Foundation Briefs
Advanced Level February Brief
Resolved: On balance, the rise of China is
beneficial to the interests of the United States.
February 2013
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................... 1
The Structure of a Foundation Brief ................................................................................................................. 14
Definitions............................................................................................................................................................. 15
National Interests Defined As Security..................................................................................................... 15
US Interests Defined by DoD ................................................................................................................... 15
National Interest Defined by the Director of the Strategic Studies Institute ............................................ 16
Topic Analysis One............................................................................................................................................... 17
Topic Analysis Two .............................................................................................................................................. 20
Topic Analysis Three ............................................................................................................................................ 22
Defend Your Source ............................................................................................................................................. 24
Author Index ..................................................................................................................................................... 25
Organization Index ........................................................................................................................................... 28
Pro Evidence ......................................................................................................................................................... 35
Trade with China is good .................................................................................................................................. 36
Trade with China makes goods cheaper ................................................................................................... 36
Positive Effects of Trade with China ........................................................................................................ 37
Trade Advantages ..................................................................................................................................... 38
Only China Can Fulfill Goals for American Growth................................................................................ 40
How Imports Benefit Rural American Consumers ................................................................................... 41
Chinese Investment in United States Businesses ...................................................................................... 42
How Currency Manipulation Benefits the United States .............................................................................. 43
How Consumers Benefit from Chinese Currency Manipulation .............................................................. 43
Not a Zero-Sum-Game...................................................................................................................................... 44
Experts Believe United States-China Cooperation is Beneficial .............................................................. 44
How Globalization Benefits the United States ......................................................................................... 45
How China Benefits the World Environmentally ......................................................................................... 48
foundationbriefs.com
Page 1 of 265
February 2013
Table of Contents
Projected Growth of Green Product Exports in China.............................................................................. 48
America is not in decline .................................................................................................................................. 49
America’s economy is relatively strong ................................................................................................... 49
American manufacturing is strong ............................................................................................................ 49
Manufacturing Jobs Return to the U.S. Due To China’s Rise .......................................................................... 50
China’s Continual Rise Has Caused Manufacturing Jobs To Return to the U.S. ..................................... 50
China’s Rising Cost of Labor Means More Jobs Return to the U.S.—meanwhile, the U.S. remains a
more competitive, efficient workforce ...................................................................................................... 51
Manufacturing jobs will come back to America ....................................................................................... 52
Other developing countries are cheaper to produce in than China ........................................................... 54
Labor costs are rising in China ................................................................................................................. 54
Many manufacturing jobs are already coming back to America .............................................................. 55
The “China plus one” strategy .................................................................................................................. 56
Chinese manufacturing will reach a tipping point .................................................................................... 57
China’s Rise Exaggerated ................................................................................................................................. 59
China’s rise is greatly exaggerated ........................................................................................................... 59
Chinese companies are not innovative ...................................................................................................... 61
Innovation pays ......................................................................................................................................... 62
Lack of innovation can be tied back to Chinese education system........................................................... 62
China’s growth causes democratization and peace ................................................................................... 63
Chinese growth causes economic multilateralism and peace ................................................................... 64
Demographic Challenges Diminish Threats from China’s Rise ................................................................... 65
The One Child Crisis ................................................................................................................................ 65
Leaders focused on these Domestic Issues ............................................................................................... 65
The 4:2:1 Phenomenon ............................................................................................................................. 65
The Implications of the One Child Policy ................................................................................................ 66
Social Problems with the One Child Policy.............................................................................................. 66
The Effects of the One Child Policy on the Chinese Military .................................................................. 67
Effects of One Child Policy on the pension system .................................................................................. 68
Inflation causes protests ............................................................................................................................ 69
foundationbriefs.com
Page 2 of 265
February 2013
Table of Contents
China’s economic growth will slow down.................................................................................................... 69
Current Chinese growth is unsustainable .................................................................................................. 69
Top Chinese Officials Indicate China’s Environmental Impact Will Impede China’s Growth ............... 72
China’s property market is slowing down ................................................................................................ 73
China has weak consumer demand ........................................................................................................... 73
China’s economy is inefficient ................................................................................................................. 75
Entrepreneurs don’t get loans ................................................................................................................... 75
Impact of companies moving away from China ....................................................................................... 76
China is caught in a middle income trap ................................................................................................... 77
Effects of a middle income trap ................................................................................................................ 77
Corruption Undermines the Chinese Regime ................................................................................................... 78
Surveys of Regime Approval Are Invalid, ............................................................................................... 78
Corruption Undermines the Regime’s Legitimacy, .................................................................................. 78
Corruption has become a huge problem ................................................................................................... 79
Corruption Threatens China’s Economy .................................................................................................. 80
China Is Not A Military Threat ......................................................................................................................... 81
Chinese Military Spending is Small Compared to the U.S. ...................................................................... 81
China Has Not Fought a Battle in Over 30 Years—It’s Military Has Grown Complacent...................... 81
China is Unable to Challenge the U.S. Militarily ..................................................................................... 82
China’s Navy Does Not Pose a Threat to the U.S. ................................................................................... 83
The Cyber-Warfare Threat to the U.S. is Exaggerated ............................................................................. 84
China is Not a Military Threat .................................................................................................................. 84
Problems with the Overstretched People’s Liberation Army ................................................................... 86
Obstacles Facing the Chinese Military ..................................................................................................... 87
The Chinese Perspective ........................................................................................................................... 89
China Is Integrating into the International System, Not Overturning It ........................................................... 91
The Post-War International Order Is Unique ............................................................................................ 91
China’s Rise has Increased stability and cooperation ............................................................................... 91
China’s Interests Align with Those of the U.S. Led International System ............................................... 92
foundationbriefs.com
Page 3 of 265
February 2013
Table of Contents
China Is Increasingly Integrated in the International Order ..................................................................... 93
China Has No Desire to Fight ................................................................................................................... 94
China’s Strategy is Inherently Defensive ................................................................................................. 94
China is relatively peaceful ....................................................................................................................... 95
China’s future is tied to everyone else’s future ........................................................................................ 95
Education and a good economy have moderated communist China ........................................................ 96
China as an Ally to the United States ........................................................................................................... 97
China Backs United States in Important Matter ....................................................................................... 97
Con Evidence ........................................................................................................................................................ 98
General .............................................................................................................................................................. 99
China and the US Destined to be Foes...................................................................................................... 99
China is a major Cyber warfare threat ............................................................................................................ 100
Chinese hacking hurts America’s economy............................................................................................ 100
The Chinese government is improving its Cyber warfare capabilities ................................................... 100
America is unprepared for Cyber attacks................................................................................................ 101
China has been responsible for multiple Cyber attacks .......................................................................... 102
The U.S. is under siege ........................................................................................................................... 104
China also targets American businesses ................................................................................................. 105
Effects of Chinese Cyber attacks ............................................................................................................ 106
China is preparing and planning for a confrontation with the U.S. ........................................................ 107
China Threatens the United States Militarily ................................................................................................. 109
The Importance of Military Dominance ................................................................................................. 109
China is becoming the biggest military power of its region ................................................................... 110
China Is Engaging in Large Scale Military Modernization .................................................................... 110
Chinese Military Modernization Directly Challenges the U.S. and other Regional Powers .................. 111
China’s rise causes security dilemma ..................................................................................................... 111
China Has the Ability to Challenge the U.S. Locally ............................................................................. 112
Chinese Geopolitical Advantage............................................................................................................. 113
Implications of War with China .............................................................................................................. 114
foundationbriefs.com
Page 4 of 265
February 2013
Table of Contents
China Has Unstoppable Offensive Weaponry ........................................................................................ 114
China is prepared to take out U.S. aircraft carriers ................................................................................. 116
China can cripple U.S. communications systems ................................................................................... 117
Chinese Military is positioning to defeat the U.S. in East Asia .............................................................. 118
China Can Defend Itself Against the U.S. .............................................................................................. 119
Anti-Access/Aerial Denial Is Paying Dividends..................................................................................... 120
China’s Military Power is Growing and Sustainable .................................................................................. 121
Huge Increases in Chinese Military Spending ........................................................................................ 121
China’s Economy Allows It To Grow Its Military ................................................................................. 122
Growth of the Chinese economy causes the military to grow significantly ........................................... 122
Economic growth causes a shift in military strategy .............................................................................. 123
China’s Military Power Presents a Threat to US Hegemony ..................................................................... 124
Chinese growth deteriorates US hegemony in the region- this disrupts peace ....................................... 124
There can only be one global hegemon, US and China are mutually exclusive ..................................... 125
Bilateral arrangements between the US and south-east Asian countries make us money and keep things
stable- China's growth challenges this .................................................................................................... 125
Global Consequences of China’s Rise ............................................................................................................ 126
China’s Push for Regional Hegemony is Causing Global Repercussions .............................................. 126
China Represents a Unique Threat ......................................................................................................... 129
China’s Rise is Destabilizing the Surrounding Region .................................................................................. 130
China’s Rise Destabilizes the Regional Security Architecture in East Asia .......................................... 130
China’s Rise Has Led to An Arms Race between China and Japan ....................................................... 131
China deteriorates ASEAN ..................................................................................................................... 131
We are losing ground to China; Allies Will Desert Us ........................................................................... 132
China has sapped America’s Regional Influence ................................................................................... 133
America’s Alliances And Military Strength Are Based On Its Security Guarantees ............................. 133
China’s Ballistic Missiles Present a Serious Threat to the US and our Allies ........................................ 134
U.S. and China Are Inherently At Odds In the Region .......................................................................... 134
China Is Bullying the Region .................................................................................................................. 135
China Is Going to Become Aggressive ................................................................................................... 135
foundationbriefs.com
Page 5 of 265
February 2013
Table of Contents
U.S. and China Have Scuffled in the Past .............................................................................................. 136
U.S. Has Drawn the Line in the Sand ..................................................................................................... 136
Can’t Underestimate the Chinese Navy .................................................................................................. 137
China is Flexing Its Muscle Over Taiwan .............................................................................................. 137
China has Institutionalized Hatred of the Japanese ................................................................................ 137
Consequences of losing East Asia to China ............................................................................................ 138
Trade-Related Harms ...................................................................................................................................... 139
General Examples of China’s Trade-Related Harms .............................................................................. 139
Trade Barriers, Subsidies and Dumping ..................................................................................................... 140
China’s trade barriers hurt America’s economy ..................................................................................... 140
China’s subsidies are huge and unfair .................................................................................................... 141
China does not open up to foreign investment........................................................................................ 142
Chinese dumping hurts American businesses ......................................................................................... 143
China is clearly guilty of dumping.......................................................................................................... 144
China Violates World Trade Organization ............................................................................................. 144
Currency Manipulation ............................................................................................................................... 146
China is a currency manipulator ............................................................................................................. 146
Chinese WTO Violations and Currency Manipulation ........................................................................... 147
Jobs ............................................................................................................................................................. 148
Chinese trade practices have hurt American job growth ........................................................................ 148
Trade With China Costs the U.S. Jobs.................................................................................................... 149
Trade with China Hurts U.S. Wages ....................................................................................................... 149
Trade deficit harms jobs.......................................................................................................................... 150
Unemployment harms the economy ....................................................................................................... 151
Chinese competition hurts American businesses .................................................................................... 151
China Harms US Intellectual Property ........................................................................................................... 152
China steals America’s intellectual property .......................................................................................... 152
China is the chief thief of U.S. intellectual property .............................................................................. 152
China stealing intellectual property increases the trade deficit .............................................................. 153
foundationbriefs.com
Page 6 of 265
February 2013
Table of Contents
China’s Quest for Oil Harms the United States .............................................................................................. 155
China Has Sought to Secure Oil Assets Abroad ..................................................................................... 155
Chinese Middle East Oil Imports Are Increasing ................................................................................... 155
Chinese Oil Activities Increase Sino-Japanese Tensions ....................................................................... 156
Chinese Oil Ties with Iran Undermine U.S. Sanctions .......................................................................... 156
China’s Peaceful Rise Policy Does Not Apply to Oil Interests .............................................................. 157
China Props Up Dangerous Regimes ...................................................................................................... 157
Increased Chinese Demand for Oil Has Driven Prices Upward ............................................................. 158
China’s Oil Demand Increases Crude Oil Price Volatility ..................................................................... 158
China’s Rise Threatens the Environment ....................................................................................................... 159
China’s Resource Consumption Rate is Rising ...................................................................................... 159
China Leaves a Huge Ecological Footprint That Must be Addressed .................................................... 159
China’s Emissions Will Grow Until at Least 2030 ................................................................................. 160
China’s Leading Officials Recognize Massive Environmental Degradation As a Result Of China’s
Economic Growth (or Rise) .................................................................................................................... 160
Despite China’s Recognition of Major Harm to the Environment, China Has Now Overtaken the U.S. as
the World’s Largest Greenhouse Gas Contributor.................................................................................. 161
This is bad for the U.S. and the World Because It Increases Global Warming ...................................... 161
China Emits Massive Amounts of CO2 and is Exempt due to Its Developing Country Status ............. 162
China’s Number One Priority is Economic Growth, Not the Environment ........................................... 162
Global Warming Risks Extinction and Other Astronomically Negative Impacts .................................. 163
Global Warming Causes Disease, Famine, and Flood ............................................................................ 164
The Chinese Regime Won’t Collapse ............................................................................................................. 165
CCP is Adaptable .................................................................................................................................... 165
CCP Can Regulate Itself ......................................................................................................................... 165
CCP Foreign Policy is Adaptable ........................................................................................................... 166
CCP Is Meritocratic ................................................................................................................................ 166
Xi Proves that China is Meritocratic ....................................................................................................... 166
How the Meritocracy Works ................................................................................................................... 167
CCP is Legitimate ................................................................................................................................... 167
foundationbriefs.com
Page 7 of 265
February 2013
Table of Contents
CCP Derives Its Legitimacy from Moral Legitimacy............................................................................. 168
Chinese Government Isn’t Repressive Beyond Measure........................................................................ 168
No Impending Corruption-Driven Collapse ............................................................................................... 169
Corruption Won’t Derail the Government .............................................................................................. 169
China Is Tackling Corruption ................................................................................................................. 169
Media Is More Independent, Allows for Anti-Corruption ...................................................................... 170
Competition Will Reduce Corruption ..................................................................................................... 170
No Impending Economic Collapse ............................................................................................................. 171
Urbanization Will Drive the Economy ................................................................................................... 171
Entrepreneurship Will Reinvigorate the Economy ................................................................................. 171
Chinese Research and Development Hurts United States .............................................................................. 172
Basic Effects of Decline in U.S. Research and Development ................................................................ 172
The Importance of Research/Science Dominance .................................................................................. 173
How Chinese Rise Hurts the United States Technologically.................................................................. 175
Problems in United States Research and Development .......................................................................... 175
The Decline of the United States’ Share of World S&E Workforce ...................................................... 176
The Decline of United States Technological Impact .............................................................................. 178
Research and Development Increase in China........................................................................................ 179
The Effects of the United States S&E Decline ....................................................................................... 180
The United States Falls Back Economically........................................................................................... 181
The United States Falls Back in Education............................................................................................. 182
United States Falls Back Opening Quotes .............................................................................................. 183
Pro Counters........................................................................................................................................................ 184
China trades fairly ........................................................................................................................................... 185
Currency manipulation is an exaggerated threat ..................................................................................... 185
Officially, China is no longer a currency manipulator ........................................................................... 186
Currency manipulation does not cause unemployment .......................................................................... 186
Currency Manipulation Is Not the Problem ............................................................................................ 187
Trade with China is good ................................................................................................................................ 188
foundationbriefs.com
Page 8 of 265
February 2013
Table of Contents
Trade deficit is not correlated with a bad economy ................................................................................ 188
Trade helps the U.S. economy, ............................................................................................................... 188
China cannot blackmail us with its investments, .................................................................................... 188
China does not hold a significant amount of U.S. debt .......................................................................... 189
Job losses due to competition are not inevitable ..................................................................................... 190
China also depends on the U.S. .............................................................................................................. 191
Dumping can be easily countered ........................................................................................................... 191
No Connection with Trade Deficits and Industrial Decline.................................................................... 192
A Trade Deficit Does Not Mean China Trades Unfairly ........................................................................ 192
The Trade Deficit with China is much Smaller Than Reported ............................................................. 194
China Would Not Use its US Securities as Leverage ............................................................................. 195
How Chinese Research Helps the United States ............................................................................................ 196
How to Work around China .................................................................................................................... 196
Trade Problems not China’s Fault .......................................................................................................... 197
How China Helps Technology Improve Worldwide .............................................................................. 198
United States Assets are not Vulnerable ......................................................................................................... 199
United States Turmoil Exaggerated ........................................................................................................ 199
The United States is Not Economically Threatened by China ....................................................................... 200
The United States has Little Reason to Fear ........................................................................................... 200
The Historical Patter of Influence ........................................................................................................... 200
The Chinese Debt-Fueled Bubble ........................................................................................................... 201
The United States is Young .................................................................................................................... 202
Chinese Bargaining Power Falters .......................................................................................................... 203
China has a high poverty rate.................................................................................................................. 203
China’s economic gains have not gone to its people .............................................................................. 204
The United States Still Holds the Science and Engineering Edge .................................................................. 205
Why United States Research and Development is Safe.......................................................................... 205
Research Problems are Exaggerated ....................................................................................................... 208
Problems in Chinese Scientific Development......................................................................................... 209
foundationbriefs.com
Page 9 of 265
February 2013
Table of Contents
The Education Gap is Exaggerated ......................................................................................................... 210
Basic United States Research Surpasses China ...................................................................................... 210
Chinese Technological Stagnation .......................................................................................................... 211
United States Superiority in Patents ....................................................................................................... 211
Basic Flaws in General Measures of Chinese Scientific Superiority ..................................................... 212
Chinese engineers are not that many and not that good.......................................................................... 212
The Big Chinese Firm Decline ............................................................................................................... 213
China’s Oil Activities Are Benign to U.S. Interests ....................................................................................... 214
Both China and the U.S. Seek Peace and Stability in the Middle East................................................... 214
China Seeks to Accommodate the U.S. in the Middle East .................................................................... 214
China Does Not Threaten U.S. Oil Security ........................................................................................... 216
Oil Driven Conflict in the South China Sea is Not Inevitable ................................................................ 217
China’s Support For Pariah States Is Waning ................................................................................................ 218
China Has Overhauled Its Policies Toward Pariah States ...................................................................... 218
Chinese Concern Over Image Limit Its Support for Pariah States ......................................................... 219
US allies in the region is irrelevant ................................................................................................................. 220
China’s Rise Not Bad for the Environment .................................................................................................... 221
Despite China’s Rise, U.S. is Still Number One Culprit for Global Warming....................................... 221
China’s Populace Is Pushing For a Change in Environmental Policy .................................................... 222
The Current Zeitgeist in China is Pushing for Environmental Reform .................................................. 223
China’s New Five Year Plan Means A Shift in Environmental Policy NP 12-9 .................................... 223
Answers To Declining U.S. Hegemony.......................................................................................................... 224
The U.S. Has Already Lost its Clout as A Global Superpower—it has nothing to do with the Rise of
China ....................................................................................................................................................... 224
The U.S.’s Diminished Ability to Lead the World has Been Substantiated in the Last Decade through its
Failed attempts to resolve the Iran-Israel Conflict .................................................................................. 225
China’s Rise Means a World without a Global Hegemon-this is good for peace and relations ............. 226
China Does Not Have the Ability to Take Over as Global Hegemon .................................................... 227
We are Now Entering a Post Hegemonic World .................................................................................... 228
Lack of Counterbalancing Power bad for US ......................................................................................... 229
foundationbriefs.com
Page 10 of 265
February 2013
Table of Contents
China will Force a Needed Change in American Politics....................................................................... 229
Answers to Cyber Security ............................................................................................................................. 230
Western Portrayals of a China Cyber “Build Up” Are Inaccurate.......................................................... 230
China is a the Number 1 Victim of Cyber Attacks ................................................................................. 230
China has a Host of Cyber Security Problems, Not a Threat.................................................................. 231
Most Cyber Attacks Come From US ...................................................................................................... 231
US-China Cooperation on Cybersecurity Key to Creating Secure World .............................................. 231
US Has Secure Control of Cyber ............................................................................................................ 232
Counter to Corruption in China ...................................................................................................................... 233
China Cuts Down on Corruption ............................................................................................................ 233
Con Counters ...................................................................................................................................................... 234
China’s Military is Powerful Enough to Present a Risk ................................................................................. 235
China is Still a Threat ............................................................................................................................. 235
China’s Rise Will Not Be Peaceful................................................................................................................. 237
History Proves that Great Power’s Rises are not Peaceful ..................................................................... 237
President of China has Declared a “Culture War” .................................................................................. 237
America is in Decline ..................................................................................................................................... 238
China is beating the U.S. in manufacturing ............................................................................................ 238
American entrepreneurship has been declining ...................................................................................... 240
American entrepreneurs are failing ......................................................................................................... 241
The American education system is not producing entrepreneurs ........................................................... 241
Answer to China’s Rise Increases Manufacturing Jobs In the U.S. ............................................................... 242
Jobs Will Move to Other Countries Before Reaching the U.S. .............................................................. 242
Trade with China Not Good............................................................................................................................ 243
China’s Economic Tactics are Manipulative and Unfair to the United States ....................................... 243
China’s Tariffs and Resulting U.S. Tariffs Create a Trade War that is Bad for the Health of the Economy
................................................................................................................................................................. 244
U.S. Trade with China is Unstable and Undermines U.S. Manufacturing Jobs ..................................... 245
China Not Declining ....................................................................................................................................... 246
Chinese workers are extremely productive ............................................................................................. 246
foundationbriefs.com
Page 11 of 265
February 2013
Table of Contents
China is investing in education ............................................................................................................... 247
China’s Companies Continue to Grow in Success—Look to The Forbes Fortune 500 ......................... 248
Entrepreneurship is responsible for current Chinese growth .................................................................. 248
China has time before it hits the middle income trap ............................................................................. 249
China’s GDP per capita is growing rapidly ............................................................................................ 250
China’s Population Poised For Economic Prowess .................................................................................... 250
While U.S. Companies Slow, Chinese Consumers are Equipped with Larger Purchasing Power than
Ever Before ............................................................................................................................................. 250
China’s Population Headed Away From Social Tumult and Towards Economic Gains ....................... 251
China’s Economic Growth Is Sustainable .................................................................................................. 252
While Other Countries Face Spending Cuts and the So-Called Fiscal Cliff, China Only has to Focus on
Growth-A Much Simpler Task ............................................................................................................... 252
China’s Economic Growth Will Be More Sustainable than it Has Been in the Past .............................. 253
China’s New and Enlarged Middle Class will Sustain Economic Growth ............................................. 253
The Argument that China Needs to Invest Less and Consume More is Overstated ............................... 254
Corruption in the Chinese Government is Bad for the U.S. ........................................................................... 255
Corruption within the People’s Liberation Army Can Be Dangerous for the U.S. ................................ 255
Secrecy and Corruption is More Dangerous for the U.S. Because of a Lack of Transparency Created by
the Government ....................................................................................................................................... 256
Limited Transparency in China’s Military is Historically True and Increases Likelihood for
Miscalculation by The U.S. .................................................................................................................... 258
There Is Evidence Showing China is Not Transparent about Its Projection and Weaponization
Capabilities-this could potentially harm the U.S. ................................................................................... 259
Counter to China Collapse .............................................................................................................................. 260
A China Collapse Would be a Disaster for World and US ..................................................................... 260
Even A Revolution Would be Contrary to US Interests ......................................................................... 260
Cases ................................................................................................................................................................... 261
Pro Case .......................................................................................................................................................... 262
Introduction: ................................................................................................................................................ 262
Contention One: America remains powerful .............................................................................................. 262
Contention Two: China’s rise is exaggerated ............................................................................................. 262
foundationbriefs.com
Page 12 of 265
February 2013
Table of Contents
Contention Three: China’s rise is not sustainable....................................................................................... 263
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 263
Con Case ......................................................................................................................................................... 264
Introduction: ................................................................................................................................................ 264
Contention One: China Is Prepared To Confront the U.S. ......................................................................... 264
Contention Two: China’s Economic Rise Has Placed China in a Position of Power Over the US............ 264
Contention Three: Corruption and Lack of Transparency in the Chinese Government Means China’s Rise
Could be Measurably Worse for the U.S. ................................................................................................... 265
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 265
foundationbriefs.com
Page 13 of 265
February 2013
Definitions
The Structure of a Foundation Brief
Topic Analysis
This is a general reflection on the resolution. It will provide to you an impression of the topic at hand,
challenges you will face while debating, and a picture of where we see the debate headed.
Defend Your Source
Back by popular demand is our Defend Your Source section. This is an index of all of the most
important authors and organizations that will allow you to more effectively defend your evidence in round.
Important note: Webpages and online articles that are long and continuous will always be cited as page one (1)
foundationbriefs.com
Page 14 of 265
February 2013
Definitions
Definitions
National Interests Defined As Security
Sarkesian, Sam C., John A. Willaims, and Stephen J. Cimbala. U.S. National Security:
Policymakers, Processes, and Politics. Boulder: L. Rienner, 1989. Print.
US national interests are expressions of US values projected into the international and domestic arenas. The
purpose of interests includes the creation and perpetuation of an international environment that is most
favorable to the peaceful pursuit of US values. It follows that interests nurture and expand democracy and open
systems. Similarly, the United States wishes to prevent the expansion of closed systems by their use of force or
indirect aggression. In the twenty-first century, the domestic arena has become an important consideration in
pursuing national interests because of asymmetrical threats, the information age, and international terrorism.8
Such concerns were heightened by the September 11 terrorist attacks and increased with the US involvement in
Iraq.
Three statements serve as reference points. First, US values as they apply to the external world are at the core of
national interests. Second, pursuing national interests does not mean that US national security strategy is limited
to the homeland. This may require power projection into various parts of the world, especially when combating
international terrorism. Third, the president is the focal point in defining and articulating US nation- al interests.
