest. And the United States purchases this preeminence with only
3.5 percent of its GDP. As historian Paul Kennedy notes, "being Number One at great cost is one thing; being the world's single superpower on the cheap is
astonishing." America's economic dominance, meanwhile -- relative to either the next several richest powers or the rest of the world combined -surpasses that of any great power in modern history, with the sole exception of its own position after 1945 (when World War II had temporarily
laid waste every other major economy). The U.S. economy is currently twice as large as its closest rival, Japan. California's economy alone
Germany or the United Kingdom spends on defense in total.
has risen to become the fifth largest in the world (using market exchange-rate estimates), ahead of France and just behind the United Kingdom. It is true that the long
expansion of the 1990s has ebbed, but it would take an experience like Japan's in that decade -- that is, an extraordinarily deep and prolonged domestic recession
juxtaposed with robust growth elsewhere -- for the United States just to fall back to the economic position it occupied in 1991. The odds against such relative decline
are long, however, in part because the United States is the country in the best position to take advantage of globalization. Its status as the preferred destination for
scientifically trained foreign workers solidified during the 1990s, and it is the most popular destination for foreign firms. In 1999 it attracted more than one-third of
U.S. military and economic dominance, finally, is rooted in the country's position
as the world's leading technological power. Although measuring national R&D spending is increasingly difficult in an era in which so many
economic activities cross borders, efforts to do so indicate America's continuing lead. Figures from the late 1990s showed that U.S. expenditures on R&D
nearly equaled those of the next seven richest countries combined. Measuring the degree of American dominance
in each category begins to place things in perspective. But what truly distinguishes the current international
system is American dominance in all of them simultaneously. Previous leading states in the modern era were either great commercial
world inflows of foreign direct investment.
and naval powers or great military powers on land, never both. The British Empire in its heyday and the United States during the Cold War, for example, each shared
the world with other powers that matched or exceeded them in some areas. Following the Napoleonic Wars, the United Kingdom was clearly the world's leading
commercial and naval power. But even at the height of the Pax Britannica, the United Kingdom was outspent, outmanned, and outgunned by both France and Russia.
And its 24 percent share of GDP among the six leading powers in the early 1870s was matched by the United States, with Russia and Germany following close behind.
Similarly, at the dawn of the Cold War the United States was clearly dominant economically as well as in air and naval capabilities. But the Soviet Union retained
overall military parity, and thanks to geography and investment in land power it had a superior ability to seize territory in Eurasia. Today, in contrast, the
United
States has no rival in any critical dimension of power. There has never been a system of sovereign states that
contained one state with this degree of dominance. The recent tendency to equate unipolarity with the ability to
achieve desired outcomes single-handedly on all issues only reinforces this point; in no previous international
system would it ever have occurred to anyone to apply such a yardstick. CAN IT LAST? MANY WHO
ACKNOWLEDGE the extent of American power, however, regard it as necessarily self-negating. Other states traditionally
band together to restrain potential hegemons, they say, and this time will be no different. As German political commentator Josef Joffe has put it, "the history books say
that Mr. Big always invites his own demise. Nos. 2, 3, 4 will gang up on him, form countervailing alliances and plot his downfall. That happened to Napoleon, as it
What such
arguments fail to recognize are the features of America's post -- Cold War position that make it likely to buck the
historical trend. Bounded by oceans to the east and west and weak, friendly powers to the north and south, the United
States is both less vulnerable than previous aspiring hegemons and also less threatening to others. The main potential challengers to its
unipolarity, meanwhile -- China, Russia, Japan, and Germany -- are in the opposite position. They cannot augment their
military capabilities so as to balance the United States without simultaneously becoming an immediate threat to
their neighbors. Politics, even international politics, is local. Although American power attracts a lot of attention globally, states are usually more concerned
with their own neighborhoods than with the global equilibrium. Were any of the potential challengers to make a serious run at the
United States, regional balancing efforts would almost certainly help contain them, as would the massive
latent power capabilities of the United States, which could be mobilized as necessary to head off an emerging
threat.
happened to Louis XIV and the mighty Hapsburgs, to Hitler and to Stalin. Power begets superior counterpower; it's the oldest rule of world politics."
Trade Frontline
US isn’t key – the world is moving on without us and lack of climate regulations means no reductions.
Lisa Friedman, NYT, “Overseas Frustration Grows Over U.S. Domestic Impasse on Climate Policy,” 8/3/ 2010,
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/08/03/03climatewire-overseas-frustration-grows-over-us-domestic-61456.html?pagewanted=all
Top climate change leaders from Europe to Africa are wondering if it's time to give up on the United States.