US Interests Defined by DoD
Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defense 2005.
The foundation for the development of valid national objectives that define US goals or purposes. National
security interests include preserving US political identity, framework, and institutions; fostering economic wellbeing; and bolstering international order supporting the vital interests of the United States and its allies.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 15 of 265
February 2013
Definitions
National Interest Defined by the Director of the Strategic Studies Institute
Roskin, Michael. National Interest: From Abstraction to Strategy. Carlisle Barracks, PA:
Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 1994. Print.
The "national interest" is a composite declaration derived from those values that a nation prizes most–liberty,
freedom,security. Interests are usually expressed in terms of physical survival, economic prosperity, and
political sovereignty. The list invariably expands, and is ultimately shaped by subjective preferences and
political debate. As an object of political debate, the concept of national interest serves to propose ,justify, or
denounce policies.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 16 of 265
February 2013
Topic Analysis One
Topic Analysis One
Resolution:
This month’s resolution appears straightforward, but brings up several complex issues. Although there are other
considerations debate will likely center on three topics:
1. China as a physical threat: Chinese military technology and priorities.
2. Economics: debt, interest rates, and trade agreements.
3. Research and Development: Chinese scientific prosperity: education, research, and jobs.
The topic will require teams to evaluate several key questions:



How will China’s recent economic growth affect the United States economy?
Is China a military threat to the United States?
Does Chinese research and development hurt or help the United States?
Burden
In this debate the burden falls on the Pro. Con teams need only propose several ways that China threatens the
United States. Pro teams must both counter these attacks and conclusively prove that China is beneficial to the
United States. Thus, even if Con teams fail to provide significant harms, Pro teams will lose unless they spend
time explaining the benefits of the rise of China.
Definitions:
This resolution is interesting but fairly vague--a common trend with recent debate topics. The phrase “on
balance” clearly requires both teams to weigh the positives of the rise of China against the negatives to consider
whether or not these positives make the rise overall “beneficial.” This part of the definition will also require
teams to evaluate the difference between a positive sum world and a zero sum world; which another topic
analysis will explain in depth.
The murkiest parts of this resolution are “rise of China” and “interests of the United States.” Most debates will
likely consider China’s economic and military advances, but teams can broaden this phrase to include the
political rise of China, the increase in Chinese patents, etc. In order to win this debate both teams must clearly
lay out the “interests” of the United States for the judge. These interests should mostly correlate to teams’
definition of “the rise of China.” For example, if a team focuses on the economic rise of China the team ought
foundationbriefs.com
Page 17 of 265
February 2013
to define the United States economic interests.
Topic Analysis One
Strategies:
Pro Teams
Pro teams have two responsibilities with this topic:
1. Discount/counter all negative effects of the rise of China presented by the Con.
2. Explain the benefits of the rise of China to the United States.
On the Pro it is not sufficient to merely claim that China has no real impact on United States interests. Instead,
the Pro must illustrate clear economic, political, and/or social benefits to the United States and explain how
these benefits outweigh any disadvantages to win this debate.
The Pro must provide benefits for one or more of the three main considerations of this topic (China as a
physical threat, China economically, and Chinese research and development).
When considering the Chinese military threat Pro teams should demonstrate that China is building a strong
military to defend herself against approaching threats. Pro teams would also do well to provide evidence that
United States weaponry is still superior.
If research and development becomes a big part of the debate, Pro teams can show that Chinese research
advances help the entire world--you will find ample evidence to support this argument in the brief.
The final primary consideration is economics, which will likely become the cloudiest part of this debate. For
this piece I have two big pieces of advice: first, clearly understand the economic theory behind your points.
Second, take time to delineate the economics of your case for the judge. Many teams did poorly with last year’s
December topic considering tax increases and spending cuts because they failed to explain the economic jargon
thrown around in their debates. Never assume that a judge fully understands the implications of even simple
economic theory.
Con Teams
Because the burden falls to Pro teams in this debate, Con teams need only really focus on one area that China
harms the United States. For example, if a Con team decides to focus on economics the team should provide
several ways that Chinese growth harms the United States economically.
Con teams can also counter examples of advantages by arguing that the United States would have benefitted
more from a given example without Chinese involvement. For example, if a Pro team provides evidence that
Chinese students often get jobs with American firms, the Con could argue that the same firm would have
benefitted more from an American employee in the same position. This opportunity cost slant can be tricky to
explain to a judge, but can also be an effective way to frame the debate.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 18 of 265
February 2013
Topic Analysis One
Concluding Advice:
1. Read. As with every debate topic, events are rapidly changing. Stay up to date on the news.
2. Be clear. When discussing complicated questions of economics and trade, clarity is absolutely essential.
Be sure to break these issues down for every judge.
3. Consider carefully. This topic covers a huge amount of material. Teams should be sure to examine
different perspectives and the full implications of the rise of China.
--Amanda Sopkin
foundationbriefs.com
Page 19 of 265
February 2013
Topic Analysis Two
Topic Analysis Two
Positive and Zero Sum Worlds
China’s ascent from a backward nation in the 1960’s to rising super power in the 21st century following Deng
Xiaoping’s reforms beginning in 1978 inspired great debate on both its immediate and long term consequences,
yet behind the resolution lies a discussion on fundamental aspects of international relations. Setting aside the
definition of US interests, this topic analysis will focus on the two most relevant lenses through which foreign
policy is assessed: positive sum and zero sum perspectives.
These ideas have their root in game theory, which describes results due to competition or cooperation in
interactions between parties. A zero sum world is one in which one’s gain is another’s loss while a positive sum
world posits that everybody can be a winner. For example, a debate round is a zero sum format; one team will
win and that means the other team will lose. The victory and the loss cancel each other out, that is, all of the
positives and negatives sum to zero. On the other hand, the quintessential positive sum game is the prisoner’s
dilemma, where cooperation creates a world that maximizes each party’s interest. For those on the Pro side, the
positive sum interpretation offers the best path to a win, while those on the Con would do better argue that the
world is zero sum.
Some of the most prevalent arguments for this resolution rely on direct conflict between the US and China, but
while these cases would be tremendously disastrous, a more nuanced argument proves more convincing than the
unlikely nightmare scenarios. With this in mind, positive sum and zero sum worlds lie near the heart of most of
the arguments that have the greatest potential.
Strategies for each side:
Pro
The Paradigm Debate:
Perhaps the best evidence of the world operating in a positive sum manner would be civilization
itself. Cooperation has allowed humanity to soar to ever greater heights and forms the basis of society. More
immediately, trade between nations grows both economies and proves beneficial for all involved. Emphasizing
cooperative aspects of foreign affairs, which have become increasingly evident in a world of globalization
proves a powerful argument. The Pro has a definite advantage in this debate, but allowing the Con to win that
China’s gain is America’s loss makes winning the round incredibly difficult if not impossible.
Application:
So what does this mean for the debate? Well, simplified it implies that both China and the US can benefit from
China’s rise. Trade is one of the largest areas to emphasize within the win-win relationship, for example cheap
foundationbriefs.com
Page 20 of 265
February 2013
Topic Analysis Two
Chinese labor allows for cheaper products, increasing the amount of goods a consumer can buy (the debate on
trade with China has much greater depth that is covered in the brief). While China may have taken American
manufacturing jobs, America’s work force can adapt to a new economy. One could also discuss potential
cooperation on areas ranging from security to the environment, and argue that China’s rise has presented a peer
with whom meaningful solutions are possible. In the brief are also arguments that having a rival in China will
spark both a healthy competition and a much needed reboot of highly partisan American politics.
Con:
Paradigm debate:
A zero sum world is that of a hard realist. Either China or America can hold influence; power cannot be shared
in the current global environment. Since the United States has been the undisputed hegemon, with the rise of
another great state, the US must have less power and therefore less ability to protect and enforce its interests.
While causality can be disputed, another nation’s rise has, at least historically, correlated with a great empire’s
fall. Winning a paradigm debate is less important for the Con, as a myriad of arguments still exist to prove that
on balance, a more powerful China is not beneficial for the US.
Application:
If the Con wins that the world is zero sum, their job becomes incredibly simple. China’s rise means that
someone else is losing: their fast growth means less for the US and its allies, their influence over the region
means less for the US, and every resource it consumes is one not available for the US. In a zero sum world,
sharing means that you will have less with no benefits, so China’s rise hinders long and short-term interests of
the US: another nation consuming industrial and energy resources hastens a resource or environmental crisis,
and China has frequently proven obstructionist to America’s goals abroad.
A couple final pieces of advice:
It is helpful to understand the international relations theory that lies behind this debate, but always keep the
focus on China and how it relates to the US and its interests.
‘On balance’ means that you can lose certain aspects of the debate but still win the debate if you frame it
properly.
Best of luck with this topic!
Peter Adelson
foundationbriefs.com
Page 21 of 265
February 2013
Topic Analysis Three
Topic Analysis Three
Good debaters know their evidence. Great debaters know how to explain their evidence. In a resolution with as
much information as this one, explaining your points will be critical in persuading your judge. With that in
mind, here are three key criteria that will help to persuade your judge that China is either beneficial or harmful
to America’s interests.



Track Record
o What a country has done is a blueprint for what a country will do. This not only applies to
China’s economic and military policies, but also to what other rising powers have done in similar
situations. By pointing out the similarities and differences between what China is doing and what
other countries have done in the past, you can cement your case with concrete examples. No one
can fully know the future; but by using history to support your claims you can come close.
Intent
o In politics, this part is always the hardest. What a country says it will do often runs contrary to
what it actually does. But establishing this part of the debate will be crucial. Proving that China
wants to help/hurt us goes a long way in either diminishing or exacerbating the threat of China’s
power in the judge’s mind.
Capability
o Wanting to do something and being able to do it are two very different things. Peeling back
layers of economic theory, political theory, and scholarly studies is extremely tedious but also
100% necessary. Despite China’s track record and intent, its foreign policy is ultimately
dependent upon what it can and can’t do. By showing the judge exactly what China’s capacities
are, it becomes much easier to analyze whether China’s rise hurts or helps America’s interests.
Strategies
Pro
The strongest line of reasoning for the Pro is that China obtaining superpower status would be bad for America.
Countries don’t like to share power, and often come into conflict when they do. However, America has faced
many challengers and so far all of them have had one thing in common: they failed. And so will China.


Track Record
o The Asian Developmental model does not work in the long run (Ex. Japan)
o China’s has had a large economy many times in its past; however it has never been a superpower
even once
Intent
foundationbriefs.com
Page 22 of 265
February 2013
Topic Analysis Three
o Regardless of political statements, China’s future growth depends on our future growth; thus it
benefits them to see us grow (They are an economy based on trade; thus they need good trade
partners)
 Capability
o China’s economy is not as impressive as it seems (Ex. Debt and GDP per capita numbers)
o China’s military is improving but not fast enough to be a threat
o America remains powerful (Ex. Share of world’s economy)
o China will be caught in the middle income trap
Con
The simplest thing for the Con to argue is that foreign policy is just another form of war except that it’s fought
politically instead of physically. By framing international politics as a competition, the judge will view each and
every gain by China as a loss for America, not matter how trivial. This way, your framework amplifies every
argument and impact.



Track Record
o China resorts to unfair trade tactics
o America’s traditional economic strengths are fading (ex. Entrepreneurship)
Intent
o China will use each and every American weakness to its advantage (ex. Cyber warfare)
o China bullies smaller countries in its region
Capability
o China is a manufacturing giant
o China’s economy is multifaceted and has both a healthy public sector and a thriving private
sector
Conclusion
Finally, remember that your judges are people, not machines. They will not know every fact about China, and
quite frankly, it’s not their job to know. It’s your job to educate them.
Good Luck!
foundationbriefs.com
Page 23 of 265
Defend Your Source
foundationbriefs.com
Page 24 of 265
February 2013
Defend Your Source
Author Index
Thomas J. Christensen
Thomas J. Christensen is William P. Boswell Professor of World Politics of Peace and War and Director of the
China and the World Program at Princeton University. From 2006-2008 he served as Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs with responsibility for relations with China, Taiwan, and
Mongolia.
Ding Gang
Ding Gang is a senior editor with the People's Daily.
Andrew Jacobs
Andrew Jacobs has been a staff writer for The New York Times for eight years. He provides focused analysis
and research on the United States economy and international relations.
Jonathan Kaiman
Jonathan Kaiman is a reporter at The Guardian
Christopher Layne
Christopher Layne is Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and National Security at the George Bush School of
Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University.
Kenneth Lieberthal
Kenneth Guy Lieberthal is an American academic. He is senior fellow in Foreign Policy and Global Economy
and Development at the Brookings Institution
foundationbriefs.com
Page 25 of 265
February 2013
Defend Your Source
Eric Liu
Eric Liu is an author, educator and civic entrepreneur. He’s the author of The Accidental Asian and Guiding
Lights and co-author of Imagination First, The True Patriot and The Gardens of Democracy
John J. Mearshimer
John Mearshimer is a political science professor at the University of Chicago. He is widely considered a master
of international relations theory and has written several critically acclaimed books concerning foreign policy.
Carl Minzner
Carl Minzner is an expert in Chinese law and governance. He has written extensively on these topics in both
academic journals and the popular press, including op-eds appearing in the New York Times, Wall Street
Journal, Los Angeles Times, and Christian Science Monitor.
Wayne Morrison
Wayne Morrison is a Specialist in Asian Trade and Finance working for the Congressional Research Office.
Andrew Nathan
Andrew J. Nathan is a professor at Columbia University and writer for Foreign Affairs
Michael Rosking
Michael Roskin was Visiting Professor of Foreign Policy in the Department of National Security and Strategy at
the U.S. Army War College, 1991-94. He has been a Professor of Political Science at Lycoming College since
1972 and has authored five political science textbooks. Professor Roskin earlier worked as a newsman and
foreign service officer for the U.S. Information Agency before earning a Ph.D. in international studies at
American University.
Andrew Rosenthal
Andrew Rosenthal is an American journalist and editorial page editor of The New York Times.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 26 of 265
February 2013
Defend Your Source
Andrew Scobell
Dr. Andrew Scobell is Senior Political Scientist at RAND’s Washington, DC, office. Prior to this, he was an
Associate Professor of International Affairs at the George H. W. Bush School of Government and Public
Service and Director of the China Certificate Program at Texas A&M University.
Sam Sarkesian
Sam C. Sarkesian was a prominent scholar of civil-military relations and national security, who published
numerous books and articles concerning various topics in these areas.
Andrew Wedeman
Andrew Wedeman received his doctorate in Political Science from the University of California, Los Angeles in
1994 and is a Professor of Political Science at Georgia State University. Wedeman has held posts a visiting
research professor at Beijing University, a Visiting Associate Professor of Political Science at the Johns
Hopkins Nanjing University Center for Sino-American Studies and a Fulbright Research Professorship at
Taiwan National University during 2001-2. Today Wedeman is dedicated to research about United StatesChina relations.
Edward Wong
Edward Wong is an American journalist and a foreign correspondent for The New York Times
Ming Xia
Ming Xia is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the College of Staten Island/CUNY. He holds a B.A.
and M.A. from Fudan University, China and a Ph.D. degree from Temple University.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 27 of 265
February 2013
Defend Your Source
Organization Index
Asia Times
Asia Times Online is comprised of publications that report on and examine geopolitical, political, economic and
business issues. The organization is served by more than 50 correspondents and contributors in 25 Asian
countries, the US, and Europe. Additional content is provided by news services and renowned think tank and
investment analysts and academics.
The Atlantic
The Atlantic is an American magazine founded in 1857 in Boston, Massachusetts, as The Atlantic Monthly. It
quickly achieved a national reputation, which it has held for more than 150 years. It publishes leading writers'
commentary on abolition, education, and other major issues in contemporary political affairs.
The Belfer Center
The Belfer Center is the hub of the Harvard Kennedy School's research, teaching, and training in international
security affairs, environmental and resource issues, and science and technology policy.
Bloomberg News
Bloomberg is a premier site for business and financial market news. It delivers world economic news, stock
futures, stock quotes, & personal finance advice.
The Cato Institute
The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of
individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent,
nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues
China Global Trade.com
ChinaGlobalTrade.com aims to foster open, honest, fact-based dialogue. To do so, the site produces “Content
Packages” designed to cover a key issue in a way that brings balance to the discussion by presenting viewpoints
foundationbriefs.com
Page 28 of 265
February 2013
Defend Your Source
from all perspectives within the debate; infuses facts (data) into the dialogue; and encourages readers/ listeners/
viewers to look at the issue from new angles.
Congressional Budget Office
Since its founding in 1974, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has produced independent analyses of
budgetary and economic issues to support the Congressional budget process. The agency is strictly nonpartisan
and conducts objective, impartial analysis, which is evident in each of the dozens of reports and hundreds of
cost estimates that its economists and policy analysts produce each year. All CBO employees are appointed
solely on the basis of professional competence, without regard to political affiliation. CBO does not make
policy recommendations, and each report and cost estimate discloses the agency’s assumptions and
methodologies.
DoD Dictionary
Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms sets forth standard US military and
associated terminology to encompass the joint activity of the Armed Forces of the United States. These military
and associated terms, together with their definitions, constitute approved Department of Defense (DOD)
terminology for general use by all DOD components.
Economic Policy Institute
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a non-profit, non-partisan think tank, was created in 1986 to broaden
discussions about economic policy to include the needs of low- and middle-income workers. EPI believes every
working person deserves a good job with fair pay, affordable health care, and retirement security. To achieve
this goal, EPI conducts research and analysis on the economic status of working America. EPI proposes public
policies that protect and improve the economic conditions of low- and middle-income workers and assesses
policies with respect to how they affect those workers.
The Economist
The Economist online offers authoritative insight and opinion on international news, politics, business, finance,
science and technology.
Forbes
foundationbriefs.com
Page 29 of 265
February 2013
Defend Your Source
Forbes is a leading Internet media company, among the most trusted resources for the world's business and
investment leaders, providing them the uncompromising commentary, concise analysis, relevant tools and realtime reporting they need to succeed at work, profit from investing and have fun with the rewards of winning.
Foreign Affairs
Journal of global current events, foreign policy, and international relations published by the Council on Foreign
Relations. Chronological, regional, topical, bibliographical, and searchable indices of current and past reports,
as well as reader services and magazine background and history.
The Guardian
The Guardian, known until 1959 as The Manchester Guardian (founded 1821), is a British national daily
newspaper. Currently edited by Alan Rusbridger, it has grown from a 19th-century local paper to a national
paper associated with a complex organisational structure and international multimedia and web presence. Its
sister papers include The Observer (British Sunday paper) and The Guardian Weekly.
Hearing before the Congressional Executive Commission on China
This hearing was held at the 112th congress to evaluate Chinese trade promises to the United States. The
testimony from the hearing provides facts and analysis from leading United States congressmen, economists,
and other leaders concerning China’s role in trade.
Los Angeles Times
The Los Angeles Times is a leading source of news on Southern California, entertainment, movies, television,
music, politics, business, health, technology, travel, sports, environment, economics, autos, jobs, real estate and
other topics affecting Californians. We provide award-winning writing about the nation, world and California.
National Bureau of Asian Research
NBR conducts advanced independent research on strategic, political, economic, globalization, health, and
energy issues affecting U.S. relations with Asia. Drawing upon an extensive network of the world’s leading
specialists and leveraging the latest technology, NBR bridges the academic, business, and policy arenas.
NBR disseminates its research through briefings, publications, conferences, Congressional testimony, and email
forums, and by collaborating with leading institutions worldwide. NBR also provides exceptional internship
foundationbriefs.com
Page 30 of 265
February 2013
Defend Your Source
opportunities to graduate and undergraduate students for the purposes of attracting and training the next
generation of Asia specialists.
The National Interest
The National Interest is a bimonthly foreign-policy journal offering cutting edge analysis of politics, national
security and economics.
The New England Journal of Medicine
The New England Journal of Medicine provides information about biomedical science and new studies
surrounding clinical practice for the world’s leading doctors and scientists.
The Population Reference Bureau
The PRB seeks to inform decision makers about international dynamics concerning population, health, and the
environment. The PRB conducts research with acclaimed universities and research think tanks to provide
quality analysis.
RAND Corporation
The Rand Corporation provides research and policy analysis concerning international affairs. This policy center
has been around for more than 60 years and provides valuable research about current events.
SITC
The Project on the Study of Innovation and Technology in China (SITC) seeks to understand the approaches,
challenges, and prospects for success in China’s quest for technological transformation.
Stanford University
Stanford is recognized as one of the world’s leading universities. Multidisciplinary research and teaching are at
the heart of recent university-wide initiatives on human health, the environment and sustainability, international
affairs and the arts. These initiatives offer our faculty and students opportunities for collaboration across
disciplines that will be key to future advances.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 31 of 265
February 2013
Defend Your Source
Testimony before the House Committee on Ways and Means
The Committee on Ways and Means is the oldest committee of the United States Congress, and is the chief taxwriting committee in the House of Representatives. Testimony before this committee is presented by experts on
the topic at hand to provide information for United States’ lawmakers.
Third World Quarterly
The leading journal of scholarship and policy in the field of international studies. For almost two decades, it
has set the agenda on Third World affairs. As the most influential academic journal covering the emerging
world, Third World Quarterly is at the forefront of analysis and commentary on fundamental issues of global
concern. Third World Quarterly provides expert and interdisciplinary insight into crucial issues before they
impinge upon media attention, as well as coverage of the latest publications in its comprehensive book review
section.
Third World Quarterly's original articles provide diverse perspectives on the developmental process and a
candid discussion on democratic transitions as well as identifying significant political, economic and social
issues. Readable, free from esoteric jargon, informed without being abstruse, always authoritative and often
provocative, Third World Quarterly covers the key North-South developments in the post-wall world.
The United States-China Business Council
The US-China Business Council, Inc. (USCBC) is a private, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization of roughly 240
American companies that do business with China. Founded in 1973, USCBC has provided unmatched
information, advisory, advocacy, and program services to its membership for more than three decades. Through
its offices in Washington, DC; Beijing; and Shanghai, USCBC is uniquely positioned to serve its members'
interests in the United States and China.
The University of Chicago Booth School Of Business
Since 1898, The Booth School of Business has produced ideas and leaders that shape the world of business. Six
of the Booth School’s faculty members have won Nobel Prizes for these ideas - the first business school to
achieve this accomplishment.
The University of Chicago Law School
foundationbriefs.com
Page 32 of 265
February 2013
Defend Your Source
The University of Chicago’s Law School was established in 1902. The institution provides research from some
of the best law professors in the country concerning the humanities, the social sciences, and the natural sciences.
USDA
Founded in 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law an act of Congress establishing the United States
Department of Agriculture. Through our work on food, agriculture, economic development, science, natural
resource conservation and a host of issues, USDA still fulfills Lincoln's vision - touching the lives of every
American, every day.
Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal is an American English-language international daily newspaper with a special emphasis
on business and economic news. The Journal is the largest newspaper in the United States, by circulation.
According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, it has a circulation of 2.1 million copies (including 400,000
online paid subscriptions), as of March 2010,[
The Journal primarily covers American economic and international business topics, and financial news and
issues. Its name derives from Wall Street, located in New York City, which is the heart of the financial district;
it has been printed continuously since its inception on July 8, 1889, by Charles Dow, Edward Jones, and Charles
Bergstresser. The newspaper version has won the Pulitzer Prize thirty-three times, including 2007 prizes for its
reporting on backdated stock options and the adverse effects of China's booming economy
The Washington Quarterly
The Washington Quarterly is published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The journal
provides analysis of topics like the United States’ role in the world, the effects of rising powers like China, etc.
The World Bank
Established in 1944, the World Bank is headquartered in Washington, D.C. We have more than 9,000
employees in more than 100 offices worldwide. We offer support to developing countries through policy
advice, research and analysis, and technical assistance. Our analytical work often underpins World Bank
financing and helps inform developing countries’ own investments. In addition, we support capacity
development in the countries we serve. We also sponsor, host, or participate in many conferences and forums on
issues of development, often in collaboration with partners.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 33 of 265
February 2013
Defend Your Source
World Trade Organization
The World Trade Organization (WTO) deals with the global rules of trade between nations. Its main function is
to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible.
World Wildlife Fund
The World Wildlife Fund is an international non-governmental organization working on issues regarding the
conservation, research and restoration of the environment,
Worldwatch Institute
The Worldwatch Institute is a globally focused environmental research organization based in Washington,
D.C. Worldwatch was named as one of the top ten sustainable development research organizations
by Globescan Survey of Sustainability Experts.
Xinhuanet
Produced by the Xinhua News Agency, Xinhuanet is a world news agency. The organization covers critical
news in eight different languages providing analysis of the problems, strategies, and public life in China.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 34 of 265
Pro Evidence
foundationbriefs.com
Page 35 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Trade w/ China Good
Trade with China is good
Trade with China makes goods cheaper
Kenny, Charles. “What’s Wrong with China Trade? Ask the Candidates” Bloomberg
Businessweek. October 15, 2012.
Christian Broda and John Romalis of the University of Chicago attempt to calculate (PDF) how much the flood
of cheaper-priced Chinese imports has benefited Americans—in particular, lower-income Americans. From
1999 to 2003, they estimate, rising Chinese imports reduced the price of non-durable goods by
2.8%. Since poorer people buy more non-durable goods than rich people as a proportion of overall expenditure,
Chinese exports had a particularly beneficial impact on people at the bottom of America’s income distribution.
Over the longer period from 1994 to 2005, prices for goods purchased by the poorest tenth of the U.S.
population increased by 6 percentage points less than prices for the richest 10 percent of Americans.
In a paper written with David Weinstein at Columbia University, Broda also noted that a huge benefit of trade is
to increase choices among goods. With global trade, you can choose between Hershey’s (HSY) Kisses or
Belgian truffles, Bud (BUD) Light or Amstel (HEIO:NA) Light. The economists estimated that in 2001, the
value to U.S. consumers of that extra choice was worth about $260 billion, or 3 percent of U.S. gross
domestic product.
Developing countries export ever-more different types of goods to the U.S., expanding choice. China, for
example, exported only 510 different types of goods to the U.S. in 1972. By 2001, that had climbed to 10,199
different goods, according to Broda and Weinstein.
Put these two factors together—lower prices and more choice—and they suggest that imports from developing
countries have been a considerable boon for average Americans, perhaps especially for the poorest. Cheaper
goods will also have made the U.S. economy more efficient, which is good for overall employment.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 36 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Trade w/ China Good
Positive Effects of Trade with China
Nick Ottens. “China-US trade ties too important to fear.” Asia Times. October 29, 2011.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/MJ29Cb01.html
While China sells more to America than vice versa, American exports to China are growing at twice the
pace of exports to the rest of the world. China's economy continues to expand at stellar rates every year and
internal demand is increasing. China is a huge market for American services and manufacturers but it is,
in part, shut off from foreign competition.
(...)
Wen was reminded in 2008 of just how dependent China had become on the American economy.
According to official estimates, some 6.7 million Chinese lost their jobs in 2008 because of the global
downturn. when hundreds of thousands of Chinese businesses shuttered. Independent analysts have put the
number of unemployed that year north of 20 million.
What is certain is that during the first 10 months of 2008, the Chinese stock market lost nearly 70% of its value
while exports declined dramatically - and continued to decline into 2009.
By the end of 2008, in the southern Guangdong province alone, China's industrial heartland, one out of five
factories in the major cities there had closed. Home prices dropped by 15% in a single month in Shenzhen.
China knows that it has to enhance its internal demand in the years ahead but cannot be expected to
change from export dependency to a consumption model overnight.
America's economic predicament, which also affects China, isn't just China's fault. If it were to relax all
trade restrictions, the United States could not suddenly get 14 million people back to work.
This card serves two purposes. First, the card explains that American exports to China are growing much
faster than exports to the rest of the world. This important fact is a good counter to con teams which use
the trade deficit to paint China as a threat—although the United States still imports more to China than
it exports, that is changing quickly. Second, this card points out some of the reasons for the trade deficit.
The piece even explains that China is seeking to enhance internal demand. Rather than painting China as
a power-hungry malicious trading partner, the card logically reminds teams that we must be patient for
growth in exports to China.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 37 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Trade w/ China Good
Trade Advantages
N. Gregory Mankiw. Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers . “China’s Trade
and U. S. Manufacturing Jobs.” Testimony Before the House Committee on Ways
and Means
Washington, D.C. October 30, 2003 http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/testi_hcwm.pdf
Trade linkages between the United States and China are substantial and important to both economies. The
United States is China’s most important export market and accounts for roughly one-quarter of all
Chinese exports. U.S. purchases of Chinese goods have risen about 40 percent since 2000, reaching $152
billion (annualized) as of August. This year through August, China has been the second largest source of U.S.
imports, after Canada but ahead of Mexico and Japan.
(...)
foundationbriefs.com
Page 38 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Trade w/ China Good
This growth in Chinese imports into the United States has resulted in imbalanced trade between the United
States and China. The U.S. trade deficit with China in goods is large and more than doubled between 1995 and
2000. So far this year, the U.S. has a $125 billion (annualized) deficit with China, our single largest bilateral
trade deficit. It is important, however, to put this deficit with China into context. At the same time that the
U.S. deficit with China increased, the overall U.S. trade deficit with all countries other than China also
rose sharply (Chart 2). Our trade deficit with the world excluding China is almost four times greater
than our deficit with China. In fact, China’s contribution to the overall U.S. trade deficit has actually
fallen slightly in recent years. China currently contributes about the same fraction of the overall U.S. trade
deficit as it did about 10 years ago (Chart 2). Trade with China accounts for roughly one-fifth of the increase in
the U.S. trade deficit since 1997—slightly less than the contributions from the Euro area or our partners in the
North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
(...)
foundationbriefs.com
Page 39 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Trade w/ China Good
Without China, U.S. export growth would have been even slower. Although U.S. exports to the world
excluding China have fallen since 2000, U.S. exports to China have grown rapidly over the same period
(Chart 3). China was the seventh largest U.S. export market last year, ranking after South Korea and ahead of
France, and is the six largest destination for our exports this year through August. Exports to China have risen
over 55 percent since 2000, to $27 billion in 2003 (through August at an annual rate). Among the products
that the United States exports to China are: $1 billion in oilseeds and grain (roughly 14 percent of all U.S.
exports in this category), $1.3 billion in semiconductors and other electronic components, and $1.5 billion in
transportation products (with statistics for this year through June).
Only China Can Fulfill Goals for American Growth
Rapoza, Kenneth. “Where (And What) China Imports From U.S.” March 26, 2012.
Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/03/26/where-and-what-chinaimports-from-u-s/
President Barack Obama’s National Export Initiative, announced in January 2010, aims to double total
U.S. exports by 2014—a target that requires at least a 15 percent average growth rate per year for five
years. China is among the countries for which U.S. exports have exceeded the global annual average
growth rate of 18% in the initiative’s first two years. China is the only major American export market that
consistently exceeds 15% growth.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 40 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Trade w/ China Good
How Imports Benefit Rural American Consumers
Fred Gale. “How does Growing U.S.-China Trade Affect Rural America?” Rural America
Winter 2002/Volume 17, Issue 4.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/562610/ra174i_1_.pdf
Rural America’s 56 million consumers benefit substantially from the availability of low-priced imported
products. China’s growing production and exports of many consumer items—including footwear, garments,
electronics, and household appliances—has cut prices of many items. China accounts for over half of U.S.
footwear imports, 25 percent of home electronics imports, and 15 percent of apparel imports. Some observers
identify China’s growing manufacturing capacity as a factor leading to global deflation (Leggett and Wonacott).
Rural households and other consumers benefit from lower prices for consumer products. Rural
households tend to have lower incomes than their urban counterparts, so rural consumers may be
especially receptive to low-priced imports from China. The rapid growth in rural communities of discount
stores stocked with a wide variety of products sourced in China is consistent with this notion.
Consider the potential savings on footwear purchases as an example. China’s exports likely keep U.S.
footwear prices down by increasing the supply of low-priced footwear. In 2000, U.S. footwear production
was valued at $3.8 billion, while footwear imports were $10.5 billion. These figures suggest that about 70
percent of U.S. footwear was imported. Census Bureau foreign trade figures show that 56 percent of U.S.
footwear imports came from China. Thus, these figures suggest that Chinese imports account for about 40
percent of the U.S. market. It is likely that the large presence of Chinese imports reduces shoe prices paid by
U.S. consumers. The savings to rural consumers could be substantial since calculations based on Bureau
of Labor Statistics data on consumer expenditures suggest that rural spending on footwear totaled $3.6
billion in 2000. If the availability of Chinese imports reduces prices by just 1 percent, savings to rural
consumers would be $36 million. Savings to rural consumers could also be substantial for other industries
where competition from Chinese imports has likely kept prices from rising: apparel (rural expenditures of $18.5
billion), household electronics (rural expenditures of $8.1 billion) and small household appliances (rural
expenditures of $800 million).
foundationbriefs.com
Page 41 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Trade w/ China Good
Chinese Investment in United States Businesses
Erin Ailworth. “Chinese investment in the US hits record level:Wanxiang Group deal
with Mass. firm helps set mark.” January 2, 2013. The Boston Globe.
http://bostonglobe.com/business/2013/01/02/mass-deals-help-set-record-for-chineseinvestment/qjylumkKdjaUic4sEXGCzN/story.html
Chinese investment in American businesses hit a record $6.5 billion in 2012, with the third largest deal
closing in Massachusetts when China’s biggest auto parts maker invested in a Cambridge alternative energy
firm.
In May, auto parts conglomerate Wanxiang Group agreed to take a $420 million minority stake in GreatPoint
Energy , which is working to make synthetic natural gas out of coal, as part of a $1.25 billion deal to build a
coal-to-gas conversion plant in Western China.Wanxiang’s North American arm, meanwhile, is finalizing a
$256.6 million acquisition of bankrupt Waltham battery make A123 Systems Inc. — a deal that is expected to
help make 2013 another record year for Chinese investment in the United States.
Several other big Chinese investments are waiting to close this year, including a $4.2 billion deal to purchase an
80 percent stake in AIG’s aviation leasing unit, said Thilo Hanemann, research director at Rhodium Group,
a New York investment research firm. He said Chinese firms, at a minimum, will invest some $5 billion in
US companies.“It is likely we’ll see another record year,” he said.
While the Chinese are still relatively small players in the United States, accounting for less than 1 percent of
total foreign investment in the country, according to Rhodium, China is among the few nations that have
increased direct investment [in the United States.] In contrast, the biggest source of foreign investment in
United States, Europe, has pulled back compared to five years ago, as the region has struggled with a
series of economic crises, according to Rhodium.
Particularly attractive for Chinese investors are the US energy extraction and advanced manufacturing sectors,
as well as utilities, real estate, and hospitality, according to Rhodium. These industries, many believe, can help
Chinese firms move into technology and other sophisticated products that yield bigger profit margins.
Chinese investments in energy and advanced manufacturing sectors, like the deals made by Wanxiang,
could also be a boost for capital-intensive clean technology firms. Many US alternative energy operations
have struggled as overall investment in the industry has fallen, both because of a slowing global economy and a
decline in government support as deficit concerns take center stage.
GreatPoint is already benefiting from its Chinese investment. Chief executive Andrew Perlman said the
Wanxiang deal made it possible for the still-young Cambridge company to operate at an international level.
“It’s really raised our prominence in China and given us the ability to do business there in a way that we
never could have done on our own,” Perlman said.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 42 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Trade w/ China Good
How Currency Manipulation Benefits the United States
How Consumers Benefit from Chinese Currency Manipulation
Mark J. Perry. “Why We Should Thank the Chinese Currency Manipulators.” December
2, 2011. The American. http://www.american.com/archive/2011/december/why-weshould-thank-the-chinese-currency-manipulators/article_print
In the best of all possible worlds for the United States, China would use its labor and capital to manufacture
consumer products like clothing, footwear, furniture, electronics, and appliances and send $300 billion worth of
these products to U.S. consumers for free every year as a gift or a form of foreign aid to the American people.
In addition, the Chinese would produce and send to America another $100 billion worth of raw materials, parts,
industrial supplies, inputs, and natural resources at no charge, as a gift to American manufacturers every year.
(Note: That’s roughly the amount of goods we will purchase from China this year.)
Can there really be any argument that such an arrangement, where America would receive $400 billion worth of
free goods every year from China, would be to the unquestionable economic advantage of the United States?
Unfortunately, that extreme Chinese generosity is not realistic, so here's a possible second-best outcome:
Instead of sending us $400 billion worth of goods annually for free, China offers an attractive alternative. It
agrees to send us $500 billion worth of consumer and industrial goods every year, but agrees to sell us
those manufactured goods at a substantial 20 percent discount for only $400 billion. In that case, the
amount of foreign aid will be less than the $400 billion in the first example, but will still be significant—a
$100 billion gift every year from the Chinese people to the American people.
How will China generate this $100 billion in annual foreign aid to the United States? One way is to keep its
currency undervalued to bring about the 20 percent discount on its products coming to America.
Which then raises the question: If China is willing to undervalue its currency, and in the process provide
approximately $100 billion of foreign aid annually to American consumers and businesses, what’s the problem?
Why should we complain?
And that is my main point: that the "manipulation" of China's currency is actually to the distinct
advantage of millions of American consumers (especially low-income Americans) and U.S. businesses
buying products made in China. Those two groups certainly aren't complaining about low-priced Chinese
products, and in fact would be made worse off if China were forced to revalue its currency and in the process
make its products more expensive for Americans.
The rhetoric in this example puts a different spin on Chinese currency manipulation—pointing out the
obvious benefits to the everyday American consumer.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 43 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Not a Zero-Sum-Game
Not a Zero-Sum-Game
Experts Believe United States-China Cooperation is Beneficial
China Global Trade.com. “What the FutureofUSChinaTrade.com experts are saying
about trade.” The Kearney Alliance. 2012.
http://www.futureofuschinatrade.com/article/us-china-trade-benefits
Ed Prescott, 2004 Nobel Laureate, W. P. Carey Professor of Economics at Arizona State University:
“Economic integration is the path to riches and peace.”
Art Blakemore, Chair of W. P. Carey Economics at Arizona State University: “The question is not whether
China will continue to grow while the U.S. ceases growing, but rather: Are we going to keep growing
together or cease growing together?”
Peter Yam, Former president of Emerson Greater China and chairman of Emerson Electric (China) Holdings
Co., Ltd: “Both [U.S.] lawmakers and the government must wake up and exert leadership in providing an
environment for the US firms to become effective global competitors again and regain its strength on exports.”
Clyde Prestowitz, Founder and President of the Economic Strategy Institute: America needs to compete. But
that “is not about the U.S. stopping China from being successful. It’s not a zero-sum contest. It is
instead about America doing what China has long done – competing, for its own self interest. It is about
America doing what is good for America.”
Bob Mittelstaedt, Dean of the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University: “Over the long-term,
market flexibility – the ability of the education system to teach new skills, the ability of producers to produce
different goods and services – is critical, because in a world with truly free trade comparative advantages
constantly change.”
Jim Jarrett, former President of Intel China: “China will do what’s right for China, and that makes sense
for them. And we have to do the same thing. Fundamentally this isn’t a China issue; it’s a U.S.
competitiveness issue. The U.S. needs to take charge of its competitiveness in a much more active way
than it has in the past.”
These quotes are both good openers for pro teams and a good way to emphasize the essentiality of
keeping China as a trading partner.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 44 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Not a Zero-Sum-Game
How Globalization Benefits the United States
The World Bank. “China 2030: Building a Modern, Harmonious, and Creative HighIncome Society.” 2012.
http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/China-2030-complete.pdf
foundationbriefs.com
Page 45 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Not a Zero-Sum-Game
Figures 8 and 9 show how Chinese imports have grown globally. These two graphs are best used with the
following analysis explaining how the world benefits from Chinese growth and trade.
By any standard, China’s economic performance over the last three decades has been impressive. GDP growth
averaged 10 percent a year, and over 500 million people were lifted out of poverty. China is now the world’s
largest exporter and manufacturer, and its second largest economy. Even if growth moderates, China is likely
to become a high-income economy and the world’s largest economy before 2030, notwithstanding the fact
that its per capita income would still be a fraction of the average in advanced economies. But two
questions arise. Can China’s growth rate still be among the highest in the world even if it slows from its
current pace? And can it maintain this rapid growth with little disruption to the world, the environment,
and the fabric of its own society? This report answers both questions in the affirmative, without downplaying
the risks.
(…)
Increasing economic openness has been a critical driver of China’s remarkable success over the past three
decades. Reductions in import barriers have boosted the efficiency of domestic firms through strengthening
competition and increasing access to imported inputs, promoted China’s participation in components trade, and
facilitated rapid expansion into foreign markets through reciprocal reductions in foreign import restrictions and
eventual entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). Dismantling most barriers to FDI inflows has
increased access to foreign technology and business practices. The integration of foreign standards into
regulation and business practices has improved the quality of domestic production. Greater exposure to
foreign ideas through the education abroad of Chinese students and increasing communications through
the Internet have enriched China’s, and the world’s, economy and society.
(...)
China (and the world) will continue to benefit from maintaining an open trading system, and welcoming
investment in its economy to improve competitiveness, but will need an open financial sector and policies
that enable an acceleration of investments in foreign markets. It is in the interest of other countries, both highand low-income countries to welcome these investments. It is only through openness that China will be able to
obtain the oil and metals required to support domestic industry and absorb the technology necessary to upgrade
production to supply consumers with rising incomes and penetrate new foreign markets.
(...)
Despite the increased competition from low-income countries, and the slowing global economy, there will still
emerge plenty of opportunities for China to penetrate further in existing markets and explore new
markets. With the high growth in other emerging economies, new fast-growing markets will open up. With
higher schooling levels and further accumulation of capital, Chinese firms can move to higher value-added
segments of global markets. Globalization of Chinese firms will also create new opportunities, as these
foundationbriefs.com
Page 46 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Not a Zero-Sum-Game
firms expand their investments abroad, and acquire new technologies. And even environment policies
might create new growth opportunities in global markets. Bold, new environmental policies (that will price
externalities in a consistent and predictable way) are likely to create win-win solutions as they address
domestic bottlenecks, make developing countries competitive in new global growth markets, and
contribute to the solution of global environmental problems, like climate change.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 47 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Not a Zero-Sum-Game
How China Benefits the World Environmentally
Projected Growth of Green Product Exports in China
The World Bank. “China 2030: Building a Modern, Harmonious, and Creative HighIncome Society.” 2012.
http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/China-2030-complete.pdf
This card adds an interesting touch to the positive-sum game argument on the pro. China will benefit the
world in a huge way by producing green technology to reduce carbon emissions around the world.
Climate change is a problem which clearly affects the entire world, and the projected growth in Chinese
green product and service exports shows how China can alleviate this global problem.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 48 of 265
February 2013
Pro: America Not in Decline
America is not in decline
America’s economy is relatively strong
Kagan, Robert. “Not fade away” The New Republic. January 11, 2012.
In economic terms, and even despite the current years of recession and slow growth, America’s position in the
world has not changed. Its share of the world’s GDP has held remarkably steady, not only over the past
decade but over the past four decades. In 1969, the United States produced roughly a quarter of the
world’s economic output. Today it still produces roughly a quarter, and it remains not only the largest
but also the richest economy in the world. People are rightly mesmerized by the rise of China, India, and
other Asian nations whose share of the global economy has been climbing steadily, but this has so far
come almost entirely at the expense of Europe and Japan, which have had a declining share of the global
economy.
People who think that China’s rise threatens America’s power fail to recognize that these two things are
not mutually exclusive. China can become powerful and make huge economic gains without their rise
coming at our expense.
American manufacturing is strong
Schuman, Michael. “Can China compete with American manufacturing?” Time
Magazine. March 10, 2011.
Just take a quick look at the numbers. (For statistical reasons, I chose to use figures that include mining and
utilities as part of manufacturing.) Though China, of course, is growing very quickly, the U.S. has also
maintained its global share of manufacturing, at 20% in 2009 compared to just over 22% in 1980. What’s
more, American manufacturing is becoming more productive. In 2009, productivity in U.S.
manufacturing increased by 7.7%, more than any other country followed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
It’s important to note two things with this source. First off the manufacturing data is taken from 2009, so
it’s a little dated. Also, Schuman’s measure of manufacturing takes into account mining and utilities
which other sources may or may not do. But the most important part of this source is that makes an
excellent point; the U.S. has kept its global share of manufacturing. Even if China is manufacturing a lot
more it has gained at the expense of Europe and Japan, not the United States. Despite global turmoil,
American manufacturers have remained consistent and able to compete.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 49 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Manufacturing Benefit
Manufacturing Jobs Return to the U.S. Due To China’s
Rise
China’s Continual Rise Has Caused Manufacturing Jobs To Return to the U.S.
Conrads, David. "As Chinese Wages Rise, US Manufacturers Head Back Home." The
Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor, 10 May 2012. Web. 08
Jan. 2013.
Call it reshoring, backshoring, or onshoring: Twenty years after a flood of American manufacturers began
moving to China to cut costs, a growing number of them are trickling back to the United States to
improve quality and reduce delays. Many of the high labor-content products, like shoes, textiles and most
clothing are probably gone forever. But in an unexpected and beneficial twist for the US economy,
manufacturing, much of it high-skilled, is returning from abroad, primarily China. Some analysts go so
far as to call it a renaissance in US manufacturing that will create high-paying jobs and provide crucial
economic support for local communities across the country.
“A combination of economic forces is fast eroding China’s cost advantage as an export platform for the
North American market,” says Boston Consulting Group in a report issued last summer, which forecast that
by sometime around 2015 it will be as economical to manufacture many goods for US consumption in the
US as in China. BCG points to seven industries that are nearing that break-even point: electronics,
appliances, machinery, transportation goods, fabricated metals, furniture, and plastics and rubber – all
products with relatively low labor content and high transportation costs.
China’s economic rise has also meant that many of its impoverished citizens have been lifted into the
middle class. Now, China’s raising wages means that more companies do not find it as cost effective to
manufacture in China as they used to. This rise will only continue, benefiting US workers more.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 50 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Manufacturing Benefit
China’s Rising Cost of Labor Means More Jobs Return to the U.S.—meanwhile, the U.S.
remains a more competitive, efficient workforce
Conrads, David. "As Chinese Wages Rise, US Manufacturers Head Back Home." The
Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor, 10 May 2012. Web. 08
Jan. 2013.
“It’s definitely happening,” says Harry Moser, founder of the Reshoring Initiative, a nonprofit organization
based in greater Chicago whose goal is to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. “It’s still small relative to
its potential, but it’s growing.” He estimates reshoring has created at least 10,000 American jobs in the past
two years.
One big factor behind the move is the rising cost of labor in China. When it joined the World Trade
Organization in 2001, China's average manufacturing wage was 58 cents an hour, says Harold Sirkin,
senior partner at the Chicago office of BCG and one of the coauthors of its report. Since then, Chinese
wages have risen 15 to 20 percent per year.
“The decisions you made when wages were 58 cents an hour are potentially going to look very different
than when wages are around $6 per hour, as they will be in China in 2015,” Mr. Sirkin says. When the cost
savings of manufacturing offshore is less than 10 percent of manufacturing domestically, companies start to
reassess their decisions, he adds.
US manufacturers have also made strides through “lean” manufacturing techniques and automation, which have
made factories far less labor-intensive than in the past, says Chris Kuehl, an independent economist in Kansas
City, Mo., and an analyst for the Fabricators & Manufacturers Association, a trade group in Rockford, Ill. BCG
estimates that the average US worker is now some 3.4 times more productive than the average Chinese
worker. "That takes us out of having to compete with China for low-wage jobs, because we’re producing
things that require more sophisticated robotics,” Mr. Kuehl adds.
Reshoring is when jobs that were moved from the U.S. to China in order to make production costs lower
are moved back to the U.S. For example Two years ago, General Electric relocated the production of
some water heaters from China to Louisville, Ky.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 51 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Manufacturing Benefit
Manufacturing jobs will come back to America
Fishman, Charles. “The Insourcing Boom” The Atlantic. December 2012.
In the 1960s, as the consumer-product world we now live in was booming, the Harvard economist Raymond
Vernon laid out his theory of the life cycle of these products, a theory that predicted with remarkable
foresight the global production of goods 20 years later. The U.S. would have an advantage making new,
high-value products, Vernon wrote, because of its wealth and technological prowess; it made sense, at first, for
engineers, assembly workers, and marketers to work in close proximity—to each other and to consumers—the
better to get quick feedback, and to tweak product design and manufacture appropriately. As the market grew,
and the product became standardized, production would spread to other rich nations, and competitors would
arise. And then, eventually, as the product fully matured, its manufacture would shift from rich countries to
low-wage countries. Amidst intensifying competition, cost would become the predominant concern, and
because the making and marketing of the product were well understood, there would be little reason to produce
it in the U.S. anymore.
But beginning in the late 1990s, something happened that seemed to short-circuit that cycle. Low-wage
Chinese workers had by then flooded the global marketplace. (Even as recently as 2000, a typical Chinese
factory worker made 52 cents an hour. You could hire 20 or 30 workers overseas for what one cost in
Appliance Park (GE’s manufacturing plant). And advances in communications and information technology,
along with continuing trade liberalization, convinced many companies that they could skip to the last part of
Vernon’s cycle immediately: globalized production, it appeared, had become “seamless.” There was no reason
design and marketing could not take place in one country while production, from the start, happened half a
world away.
So much has changed that GE executives came to believe the GeoSpring (a type of water heater) could be made
profitably at Appliance Park without increasing the price of the water heater.

Oil prices are three times what they were in 2000, making cargo-ship fuel much more expensive
now than it was then.

The natural-gas boom in the U.S. has dramatically lowered the cost for running something as
energy-intensive as a factory here at home. (Natural gas now costs four times as much in Asia as it
does in the U.S.)

In dollars, wages in China are some five times what they were in 2000—and they are expected to
keep rising 18 percent a year.

American unions are changing their priorities. Appliance Park’s union was so fractious in the ’70s and
’80s that the place was known as “Strike City.” That same union agreed to a two-tier wage scale in
foundationbriefs.com
Page 52 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Manufacturing Benefit
2005—and today, 70 percent of the jobs there are on the lower tier, which starts at just over
$13.50 an hour, almost $8 less than what the starting wage used to be.

U.S. labor productivity has continued its long march upward, meaning that labor costs have become a
smaller and smaller proportion of the total cost of finished goods. You simply can’t save much money
chasing wages anymore.
The GeoSpring suffered from an advanced-technology version of “IKEA Syndrome.” It was so hard to
assemble that no one in the big room wanted to make it. Instead they redesigned it. The team eliminated 1 out
of every 5 parts. It cut the cost of the materials by 25 percent. It eliminated the tangle of tubing that couldn’t
be easily welded. By considering the workers who would have to put the water heater together—in fact, by
having those workers right at the table, looking at the design as it was drawn—the team cut the work hours
necessary to assemble the water heater from 10 hours in China to two hours in Louisville. So a funny
thing happened to the GeoSpring on the way from the cheap Chinese factory to the expensive Kentucky
factory: The material cost went down. The labor required to make it went down. The quality went up.
Even the energy efficiency went up. GE wasn’t just able to hold the retail sticker to the “China price.” It
beat that price by nearly 20 percent. The China-made GeoSpring retailed for $1,599. The Louisvillemade GeoSpring retails for $1,299.
Harry Moser, an MIT-trained engineer says “The way we see it, about 60 percent of the companies that
offshored manufacturing didn’t really do the math. They looked only at the labor rate—they didn’t look
at the hidden costs.” Moser believes that about a quarter of what’s made outside the U.S. could be more
profitably made at home.