Frustrated by the U.S. Senate's recent abandonment of climate legislation and baffled by Congress' seeming inability to cut emissions,
several officials told ClimateWire that countries are uncertain about America's role in upcoming treaty negotiations.
"Why is it that for the last 20 years the United States is unable to have a bill on climate change? What's happening? What's going on? It's very complicated to
understand," said Brice Lalonde, France's top negotiator.
"For a lot of us, we cannot wait for the United States. We have to go on. It's like Kyoto,; we just go on" Lalonde said, referring to the
1997 Kyoto Protocol treaty that the U.S. joined but never ratified, leaving European countries to largely carry the weight of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Added Pa Ousman Jarju, lead negotiator for the small West African nation of Gambia, " We
cannot rely on the U.S., because everything the
U.S. is supposed to do depends on domestic policy. So we're not going to get anything from the U.S. in terms of
tangible commitment."
He charged that the international community is "no longer hopeful" that America, the world's biggest historic emitter
of global warming pollution, will ever pass a bill to cut emissions. That, he said, leaves the global community with two options: "Either
the rest of the world continues to do what they were doing before, or the whole multilateral system will collapse."
Yesterday a mid-year session aimed at crafting a new global treaty to either extend or replace the Kyoto Protocol opened in Bonn, Germany. United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat Christiana Figueres pressed representatives from the 190 countries present to "take the next central step in the
battle against climate change."
Specifically, she called on countries to build on promises they made as part of the Copenhagen Accord in Denmark last year to both cut carbon and deliver billions of
dollars for vulnerable nations. Cancun, Mexico -- the December site for the next U.N. mega-summit on climate change, "the job of governments is to turn the politically
possible into the politically irreversible," she said.
President Obama
promised in Copenhagen that America would cut emissions about 17 percent below 2005 levels in the coming
decade and about 83 percent by mid-century. Asked how to move forward when other countries -- unable to see how the United States can
keep its pledge in the absence of domestic legislation -- are unwilling to set their own promises in motion, Figueres downplayed
the importance of a U.S. bill.
There is no viable alternative to oil.
Joe Carroll, Bloomberg, “Exxon Mobil Says Transition From Oil Is Century Away,” 5/27/ 2009,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=abYNEKrsuMsI
Exxon Mobil Corp., the world’s largest refiner, said the
transition away from oil-derived fuels is probably 100 years away.
Petroleum-based fuels including gasoline and diesel, as well as hydrocarbons such as coal and natural gas, will remain the dominant
sources of energy for factories, offices, homes and cars for decades because there are no viable alternatives, Chief Executive Officer
Rex Tillerson told reporters today after Exxon Mobil’s annual shareholders meeting in Dallas.
In the U.S., which burns a quarter of global oil supplies, consumers
probably face higher fuel prices if lawmakers impose
greenhouse-gas rules that inflate fuel-production costs, Tillerson said. A plan introduced by Democrats this month would allocate a limited
number of emission credits to refiners and electricity producers, with the aim of curbing greenhouse gases.
“The oil-gas-refining side of the business received a very, very small amount of the allocations, which means that sector will bear more of the costs more immediately,”
Tillerson said. “If we’re going to place a price on carbon, let’s do that in the most efficient way. A carbon tax is more efficient than a tax that’s applied by way of a capand-trade mechanism.”
Tillerson, 57, said lawmakers are hurrying to restrict greenhouse gases when many scientific questions surrounding the global warming issue remain unresolved.
“The
point of conflict that I find more often than not are the projections that some make regarding how serious
the problem may become and at what pace of acceleration it may occur,” Tillerson told investors at the shareholders meeting. “All
of those models have deficiencies in the way they’re constructed and the assumptions that go into the models
and the limitations of the data.”
Tillerson, a University of Texas-trained engineer, said climate change is a “serious risk-management issue” for Exxon Mobil. The company will continue to fund
scientific research into climate science and the impact of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere, he said.
“We’re going to be very forthright in not accepting something that is not completely scientifically proven ,”
Tillerson said. “We’re not skeptics. We’re just approaching this the way we would approach any scientific challenge, and it’s a serious challenge.”
CO2 isn’t key, warming isn’t caused by humans, and historical data prove there is no impact.