“There was a herd mentality to the offshoring,” says John Shook, a manufacturing expert and the CEO of the
Lean Enterprise Institute, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “And there was some bullshit. But it was also the
inability to see the total costs—the engineers in the U.S. and factory managers in China who can’t talk to
each other; the management hours and money flying to Asia to find out why the quality they wanted
wasn’t being delivered. The cost of all that is huge.”
GE is rediscovering that how you run the factory is a technology in and of itself. Your factory is really a
laboratory—and the R&D that can happen there, if you pay attention, is worth a lot more to the bottom line than
the cost savings of cheap labor in someone else’s factory.
Appliance Park will end this year with 3,600 hourly employees—1,700 more than last year, an increase of
more than 90 percent. The facility hasn’t had this many assembly-line workers in a decade. GE has also
hired 500 new designers and engineers since 2009, to support the new manufacturing.
GE’s appliance unit does $5 billion in business—and today, 55 percent of that revenue comes from
products made in the United States. By the end of 2014, GE expects 75 percent of the appliance business’s
revenue to come from American-made products…
foundationbriefs.com
Page 53 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Manufacturing Benefit
This source shows the shift in business thinking that places an emphasis on quality over quantity in order
to get the most efficient production process possible. This favors skilled American workers over Chinese
workers, and will lead to more and more manufacturing jobs coming back to America.
Other developing countries are cheaper to produce in than China
Anbarasa, Ethirajan. “Chinese factories turn to Bangladesh as labor costs rise” BBC
News. August 29, 2012.
Ms. Dada has been running a garments factory in the Chinese port city of Ningbo for nearly two decades.
"In my factory in China, the salary of workers has been increasing steadily over the last few years," she told me
during her recent visit to Bangladesh to look for opportunities here.
"It has reached around $400 to $500 (£250 - £315) a month per worker. If I continue to produce there,
our business will disappear.
"In Bangladesh the average monthly salary for garments workers is only around $70 to $100. If I produce
here, price is much more competitive."
She has already opened an office in Dhaka and is not only looking to order clothes for her own firm but is also
involved in getting other Chinese online retailers to source from Bangladesh.
Chinese manufacturers say if they source clothes from Bangladesh, prices can come down by 10% to
15% depending on the category.
Bangladesh is simply one example of a country that can do what China does but do it cheaper.
Labor costs are rising in China
“The end of Cheap China” The Economist. March 10th 2012.
On March 5th Standard Chartered, an investment bank, released a survey of over 200 Hong Kong-based
manufacturers operating in the Pearl River Delta. It found that wages have already risen by 10% this year.
Foxconn, a Taiwanese contract manufacturer that makes Apple's iPads (and much more besides) in
Shenzhen, put up salaries by 16-25% last month.
“It's not cheap like it used to be,” laments Dale Weathington of Kolcraft, an American firm that uses contract
manufacturers to make prams in southern China. Labour costs have surged by 20% a year for the past four
years, he grumbles. China's coastal provinces are losing their power to suck workers out of the hinterland.
These migrant workers often go home during the Chinese New Year break. In previous years 95% of Mr
Weathington's staff returned. This year only 85% did.
Kolcraft's experience is typical. When the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai asked its members
recently about their biggest challenges, 91% mentioned “rising costs”. Corruption and piracy were far behind.
Labour costs (including benefits) for blue-collar workers in Guangdong rose by 12% a year, in dollar
foundationbriefs.com
Page 54 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Manufacturing Benefit
terms, from 2002 to 2009; in Shanghai, 14% a year. Roland Berger, a consultancy, reckons the
comparable figure was only 8% in the Philippines and 1% in Mexico.
Joerg Wuttke, a veteran industrialist with the EU Chamber of Commerce in China, predicts that the cost
to manufacture in China could soar twofold or even threefold by 2020. AlixPartners, a consultancy, offers
this intriguing extrapolation: if China's currency and shipping costs were to rise by 5% annually and wages were
to go up by 30% a year, by 2015 it would be just as cheap to make things in North America as to make
them in China and ship them there. In reality, the convergence will probably be slower. But the trend is
clear.
Many manufacturing jobs are already coming back to America
Hagerty, James. “Once Made in China: Jobs Trickle Back to U.S. Plants” The Wall Street
Journal. May 21, 2012.
All this comes amid signs of a promising, though modest, comeback in U.S. manufacturing employment. After
a 35% decline in the number of manufacturing jobs between 1998 and 2010, the tally has since risen by
489,000, or 4.3%, to 11.9 million. Most of that increase is due to the economic recovery rather than reshoring.
But IHS Global Insight, an economic research firm, forecasts that the number of manufacturing jobs will
climb 3.2% this year compared with a 1.6% increase in all jobs.
A survey of 105 companies in January and February by David Simchi-Levi, an engineering professor and
supply-chain expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, found that 39% were considering
moving some manufacturing back to the U.S.
Products more likely to be reshored include heavy or bulky items for which the shipping costs are high in
relation to the price, such as heavy machinery, says Cort Jacoby, a supply-chain expert at Hackett Group, a
consulting firm. Other candidates for reshoring include expensive items subject to frequent changes in
consumer demand for certain colors or styles, such as high-end clothing, home furnishings or appliances like
Whirlpool's mixer, Mr. Jacoby says. Makers of products for which safety is a paramount concern—such as food
or baby products—might choose to make them at home so they can closely monitor all of the suppliers of parts
or ingredients, he says.
Justin Rose of Boston Consulting Group… estimates that U.S. manufacturing workers on average
produce about three times as much per hour as their Chinese counterparts because of greater use of
automation and more efficient manufacturing processes.
Mr. Loebbaka [President of Core Systems] says material costs, mostly for plastics, are 62% to 78% of the total
cost for most of the products, while labor is only 8% to 12%. An efficient U.S. maker of a product that requires
little labor can find ways "to kick Chinese butt," he says.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 55 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Manufacturing Benefit
The “China plus one” strategy
Bradsher, Keith. “Investors Seek Asian Options to Costly China” New York Times. June
18, 2008.
But a growing number of multinational corporations are pursuing a strategy that companies and analysts call
“China plus one,” establishing or expanding Asian bases outside China, particularly in Vietnam.
A long list of concerns about China is feeding the trend: inflation, shortages of workers and energy, a
strengthening currency, changing government policies, even the possibility of widespread civil unrest someday.
But most important, wages in China are rising close to 25 percent a year in many industries, in dollar
terms, and China is no longer such a bargain.
More than corporate profit margins are at stake. When the cost of making goods in Asia rises, American
consumers inevitably feel pain. The Labor Department said Thursday that import prices were 4.6 percent
higher in May than a year earlier for goods from China and 6.4 percent higher for goods from southeast
Asia.
Companies are using the China-plus-one strategy to mitigate the risks of overdependence on factories in one
country.
Foreign direct investment in China has grown by a third over the last three years. By contrast, foreign
direct investment has more than doubled in this period in the Philippines, quintupled in India and soared
more than eightfold in Vietnam.
Faster rates of increase in other Asian countries had partly reflected lower starting points. But investment is still
growing quickly, and now it’s growing from high levels. For example, foreign investment in Vietnam reached
nearly $18 billion last year.
The company (Nissan) plans to expand to 1,400 engineers in Vietnam by 2010. Beginning engineers here still
earn just $200 a month, less than half the salary in China and less than a tenth of American and Japanese
salaries.
The “China plus one” strategy does nothing to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. However, by
exporting manufacturing to multiple countries instead of just to one, no single country overwhelmingly
benefits. Thus while China’s economy will still grow, it will grow at a much slower rate, thus limiting its
ability to challenge the economy of the U.S.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 56 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Manufacturing Benefit
Chinese manufacturing will reach a tipping point
“Transportation Goods, Electrical Equipment, and Furniture Are Among Sectors Most
Likely to Gain Jobs as U.S. Manufacturing Returns, Predicts The Boston
Consulting Group” Boston Consulting Group. October 7, 2011.
Transportation goods such as vehicles and auto parts, electrical equipment including household
appliances, and furniture are among seven sectors that could create 2 to 3 million jobs as a result of
manufacturing returning to the U.S.—an emerging trend that is expected to accelerate starting in the next five
years, according to new research by The Boston Consulting Group (BCG).
The BCG analysis identifies those broad industry clusters that are most likely to reach a “tipping point” by
around 2015—a point at which China’s shrinking cost advantage should prompt companies to rethink where
they produce certain goods meant for sale in North America. In many cases, companies will shift production
back from China or choose to locate new investments in the U.S. The U.S. is also expected to become a more
competitive export base in these sectors for Europe and Canada.
In addition to transportation goods, electrical equipment/appliances, and furniture, the sectors most likely to
return are plastics and rubber products, machinery, fabricated metal products, and computers/electronics.
Together, these seven industry groups could add $100 billion in output to the U.S. economy and lower the
U.S. non-oil trade deficit by 20 to 35 percent, according to BCG.
The tipping-point sectors account for about $2 trillion in U.S. consumption per year and about 70 percent
of U.S. imports from China, valued at nearly $200 billion in 2009. The job gains would come directly
through added factory work and indirectly through supporting services, such as construction,
transportation, and retail.
“This does not mean that factories in China will close,” noted Michael Zinser, a BCG partner who leads the
firm’s manufacturing work in the Americas. “Instead, more of their output will be consumed in the fast-growing
domestic market and elsewhere in Asia.”
The research builds on an initial analysis that BCG released in May and further developed in an August report
titled Made in America, Again: Why Manufacturing Will Return to the U.S. With Chinese wages rising at 15
to 20 percent per year and the value of the yuan continuing to appreciate against the dollar, the report
predicted that the once-enormous labor-cost gap between Chinese coastal provinces and certain lowercost U.S. states will shrink to less than 40 percent by around 2015.
When higher U.S. productivity, the actual labor content of a product, shipping, and other factors are taken into
account, the cost advantage of making many goods in China that are bound for sale in the U.S. will be
marginal..
foundationbriefs.com
Page 57 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Manufacturing Benefit
The biggest impact will be felt in sectors in which wages account for a relatively small portion of total
production costs and in which logistics costs and other factors such as shipping time and distance are critical.
The changing economics of manufacturing are already showing up in trade data. From 2001 through 2004,
imports from China grew by around 20 percent per year. That growth rate has slowed dramatically, to
only around 4 percent in the past few years. U.S. imports from other low-cost nations also have
flattened—and actually declined in 2009. The trend is especially pronounced in the tipping-point sectors. “We
are already starting to see some movement of production in these industries,” said Douglas Hohner, a BCG
partner and also a coauthor of the analysis.
Recent moves by companies underscore the new manufacturing math. Ford, NCR, Master Lock, high-end
cookware maker All-Clad Metalcrafters, audiovisual equipment maker Peerless Industries, Chesapeake Bay
Candle, and irrigation control maker ET Water Systems are among the companies that have recently shifted
manufacturing of some items from China to the U.S. Escalating Chinese wages aren’t the only reason.
Electronics manufacturing services company AmFor Electronics, for instance, cited delivery responsiveness and
ease of design revisions as reasons for relocating wire-harness production and some final assembly from China
and Mexico to Portland, Oregon.
International trade is about comparative advantage. If America can increase its advantage in the
manufacturing sector in addition to diminishing China’s, our economy will greatly benefit. This means
that China may still rise, but its rise will not threaten America’s superpower status.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 58 of 265
Pro: China’s Rise Exaggerated
February 2013
China’s Rise Exaggerated
China’s rise is greatly exaggerated
Beckley, Michael. “3 reasons why China isn't overtaking the US” Christian Science
Monitor.
1. They confuse growth rates with total growth
Since 1991, China’s per capita income grew 15 percent annually, and its military spending rose 10 percent
annually. By contrast, America’s per capita income and military spending grew at annual rates of 4 percent and
2 percent respectively. Yes, 15 is greater than 4, and 10 is greater than 2. What could be simpler?
But growth rates are not comparable. The average Chinese income in 2010 was $7,500. Fifteen percent of
$7,500 is actually less money than 4 percent of $47,000, the average American income that year. Despite
China’s higher growth rates, the average Chinese citizen is $17,000 poorer compared with the average
American today than he was in 1991.
Over the same time period, Chinese military spending declined by $140 billion relative to America’s, even
when excluding funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. China’s growth rates are high because its
starting point was low. China is rising, but it is not catching up.
2. Many observers rely on flawed indicators to gauge Chinese economic power
For example, some analysts believe that China is the world’s “leading technology-based economy”because it
exports more high-technology products than any other country.
But Chinese high-tech exports are not very Chinese and not very high-tech: Over 90 percent are produced by
foreign firms and consist of imported components that are merely assembled in China. These percentages
have increased over time, a trend that suggests Chinese firms are falling further behind foreign
competitors. Indeed, in any category – research and development, patents, profits – Chinese high-tech
firms have fallen further behind their American counterparts over the last two decades.
Another misleading statistic is China’s debt-to-GDP ratio, which the Chinese government lists at 17
percent. America’s debt-to-GDP ratio, by contrast, will remain above 60 percent through 2020.
But most Chinese state spending is not reported in official figures because it is funneled through
investment entities connected to local governments. Studies that account for this spending place China’s
debt-to-GDP ratio between 75 and 150 percent.
And things are only likely to get worse for China. Because of the one-child policy, China will soon suffer the
most severe aging process in human history. The ratio of Chinese workers per retiree will plummet from 8:1
today to 2:1 by 2040. The fiscal cost of this swing in dependency ratios alone may exceed 100 percent of
foundationbriefs.com
Page 59 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China’s Rise Exaggerated
China’s GDP. The American working-age population, by contrast, will expand by 17 percent over the next 40
years. America’s fiscal future may not be bright, but it is brighter than China’s.
Even if China is growing, it is insignificant
Daniel , Mitchell. "Don’t Be Afraid of the Chinese Economic Tiger." Cato At Liberty
(2010): CatoInstitute <http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-be-afraid-chinese-economictigerr>.
The news that China has surpassed Japan as the world’s second-largest economy has generated a lot of
attention. It shouldn’t. There are roughly 10 times as many people in China as there are in Japan, so the fact
that total gross domestic product in China is now bigger than total gross domestic product in Japan is hardly
a sign of Chinese economic supremacy.
Yes, China has been growing in recent decades, but it’s almost impossible not to grow when you start at
the bottom — which is where China was in the late 1970s thanks to decades of communist oppression and
mismanagement. And the growth they have experienced certainly has not been enough to overtake other
nations based on measures that compare living standards. According to the World Bank, per-capita GDP
(adjusted for purchasing power parity) was $6,710 for China in 2009, compared to $33,280 for Japan (and
$46,730 for the U.S.). If I got to choose where to be a middle-class person, China certainly wouldn’t be my first
pick.
This is not to sneer at the positive changes in China. Hundreds of millions of people have experienced big
increases in living standards. Better to have $6,710 of per-capita GDP than $3,710. But China still has a long
way to go if the goal is a vibrant and rich free-market economy. The country’s nominal communist
leadership has allowed economic liberalization, but China is still an economically repressed nation. Scores have
improved, but the Economic Freedom of the World report ranks China 82 out of 141 nations, just one spot
above Russia, and the Index of Economic Freedom has an even lower score, 140 out of 179 nations. Hopefully,
China will continue to move in the right direction. That would be good for the Chinese people. And since rich
neighbors are better than poor neighbors, it also would be good for America.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 60 of 265
Pro: China’s Rise Exaggerated
February 2013
Chinese companies are not innovative
“Where innovation lies” The Economist. November 16, 2011.
…according to an analysis of patents carried out by Thomson Reuters, an information-services provider.
Its "Top 100 Global Innovators" report rates companies by the proportion of their patent applications that are
granted; the number of "quadrilateral" patents (those granted in China, Europe, Japan and America); how often
patents are cited by other companies; and whether patents relate to new techniques or inventions or are
refinements of existing ones. This approach is intended to overcome the limitations of using the number of
patents filed or granted as a measure of innovation. Of the 100 companies in the list, which is not ranked and
relates to patent activity from 2005-2010, 40 are from America, 27 from Japan and 11 from France. No
Chinese companies qualified. The report says this "underscores the fact that although China is leading
the world in patent volume, quantity does not equate to influence and quality."
foundationbriefs.com
Page 61 of 265
Pro: China’s Rise Exaggerated
February 2013
Innovation pays
Lohr, Steven. “In Innovation Race, China Is Not Yet a Rival, Study Says” The New York
Times. November 15, 2011.
The 100 innovative companies selected by Thomson Reuters did well in 2010. They added 400,000 jobs,
while sales on average rose 13 percent. It does appear to be more than a coincidence, even though there is
a lot more to corporate success than filing high-quality patents.
This is just to add credibility to the list of 100 companies above.
Lack of innovation can be tied back to Chinese education system
Gao, Helen. “The Education System That Pulled China Up May Now Be Holding It Back”
The Atlantic. June 25, 2012.
It is the first day of gaokao, the annual, nationwide college entrance exam, which will decide the college
matriculation of the nine million or so students who take it. Sitting for nine hours over two days, students are
tested on everything from Chinese and math to geography and government. The intense, memorization-heavy,
and notoriously difficult gaokao can make the SAT look like a game of Scrabble. How they do on the test will
play a big role in determining not just where they go to college but, because Chinese colleges often feed directly
into certain industries and fields, what they do for the rest of their life. It's an enormously important moment in
any Chinese student's life, which is part of why high schools here dedicate months or even years to preparing
for the test.
China's gaokao-style education system has been great at imparting math and engineering, as well as the rigorous
work ethic that has been so integral to China's rise so far. But if the country wants to keep growing, its state
economists know they need to encourage entrepreneurship and creativity, neither of which is tested for on this
life-determining exam.
Most students are required to take the same classes regardless of their talents or interests. Their achievement is
measured solely by their scores in gaokao, and hobbies not convertible into gaokao points are deemed
distractions. Why play soccer or take part in the student council, after all, if it leaves less time for cracking
chemistry problems? You live and die by your numbers, starting with your gaokao score, a value system that is
reinforced by employers and families alike.
Whatever your formula for innovation -- diversity of thought, collaboration, risk-taking -- you're not likely to
find it in abundance in Chinese schools, where high-stake tests pit students against one other in a zero-sum
competition that can feel a little more Hunger Games than think tank. "[When] you feel that the guy sitting
beside you is your potential enemy who may rob you of a lifetime of happiness, altruism is not going to be your
guide," gaokao veteran Eric Mu wrote in an essay on Danwei titled, "Confessions of a Chinese Graduate." If
foundationbriefs.com
Page 62 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China’s Rise Exaggerated
you find a question you can't answer you certainly don't ask a classmate for help, Mu explained, because "[to]
offer your knowledge or even your questions for free is not only time consuming but an aid to your enemies."
Students whose unsatisfactory test scores lower their class's average often become social outcasts, as do the
students who make everyone else toss in their sleep by working just a little too hard. Teachers and headmasters,
whose reputations and salaries are tied to their students' exam scores, have more of an interest in maintaining a
good average than in, say, dedicating extra time to a struggling student.
China needs a generation of entrepreneurs to develop a more innovative economy, its national leaders
know, but a recent report found that only 1.6 percent of Chinese college graduates started businesses last
year, the same as the year before.
Clearly, China’s educational problems are due to its education system-the same one that lead to its rise.
However, this system has outlived its usefulness and is now holding the country back.
China’s growth causes democratization and peace
Friedberg, Aaron. "The Future of U.S.-China Relations." International Security. 30.2 (
(2005): 7-45. Web. 2005
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/016228805775124589
Liberal optimists believe that, although it is still far from finished, the process of democratization is already
well under way in China.
This process is being driven largely by economic development, which, in turn, is being accelerated by
China’s increasing openness to trade. Rising per capita incomes are creating a growing Chinese middle
class. In Europe and North America, and more recently in Asia, those whose rising incomes allow them to do
more than attend to the struggle for daily existence have been the prime movers behind progress toward
democracy, and there is every reason to hope that they will play a similar role in China.
Liberals also believe that, in addition to stirring the desire for political rights, economic development creates an
objective, functional need for political liberalization. Without courts, contracts, and a reliable rule of law,
economic progress will surely falter. Moreover, in an era in which sustained growth depends increasingly on
free flows of information, regimes that seek to restrict speech and control communications will be at a fatal
disadvantage.
Over time, if it wishes even to approach the levels of well-being already attained by its advanced
industrial counterparts (all of which are democracies), China too must become democratic. As it does, the
liberal optimists expect that its relations with the United States will stabilize and that, ultimately, it will
enter into the democratic “zone of peace.” Although the process may take time fully to unfold, before too
long open conflict between the United States and a democratic China will be as improbable as war among
the members of the European Union appears to be today.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 63 of 265
Pro: China’s Rise Exaggerated
February 2013
Chinese growth causes economic multilateralism and peace
Friedberg, Aaron. "The Future of U.S.-China Relations."International Security. 30.2 (
(2005): 7-45. Web. 2005
Liberal optimists believe that bilateral economic exchange creates shared interests in good relations
between states. The greater the volume of trade and investment flowing between two countries, the more
groups on both sides will have a strong interest in avoiding conflict and preserving peace. Liberal
optimists note that economic exchange between the United States and China has increased dramatically
since the onset of market reforms in China in the late 1970s. From the start of reform in 1978 to the end of
the twentieth century, the value of the trade moving between the two countries grew by more than two orders of
magnitude, from $1 billion to almost $120 billion annually. By 2004 that figure had doubled to a reported total
of $245 billion.
Capital flows have also risen, with U.S. investors pouring significant resource each year into China. As
China enters the World Trade Organization (WTO) and opens its markets even wider to foreign goods and
capital, the density of commercial linkages between the United States and the PRC will increase. Economic
interdependence has already helped to create a strong mutual interest in peace between the two Pacifc
powers. Barring some major disruption, economic forces will probably continue to draw them together,
constraining and damping any tendencies toward conflict
foundationbriefs.com
Page 64 of 265
Pro: China’s Rise Exaggerated
February 2013
Demographic Challenges Diminish Threats from China’s Rise
The One Child Crisis
“China’s Population: The Most Surprising Demographic Crisis.” The Economist. May 5,
2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18651512
The new census data show that little progress is being made to counter this troubling trend. Among newborns,
there were more than 118 boys for every 100 girls in 2010. This marks a slight increase over the 2000 level,
and implies that, in about 20 or 25 years' time, there will not be enough brides for almost a fifth of today's
baby boys—with the potentially vast destabilising consequences that could have.
Leaders focused on these Domestic Issues
Minzner, Carl. The Rise of China and the Interests of the U.S. April 2007 The Ripon
Forum. http://www.riponsociety.org/forum207i.htm
Second, China’s leaders are not seeking a worldwide confrontation with the United States. Their key priorities
are domestic. The single issue that keeps them up late at night is the fear that the growing discontent of rural
farmers and migrants could metastasize into a revolutionary force that topples them from power. All of the
formidable energies of the Chinese party-state – the tough police controls, the focus on rapid economic
development, and the new emphasis on addressing the needs of the rural poor – are directed at warding off such
an event.
The 4:2:1 Phenomenon
Therese Hesketh, Ph.D., Li Lu, M.D., and Zhu Wei Xing, M.P.H. “The Effect of China's
One-Child Family Policy after 25 Years.” The New England Journal of Medicine.
2005. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhpr051833
The rapid decrease in the birth rate, combined with stable or improving life expectancy, has led to an increasing
proportion of elderly people and an increase in the ratio between elderly parents and adult children. In China,
the percentage of the population over the age of 65 years was 5 percent in 1982 and now stands at 7.5
percent but is expected to rise to more than 15 percent by 2025. Although these figures are lower than those
in most industrialized countries (especially Japan, where the proportion of people over the age of 65 years is 20
percent), a lack of adequate pension coverage in China means that financial dependence on offspring is
still necessary for approximately 70 percent of elderly people. Pension coverage is available only to those
employed in the government sector and large companies. In China, this problem has been named the “4:2:1”
phenomenon, meaning that increasing numbers of couples will be solely responsible for the care of one
child and four parents.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 65 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China’s Rise Exaggerated
The Implications of the One Child Policy
Yanzhong Yang. “Why China Should End Its Draconian Counterproductive One Child
Policy.” The Atlantic. July 15, 2012.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/why-china-should-end-itsdraconian-counterproductive-one-child-policy/259814/#
Worse, the policy is undermining China's international competitiveness. According to a leading
demographer on China, by 2013, with the growth rate of net consumers exceeding the growth rate of net
producers, China's demographic dividend growth rate will turn negative. A rapidly aging population
(thirteen percent of the population is over 60, the retirement age for men in China) makes elderly care a major
concern in a country where the social security system is still underdeveloped. Furthermore, it contributes
to the rapid rise of chronic noncommunicable diseases, which are responsible for 85 percent of China's
overall mortality. In addition, the persistent male preference under the one child policy has led to infanticide,
selective abortion, and female abandonment, which result in an extremely high sex ratio at birth (SRB). The
current ratio in China is about 120, or 120 boys to 100 girls. Eight years from now, there may be 40 million
more men of marriageable age than there are women in China. Already, the large number of young migrant
male workers has contributed to a booming commercial sex industry in China. The sheer number of surplus men
is believed to be a deficit for social-political stability.
Social Problems with the One Child Policy
Mu Xuequan, “Time to loosen family planning policy: think tank” October 26, 2012.
Xinhuanet. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-10/26/c_131933212.htm
The [China Development Research Foundation] said China will have an ultra-low fertility rate after 2026 and
that the government should start encouraging families to have more children.
The family planning policy was introduced around 1980 to rein in China's surging population by encouraging
late marriages and pregnancies, as well as limiting most urban couples to one child and most rural couples to
two children. "The family planning policy has had a profound influence on China's economic and social
development," said the [China Development Research Foundation].
The implementation of the policy has reduced the pressure created by a rapidly rising population, made
contributions to economic growth and helped improve population quality, it said.
However, China has paid a huge political and social cost for the policy, as it has resulted in social conflict,
high administrative costs and led indirectly to a long-term gender imbalance at birth, the report said.
Efforts should be made to support one-child and disadvantaged families in family planning, the CDRF said.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 66 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China’s Rise Exaggerated
The report also pointed out the aging population and the fact that China's "demographic dividend" has already
ended will pose a severe challenge for the country's future development.
"This means China cannot rely on an unlimited labor supply for its future economic development, but
must instead boost its total factor productivity (TFP)," said Cai Fang, director of the Institute of Population
and Labor Economics under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
This is a nuanced but critical point. China’s growth until now has, arguably, relied upon human labor.
Moving forward, it will have to shift its growth mechanism to something else. There is not certainty that
it will be able to successfully do so. Therefore, China’s continued rise is in doubt and its ability to rival
the US is thus in doubt.
The Effects of the One Child Policy on the Chinese Military
Thompson, Drew. “Think Again: China’s Military.” Foreign Policy. March and April
2010. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/22/think_again_chinas_military
The PLA's hardware is improving, but what about its recruits? China's one-child policy is widely perceived as
creating a generation of spoiled, overweight boys, dubbed "little emperors," who are doted on by four
grandparents while their parents toil to support them in fields, factories, and offices. Although accounts are
sometimes exaggerated (in practice, many families, particularly in rural areas, have managed to have more than
one child), the dramatic demographic shifts brought about by this policy, started in 1979, certainly impact the
PLA. By 2006, "only-child soldiers" made up more than half of the force, up from just 20 percent a
decade earlier, giving China the largest-ever military with a majority of only-children.
In a nod to the fact that enlistees are often the sole support for aging parents and grandparents, the PLA has
shortened service commitments. In 1998, China reduced the time conscripts must serve to two years,
lessening the economic and social burdens on rural families dependent on an only son. With a
significantly shortened time to train conscripts and participate in exercises, many units will likely
maintain low levels of readiness. Only-child officers are also more likely to leave the PLA to enter the private
sector, where they are better able to support their parents and families.
This card explores the implications of the One Child Policy on the current composition of the Chinese
army—an interesting aspect of modern China’s rise.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 67 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China’s Rise Exaggerated
Effects of One Child Policy on the pension system
Wang, Aileen and Qing, Koh. “China sliding faster into a pensions black hole” NBC
News. September 28, 2012.
Policy makers and economists have long been worried about the financial burden of China's expanding
patchwork of pension schemes, but those concerns have recently escalated as its rural pension scheme took off
in the past three years.
The funding shortage is daunting: economists say it could blow out to a whopping $10.8 trillion in the next
20 years from $2.6 trillion in 2010, towering over China's $3 trillion onshore savings, the biggest hoard of
domestic savings in the world.
Time is not on China's side. Its fast-maturing society and economy -- thanks to a one-child policy and a rapid
rise in living standards -- demand better pension coverage in future.
The number of Chinese over 65 years of age, at 123 million, virtually matches Japan's total population,
and is rising fast due to the one-child policy Beijing adopted in the 1970s.
The old-age dependency ratio, or the number of elderly people as a share of those of working age, will hit
34.4 percent in rural China by 2030, compared to 21.1 percent in urban areas, and up from 13.5 percent
in 2008, the World Bank said.
But whatever the payout, most of the financial burden falls squarely on the government. State subsidies
accounted for 61 percent of total rural pension revenues in 2011, with personal contributions making up the
rest.
"The ageing population in the countryside is rising faster than urban areas, which could pressure the premature
rural pension system," said Cai Fang, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a respected
government think-tank.
Trapped by rising costs and deficient funding, China spends about 40 percent of state earnings on pension,
compared to under 15 percent in Japan and the United States, the OECD said.
Stretched, China's local governments are widely believed to be emptying 2.2 trillion yuan worth of pension
accounts of young working adults today to pay for current retirees, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
said.
But such financial wizardry does not get rid of the crater in China's pension budget, said economists Ma Jun and
Cao Yuanzheng from Deustche Bank and Bank of China respectively.
Funding shortfalls hit 16.5 trillion yuan in 2010, the two economists said, and will quadruple to a
stunning 68.2 trillion yuan by 2033. That is about 40 percent of China's gross domestic product, assuming
its economy grows 6 percent a year.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 68 of 265
Pro: China’s Rise Exaggerated
February 2013
Inflation causes protests
Orlik, Tom. “Unrest on Rise as Economy Booms” The Wall Street Journal. September 26,
2011.
In 2010, China was rocked by 180,000 protests, riots and other mass incidents—more than four times the
tally from a decade earlier. That figure, reported by Sun Liping, a professor at Tsinghua University, rather
than official sources, doesn't tell the whole story on the turmoil in what is now the world's second-largest
economy.
Rising prices might not figure as a direct trigger of unrest, but inflation remains a key source of discontent. In
an annual survey of social attitudes published by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, inflation shot to the
top of the list of problems in 2010, up from fifth place in 2009.
There is a reason for that move up the ranks. A sweeping monetary stimulus in 2009 and 2010—with the banks
issuing 17.5 trillion yuan ($2.7 trillion) in new loans—translated into higher levels of inflation, reflected largely
in food prices. In 2011, the problem has become more severe. The latest data show food prices rose 13.4%
year-to-year in August. Prices for pork, China's favorite meat, rose 52.3% to a record level. The urban
poor, who spend a large share of their income on food, are hardest hit by food costs.
Before China can challenge us as a superpower, it has to be able to take care of its own people first.
However, China’s inflation is taking a toll on the average Chinese worker. If you do the math you will
find out that the 180,000 protests a year comes to almost 500 protests a day. With such an enormous
amount of social unrest, China ability to challenge the United States is seriously hampered.
China’s economic growth will slow down
Current Chinese growth is unsustainable
Schuman, Michael. “Why China Will Have an Economic Crisis” Time Magazine.
February 27, 2012.
China has adopted a form of the Asian development model, invented by Japan and followed, to varying degrees,
by many rapid-growth countries around East Asia. The model, very generally speaking, functions like this: 1)
capitalize on low wages to spark growth through exports and industrialize quickly with hefty amounts of
investment, 2) guide the whole process with the hand of the state, 3) employ industrial policies and statedirected finance to progress into more and more advanced sectors. This system generates fantastic levels of
economic growth for a while, but then eventually, it crashes. Japan had its meltdown beginning in 1990
(and it hasn’t escaped two decades later); South Korea, the country that copied Japan’s model most
closely, experienced its crisis in 1997-98.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 69 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China’s Rise Exaggerated
What happens? The model is based on what Alice Amsden, in her study of the Korean economy, called “getting
prices wrong.” To spur on the high levels of investment necessary to generate rapid growth, the model depends
on state-directed subsidization to make investing in certain industries or sectors more attractive and less risky
than it otherwise would be. Cheap credit is made available for industry, or the state outright orders money to be
invested in certain preferred projects. The exchange rate is controlled to encourage exporters. All sorts of
subsidies, for energy, exports and so on, are dished out. Banks are not commercially oriented but act to a great
degree as tools of government-development policy. All of these methods funnel money, private and public, into
industrialization, creating the astronomical growth rates we see again and again in Asia.
The problem here is that prices can’t stay wrong indefinitely. There is a good reason why classical economists
are always so focused on allowing markets to find the correct price level. In that way, markets send the proper
signals to potential investors on where money should or should not go. If those price indicators are skewed, so
is the direction of resources. The Asian model, by playing around with prices, eventually creates tremendous
distortions, in which money is wasted and excess capacity is generated. Subsidized companies don’t have to
generate returns in the same way as unsubsidized firms, and that leads them to make bad investment
decisions to build factories and buildings that are unnecessary and unprofitable. As a result, loans go bad
and banking sectors buckle. That’s exactly what happened in both Japan and Korea. Though their crises
were tipped off in very different ways — the bursting of an asset bubble in Japan, an external shock in
Korea — the reason both countries collapsed was the same: weak banks, indebted companies, silly
investments.
China is indulging in all of the same excesses as Japan and Korea, and then some. The level of investment
in China, at nearly 50% of GDP, is lofty even by Asian standards. The usual argument made in defense of
such astronomical investment in fixed assets is that China is a large developing country that needs all of the
buildings and roads it is constructing.
I completely agree. Yet the issue is not whether China needs more investment. The issue is whether China is
getting the types of investment it requires. The fact that investment levels can be so high and yet the economy is
so deficient in certain key aspects makes me think the answer is no. We can see that in the continued problem
of excess capacity in China, in which companies go hog wild building too many factories in certain
industries, often with borrowing from state banks. That has happened in steel and solar panels, for example.
The country is investing hundreds of billions in high-speed railways even though ticket prices are beyond the
reach of most Chinese, while many major Chinese cities don’t have subways.
A good part of this misdirected investment seems to be headed into the property sector. Real estate development
has become the key driving force of Chinese economic growth. In theory, China’s very rapid urbanization
makes such construction a necessity — but that depends on what is being built. In Wenzhou, a real estate
agent recently offered free BMWs to anyone who bought a high-end apartment — a clear sign of
overbuilding — while there is an obvious shortage of housing affordable for most Chinese. On either side of
foundationbriefs.com
Page 70 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China’s Rise Exaggerated
my Beijing apartment building are three big malls that hardly ever seem to see real shoppers. Rents for topquality office space in Beijing are now pricier than in New York City — despite the fact that China’s capital is
one big construction zone. Many of the buildings going up are of a quality unsuitable for major corporations.
Even worse, much of the investment in China is being financed with debt. The level of debt in the Chinese
economy has been rising with frightening speed. Rating agency Fitch estimates bank credit in 2011 was
equivalent to 185% of the country’s GDP — an increase of 56 percentage points in a mere three years.
Though that surge has not yet had a significant negative impact on China’s banks, many analysts fret that banks
will eventually experience a rise in nonperforming loans. In an indication of what is to come,
the Financial Times reported recently that the government has ordered banks to roll over the $1.7 trillion
of loans owed by local governments. If true, this tells us two key things: 1) these governments invested
money raised from banks in projects that are not generating the returns necessary to pay them back and
2) the quality of loans on the banks’ books are more questionable than official statistics suggest. On top of
that, the fact that local governments amassed so much debt in the first place shows a complete lack of rule of
law in China’s financial sector. Technically, local governments aren’t permitted to borrow money at all.
Meanwhile, as government entities run up loans they can’t pay, many small companies, especially private ones,
are unable to raise sufficient funds and remain starved of capital.
Why won’t China’s policymakers pursue more fundamental reform? They are afraid that growth might slip.
Sure, the latest five-year plan targets 7% annual GDP growth, but it seems to me that every time growth drops
under double digits, the leadership goes into panic mode and revs up the economy again. GDP surged 8.9% in
the fourth quarter of 2011, but that’s not fast enough for China’s leaders. They’ve already started loosening
credit again — slathering yet more debt onto the economy.
This article is a very good explanation of why China’s growth cannot be sustained. It relies too heavily on
government spending which results in inefficiency, debt, and waste.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 71 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China’s Rise Exaggerated
Top Chinese Officials Indicate China’s Environmental Impact Will Impede China’s Growth
Jacobs, Andrew. "China Issues Warning On Climate And Growth." The New York Times.
The New York Times, 01 Mar. 2011. Web.
China’s environment minister on Monday issued an unusually stark warning about the effects of
unbridled development on the country’s air, water and soil, saying the nation’s current path could stifle
long-term economic growth and feed social instability.
In an essay published on the agency’s Web site, the minister, Zhou Shengxian, said the government would take
a more aggressive role in determining whether development initiatives contributed to climate change through a
new system of risk assessment.
Ignoring such risks, Mr. Zhou said, would be perilous.
“In China’s thousands of years of civilization, the conflict between humankind and nature has never been
as serious as it is today,” he wrote. “The depletion, deterioration and exhaustion of resources and the
worsening ecological environment have become bottlenecks and grave impediments to the nation’s
economic and social development.”
His comments, coupled with similar remarks by Prime Minister Wen Jiabao that were publicized in the state
media on Monday, suggest that China may seek to embrace tighter environmental restrictions during legislative
sessions that begin this week in Beijing. The meetings, held once a year, will include the introduction of the
country’s latest five-year economic plan.
On Sunday, Mr. Wen lowered the target for average gross domestic product growth, to 7 percent from
7.5 percent, and suggested that China would reconfigure the emphasis that places economic growth above
all else.
This piece of evidence substantiates the argument that China’s growth is unsustainable because in order
to reduce environmental impact, Top Chinese Officials recognize that China will have to slow its growth
and slow its expansion.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 72 of 265
Pro: China’s Rise Exaggerated
February 2013
China’s property market is slowing down
Chancellor, Edward and Rein, Shaun. “Viewpoints: Is China's economy heading for a
crash?” BBC. July 12, 2012.
Over the past decade, China is said to have built the equivalent of Rome every two months.
As a result, ghost cities, as they are known, have sprung up across the country.
No one knows exactly how much over-building has taken place. But Beijing alone is said to have nearly four
million apartments standing empty.
Construction has come to dominate China's economy, accounting for roughly 25% of all activity and
about 15% of all jobs.
It should therefore come as no surprise that as China's property market has slowed over the last year and
land sales have collapsed, the engine of China's economic growth has also sputtered.
…it is a mistake to ignore the implications of the rapid credit expansion on the mainland following the 2008
global financial crisis.
Due to its stimulus spending, China's total outstanding debt has increased by around 50 percentage
points of gross domestic product over the past few years.
And as credit growth has weakened over the past couple of years, the fragility of China's economy has become
apparent.
That's because credit works on an economy like steroids on the body of an athlete: you need ever larger
injections to maintain the effect.
China has weak consumer demand
Hamlin, Kevin. “Consumer Spending Fades in China Economy After ‘Peak Days’”
Bloomberg News. June 16, 2011.
Government data this week showed retail sales growth slowed to 16.9 percent in May, less than the average of
the past five years and a figure that’s inflated by soaring prices for food. By contrast, spending on fixed assets
such as factories and property climbed 26 percent, excluding rural households, in the first five months, the
fastest pace in almost a year.
“Consumption hasn’t taken off,” said Patrick Chovanec, an associate professor at Tsinghua University’s
School of Economics and Management in Beijing. “What has happened is a shift from exports to
investment as a driver of growth.”
Analysts at Capital Economics, a London-based research group, estimate that private consumption may have
fallen to 34 percent of gross domestic product last year, the lowest level since China began opening its
foundationbriefs.com
Page 73 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China’s Rise Exaggerated
economy to market mechanisms more than three decades ago. Just 10 years ago, the share was 46
percent, Capital Economics calculates.
“Just at a time when the government in China and a lot of people elsewhere are hoping to see Chinese
consumers step up to the plate, actually they’ve been staying away from shops,” said Mark Williams, an
economist in London with Capital Economics and a former adviser on China to the U.K. Treasury. “The trend
over the past couple of years has been relentlessly downward.”
Food costs jumped 12 percent in May from a year before, eroding the purchasing power of Chinese
households even as policy makers embrace wage gains to bolster domestic demand. Savings are also being
hurt, with the one-year deposit rate of 3.25 percent more than 2 percentage points less than the 5.5 percent
annual pace of inflation. Limited exchange-rate appreciation also means imported products are more costly.
The Shanghai Composite Index has dropped 13 percent from this year’s April high on concern stepped up
efforts to cool inflation near a three-year high will hurt earnings.
China’s leaders have vowed to boost consumption’s share of GDP since at least 2006, so far to no avail.
The ratio is about half that of the U.S., and about 60 percent of both Europe and Japan, according to
Credit Agricole CIB.
Growth driven by exports leaves China vulnerable to external slowdowns such as during the 2008 global
recession, while expansion driven by investment is less likely to improve living standards, said Li Wei, an
economist with Standard Chartered Plc in Shanghai.
Growth in furniture sales eased to 26 percent in May from 37 percent a year earlier, while household electronics
sales rose 15 percent after gaining 27 percent, official data show.
Consumption would have to grow three percentage points faster than GDP to reach 40 percent of the
economy within five years, according to Michael Pettis, a finance professor at Peking University in
Beijing.
“We would need the highest consumption growth ever recorded,” Pettis said. “In the short term we’re
not going to see a lot of change.”
Government spending will not sustain economic growth by itself. Additionally, an economy totally
dependent on exports is vulnerable to factors beyond its control. Thus, the slowdown of China’s
consumer spending, already one of the lowest in any advanced country, threatens its growth.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 74 of 265
Pro: China’s Rise Exaggerated
February 2013
China’s economy is inefficient
Wolf, Martin and Kurske, Vladislav. “Why is China Growing So Slowly?” Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace. January 2005.
So why hasn't Beijing done a better job? Because, China's economy is still highly inefficient. The voracious
maw of China's stateowned enterprises accounts for much of this drag. Between 1993 and 2000, more
than 60 percent of all loans went to these state-owned behemoths. The country's notoriously high level of
bad loans tells you how good an investment they have been: The Standard & Poor's rating agency currently
estimates that China's banks have issued about $650 billion in bad loans, or about 40 percent of
outstanding loans. If an economy growing at close to 10 percent a year generates bad loans on this scale,
the misallocation of capital has to be gigantic. Although countries such as South Korea or Taiwan may not
have had as much capital, they obtained considerably more growth for their investment buck. The same was
true of Japan in its highgrowth phase. The same is true of India today.
Entrepreneurs don’t get loans
Yueh, Linda. “China’s entrepreneurs” London School of Economics and Political Science.
April 2008.
Another institutional challenge faced by entrepreneurs has been limited access to credit. A recent estimate by
the first Chinese chief economist of the World Bank suggests that out of 40 million small and mediumsized enterprises in China in 2006, less than half of 1% could obtain loans from banks (Lin, 2007).
Aspiring entrepreneurs have also faced a shortage of key assets such as land or property (the property market
did not develop until the late 1990s) and insecure property rights in a system that did not protect private
ownership officially until 2004. Having property in China suggests being fairly well connected as urban
(and, for the most part, rural) land is state-owned and privatisation of land and buildings has only begun
recently.
A vibrant economy is dependent upon a healthy amount of entrepreneurship. However, China’s
government favors State Owned Enterprises (SOE) which, as shown by the Carnegie Endowment source
previous to this one, consistently fail to make a profit.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 75 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China’s Rise Exaggerated
Impact of companies moving away from China
Nevisky, Matt. “Will Super-High Chinese Growth Continue?” The National Bureau of
Economic Research. January 7, 2013.
In China's FDI and Non-FDI Economies and the Sustainability of Future High Chinese Growth (NBER
Working Paper No. 12249), co-authors John Whalley and Xian Xin attempt to answer the question with data
supplied by the National Bureau of Statistics of China. They consider, in particular, the roles of what they call
two distinct sub-economies. One involves the mainly manufacturing-based Foreign Invested Enterprises (FIEs),
which are often joint ventures between Chinese enterprises (usually state-owned) and overseas companies
supplying Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), product designs, and international sales networks. The second subeconomy is the non-FIE portion of China's economy in manufacturing, agriculture, and services.
The two sub-economies are of course related, but quite different. FIEs employ only 24 million workers out of a
total workforce of 752 million, and their labor productivity is around 9 times that of the workers in the
non-FIE sub-economy. The FIEs account for over half of exports and 60 percent of imports. Industrial
FIEs are responsible for over 30 percent of China's industrial output. The FIE sub-economy currently is
growing at around 18 percent per year, while the non-FDI portion is growing at about 5-6 percent
annually. This suggests that if FDI inflows level off (as appears to have happened in 2005), the
sustainability of Chinese growth in the 7-10 percent range may be doubtful.
Whalley and Xin's analysis indicates that while the FIE sub-economy is still only 20 percent of China's total
economy, it nonetheless accounts for over 40 percent of China's recent economic growth. This part of the
Chinese economy thus has substantial implications for the sustainability of the country's future economic
growth. However, whether rapid growth will continue depends on both continued growth in inward FDI and
access to international export markets. While China's FDI inflow growth rate has averaged over 10 percent
since 2002 (and China's association with the World Trade Organization), the authors' believe that the
figures for 2005 are likely to show a leveling off, or even a slight decline, not least because FDIs have been
moving to other low-wage countries.
A huge part (40%) of China’s economy is based on joint venture projects with foreign companies. If these
foreign companies decide to work with other countries instead, China’s economy will be put in danger.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 76 of 265
Pro: China’s Rise Exaggerated
February 2013
China is caught in a middle income trap
Hervey, Douglas. “China's Entrepreneurship Problem” Harvard Business Review.
December 9, 2011.
China is now experiencing a middle income trap — losing their competitive edge in labor-intensive industries
and not yet gaining new sources of growth from innovation. China needs to create an environment conducive to
the type of bottom up dynamism necessary for entrepreneurial growth, including granting entrepreneurs
enhanced property protections and greater access to capital.
This source succinctly explains what a middle income trap is, and how it affects China.
Effects of a middle income trap
Agenor, Pierre-Richard and Canuto, Otaviano, and Jelenic, Michael. “Avoiding MiddleIncome Growth Traps” The World Bank. November 2012.
Formal evidence on growth slowdowns and middle-income traps has suggested that at per capita incomes of
about US$16,700 in 2005 constant international prices, the growth rate of per capita gross domestic product
(GDP) typically slows from 5.6 to 2.1 percent, or by an average of 3.5 percent- age points. Using regression
and standard growth accounting techniques, this analysis (Eichengreen, Park, and Shin 2011) argues that
growth slowdowns are essentially productivity growth slowdowns, whereby 85 percent of the slowdown
in the rate of output growth can be explained by a slowdown in the rate of total factor productivity
growth—much more than by any slowdown in physical capital accumulation.
During an initial phase of development, low income countries can compete in international markets by
producing labor-intensive, low-cost products using technologies imported from abroad. These countries can
achieve large productivity gains initially through a reallocation of labor from the low-productivity agricultural
sectors to high-productivity manufacturing sectors—or to modern services. However, once these countries reach
middle-income levels, the pool of underemployed rural workers drains and wages begin to rise, thereby eroding
competitiveness. Productivity growth from sectoral reallocation and technology catch-up are eventually
exhausted, while rising wages make labor-intensive exports less competitive on world markets—precisely at the
time when other low-income countries become engaged in a phase of rapid growth. Accordingly, growth
slowdowns coincide with the point in the growth process where it is no longer possible to boost productivity by
shifting additional workers from agriculture to industry and where the gains from importing foreign technology
diminish significantly.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 77 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Corruption Undermines Chinese Regime
Corruption Undermines the Chinese Regime
Surveys of Regime Approval Are Invalid,
Yasheng Huang, “Democratize or Die,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138477/yasheng-huang/democratize-or-die
Li cites high public approval of China's general direction as evidence that the Chinese prefer the political status
quo. In a country without free speech, however, asking people to directly evaluate their leaders'
performance is a bit like giving a single-choice exam. More rigorous surveys that frame questions in less
politically sensitive ways directly contradict his conclusion. According to 2003 surveys cited in How East
Asians View Democracy, edited by the researchers Yun-han Chu, Larry Diamond, Andrew Nathan, and
Doh Chull Shin, 72.3 percent of the Chinese public polled said they believed that democracy is "desirable
for our country now," and 67 percent said that democracy is "suitable for our country now." These two
numbers track with those recorded for well-established East Asian democracies, including Japan, South Korea,
and Taiwan.
Corruption Undermines the Regime’s Legitimacy,
Yasheng Huang, “Democratize or Die,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138477/yasheng-huang/democratize-or-die
Another of Li's claims is about the popular legitimacy of the CCP. But corruption and abuse of power
undermine that legitimacy. This is one of the lessons party leaders have drawn from the Bo Xilai affair.
Remarkably, both Hu Jintao, the outgoing president, and Xi Jinping, the incoming one, have recently
issued dire warnings that corruption could lead to the collapse of the party and the state. They are right,
especially in light of China's ongoing economic slowdown. That is not to say that some individual CCP
leaders are not still widely respected by the Chinese population. But these officials tend to have been the
reformers of the party, such as Deng Xiaoping, who initiated China's market reforms beginning in the late
1970s, and Hu Yaobang, who was general secretary of the CCP during Deng's leadership.
Analysis: China will have a difficult time threatening the U.S. if its regime can barely hang on to power.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 78 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Corruption Undermines Chinese Regime
Corruption has become a huge problem
Pei, Minxin. “Corruption Threatens China’s Future” Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace. October 2007.
In Corruption Threatens China’s Future, Pei paints a sobering picture of corruption in China, where roughly
10 percent of government spending, contracts, and transactions is estimated to be used as kickbacks and
bribes, or simply stolen.
Key Findings:
• Though the Chinese government has more than 1,200 laws, rules, and directives against corruption,
implementation is spotty and ineffective. The odds of a corrupt official going to jail are less than three
percent, making corruption a high-return, low-risk activity. Even low-level officials have the opportunity
to amass an illicit fortune of tens of millions of yuan.
• The amount of money stolen through corruption scandals has risen exponentially since the 1980s. Corruption
in China is concentrated in sectors with extensive state involvement, such as infrastructure projects, real estate,
government procurement, and financial services. The absence of competitive political process and free press
make these high-risk sectors susceptible to fraud, theft, kickbacks , and bribery. The direct costs of
corruption could be as much as $86 billion each year.
• The indirect costs of corruption (efficiency losses; waste; and damage to the environment, public health,
education, credibility and morale) are incalculable. Corruption both undermines social stability (sparking
tens of thousands of protests each year), and contributes to China’s environmental degradation,
deterioration of social services, and the rising cost of health care, housing, and education.
“Corruption has not yet derailed China’s economic rise, sparked a social revolution, or deterred Western
investors. But it would be foolish to conclude that the Chinese system has an infinite capacity to absorb
the mounting costs of corruption,” writes Pei. “Eventually, growth will falter.”
foundationbriefs.com
Page 79 of 265
February 2013
Pro: Corruption Undermines Chinese Regime
Corruption Threatens China’s Economy
Andrew Wedeman. “Double Paradox: Rapid Growth and Rising Corruption In China.”