John Deaver, The Times Herald, “Deaver: Cap and Trade bill not the answer to global warming,” 8/10/2010,
http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20100810/OPINION02/8100310/Deaver-Cap-and-Trade-bill-not-the-answer-to-global-warming
Wait a minute! While it is true that there is general agreement that there is a greenhouse gas effect, there is no agreement about the importance of CO2, which is
a
tiny fraction of such gases. Here are some facts that should tell us to be cautious about introducing costly economic measures that might not do anything to
alleviate the situation.
First, there is no scientific proof that global warming is
emissions generally and very roughly correspond to rising global temperatures.
caused by CO2. There is only knowledge that over the past 150 years CO2
Second, during
the Middle Ages--from about the years 1000 to 1300--an abundance of evidence reveals a period of warming
that probably exceeded that of the present period. Greenland was green then. Yet there was no industrial
revolution to cause it, and no evidence of any corresponding increase in CO2 from other sources.
Third, there is a growing body of evidence, mainly from Arctic and Antarctic ice cores, that reveal long-term temperature cycles
associated with variations in the sun's radiation that could explain the recent warming.
The main point is scientists do not have positive evidence either about future climate trends or the fundamental causes
of climate change. This suggests government programs such as Cap-and-Trade to deal with CO2 emissions,
while imposing huge costs in terms of jobs and slower economic growth, could fail to have any impact on
global warming.
Labor unions would backlash to the plan, sparking protectionism.
Sarah Anderson, director of the Global Economy Program at the Institute for Policy Studies, “U.S. Immigration Policy on the Table at the WTO,” 12/3/2005,
http://www.globalpolitician.com/21446-immigration
The U.S. labor movement's opposition to increased market access under Mode 4 is based primarily on criticism
of expanding the temporary worker visa program, which labor views as deeply flawed. The H-1B visa program was begun in 1990 to alleviate
labor shortages by allowing entry to a modest number of professional and technical guest workers with college degrees. At that time, demand for information
technology (IT) professionals was strong. Although the numbers vary from year to year, IT workers constitute about 60% of H-1B workers. 5
Then the dot-com bust hit, and between March 2001 and April 2004, the industry shed 403,300 jobs. Although recession was the cause of some of those job losses,
more than half occurred after economic recovery began in November 2001. 6 Many
IT workers argue that continued use of H-1B visas is
motivated not by labor shortages but by employers' desires for cheaper, more vulnerable foreign workers.
The AFL-CIO contends that employers have abused the H-1B program to displace U.S. workers and exploit guest workers. The labor confederation has been sharply
critical of the lack of government oversight to verify whether claims of labor shortages are legitimate and to ensure that employers pay guest workers prevailing wages
and benefits. Although there is anecdotal evidence of U.S. companies applying for H-1B workers while laying off U.S. citizens, the actual impact of the H-1B program
on U.S. jobs and wages has not been widely documented. In 2003, the General Accounting Office issued a report concluding that more research is needed. According to
the report, “Although some employers acknowledged that H-1B workers might work for lower wages than their U.S. counterparts, the extent to which wage is a factor
in employment decisions is unknown.” 7
U.S. unions also argue that the visa program gives employers excessive power over guest workers. An H-1B visa
requires a sponsoring U.S. employer and is good for three years with one three-year renewal allowed. After the visa expires, the foreign worker must remain outside the
United States for at least one year. This arrangement gives employers tremendous power to retaliate against guest workers who attempt to join a union or ask for better
wages or working conditions by threatening to withdraw the workers' visas or deny renewal of visas in the future. 8
The AFL-CIO has couched its opposition to increased Mode 4 access in a broader critique of the WTO. In
2002, for example, the AFL-CIO Executive Council adopted a GATS resolution that calls for negotiations to be suspended pending an assessment of potential impacts
on economic and social development of poorer countries, provision of public services, government subsidies and procurement policies, services regulation, and the
protection of worker rights, the environment, and human rights. With
regard to Mode 4, the resolution states that the AFL-CIO
opposes any new commitments regarding temporary entry until U.S. guest worker programs are reformed to
“include more rigorous labor market tests, involve labor unions in the labor certification process, and guarantee
the same workplace protections for temporary workers that are available to all workers.” 9
In 2003, the issue of negotiating visas through trade agreements was one of the few points of controversy in
congressional debate over U.S. free-trade agreements with Chile and Singapore . The Labor Advisory Committee for Trade
Negotiations and Trade Policy, through which unions give input to U.S. trade negotiators, strongly objected to provisions that created a new visa category for 6,800
Chilean and Singaporean professional guest workers. The committee complained that “this makes no economic sense for [ U.S. ] workers facing stagnant wages and
high unemployment, and it is totally inconsistent with our right to engage in a full, democratic debate with our elected representatives on immigration issues.” 10
Largely as a result of union pressure, the new visas for Chileans and Singaporeans are counted under existing guest worker quotas.