The Montreal Review. July 2012. http://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/TheDouble-Paradox-of-Rising-Corruption-and-Rapid-Growth-in-China.php
Since the advent of market-building reforms in the late 1970s, the Chinese economy has grown at an astounding
rate. As of 2010, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita had increased 13-fold, double the net gain in South
Korea which trailed next behind China and nearly ten times the gain in the United States and Japan during the
same period. Per capita GDP was not, however, the only thing rising in post-Mao China. As the economy grew
rapidly, corruption was also increasing at an alarming rate. In 1980, the first year during which statutes
governing corruption in China's 1979 Criminal Code was fully in force, state prosecutors filed charges in
9,000 economic crime cases. Nine years later in 1989, they filed charges in nearly 77,500 cases, a nearly 9fold increase. Since then, the number of indictments has fallen steadily, with an average of just under 30,000
cases "filed" annual in recent years. The sums of money associated with this diminished number of cases
have, however, exploded. Whereas prosecutors reported they recovered roughly RMB9,000 (US$3,900 at
the then current exchange rate) per case in 1984, in 2006 they reported recovering an average of
RMB740,000 (US$92,800) in 2006, a 24-fold increase. The number of senior officials charged with
corruption, finally, rose 14-fold from 190 in 1988 to nearly 2,700 in 2009. The three-decade old Chinese
economic "miracle" apparently has a dark side, one which seems to contradict current economic orthodoxy
which posits that rising corruption depresses growth rates and slows development.
(...)
In sum, in Double Paradox I try to explain why we could witness the paradoxical combination of rising
corruption and rapid growth in post-Mao China. Herein it is critically important to stress that I do not argue that
corruption fueled or otherwise contributed to China's rapid economic growth. On the contrary, the evidence
overwhelmingly suggests that corruption has had the same sorts of negative consequences in China that it
has most everywhere else. And there is also every reason to believe that if corruption is not better controlled or
even reduced, over the longer term it could wreck serious damage to the Chinese economy and bring growth
rates down, perhaps dramatically.
Andrew Wedeman’s book explains the rising corruption in China and its probablelong term effects. This
piece of evidence explains the startling implications of the corruption statistics presented.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 80 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China Not Military Threat
China Is Not A Military Threat
Chinese Military Spending is Small Compared to the U.S.
Beijing, Associated Press in. "Chinese Military Spending Increases by 11.2% in Latest
Budget." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 04 Mar. 2012. Web. 05 Jan.
2013.
National People's Congress spokesman Li Zhaoxing, speaking at a news conference a day before the opening of
the annual session of the congress, said China's military spending was small as a percentage of gross
domestic product compared with other countries, especially America.
"China is committed to the path of peaceful development and follows a national defence policy that is
defensive in nature," Li said. "You see, China has 1.3bn people, a large territory and long coastline, but our
defence spending is relatively low compared with other major countries."
In 2011 military spending amounted to 1.2% of China's economy, Li said. By contrast the ratio stood at
4.8% for the US in 2010, according to the World Bank.
Regardless of percentage increases in Chinese military spending, China’s total defense spending is far
below United States levels. Additionally, when looked at relative to GDP, China’s spends far less than the
United States. This disparity helps to put Chinese military buildup into better context and suggests that
China is not only incapable of challenging the U.S. militarily in the present, but likely will not be able to
in the future either.
China Has Not Fought a Battle in Over 30 Years—It’s Military Has Grown Complacent
Research., Jane Perlez; Bree Feng Contributed. "Corruption in Military Poses a Test for
China." The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Nov. 2012.
In his book, Colonel Liu, a former professor at China’s National Defense University, wrote that the army
had not been tested in decades and had grown complacent. “As a military that has not fought a war for
30 years, the People’s Liberation Army has reached a stage in which its biggest danger and No. 1 foe is
corruption,” he wrote.
Colonel Liu first became prominent in 2010 with the publication of his book “The China Dream,” an
ultranationalist tract arguing that China should build the world’s strongest military and move swiftly to supplant
the United States as the global “champion.”
In his new work, the colonel drew a parallel with 1894, when China’s forces were swiftly defeated by a
rapidly modernizing Japan, even though the Chinese were equipped with expensive ships from Europe.
Historians often attribute the defeat to corruption.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 81 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China Not Military Threat
Another retired army officer, and a member of the aristocratic class known as the princelings, said that
corruption existed throughout the military but that the new commission would probably refrain from a sustained
campaign against it.
Colonel Liu states early in the card that the PLA’s biggest foe is the corruption within the government.
There is ample evidence in the file that will reveal the Chinese government is corrupt. It may be useful to
couple a card indicating such with this card.
China is Unable to Challenge the U.S. Militarily
Ross, Robert S., and Aaron L. Friedberg. "Here Be Dragons." The National Interest
(2009) National Interest Online. 1 Sept. 2009. Web. 5 Jan. 2013.
Yet China does not pose a threat to America’s vital security interests today, tomorrow or at any time in
the near future. Neither alarm nor exaggerated assessments of contemporary China’s relative capabilities and
the impact of Chinese defense modernization on U.S. security interests in East Asia is needed because, despite
China’s military advances, it has not developed the necessary technologies to constitute a grave threat.
Beijing’s strategic advances do not require a major change in Washington’s defense or regional security pol-icy,
or in U.S. policy toward China. Rather, ongoing American confidence in its capabilities and in the strength of
its regional partnerships allows the United States to enjoy both extensive military and diplomatic
cooperation with China while it consolidates its regional security interests. The China threat is simply
vastly overrated. America’s vital security interests, including in East Asia, are all in the maritime regions. With
superior maritime power, the United States can not only dominate regional sea-lanes but also guarantee a
favorable balance of power that prevents the emergence of a regional hegemon. And despite China’s
military advances and its challenge to America’s ability to project its power in the region, the United States can
be confident in its ability to retain maritime dominance well into the twenty-first century.
The critical factor in assessing the modernization of the pla’s military forces is thus whether China is on the
verge of challenging U.S. deterrence and developing war-winning capabilities to such a degree that East Asia’s
maritime countries would question the value of their strategic alignment with the United States. But, though
China’s capabilities are increasing, in no way do they challenge U.S. supremacy. America’s maritime
security is based not only on its superior surface fleet, which enables it to project airpower into distant
regions, but also on its subsurface ships, which provide secure “stealth” platforms for retaliatory strikes,
and its advanced command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance capabilities. In each of these areas, China is far from successfully posing any kind of serious
immediate challenge.
Alarmism over Chinese military capabilities is not warranted because the U.S. maintains large
advantages over the Chinese that allow it to dictate security arrangements in the Pacific.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 82 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China Not Military Threat
China’s Navy Does Not Pose a Threat to the U.S.
Ross, Robert S., and Aaron L. Friedberg. "Here Be Dragons." The National Interest
(2009) National Interest Online. 1 Sept. 2009. Web. 5 Jan. 2013.
Indeed, American power-projection capabilities in East Asia are more vulnerable now than at any time since the
end of the cold war. We can no longer guarantee the security of a carrier. Nevertheless, the U.S. Navy is
acutely aware of Chinese advances and is responding with measures to minimize the vulnerability of
aircraft carriers. Due to better funding, improved technologies and peacetime surveillance of Chinese
submarines, the American carrier strike group’s ability to track them and the U.S. Navy’s antisubmarine
capabilities are constantly improving. The U.S. strike group’s counter-electronic-warfare capabilities can also
interfere with the pla Navy’s reconnaissance ability.
Improved Chinese capabilities complicate U.S. naval operations and require greater caution in operating an
aircraft carrier near the Chinese coast, particularly in the case of a conflict over Taiwan. A carrier strike force
may well have to follow a less direct route into the area and maintain a greater distance from China’s coast to
reduce its vulnerability to Chinese capabilities. But such complications to U.S. operations do not significantly
degrade Washington’s ability to project superior power into maritime theaters. The United States still
possesses the only power-projection capability in East Asia.
In another attempt to counter U.S. maritime superiority, China has been planning construction of an aircraft
carrier since the mid-1980s, and it will soon begin building its first. Contrary to the worst-case assessments of
some U.S. observers, a Chinese air- craft carrier will not improve the pla’s naval capability. One or even
two Chinese carriers will be insufficient to maintain a constant presence in distant waters. China will
need multiple large carriers before it can develop a war-fighting capability. Building many will take
decades. In addition, Beijing will have to be able to construct its own advanced aircraft to go on these
carriers—rather than depend on imported Russian models and supplies, an intrinsically unreliable source of
military power. China will also have to develop state- of-the-art c4isr capabilities so it can defend its carrier and
target U.S. maritime assets. This, too, will be a lengthy process. The pla Navy will also confront challenging
organizational demands as it attempts to put a completed carrier into operation. The requirements for
effective management of a carrier and its air- craft are extremely difficult. Any carrier threat from China
on this front is decades away.
The combination of factors enumerated in the card mean that China will be unable to challenge the U.S.
Navy in the Pacific for several years. Thus, the U.S. does not have to worry about a security threat from a
rising China in the Pacific Ocean because the U.S. still has military superiority.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 83 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China Not Military Threat
The Cyber-Warfare Threat to the U.S. is Exaggerated
Ross, Robert S., and Aaron L. Friedberg. "Here Be Dragons." The National Interest
(2009): n. pag. National Interest Online. 1 Sept. 2009. Web. 5 Jan. 2013.
Beijing is also developing cyber-warfare techniques, but exaggerated assessments of this capability fail to
evaluate China’s own emerging vulnerability to such attacks. Cyber-warfare technologies and skills are
readily accessible and U.S. advanced munitions are increasingly dependent on high- technology communication
and surveillance technologies. The United States is thus vulnerable to cyber attacks, and a Chinese cyber
offensive against the United States could influence U.S. operations in the western Pacific. Nonetheless, the
reciprocal effect of Washington’s cyber-warfare capability on Beijing’s ability to wage high-technology
warfare is equally significant. The same advanced Chinese technologies and weaponry that pessimists
argue present a major threat to U.S. security, including asbms, are highly dependent on advanced
communication and surveillance technologies that are particularly vulnerable to U.S. cyber attacks. And
once the United States degrades the pla’s advanced communication technologies, China would lose its hightechnology asymmetric capability that so alarms America’s pessimists, and it would be very susceptible to a
wide range of superior U.S. sea-based forces, even if the United States suffered from an effective Chinese cyber
attack.
Although the cyber-threat is real, the logic of mutually assured destruction applies because China is
becoming increasingly venerable to cyber attacks as a result of its own military modernization. This
vulnerability means that the U.S. also has cyber-leverage over China and, as a consequence, neither side
has a real advantage on the cyber-threat and would be unlikely to use such tactics for fear of equally
destructive retaliation.
China is Not a Military Threat
Thompson, Drew. “Think Again: China’s Military.” Foreign Policy. March and April
2010. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/22/think_again_chinas_military
But it's probably too soon for Americans to panic. Many experts who've looked closely at the matter
agree that China today simply does not have the military capability to challenge the United States in the
Pacific, though its modernization program has increased its ability to engage the United States close to Chinese
shores. And the U.S. military is still, for all its troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan, the most capable fighting
force on the planet.
(...)
The PLA has the most people on its payroll -- 2.2 million active personnel (though between 1985 and 2005, it
shrank by 1.7 million soldiers and is still shrinking today). That's still far more than the 1.4 million active
foundationbriefs.com
Page 84 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China Not Military Threat
service members in the U.S. military.
Then again, the United States also has more than 700,000 civilian Defense Department employees and
significant uncounted numbers of contractors. (In Iraq and Afghanistan, there are roughly equal
numbers of contractors and uniformed personnel -- about 250,000 contractors to 180,000 soldiers.) But in
China, uniformed PLA soldiers carry out many of the same duties that contractors perform for the U.S.
military.
Arguably, the more significant figure for comparison is defense spending. Here the PLA lags far behind the
Pentagon. In 2009, the U.S. military spent $738 billion on defense and homeland security. Estimates for
China's annual military budget vary considerably, ranging from $69.5 billion to $150 billion, but it's
clear that U.S. military spending is still several times higher than China's, the world's second highest.
(...)
China's military today is, if not a near rival to that of the United States, at least a "fast-learning organization," in
the view of many close foreign observers. It is deploying weapons that neutralize key U.S. advantages, such as
ballistic missiles and supersonic sea-skimming missiles that can target U.S. aircraft carriers in the region; an
enlarged submarine fleet; homegrown satellite reconnaissance and communications capabilities; and recently,
the demonstrated capability to eliminate satellites and intercept ballistic missiles.
That said, not all technologies have proven easy to integrate. For instance, when China first bought
Russian-made Kilo-class submarines, some were reportedly out of service for extended periods and in
2002 were even shipped back to Russia for repairs. China also reportedly experienced problems servicing
imported fighter planes and engines.
This card puts the recent growth of the Chinese military into perspective. China still lags behind the
United States in terms of military spending and technology.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 85 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China Not Military Threat
Problems with the Overstretched People’s Liberation Army
Andrew Scobell and Andrew J. Nathan. “China’s Overstretched Military.” The
Washington Quarterly. Fall 2012.
http://csis.org/files/publication/twq12FallScobellNathan.pdf
Despite the dramatic growth of China’s military power since the early 1990s, the Chinese People’s
Liberation Army (PLA), as all branches of China’s armed forces are collectively known, remains
overstretched as it seeks to address the wide range of missions it is called upon to perform. ‘‘China threat’’
theorists worry that the PLA poses a more significant challenge to the United States and China’s neighbors than
it did twenty years ago, and they are right. Yet the Chinese military is far from able to successfully carry out
all its most pressing military tasks within China’s borders and in its immediate neighborhood, and has
only begun to project significant force beyond the Asia—Pacific. The real test for the PLA will be how
adept it proves to be at bringing together new weapon systems, equipment, and formations in response to one or
more serious instances of wartime or peacetime contingencies a broad set of requirements the Chinese have
dubbed ‘‘Diversified Military Tasks.’’
(...)
The prominence of the PLA’s internal mission shows in its deployment. The ground forces comprise
approximately 70 percent of total manpower (1.6 of 2.25 million). Even though each of China’s seven
military regions faces a potential battlefront directly across its borders, including India and Russia
among others, most troops are not deployed close to the borders but distributed widely across the
landscape in camps located in and around China’s major population centers. Within each major
municipality, a garrison command liaisons with local civilian authorities and coordinates units stationed in and
around the city, including paramilitary PAP units, reserve components, and militia forces.
(...)
The PLA also faces a variety of challenges in carrying out missions at China’s borders. Because of the
length and contested nature of those borders and China’s formidable array of potential enemies, the PLA must
defend Beijing’s claims to a host of territories all around China’s periphery this equates to nearly 14,000
miles of land border and 9,000 miles of coastline. The first challenge comes in the PLA’s historic defense-indepth mission, which occupied its primary attention during the Cold War, including the Sino—Soviet dispute,
and continues to hold an important place on the PLA’s agenda. The potential future enemy most likely the
United States reacting to a PRC assault on Taiwan, but perhaps a scenario involving Japan, India, or even
Russia is considered less likely to invade with ground troops and more likely to use air power to strike air and
naval bases, missile sites, and other targets deep within Chinese territory. The military regions accordingly give
great attention to training in the use of anti-aircraft artillery and developing integrated air defenses. Through a
nationwide system of National Defense Mobilization Commissions, established in 1994, local governments as
well as their counterparts in the military regions coordinate the militia with PAP and PLA forces in training to
resist attack or invasion.
The second challenge involves preemptive strike preparation. The PLA is prepared to strike at forces
beyond China’s borders, which are perceived to present an imminent threat of attack, or are already conducting
probes on territory that China controls. During the Cold War, the PLA employed such preemptive force four
times: against U.S. troops in Korea in 1950; India in 1962; the USSR in 1969; and Vietnam in 1979. Today,
foundationbriefs.com
Page 86 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China Not Military Threat
land border threats remain, although they have been noticeably reduced. While relations between Beijing and
New Delhi have thawed and confidence-building measures have lowered tensions, territorial disputes are
unresolved and border incidents occur periodically. China is also sensitive over its border with North Korea,
which has been extremely porous in recent years. Furthermore, Beijing must stand ready to conduct at least a
limited military intervention into North Korea to protect China’s interests if the Pyongyang regime collapses.
Other land borders must also be protected against infiltrators and refugees, including those with the three
Central Asian states that adjoin Xinjiang Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan and with Burma, Laos, and
Nepal. Primary responsibility for border security in peacetime lies with the Ministry of Public Security and the
PAP, but again, the PLA plays a key support role. Each military region must maintain the capability to deal with
more serious contingencies by responding either defensively or preemptively. Limited interventions in countries
around China’s periphery are conceivable if vital interests such as the safety of Chinese citizens or access to
energy resources come under threat.
Thirdly, the PLA must be prepared to defend PRC claims to disputed territories. Although some of
these are on land (such as Arunachal Pradesh, held by India but claimed by China), most are in the East and
South China Seas. The Navy clashed with Vietnamese forces over disputed territory in the South China Sea in
1974 and 1988, confronted Filipino forces in the 1990s, conducted maneuvers in the vicinity of the Senkaku
Islands in the 1990s and the 2000s, and conducted a range of other operations in the South China Sea
throughout the past decade. A recent standoff also occurred between Chinese and Philippine maritime vessels in
mid-2012 near Scarborough Shoal.
This piece of evidence explains some of the domestic challenges facing the PLA—serving to reinforce the
point that the Chinese army is overstretched. This card is best used in combination with the subsequent
card explaining the foreign challenges facing the Chinese military.
Obstacles Facing the Chinese Military
Andrew Scobell and Andrew J. Nathan. “China’s Overstretched Military.” The
Washington Quarterly. Fall 2012.
http://csis.org/files/publication/twq12FallScobellNathan.pdf
Altogether, the PLA is severely challenged by all that it has to undertake. Domestic security will continue
to absorb a significant part of the military’s effort, and the army will accordingly be deployed largely
within China’s borders. Protecting national territory from invasion and supporting territorial claims with
credible military options will remain high on the military’s task list, Taiwan above all else. Missions beyond
Taiwan, whatever they will be, are more likely to focus on areas closer to China’s periphery and less likely to
develop in a major way in more distant theaters. Nuclear deterrence will remain a priority and become more
complicated if China’s neighbors continue to develop their arsenals and missile defenses.
Even as Chinese military power grows, it is tied down by many nearby challenges. It cannot mount a
challenge of geostrategic proportions to the militaries of major rivals unless those rivals make their own
decisions to yield. Even as the PLA modernizes, other militaries in the region and beyond are also
improving technology, increasing capabilities, upgrading training, and adjusting strategies. Japan stands
foundationbriefs.com
Page 87 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China Not Military Threat
out as a country that has quietly developed a suite of cutting-edge space technologies: in addition to
Ballistic Missile Defense capabilities developed in cooperation with the United States, Japan is working on
reusable launch vehicles (i.e., space planes); multifunctional satellites that provide missile early-warnings and
help with navigation, communication, and targeting; warhead reentry technologies that can advance the use of
missiles; unmanned aerial vehicles; and technologies for space situational awareness that show concern for
possible future conflict in space. South Korea is modernizing its military, including its navy, although
focusing its efforts on the threat from North Korea. India is upgrading its navy, although most of its
defense efforts are focused on dealing with Pakistan. Vietnam and other member states of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are upgrading their militaries. The littoral states around the Straits of
Malacca, Sunda, and Lombok are improving their navies, reluctant to concede much responsibility to
outsiders for security along their shores.
Above all, the United States continues to improve its capabilities in the region around China despite the strain
imposed by operations elsewhere in the world. During a 2011 visit to East Asia, Secretary of Defense Leon
Panetta assured U.S. allies that, after a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States ‘‘will
always maintain a strong presence in the Pacific.’’ Also in 2011, President Barack Obama made even
stronger assurances during a visit to Australia, insisting that the United States was a ‘‘Pacific power and we are
here to stay.’’ He backed the rhetoric with the announcement of an agreement to station U.S. Marines in
northern Australia. According to the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), U.S. defense posture in the
Asia—Pacific and elsewhere will remain ‘‘forward stationed and [with] rotationally deployed forces,
capabilities and equipment; [a] supporting network of infrastructure and facilities; [and] a series of treaty,
access, transit, and status-protection agreements and arrangements with allies and key partners.’’Doctrinal and
technological innovations coming online significantly enhance the accuracy and expand the reach of U.S.
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and strike capabilities.
In effect, the Asia—Pacific is experiencing a permanent, almost routinized, multilateral arms race of
which the much-discussed growth of the Chinese military is only a part. In this environment of change,
episodes of friction among militaries will continue to occur and shifts will take place in the relative balance of
power in various theaters. But unless other nations pull back from their own programs of military development,
China’s overstretched military simply cannot expel other major militaries from China’s own region, still
less from regions farther away.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 88 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China Not Military Threat
The Chinese Perspective
Andrew J. Nathan and Andrew Scobell. “How China Sees America.”August 25, 2012.
Foreign Policy. http://chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/how-china-sees-america/
But widespread perceptions of China as an aggressive, expansionist power are off base. Although China's
relative power has grown significantly in recent decades, the main tasks of Chinese foreign policy are
defensive and have not changed much since the Cold War era: to blunt destabilizing influences from
abroad, to avoid territorial losses, to reduce its neighbors' suspicions, and to sustain economic growth.
What has changed in the past two decades is that China is now so deeply integrated into the world economic
system that its internal and regional priorities have become part of a larger quest: to define a global role that
serves Chinese interests but also wins acceptance from other powers.
(...)
At China's borders, policymakers face a second ring of security concerns, involving China's relations
with 14 adjacent countries. No other country except Russia has as many contiguous neighbors. They include
five countries with which China has fought wars in the past 70 years (India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and
Vietnam) and a number of states ruled by unstable regimes. None of China's neighbors perceives its core
national interests as congruent with Beijing's.
But China seldom has the luxury of dealing with any of its neighbors in a purely bilateral context. The third ring
of Chinese security concerns consists of the politics of the six distinct geopolitical regions that surround China:
Northeast Asia, Oceania, continental Southeast Asia, maritime Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Central Asia.
Each of these areas presents complex regional diplomatic and security problems.
Finally, there is the fourth ring: the world far beyond China's immediate neighborhood. China has truly entered
this farthest circle only since the late 1990s and so far for limited purposes: to secure sources of commodities,
such as petroleum; to gain access to markets and investments; to get diplomatic support for isolating Taiwan
and Tibet's Dalai Lama; and to recruit allies for China's positions on international norms and legal regimes.
(...)
First, Chinese analysts see their country as heir to an agrarian, eastern strategic tradition that is
pacifistic, defense-minded, nonexpansionist, and ethical. In contrast, they see Western strategic culture -especially that of the United States -- as militaristic, offense-minded, expansionist, and selfish.
Second, although China has embraced state capitalism with vigor, the Chinese view of the United States is still
informed by Marxist political thought, which posits that capitalist powers seek to exploit the rest of the world.
China expects Western powers to resist Chinese competition for resources and higher-value-added markets.
And although China runs trade surpluses with the United States and holds a large amount of U.S. debt, China's
leading political analysts believe the Americans get the better end of the deal by using cheap Chinese labor and
credit to live beyond their means.
Third, American theories of international relations have become popular among younger Chinese policy
foundationbriefs.com
Page 89 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China Not Military Threat
analysts, many of whom have earned advanced degrees in the United States. The most influential body of
international relations theory in China is so-called offensive realism, which holds that a country will try to
control its security environment to the full extent that its capabilities permit. According to this theory, the
United States cannot be satisfied with the existence of a powerful China and therefore seeks to make the
ruling regime there weaker and more pro-American. Chinese analysts see evidence of this intent in
Washington's calls for democracy and its support for what China sees as separatist movements in Taiwan, Tibet,
and Xinjiang.
The first part of this card explains that China seeks to fulfill understandable goals as a world power. The
second goes on to numerate many of the security challenges facing China. This card serves two purposes:
first to help teams explain the Chinese mindset (which is often clouded by huffy and colored reports.)
Second, this card clarifies some of the challenges facing China—challenges which balance the Chinese
threat to the United States.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 90 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China Integrating Not Overturning
China Is Integrating into the International System, Not
Overturning It
The Post-War International Order Is Unique
Ikenberry, John. "The Rise of China and the Future of the West: Can the Liberal System
Survive." Foreign Affairs (2008): n. pag. Print.
A variety of factors determine the way in which power transitions unfold. The nature of the rising state's
regime and the degree of its dissatisfaction with the old order are critical: at the end of the nineteenth
century, the United States, a liberal country an ocean away from Europe, was better able to embrace the Britishcentered international order than Germany was. But even more decisive is the character of the international
order itself -- for it is the nature of the international order that shapes a rising state's choice between challenging
that order and integrating into it.
The postwar Western order is historically unique. Any international order dominated by a powerful state is
based on a mix of coercion and consent, but the U.S.-led order is distinctive in that it has been more liberal
than imperial -- and so unusually accessible, legitimate, and durable. Its rules and institutions are rooted
in, and thus reinforced by, the evolving global forces of democracy and capitalism. It is expansive, with a
wide and widening array of participants and stakeholders. It is capable of generating tremendous economic
growth and power while also signaling restraint -- all of which make it hard to overturn and easy to join.
The international system in which China finds itself coming of age is one in which China is seeking to join
to facilitate its economic growth rather than overturn through security competition and challenging the
U.S. in zero-sum trade wars.
China’s Rise has Increased stability and cooperation
Christensen, Thomas. “Fostering Stability or Creating a Monster? The Rise of China and
U.S. Policy Towards East Asia.” Project Muse. 2006.
http://www.princeton.edu/politics/about/file-repository/public/christensen-1.pdf
From the positive-sum perspective, U.S. policy toward East Asia since the early 1990s has largely been a
success, despite certain notable and persistent regional problems. The region enjoys much deeper economic
interdependence than it did in the early 1990s, and multilateral diplomacy has been growing, especially since
the mid-1990s. Of equal importance, China has been at the center of this regional integration process,
increasing Beijing’s incentives for cooperation with its neighbors, which include U.S. friends and allies.