That kills domestic support.
Jessica Vaughan, Center for Immigration Studies, “Be Our Guest: Trade Agreements and Visas,” December 2003, http://www.cis.org/TradeAgreements-Visas
When the treaty details became known, labor advocates began objecting to the agreements. In its report issued on February
28, 2003, the Labor Advisory Committee, made up of 58 union representatives and experts from an array of industries, unequivocably
panned the FTAs and asked Congress to reject them. The Committee based its thumbs-down partly on the
contention that the Administration had overstepped its negotiating authority and trampled on
Congressional toes with respect to immigration law, compromising protections for U.S. workers in the
process. With regard to the provisions on foreign guestworkers, "The negotiating objectives that Congress laid out for USTR in TPA do not include even one word
on temporary entry. There is no specific authority in TPA to negotiate new visa categories or impose new requirements on our temporary entry system," said the report.
It went on, "Immigration
policy is a sensitive political issue, and changes in immigration policy have traditionally
been the result of intense, open negotiations between workers, employers, immigration advocates, and elected
members of Congress. These issues simply do not belong in fast-tracked trade agreements negotiated by executive
agencies."12
With the future scope of the H-1B program already a source of controversy and mounting unemployment in the
high-tech sector, where many of these guestworkers are employed, Republicans and Democrats on the House
and Senate Judiciary Committees, at the urging of the AFL-CIO and low-immigration groups, balked at the
prospect of admitting even more foreign professionals. During its review of the FTAs in July 2003, the House Judiciary Committee insisted
that the new professional worker visas provided by these treaties be counted under the existing H-1B cap as H-1B1 visas, and not result in higher guestworker
admissions.
India Frontline
Indian econ is resilient.
Hindustan Times – 9/19/08 (“Indian economy resilient enough to stave off any spillover: FM”,
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=&id=9837186c-df47-4739-af98469b67304fc9&MatchID1=4813&TeamID1=6&TeamID2=1&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1212&PrimaryID=4813&Headline=FM+allays+fears+over+global+financia
l+turmoil)
Finance Minister P Chidambaram on Thursday allayed fears over the global financial turmoil, saying the Indian
economy is resilient enough to stave off any spillover. Global markets remained jittery for the fourth day amid reports that Morgan Stanley
was preparing for a possible sell-off, and back home, a stock broker each in Hyderabad and Indore committed suicide, allegedly because of trade losses. “Let me assure
everyone (that) there
is no cause for any alarm that any Indian bank is exposed or is vulnerable like couple of banks
that have failed in the US,” Chidambaram said. His comments helped the Sensex bounce back from a 705-point plunge in early trading and close 52 points
higher. The Sensex has lost more than 1,600 points, or 11 per cent, since September 8, when it became apparent
that some of the top US financial firms could go bankrupt. The week opened with Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy and Merrill Lynch’s
sale. Following them was American International Group, the world’s largest insurance company, which got a $85 billion bailout from the US government. This
stoked fears that more financial firms could report trouble and set off a chain reaction across markets
worldwide. Although India’s share market has been hit hard, analysts say the impact on the broader economy
would be limited as it is relatively less open compared to many of its peers. “Our banking system is reasonably
insulated from what is happening in the rest of the world,” Chidambaram said, adding there could be some short-term squeeze on credit.
Deterrence solves the impact.
Devin Hagerty, professor of political science at the University of Maryland, 19 98, The Consequences of Nuclear Proliferation: Lessons from South Asia, p. 191-2
Could deterrence fail? While nuclear weapons have a deterrent impact on decision-making in South Asia, as they do elsewhere, no deterrent balance is impervious to
breakdown. Deterrence of war is always a question of probability, not certainty. Where would India and Pakistan lie on a crisis stability continuum with war at one end
and deterrence at the other? The
outcome with the lowest probability is a premeditated attack by either side. At the nuclear level, the
window of opportunity for an Indian preventive strike against Pakistani nuclear facilities has passed. Islamabad’s nuclear
program is too advanced for New Delhi to have sufficient confidence that it could disable Pakistan’s retaliatory
capability without suffering a devastating response. Preemptive nuclear strikes are also extremely unlikely, due to the
deterrent power of first-strike uncertainty, or the existence of a kernel of doubt in the minds of the potential attacker’s
leaders about whether they could destroy all of the opponent’s nuclear weapons preemptively. Also, having
weathered the Brasstacks and Kashmir crises, Indian and Pakistani leaders can rest more easily in the
knowledge that as tempers flared during these war scares, neither side was tempted into preemptive action. At
the conventional level, either country’s full-scale invasion across established borders is also difficult to imagine.