These diplomatic and economic phenomena help lower mutual security concerns, prevent spirals of tension,
and reduce strategic misperceptions that often destabilize international relations in periods of structural change,
such as we are witnessing with the rise of Chinese power in Asia.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 91 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China Integrating Not Overturning
China’s Interests Align with Those of the U.S. Led International System
Ikenberry, John. "The Rise of China and the Future of the West: Can the Liberal System
Survive." Foreign Affairs (2008): n. pag. Print.
First, unlike the imperial systems of the past, the Western order is built around rules and norms of
nondiscrimination and market openness, creating conditions for rising states to advance their expanding
economic and political goals within it. Across history, international orders have varied widely in terms of
whether the material benefits that are generated accrue disproportionately to the leading state or are widely
shared. In the Western system, the barriers to economic participation are low, and the potential benefits are
high. China has already discovered the massive economic returns that are possible by operating within
this open-market system.
Second is the coalition-based character of its leadership. Past orders have tended to be dominated by one state.
The stakeholders of the current Western order include a coalition of powers arrayed around the United
States -- an important distinction. These leading states, most of them advanced liberal democracies, do not
always agree, but they are engaged in a continuous process of give-and-take over economics, politics, and
security. Power transitions are typically seen as being played out between two countries, a rising state and a
declining hegemon, and the order falls as soon as the power balance shifts. But in the current order, the
larger aggregation of democratic capitalist states -- and the resulting accumulation of geopolitical power - shifts the balance in the order's favor.
Third, the postwar Western order has an unusually dense, encompassing, and broadly endorsed system of rules
and institutions. Whatever its shortcomings, it is more open and rule-based than any previous order. State
sovereignty and the rule of law are not just norms enshrined in the United Nations Charter. They are
part of the deep operating logic of the order. To be sure, these norms are evolving, and the United States
itself has historically been ambivalent about binding itself to international law and institutions -- and at no time
more so than today. But the overall system is dense with multilateral rules and institutions -- global and
regional, economic, political, and security-related. These represent one of the great breakthroughs of the
postwar era. They have laid the basis for unprecedented levels of cooperation and shared authority over the
global system.
The incentives these features create for China to integrate into the liberal international order are
reinforced by the changed nature of the international economic environment -- especially the new
interdependence driven by technology. The most farsighted Chinese leaders understand that globalization
has changed the game and that China accordingly needs strong, prosperous partners around the world.
From the United States' perspective, a healthy Chinese economy is vital to the United States and the rest of the
world. Technology and the global economic revolution have created a logic of economic relations that is
different from the past -- making the political and institutional logic of the current order all the more powerful.
In order to sustain its rise, China needs partners in the international system. Thus, China is increasingly
conforming to the norms of the international order in order to secure and maintain such partners in the
midst of a globalizing world. This shift is clearly in the U.S. interests.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 92 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China Integrating Not Overturning
China Is Increasingly Integrated in the International Order
Ikenberry, John. "The Rise of China and the Future of the West: Can the Liberal System
Survive." Foreign Affairs (2008): n. pag. Print.
The Western order's strong framework of rules and institutions is already starting to facilitate Chinese
integration. At first, China embraced certain rules and institutions for defensive purposes: protecting its
sovereignty and economic interests while seeking to reassure other states of its peaceful intentions by getting
involved in regional and global groupings. But as the scholar Marc Lanteigne argues, "What separates China
from other states, and indeed previous global powers, is that not only is it 'growing up' within a milieu of
international institutions far more developed than ever before, but more importantly, it is doing so while
making active use of these institutions to promote the country's development of global power status."
China, in short, is increasingly working within, rather than outside of, the Western order….
The existing global trading system is also valuable to China, and increasingly so. Chinese economic interests
are quite congruent with the current global economic system -- a system that is open and loosely
institutionalized and that China has enthusiastically embraced and thrived in. State power today is ultimately
based on sustained economic growth, and China is well aware that no major state can modernize without
integrating into the globalized capitalist system; if a country wants to be a world power, it has no choice but
to join the World Trade Organization (WTO). The road to global power, in effect, runs through the Western
order and its multilateral economic institutions.
China not only needs continued access to the global capitalist system; it also wants the protections that the
system's rules and institutions provide. The WTO's multilateral trade principles and dispute-settlement
mechanisms, for example, offer China tools to defend against the threats of discrimination and protectionism
that rising economic powers often confront. The evolution of China's policy suggests that Chinese leaders
recognize these advantages: as Beijing's growing commitment to economic liberalization has increased
the foreign investment and trade China has enjoyed, so has Beijing increasingly embraced global trade
rules.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 93 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China Integrating Not Overturning
China Has No Desire to Fight
Aaron Friedberg, A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for
Mastery in Asia, W.W. Norton & Company, 2011 [Book]
China’s Strategy is Inherently Defensive
Nathan, Andrew and Andrew Scobell. “How China Sees America”. Foreign Affairs. Sept.
2012. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138009/andrew-j-nathan-and-andrewscobell/how-china-sees-america
But widespread perceptions of China as an aggressive, expansionist power are off base. Although China's
relative power has grown significantly in recent decades, the main tasks of Chinese foreign policy are defensive
and have not changed much since the Cold War era: to blunt destabilizing influences from abroad, to avoid
territorial losses, to reduce its neighbors' suspicions, and to sustain economic growth. What has changed in the
past two decades is that China is now so deeply integrated into the world economic system that its
internal and regional priorities have become part of a larger quest: to define a global role that serves
Chinese interests but also wins acceptance from other powers.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 94 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China Integrating Not Overturning
China is relatively peaceful
Kenny, Charles. “China: What Kind of Superpower?” Bloomberg Businessweek.
September 27, 2012.
Despite such actions, there’s little reason to believe that China will be a destabilizing force in the world. To
understand why, it’s instructive to compare the China of 2012 with a country that a century ago was also on the
verge of superpower status: the United States.
By 1918 the U.S. had unquestionably become one of the world’s most powerful nations. In the first two
decades of the 20th century, the U.S. occupied Cuba, the Philippines, Haiti, Nicaragua, the Dominican
Republic, the Panama Canal Zone, and Puerto Rico, and had sent troops to fight in Mexico, Western
Europe, and Russia. Its late entry into World War I was a decisive factor in the defeat of Germany.
America ended the war with the highest income per head in the world. By 1929 it accounted for 20 percent of
global military expenditure.
The short 1979 Sino-Vietnamese war was the last international armed conflict entered into by China—
and it didn’t even end with a border change. Compare that to the long list of American interventions prior to
1918; it’s hard to argue that young superpowers are any more inclined to be pacific simply because they’re
democracies, or more likely to start wars if they’re not.
Because of China’s enmeshment in the world economy, military spending has remained a relatively low priority
for the country’s rulers. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research institute, China today
accounts for only about 8 percent of the world’s military expenditure—less than half the U.S.’s level in
1929 and one-fifth of America’s share today. China is a country that appears to have no pretensions to
global military dominance.
China’s future is tied to everyone else’s future
Kenny, Charles. “China: What Kind of Superpower?” Bloomberg Businessweek.
September 27, 2012.
Today’s China is more woven into the international system than any previous superpower, including the
U.S. In 1918, U.S. merchandise exports accounted for 8 percent of gross domestic product. For China in
2010, the same number was 26 percent—more than three times as high. As a sign of how completely
integrated the country is in the global trading system, 50 percent of those exports were produced by
foreign enterprises. And when it comes to its own investments overseas, China has more than $3 trillion in
foreign reserves alone, most held in securities (and a good chunk in the U.S. and Europe).
foundationbriefs.com
Page 95 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China Integrating Not Overturning
Education and a good economy have moderated communist China
Kenny, Charles. “China: What Kind of Superpower?” Bloomberg Businessweek.
September 27, 2012.
At the same time, the Chinese are at least as educated and prosperous as Americans were at a comparable stage
of global influence—factors that should also help to moderate Chinese behavior in the long run. GDP per
capita in China surpassed the U.S. level of 1918 sometime around 2006; today China is about as rich as
America was in 1949. According to the U.S. National Center for Education Statistics, the average
American over the age of 25 had 8.2 years of education in 1920. In China, that’s the average for people
over the age of 15, according to development economists Robert Barro and Jong-Wha Lee.
In some cases, the Chinese people appear to have more cosmopolitan attitudes than Americans do even today.
When asked if they see themselves as world citizens, 84 percent of Chinese agree with the statement,
compared with 69 percent of Americans. Asked who should decide policies about international
peacekeeping, 64 percent of Chinese pick the United Nations over national governments or regional
organizations, compared with 53 percent in the U.S. (The relative support for the UN switches when it
comes to deciding policies towards human rights.) More than 60 percent of the Chinese population would
support paying more in taxes if it were used to help protect their environment. That compares with only
50 percent in the U.S. today—let alone in 1918, decades before Rachel Carson had raised the specter of a spring
without birdsong. And almost exactly the same proportion of Chinese as Americans—just over fourfifths—rate global warming as a serious problem.
It’s possible that a more appropriate superpower analogy for the China of 2012 is not the U.S. of 1918 but the
former Soviet Union after World War II. That country, like China, was ruled by an undemocratic communist
regime. It placed huge armies on the borders of key U.S. allies in Europe and helped topple U.S.-friendly
regimes from Latin America through Africa and Asia. But in 1950 the USSR had a GDP per capita of
$2,840—about a third of current Chinese income. And all of Nikita Khrushchev’s fist-banging braggadocio
to the contrary, it never became the economic equal of the U.S.
Ever since the Cold War, Americans have had a fear of Communism and Communist nations. However,
China is not the Soviet Union. Education and a global economy have influenced China tremendously and
helped to change the Chinese people’s perception of the world. Thus, despite the fact that China is run by
a communist government, it is very different from the stereotypical nation. It wants to integrate into the
current global order, instead of overturning it.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 96 of 265
February 2013
Pro: China Integrating Not Overturning
China as an Ally to the United States
China Backs United States in Important Matter
“Russia and China to back Iran resolution.” Aljazeera. September 12, 2012.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/201291211411203615.html
After days of diplomacy, Russia and China have agreed to support a US-backed resolution demanding
that Iran stop activities that could be used to make nuclear arms.
Diplomats said on Wednesday the agreement sent a unified message to Iran, but also convinced Israel that
diplomacy was a real alternative to military force in preventing a nuclear confrontation.
(…)
Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only.
But it refuses foreign offers of reactor fuel if it stops making its own through uranium enrichment - a
process that worries the international community because it could also be used to arm nuclear warheads.
Concerns also focus on nuclear watchdog's suspicions that Iran has worked secretly on nuclear arms allegations Iran dismisses as based on fabricated US and Israeli intelligence.
The new resolution singles out Iran's defiance of UN Security Council resolutions to suspend uranium
enrichment, its refusal to allow IAEA inspectors into the Parchin military base and the suspected
removal of evidence of nuclear weapons research.
According to a draft seen by AFP, it stresses "once again its serious concern that Iran continues to defy the
requirements and obligations contained in the relevant IAEA Board of Governors and UN Security Council
Resolutions".
It is significant that Western nations were able to get Moscow and Beijing on board as they are
traditionally more lenient on Tehran, with China a major buyer of Iranian oil and Russia having close
commercial ties with Iran.
The draft resolution comes as the European Union is considering imposing more sanctions on the Islamic
republic.
The timing is also important since it follows weeks of growing speculation that Israel may bomb the Gulf
country's atomic facilities, said Mark Hibbs, analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
The resolution "reflects the desire of member states to underscore that diplomacy is paramount and it warns
Israel in two separate paragraphs that the diplomatic process should be supported," Hibbs told AFP.
This example demonstrates one example of the leverage China has provided for the United States a world
power.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 97 of 265
Con Evidence
foundationbriefs.com
Page 98 of 265
February 2013
Con: General
General
China and the US Destined to be Foes
Rosenthal. “Are US China Relations Doomed?” The National Interest. 1 Mar. 2012. Web.
8 Jan 2013. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/are-us-china-relations-doomed6597
The three pillars of U.S.-China relations, according to Pei, are security, economy and ideology. Slowly but
surely, ideological clashes are undermining the other two pillars. In terms of security, Washington and Beijing
have already become “quasi-competitors, instead of quasi-allies, each viewing the other as a potential threat.”
The economic relationship between the two countries remains important, but Pei notes that “the political
economies of a liberal democracy (which favors free competition) and an autocratic regime (which favors state
control) are fundamentally at odds with each other.” It won’t be long until this third pillar falls.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 99 of 265
February 2013
Con: Cyber Warfare Threat
China is a major Cyber warfare threat
Chinese hacking hurts America’s economy
Dilanian, Ken. “Fact check: Is China involved in cyber attacks?” Los Angeles Times.
October 22, 2012.
In November 2011, the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive issued a report on cyber-spying
that said Chinese entities “are the world’s most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage.
Chinese attempts to collect U.S. technological and economic information will continue at a high level and
will represent a growing and persistent threat to U.S. economic security."
The Chinese government is improving its Cyber warfare capabilities
Nakashima, Ellen. “China testing cyber-attack capabilities, report says” The Washington
Post. March 08, 2012.
The Chinese military conducted an exercise in October involving “joint information offensive and defensive
operations” and another in 2010 featuring attacks on communications command-and-control systems, according
to the commission, which was set up by Congress.
Such exercises, combined with evidence that China is streamlining its forces to integrate cyber and electronic
warfare and is financing research in the two areas, show that “Chinese capabilities in computer network
operations have advanced sufficiently to pose genuine risk to U.S. military operations in the event of a
conflict,” the report asserted.
The exercises are an indication that the Chinese “are beginning to practice a capability that some senior
U.S. officials say makes them near-peers,” said James A. Lewis, a cyber-policy expert with the Center for
Strategic and International Studies.
What that suggests, he said, is that because the United States’ war-fighting capability depends heavily on
information technology, “if we get into any kind of a conflict with the PLA (People’s Liberation Army), cyber
will be their opening move.”
American officials have stated that the Chinese have penetrated the U.S. electric grid and that they have
gained access to U.S. government and corporate networks.
Leveraging such access, “the PLA may target a combination of networks” in the Pacific Command area,
including those focused on logistics and, potentially, transportation, the report asserted.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 100 of 265
February 2013
Con: Cyber Warfare Threat
America is unprepared for Cyber attacks
Engleman, Eric and Strohm, Chris. “Cybersecurity Disaster Seen in U.S. Survey Citing
Spending Gaps” Bloomberg. Jan 30, 2012.
Companies including utilities, banks and phone carriers would have to spend almost nine times more on
cybersecurity to prevent a digital Pearl Harbor from plunging millions into darkness, paralyzing the
financial system or cutting communications, a Bloomberg Government study found.
…according to Lawrence Ponemon, chairman of the Ponemon Institute LLC, a research firm that collaborated
with Bloomberg on the study released today in Washington.
“The consequences of a successful attack against critical infrastructure makes these cost increases look like
chump change,” Ponemon said in an interview. “It would put people into the Dark Ages.”
The study…is based on interviews with technology managers from 172 U.S. organizations in six industries and
the government.
To achieve security capable of stopping 95 percent of attacks -- considered by the Traverse City, Michiganbased Ponemon Institute to be the highest attainable level -- those surveyed said they would have to boost
spending to a group total of $46.6 billion from the current $5.3 billion.
In an event that hints at the damage of a successful cyber attack on the electrical grid, a blackout in August
2003 left an estimated 50 million people in North America without power for as long as four days and
cost as much as $10 billion, according to a study by the U.S. and Canadian governments.
To achieve an ideal level of security in which 95 percent of attacks are thwarted, utilities and energy
companies surveyed in the Bloomberg study would have to increase average annual spending more than
seven-fold to $344.6 million per company from the current level of $45.8 million.
Of all the industries surveyed by in the Bloomberg study, financial services would face the steepest increase in
spending to reach an ideal state of protection. Financial companies’ annual security costs would jump
almost 13-fold on average to $292.4 million per company to fend off 95 percent of attacks, from the
current $22.9 million, according to the study.
Even an incremental improvement in computer defenses would require a significant investment, according to all
of the organizations surveyed by Ponemon. To be able to thwart 84 percent of attacks, up from the current
69 percent, respondents said they would have to almost double their average expenditures on equipment
and practices such as user verification systems, encryption and workforce training.
That increase would bring the group’s combined spending on security to $10.2 billion from the current
$5.3 billion, according to the study. The survey polled technology managers at 124 companies, along with 48
federal, state and municipal agencies.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 101 of 265
February 2013
Con: Cyber Warfare Threat
China has been responsible for multiple Cyber attacks
Rogin, Josh. “The top 10 Chinese cyber attacks (that we know of)” Foreign Policy.
January 22, 2010.
1) Titan Rain
In 2004, an analyst named Shawn Carpenter at Sandia National Laboratories traced the origins of a massive
cyber espionage ring back to a team of government sponsored researchers in Guangdong Province in China.
The hackers, code named by the FBI “Titan Rain,” stole massive amounts of information from military
labs, NASA, the World Bank, and others. Rather than being rewarded, Carpenter was fired and investigated
after revealing his findings to the FBI, because hacking foreign computers is illegal under U.S. law. He later
sued and was awarded more than $3 million. The FBI renamed Titan Rain and classified the new name. The
group is still assumed to be operating.
2) State Department’s East Asia Bureau
In July 2006, the State Department admitted it had become a victim of cyber hacking after an official in “East
Asia” accidentally opened an email he shouldn’t have. The attackers worked their way around the system,
breaking into computers at U.S. embassies all over the region and then eventually penetrating systems in
Washington as well.
3) Offices of Rep. Frank Wolf
Wolf has been one of the most outspoken lawmakers on Chinese human rights issues, so it was of little surprise
when he announced that in August 2006 that his office computers had been compromised and that he suspected
the Chinese government. Wolf also reported that similar attacks had compromised the systems of several other
congressmen and the office of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
4) Commerce Department
The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security had to throw away all of its computers in
October 2006, paralyzing the bureau for more than a month due to targeted attacks originating from
China. BIS is where export licenses for technology items to countries like China are issued.
5) Naval War College
In December 2006, the Naval War College in Rhode Island had to take all of its computer systems
offline for weeks following a major cyber attack. One professor at the school told his students that the
Chinese had brought down the system. The Naval War College is where much military strategy against
China is developed.
6) Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and the 2003 blackout?
foundationbriefs.com
Page 102 of 265
February 2013
Con: Cyber Warfare Threat
A National Journal article revealed that spying software meant to clandestinely steal personal data was
found on the devices of then Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and several other officials following a
trade mission to China in December 2007. That same article reported that intelligence officials traced the
causes of the massive 2003 northeast blackout back to the PLA, but some analysts question the connection.
7) McCain and Obama presidential campaigns
That’s right, both the campaigns of then Senators Barack Obama and John McCain were completely invaded by
cyber spies in August 2008. The Secret Service forced all campaign senior staff to replace their Blackberries
and laptops. The hackers were looking for policy data as a way to predict the positions of the future winner.
Senior campaign staffers have acknowledged that the Chinese government contacted one campaign and
referred to information that could only have been gained from the theft.
8) Office of Sen. Bill Nelson, D-FL
At a March 2009 hearing, Nelson revealed that his office computers had been hacked three separate times and
his aide confirmed that the attacks had been traced back to China. The targets of the attacks were Nelson’s
foreign-policy aide, his legislative director, and a former NASA advisor.
9) Ghostnet
In March, 2009, researchers inToronto concluded a 10-month investigation that revealed a massive cyber
espionage ring they called Ghostnet that had penetrated more than 1,200 systems in 103 countries. The
victims were foreign embassies, NGOs, news media institutions, foreign affairs ministries, and
international organizations. Almost all Tibet-related organizations had been compromised, including the
offices of the Dalai Lama. The attacks used Chinese malware and came from Beijing.
10) Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program
In April, 2009, the Wall Street Journal reported that China was suspected of being behind a major theft
of data from Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter program, the most advanced airplane ever designed.
Multiple infiltrations of the F-35 program apparently went on for years.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 103 of 265
February 2013
Con: Cyber Warfare Threat
The U.S. is under siege
Rogin, Josh. “Cyber officials: Chinese hackers attack 'anything and everything'” Foreign
Policy. February 13, 2007.
At the Naval Network Warfare Command here, U.S. cyber defenders track and investigate hundreds of
suspicious events each day. But the predominant threat comes from Chinese hackers, who are constantly
waging all-out warfare against Defense Department networks, Netwarcom officials said.
Attacks coming from China, probably with government support, far outstrip other attackers in terms of
volume, proficiency and sophistication, said a senior Netwarcom official, who spoke to reporters on
background Feb 12. The conflict has reached the level of a campaign-style, force-on-force engagement, he
said.
“They will exploit anything and everything,” the senior official said, referring to the Chinese hackers’ strategy.
And although it is impossible to confirm the involvement of China’s government, the attacks are so
deliberate, “it’s hard to believe it’s not government-driven,” the official said.
The motives of Chinese hackers run the gamut, including technology theft, intelligence gathering, exfiltration,
research on DOD operations and the creation of dormant presences in DOD networks for future action, the
official said.
A recent Chinese military white paper states that China plans to be able to win an “informationized war”
by the middle of this century. Overall, China seeks a position of power to ensure its freedom of action in
international affairs and the ability to influence the global economy, the senior official said.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 104 of 265
February 2013
Con: Cyber Warfare Threat
China also targets American businesses
Arthur, Charles. “Chinese cyber-attacks 'pinned to users'” The Guardian. December 12,
2011.
As few as 12 different Chinese groups, largely backed or directed by the government there, do the bulk of the
China-based cyber attacks, stealing critical data from US companies and government agencies, according to US
cyber security analysts and experts.
"Industry is already feeling that they are at war," said James Cartwright, a retired Marine general and
former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
US government officials have been reluctant to tie the attacks directly back to the Chinese government, but
analysts and officials quietly say that they have tracked enough intrusions to specific locations to be
confident they are linked to Beijing either the government or the military.
The tools include malware that can record keystrokes, steal and decrypt passwords, and copy and compress data
so it can be transferred back to the attacker's computer. The malware can then delete itself or disappear until
needed again.
Several specific attacks linked to China include:
• Two sophisticated attacks in 2010 against Google's systems which stole some of the internet giant's
program code – its intellectual property – and also broke into the Gmail accounts of several hundred
people, including senior US government officials, military personnel and political activists.
• Last year computer security firm Mandiant reported that data was stolen from a Fortune 500
manufacturing company during business negotiations when the company was trying to buy a Chinese
company.
• Earlier this year, McAfee traced an intrusion to an internet protocol address in China and
said intruders took data from global oil, energy and petrochemical companies.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 105 of 265
February 2013
Con: Cyber Warfare Threat
Effects of Chinese Cyber attacks
Lai, Robert and Rahman, Syed. “Analytic of China Cyberattack” The International
Journal of Multimedia & Its Applications. June 2012.
Cyber espionage is part of cyberattack since its intent is to exfiltrate information from target for latter attack.
The Technolytics Institute has estimated that Department of Defense (DoD) has lost over 20-27 terabytes
of data in 2007. Adversaries will use stolen military and industry secrets to aid their future cyberattack. China
is the most active nation-state on cyber espionage activities with a “grain of sands” approach—steals as much
data as possible, and infers valuable information from the stolen data. Cyber espionage is a threat that gives
adversaries the asymmetric advantages on gaining critical technology, trade secret, intellectual property,
financial data, personal identifiable information (PII), and classified data from corporations, institutions,
defense contractors, or the government so that they can level the playing field.
In 2011, a sophisticated hack on U.S. Chamber of Commerce system went undetected for over six months
with evident linked to China. The hackers hijacked some known Chamber employees’ Yahoo and Hotmail
addresses, and sent phishing emails to all Chamber staffs with malicious links to steal their credentials (e.g.,
login name, password), and install malware on their computer systems. The breach was gigantic since the
hackers had unrestricted access to three million members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is the
America's top business-lobbying group
Bloomberg reported that China-based hackers did another aggressive attack on iBahn—a major internet
service provider (ISP) that offers internet broadband service to guests of Marriott hotel, and other hotel
chains . Over 760 entities (e.g., companies, research universities, ISPs) are members of the iBahn’s
network. Travelers use iBahn service for internet service, and access their office’s internal networks
while traveling. The network’s breach at this level offers hackers the easy man-in-the-middle attack, and bypass most security controls (e.g., encryption, multiple factor authentication). In a written statement, iBahn has
denied any network’s breach at all, but anonymous sources confirmed that the attack originated in China
Cyber espionage activities by Chinese hackers are on the rise, and it is widespread to all American business,
industry, and government sectors. Attack on supply-chain is not a task that non-nation-state hackers can easily
achieve since it requires huge resources and technical skills. There are proofs that Chinese hackers have
targeted the supply-chain. In 2008, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conducted Operation Cisco
Raider to uncover 3,500 counterfeit Cisco network devices valued at $3.5 million from China. These fake
network devices (e.g., router, switch) were purchased by DoD, federal government agencies, defense
contractors, universities, and financial institutions, which could make them vulnerable to cyberattack
since it would be very difficult to detect malware in the firmware. Technolytics has suggested that cyber
espionage is a $1.5 trillion problem, and there is no easy countermeasure solution. The grand scale of cyber
espionage activities by China is far-reaching: data breach can include mass quantity of personal/customer data,
financial data, and trade secrets on compromised systems.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 106 of 265
February 2013
Con: Cyber Warfare Threat
China is preparing and planning for a confrontation with the U.S.
Carroll,Ward.“China’s Cyber Forces” Defense Tech. May 8, 2008.
China’s Cyber Warfare Doctrine is designed to achieve global “electronic dominance” by 2050 which
would include the capability of disruption of the information infrastructure of their enemies. This
doctrine includes strategies that would disrupt financial markets, military and civilian communications
capabilities as well as other parts of the enemy’s critical infrastructure prior to the initiation of
traditional military operations.