Islamabad knows that it would lose any conventional war it started, and while India could surely defeat Pakistan
in a ground war, New Delhi would in doing so have to worry about the possibility of suffering a last-resort
nuclear reprisal. No political objective would be worth that risk. At the unconventional level, the chance of war is still remote, but less
so. India could conceivably launch limited military strikes across the LAC in Kashmir, whether to interdict supplies, destroy militant sanctuaries, or simply to warn
Pakistan that India’s tolerance has run out, that enough is enough. After all, New Delhi has paid a steep price for its counterinsurgency in Kashmir. The guerrilla war is
tying down several hundred thousand Indian Army and paramilitary soldiers, and at least 20,000 people have been killed in the fighting. Furthermore, India’s
international image has taken a severe beating since 1990, as human rights organizations have documented an array of excesses by Indian troops, such as rapes, looting,
and torture. Finally, some Indian decision-makers fear that insurgent successes in Kashmir may embolden separatists in other states, ultimately threatening the integrity
of the Indian federation.
No escalation – structural factors check conflict
Muthia Alagappa, Distinguished Senior Fellow, East-West Center PhD, International Affairs, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, 2008.
“The Long Shadow,” p. 512
International political interaction among Asian states is for the most part rule governed, predictable, and stable.
The security order that has developed in Asia is largely of the instrumental type, with certain normative
contractual features (Alagappa 2003b). It rests on several pillars. These include the consolidation of Asian
countries as modern nation-states with rule-governed interactions, wide- spread acceptance of the territorial and
political status quo (with the exception of certain boundary disputes and a few survival concerns that still
linger), a regional normative structure that ensures survival of even weak states and supports inter- national
coordination and cooperation, the high priority in Asian countries given to economic growth and development,
the pursuit of that goal through partici- pation in regional and global capitalist economies, the declining salience
of force in Asian international politics, the largely status quo orientation of Asia's major powers, and the key
role of the United States and of regional institutions in pre- serving and enhancing security and stability in Asia.
India won’t cooperate over democracy promotion and if they do it will kill relations, turning case.
George Perkovich, vice president for studies and director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Douglas H.
Paal, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Toward Realistic U.S.-India Relations,” 10/26/2010,
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/?fa=3062
Over the past decade, certain American and Indian elites have developed unsustainable expectations about the
relationship between India and the United States, Perkovich stated. He contended that these expectations risk
creating unnecessary tensions between the two countries.
* Disparate Interests: India and the United States have very different interests on key short- and medium-term issues
such as climate change, trade liberalization, and relations with Pakistan, Afghanistan, and China. These
differences are inevitable for two demographically distinct countries in different stages of development.
* Democratic Alignment: Although the shared democratic nature of the United States and India indicates the potential
for shared values, these very democratic processes can also constrain the growth of bilateral relations.
Washington and New Delhi are both constrained by local and national interests, which have a strong influence
in democracies. For example, in the agricultural and service sectors, politicians beholden to their constituencies sometimes prevent closer alignment between the
United States and India, Perkovich stated.
* Democracy Promotion: The
as Iran, but
United States often hopes India will help it promote democracy abroad in countries such
India has never expressed an interest in proselytizing or promoting democracy.
Transition causes war.
Taner—PhD Poli Sci at Syracuse—2002
(Binnur Ozkececi, Fall, Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol. 1, No. 3, p. 45, http://www.alternativesjournal.com/binnur.pdf)
democratic peace” theorists cannot adequately account for the tendency towards was in
democratizing countries, especially after the end of the Cold War. As it has been demonstrated many times
since the late 1980s, democratizing states are most often very volatile and dangerous and, thus more inclined to
fight wars “than are mature democracies or stable autocracies.”32 The “rocky transitional period” to
democratization may make countries more aggressive and war-prone due to not only domestic competition but
also utilization of nationalistic feelings by political leadership and mass public support for aggression. If the
More seriously, however, “
“democratic peace” theorists would want to make their cases more persuasive, then, those authors should be more attentive to what is going on in newly democratizing countries and modify,
not necessarily change, some of their propositions.