Military and intelligence sources have known that Chinese cyber forces have developed these detailed
plans for cyber attacks against the United States and others. It is believed that the plans for such an
attack were drawn under the direction of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
China has a significant cyber weapons and intelligence infrastructure in place today. What is alarming is not
only do they have the intent, but they have the money. Beijing has the world’s second or third largest
defense budget depending on where you look for the numbers. Their military budget has been on the rise
at 10 percent or more a year for over a decade. This, as well as the attacks, are evidenced by their cyber
operational ability to scan, acquire nodes for their growing botnet as well as the continued sophisticated assaults
on defense information systems in the US, Germany, UK and India. In addition, in April 2007, Sami Saydjari,
who has worked on cyber defense systems for the Pentagon since the 1980s, told Congress: “The situation is
grave, with nation-states such as China developing serious offensive capabilities.”
The following information has been provided by Spy-Ops and represents their assessment of China’s current
cyber capabilities.
China People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
Military Budget: $62 Billion USD
Global Rating in Cyber Capabilities: Number Two
Cyber Warfare Budget: $55 Million USD
Offensive Cyber Capabilities: 4.2 (1 = Low, 3 = Moderate and 5 = Significant)
Cyber Weapons Arsenal:
In Order of Threat — Large, advanced BotNet for DDos and espionage
Electromagnetic pulse weapons (non-nuclear)
Compromised counterfeit computer hardware
Compromised computer peripheral devices
Compromised counterfeit computer software
Zero-day exploitation development framework
Advanced dynamic exploitation capabilities
Wireless data communications jammers
foundationbriefs.com
Page 107 of 265
February 2013
Con: Cyber Warfare Threat
Computer viruses and worms
Cyber data collection exploits
Computer and networks reconnaissance tools
Embedded Trojan time bombs (suspected)
Compromised microprocessors & other chips (suspected)
Cyber Weapons Capabilities Rating: Advanced
Cyber force Size: 10,000 +
Broadband Connections: More than 55 million
China’s Hacker Community: Honker Union, Red Hackers Alliance (The 5th largest hacking organization in the
world.)
China’s Software Industry: In Q1 2007, the software industry RMB 96.7 billion with a year-on-year increase of
26.9%.
In Q1 2008, China recorded RMB 144.36 billion in software industry sales revenue, up sharply year-on-year.
From all this information one can only conclude that China has the intent and technological capabilities
necessary to carry out a cyber attack anywhere in the world at any time. Nations around the world can
no longer ignore the advanced threat that China’s cyber warfare capabilities may have today and the
ones they aspire to have in the near future.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 108 of 265
February 2013
Con: Military Threat
China Threatens the United States Militarily
The Importance of Military Dominance
Ashley J. Tellis, Janice Bially, Christopher Layne, Melissa McPherson, Jerry M. Sollinger.
“Measuring Power in the PostIndustrial Age.” RAND Corporation.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA386078
The ultimate yardstick of national power is military capability. Because countries subsist in an environment
where internal and external threats to security are both common and ever-present, the effectiveness of their
coercive arms becomes the ultimate measure of power. Military capabilities enable countries to defend
themselves, while simultaneously enabling their state managers to pursue whatever interests they wish, if
necessary over and against the preferences of other competing entities. The ultimate "output" of national
power should be—ideally—the ability of a military force to successfully prosecute a variety of operations
against its adversaries. Whether a force is in fact capable of overwhelming these adversaries requires a
detailed analysis of the balance of power, which will not be undertaken here, because the objective is not
to assess power as an "outcome" but only as a "resource." Measuring military capability here will focus on
understanding which ingredients are necessary for the creation of an effective force, and how the effectiveness
of this force can be conceptualized in an intellectual sense.
The notion of military capability as the output level of national power is premised on the understanding that a
country's military organizations receive national resources and transform them into specific warfighting
capabilities. The warfighting capabilities thus generated are effective to the degree that they enable a
country's leaders to impose their will on enemies. Thus, the larger logical framework developed for
examining national power can be applied to examining how national military establishments generate effective
military forces. Put simply, the question is, "What resources does the military get, and how successfully can
they be transformed into effective military power?" Military effectiveness thus becomes the result of the
resources provided to the military and its capability to transform them into effective warfighting
capability. The three major components of the military capability level are strategic resources, conversion
capability, and combat proficiency.
This card explains the importance of military power, which will frame evidence of Chinese dominance in
this field for the con.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 109 of 265
February 2013
Con: Military Threat
China is becoming the biggest military power of its region
Cheng, Dean. “Chinese Defense Spending Continues Rise as U.S. Budget Declines” The
Heritage Foundation. March 4, 2012.
As China prepares for the final plenum of the 17th Party Congress, it has announced that the new defense
budget would amount to 670 billion RMB (approximately $106 billion), which equates to a 11.2 percent
increase. This is in sharp contrast to the United States, which, despite a so-called “pivot to Asia,” is busily
reducing its defense budget.
The increase in China’s defense spending, atop last year’s 12.7 percent increase, highlights that China’s
defense spending is now larger than that of all other Asian nations combined—a sobering statistic when
one considers that this includes the world’s third-largest economy (Japan) and North and South Korea, which
remain locked in a Cold War–era standoff.
China Is Engaging in Large Scale Military Modernization
Beijing, Associated Press in. "Chinese Military Spending Increases by 11.2% in Latest
Budget." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 04 Mar. 2012. Web. 05 Jan.
2013.
China is to boost its defence spending by 11.2% in 2012, the latest in nearly two decades of double-digit
increases each year.
Although the planned figure is less than last year's 12.7% increase, China's military leaders have said they are
unhappy with recent moves by the Obama administration to increase the US military presence in the
Asia-Pacific region.
Only twice since the early 1990s has the increase been less than double digits.
The National People's Congress spokesman Li Zhaoxing said China's defence spending would increase by
11.2% over actual spending last year to hit 670.2bn yuan (£67bn/$106.4bn) in 2012, an increase of about 67bn
yuan.
China's official defence spending is the largest in the world after the United States, but actual spending,
according to foreign defence experts, may be 50% higher as China excludes outlays for its nuclear
missiles and other programmes.
These large scale increases in military spending are consistent with a policy of military modernization
and buildup. Note that the article specifically mentions increase in spending in response to U.S. actions,
which suggests an effort to challenge U.S. power in the region.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 110 of 265
February 2013
Con: Military Threat
Chinese Military Modernization Directly Challenges the U.S. and other Regional Powers
Beijing, Associated Press in. "Chinese Military Spending Increases by 11.2% in Latest
Budget." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 04 Mar. 2012. Web. 05 Jan.
2013.
Beijing's robust defence buildup over more than two decades has transformed the military into a
formidable regional force, increasingly able to project power far from China. While chiefly aimed at the
US, the buildup is also concerning to India as well as Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines, which have
maritime disputes with China…. The Chinese military armoury includes the home-built J-10 jet fighter, new
nuclear submarines and modern surface vessels armed with supersonic anti-ship missiles. In 2011 China began
testing a new J-20 stealth fighter and launched sea trials of its first aircraft carrier, a refurbished hulk purchased
from Ukraine. Cyber-warfare programmes are burgeoning.
As China begins to acquire increasingly sophisticated weapons platforms, it ability to challenge the U.S.
and other powers in Asia and the Pacific increases. As a result, the possibility of conflict becomes more
likely .
China’s rise causes security dilemma
Friedberg, Aaron. "The Future of U.S.-China Relations."International Security. 30.2 (
(2005): 7-45. Web. 2005 http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/016228805775124589
As regards Taiwan, China’s goal may be only to prevent that island from sliding toward independence.
The PRC’s leaders may be perfectly willing to live with the status quo indefinitely, but they may believe that
they have to issue periodic threats to prevent Taiwan from breaking free. The U.S. Objective may be only
to prevent forceful reunification. But China’s threats and ongoing military buildup may increase fears that
Beijing will eventually feel capable of achieving its objectives through the use of force. To maintain
deterrence, Washington may then feel compelled to increase military assistance to Taipei and to take
other measures designed to make it appear more likely that the United States would intervene if Taiwan
were attacked. But these steps will almost certainly make the PRC more fearful of a Taiwanese bolt for
independence, which will cause Beijing to further intensify its military efforts and heighten its rhetoric,
and so on.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 111 of 265
February 2013
Con: Military Threat
China Has the Ability to Challenge the U.S. Locally
Ross, Robert S., and Aaron L. Friedberg. "Here Be Dragons." The National Interest
(2009): n. pag. National Interest Online. 1 Sept. 2009. Web. 5 Jan. 2013.
Triggered by the geopolitical shifts that accompanied the end of the cold war, fueled by the nation’s rapid
economic growth, and driven by a mix of insecurity and ambition, today’s buildup has been under way for the
better part of two decades. Even before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Chinese strategists began to shift their
attention from preparing for a massive, all-out “People’s War” against a nuclear-armed northern invader toward what they labeled “local war under high- tech conditions.” Such a war would be fought for limited
aims, using only conventional weapons, in the sea and airspace off China’s eastern coasts….
America’s ability to project power into the western Pacific, once unchallenged, is now threatened by the
maturation of what Pentagon planners refer to as China’s “anti-access/area-denial” strategy. The goal
here is not to match the Americans ship-for-ship and plane-for-plane but rather to develop certain
specialized capabilities designed to make it difficult, if not impossible, for U.S. forces to operate freely any
where close to China’s coasts….
Every one of the relative handful of bases on which the United States relies to sustain its presence in East Asia
will soon be within range of bombardment by repeated salvos of precisely targeted Chinese conventional
ballistic and cruise missiles. At the same time, the pla is in the process of knitting together a network of
satellites, on- shore radars and other sensors that will permit it to locate and track an enemy’s surface ships
hundreds of miles off its coasts and then use a combination of torpedoes, high-speed cruise missiles and landbased ballistic missiles to sink or disable them. America’s huge and costly aircraft carriers are the key to its
global power-projection capabilities. In a future cri- sis, Washington might have little choice but to pull
them far back from China’s coasts, well beyond the effective range of their aircraft. This would
dramatically reduce their ability to provide air defense for U.S. friends or to conduct strikes against
Chinese forces on land or at sea.
China’s ability to challenge the U.S. locally means that America no longer has the ability to exercise
military leverage over China and shape events in East Asia.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 112 of 265
February 2013
Con: Military Threat
Chinese Geopolitical Advantage
Robert D. Kaplan. “How We Would Fight China.” June 2005. The Atlantic Magazine.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/06/how-we-would-fightchina/303959/
In any naval encounter China will have distinct advantages over the United States, even if it lags in
technological military prowess. It has the benefit, for one thing, of sheer proximity. Its military is an avid
student of the competition, and a fast learner. It has growing increments of "soft" power that demonstrate a
particular gift for adaptation. While stateless terrorists fill security vacuums, the Chinese fill economic
ones. All over the globe, in such disparate places as the troubled Pacific Island states of Oceania, the
Panama Canal zone, and out-of-the-way African nations, the Chinese are becoming masters of indirect
influence—by establishing business communities and diplomatic outposts, by negotiating construction and
trade agreements. Pulsing with consumer and martial energy, and boasting a peasantry that, unlike others in
history, is overwhelmingly literate, China constitutes the principal conventional threat to America's liberal
imperium.
(...)
Whenever great powers have emerged or re-emerged on the scene (Germany and Japan in the early
decades of the twentieth century, to cite two recent examples), they have tended to be particularly
assertive—and therefore have thrown international affairs into violent turmoil. China will be no
exception. Today the Chinese are investing in both diesel-powered and nuclear-powered submarines—a clear
signal that they intend not only to protect their coastal shelves but also to expand their sphere of influence far
out into the Pacific and beyond.
This is wholly legitimate. China's rulers may not be democrats in the literal sense, but they are seeking a
liberated First World lifestyle for many of their 1.3 billion people—and doing so requires that they safeguard
sea-lanes for the transport of energy resources from the Middle East and elsewhere. Naturally, they do
not trust the United States and India to do this for them. Given the stakes, and given what history teaches us
about the conflicts that emerge when great powers all pursue legitimate interests, the result is likely to be the
defining military conflict of the twenty-first century: if not a big war with China, then a series of Cold
War—style standoffs that stretch out over years and decades. And this will occur mostly within
PACOM's area of responsibility.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 113 of 265
February 2013
Con: Military Threat
Implications of War with China
Robert D. Kaplan. “How We Would Fight China.” June 2005. The Atlantic Magazine.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/06/how-we-would-fightchina/303959/
Like the nations involved in World War I, and unlike the rogue states everyone has been concentrating
on, the United States and China in the twenty-first century would have the capacity to keep fighting even
if one or the other lost a big battle or a missile exchange. This has far-reaching implications. "Ending a war
with China," Vickers says, "may mean effecting some form of regime change, because we don't want to
leave some wounded, angry regime in place." Another analyst, this one inside the Pentagon, told me,
"Ending a war with China will force us to substantially reduce their military capacity, thus threatening
their energy sources and the Communist Party's grip on power. The world will not be the same
afterward. It's a very dangerous road to travel on."
A necessary part of examining China’s rise to power is considering what war with China would look like
that. The sources above explain some of the dangerous implications of such a war.
China Has Unstoppable Offensive Weaponry
Aaron Friedberg, A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for
Mastery in Asia, W.W. Norton & Company, 2011 [Book]
In addition to being able to spot distant targets, China increasingly has the ability to disable or destroy
them. The PLA’s search for plausible options against Taiwan has led it to deploy over one thousand
short-range ballistic missiles along its southeastern seaboard and the numbers continue to grow. Unlike
high-performance manned aircraft, these are relatively easy and cheap to build, maintain, and use, but they can
be very difficult and expensive to defend against. Armed with increasingly accurate and sophisticated
conventional warheads, Chinese missiles are poised to strike a devastating initial blow that would weaken
Taiwan’s defenses, disrupt its industry and trade, shut down its communications systems, demoralize its
population, and perhaps decapitate its political and military leadership. The opening salvo in a war could
come with little or no warning, overwhelming Taiwan’s antimissile systems, disabling many of its
airfields, fighters, and air defense radars, and permitting the Chinese air force to gain control of the skies
within a matter of hours or, at a few days.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 114 of 265
February 2013
Con: Military Threat
China has the capacity and will to buy aircraft carriers
Li, Nan, and Christopher Weuve. "CHINA’S AIRCRAFT CARRIER AMBITIONS."
Naval War College Review. 63.1 (2010): 13-31. Print. <http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA518721>.
One major reason for China’s past hesitation to acquire aircraft carriers was a lack of funding. When
Mao proposed at a CMC meeting on 21 June 1958 to build “railways on the high seas”—oceangoing fleets of
merchant ships escorted by aircraft carriers—China’s defense budget was a mere five billion yuan/renminbi
(RMB). Of that, only RMB 1.5 billion could be allocated to weapons acquisition, and out of this share the
PLAN received less than RMB 200 million. A 1,600-ton Soviet-built Gordy-class destroyer cost RMB 30
million, and the PLAN could afford only four of them.
The carrier project was again placed on the policy agenda in the early 1970s, but financial constraints still
prevented the initiation of a serious program. From 1971 to 1982, China’s annual defense budget averaged
about seventeen billion RMB. Out of less than six billion allocated for weapons acquisition each year, the
PLAN could expect to receive only several hundred million, whereas one Type 051 destroyer cost RMB 100
million. With the endorsement of party leader Hua Guofeng in the late 1970s, China planned to acquire an
eighteen thousand-ton light aircraft carrier, either through import or coproduction, and it was to carry the
British vertical/short-takeoff-and-landing (V/STOL) Harrier aircraft. The project had to be scrapped, because
the price asked by British suppliers was too high. Furthermore, Deng Xiaoping, succeeding Hua as the
paramount leader, decided to cut defense spending in order to free up resources for the civilian economy.
From the middle to late 1980s, Liu Huaqing lobbied feverishly for carrier operations. He proposed feasibility
studies in the seventh fi ve-year plan (FYP), for 1991–95; research and development on key aspects of platform
and aircraft in the eighth FYP; and production in the early 2000s. His plan was shelved, partly because of
insufficient funding.
While the defense budget had been increasing since the early 1990s, its growth could not catch up with
the rising cost of aircraft carriers, as modern designs integrated more advanced aircraft, air-defense systems,
and electronics. Funding priority was instead given to developing submarines.
By 2007, however, China’s finances had improved remarkably, with government revenue reaching $750
billion—lower than the $2.6 trillion for the United States but higher than Japan’s $500 billion. China’s foreign
exchange reserve now ranked first in the world, reaching $1.4 trillion. As a result, China’s annual formal
defense budget had grown to $46 billion (RMB 350.9 billion). According to official estimate, about a third
of China’s formal defense budget, or $15.3 billion that year, was used for weapons acquisition. Given that
naval modernization is currently a high priority, the PLAN is probably now receiving several billion dollars a
year just for weapons acquisition, and this figure is likely to grow in coming years.
Aircraft carriers come in a wide variety of sizes, costs, and capabilities. Taking into consideration the lower
labor and material costs in China, the cost of building a medium-sized, conventionally powered, sixtythousand-ton carrier to the Russian Kuznetsov class is likely to be above two billion dollars.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 115 of 265
February 2013
Con: Military Threat
China is prepared to take out U.S. aircraft carriers
Aaron Friedberg, A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for
Mastery in Asia, W.W. Norton & Company, 2011 [Book]
With or without local bases, the tip of the spear of America’s unique ability to project power is its navy
and, in particular, its aircraft carriers. These massive, awe-inspiring vessels can be deployed virtually anywhere
in the world, and once on station, they can show the flag, provide air cover to friendly nations, or deliver
thousands of tons of conventional ordnance, with great precision, against targets on shore. The greatest
limitation of existing carrier-based aircraft is their comparatively short range. Unless launched from within a
few hundred miles of where they are needed these planes will not be able to reach their targets or to linger over
them long enough to be effective. It follows that for a country that fears carrier-based air strikes, the best
defense is a good offense. If it can credibly threaten to engage, disable, and possibly sink these costly symbols
of American power, China may be able to neutralize them by forcing them to operate far out to sea.
Rather than betting everything on one approach, the PI.AN bas experimented with a variety of different
ship-killing weapons and modes of attack. Quieter submarines armed with Russian-designed high-speed
torpedoes and hypersonic cruise missiles may be able to get close enough to unleash a deadly attack on
American surface vessels. Russian-built destroyers are intended to carry out similar missions, even at risk of
their own destruction. In recent years China has also begun to build significant numbers of a new type of small,
high-speed, stealthy patrol boat. With their wave piercing catamaran hulls, these ships are capable of traveling
at extremely high speeds and carry long-range, supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles.
Most novel and in the long run most worrisome are the land-based anti-ship ballistic missiles that
Beijing is now set to deploy. Using information from land and space-based tracking systems, these could be
launched from hundreds of miles away toward the last known location of high-value targets like aircraft
carriers. Upon reentering the atmosphere, the missile’s warheads would use onboard sensors to steer them
toward their aim points, releasing a spray of explosive “submunitions” seconds before impact or triggering
devices designed to destroy nearby command and control systems with a powerful pulse of electromagnetic
energy. Anti-ship ballistic missiles have been described as a potential “game changer” that could force the U.S.
Navy to pull its carriers and other surface combatants far back from China’s coasts, drastically reducing their
effectiveness and fundamentally altering the balance of power in the Western Pacific.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 116 of 265
February 2013
Con: Military Threat
China can cripple U.S. communications systems
Aaron Friedberg, A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for
Mastery in Asia, W.W. Norton & Company, 2011 [Book]
The American military depends on cyberspace for virtually everything it does, and as the chief of
Naval Operations pointed out in a 2009 address, “Cyberspace is on the ocean floor.” As suggested by
incidents in which earthquakes and errant ships have occasionally wreaked havoc on global
communications, fiber-optic cables can be severed accidentally. Using submarines, divers, or unmanned
underwater vehicles, China might try to produce similar results, temporarily disrupting American
operations at the outset of a conflict with a few carefully targeted attacks. The immediate damage to
world trade and to China’s economy from such an event would no doubt be substantial, but because its
own military would he operating close to home and independent of transoceanic cables, the potential
strategic gains might appear to be well worth the price.
Compared to cutting cables and destroying satellites, introducing malicious code into U.S. and allied
computer networks would be an act of comparative subtlety, but the results might be even more dramatic. A
successful cyber-attack could bring down systems used by the military, intelligence agencies, and top civilian
decision makers to confer, gather data, transmit orders, coordinate logistics, and direct combat operations. Even
if some of these networks proved too tough to crack, attacks on domestic banks, power grids, and air traffic
control computers could cause chaos, sowing panic, distracting leaders, and snarling efforts to mobilize U.S.
forces and deploy them to where they are needed.
PLA strategists have written at length about the potential use of computer network attacks to
throw an enemy off balance, even before fighting has commenced. Indeed, the very sophistication of the
American defense establishment has been identified as its greatest potential vulnerability. China’s interest in
cyberwarfare has already advanced well beyond the stage of abstract speculation. Since the turn of the
century, official spokesmen in Washington and other friendly capitals have complained publicly about
repeated intrusions into government computer networks that, when traced to their source, appear to
originate in China. While the precise purpose of these probes cannot be known with certainty, one thing
seems clear: the first “battle” in any future conflict between the United States and China will take place
in cýberspace. Whoever wins that exchange may well have won the war before the shooting even starts.
China’s much publicized 2007 test of a rudimentary antisatellite weapon is the most visible part of
an effort that may eventually include more sophisticated “direct ascent weapons that can destroy
satellites by colliding with them or unleashing a pulse of electromagnetic energy, ground-based lasers,
and other directed energy weapons designed to “dazzle” and disable American satellites, and perhaps
even the use of saboteurs and special forces against vulnerable antennas and ground stations.
This evidence links the cyber warfare section above to a more conventional defense threat.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 117 of 265
February 2013
Con: Military Threat
Chinese Military is positioning to defeat the U.S. in East Asia
Aaron Friedberg, A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for
Mastery in Asia, W.W. Norton & Company, 2011 [Book]
Since the mid-199os the People’s Liberation Army has made steady and significant improvements in its
ability to threaten to attack Taiwan. As part of its overall strategy for bringing the island to heel, Beijing
has also deployed forces that are designed to deter, and if necessary to defeat, any attempt by the United
States or other outside powers to intervene in what it regards as a strictly internal affair. American defense
analysts have been slow at times to acknowledge the scope and seriousness of these developments. Since the
turn of the century, however, it has become impossible to ignore the fact that China is not simply preparing
for a traditional, cross strait invasion of Taiwan; rather it is putting in place the pieces of what Pentagon
planners refer to as an “anti-access” or “area denial” capability aimed squarely at the United States.
The best way of highlighting the extent to which the balance of power has shifted in recent years is to
compare the emerging situation to the one prevailing at the start of the post—Cold War era. Twenty years ago
the PLA lacked the means with which to acquire timely information about what was happening even a relatively
short distance from its own shores. The Americans on the other hand, had satellites, electronic listening posts,
and other “national technical means” that enabled them to track developments deep inside China, as well as
along its periphery. The United State-s was close to all-seeing while China was effectively blind, an asymmetry
that would likely have been decisive in determining the outcome of any conflict between them.
Today the balance between the two sides’ “situational awareness” is much closer to being equal
and in the future, it could begin to tilt in Beijing’s favor. China now has its own constellation of
reconnaissance, communication, and navigation satellites that permit it to target fixed facilities like
airbases, ports, command bunkers, fuel depots, weapons storage sites, and communications facilities
anywhere in Fast Asia. Meanwhile, space-based surveillance systems, combined with onshore “over-thehorizon” radars, unmanned aerial vehicles, and small craft disguised as commercial vessels, enable the
People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) to track surface ships hundreds of miles out to sea. According to
press reports, the Chinese navy has also begun to install a network of underwater listening devices
designed to help it locate approaching American submarines.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 118 of 265
February 2013
Con: Military Threat
China Can Defend Itself Against the U.S.
Aaron Friedberg, A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for
Mastery in Asia, W.W. Norton & Company, 2011 [Book]
Even the deadliest and most successful preemptive strike on U.S. carriers and regional bases would not
protect China from possible retaliation. Assuming that the United States chose not to respond with nuclear
weapons, it could still hit back with conventionally armed, long-range bombers stationed outside the reach of
Chinese missiles, as well as cruise missiles launched from hard-to-detect submarines. Since the first Gulf War,
PLA planners have paid close attention to the ways in which the United States has used precision-guided
munitions fired from stealthy platforms to cripple its opponents. In order to protect themselves against such
strikes, they have begun to make large investments in defenses of various kinds. If American planes and
cruise missiles can be tracked with anti-stealth radars or other detection systems, it should be possible to
engage them using People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) fighters and surface-to-air missiles.
Hardened and dispersed command posts and buried fiber-optic communication cables (instead of, or in
addition to, radio and microwave systems that are easier to intercept and disrupt would provide another
layer of protection against attack from the air. Locating some critical facilities far inland could put them
outside the range of existing conventional systems, forcing an American president to choose between
doing nothing and risking all-out war by escalating to the use of nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic
missiles.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 119 of 265
February 2013
Con: Military Threat
Anti-Access/Aerial Denial Is Paying Dividends
Aaron Friedberg, A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for
Mastery in Asia, W.W. Norton & Company, 2011 [Book]
China’s investments in its anti-access/area denial strategy, sustained over a period of two decades, have begun
to bear fruit. By pursuing a number of different paths and experimenting with new weapons and concepts
of operation, the PLA is approaching the point where it may have (or its leaders may believe that they
have) a real chance of knocking U.S. forces out of the Western Pacific, at least in the opening stages of a
war, using only conventional weapons and without hitting targets on America’s home soil. While some of the
details are classified, a number of war games and other studies suggest that without appropriate remedial action,
this could soon be the case. A recent RAND Corporation study concludes, for example, that the threat to
Taiwanese and U.S. airbases from Chinese conventional ballistic missiles is “sufficiently grave that a
credible case can be made that the air war for Taiwan could essentially be over before much of the Blue
air forces have even fired a shot.’” Another finds that with as few as thirty-four ballistic missiles armed
with submunitions, the PLA will soon be able to “damage destroy or strand 75 percent of aircraft based
at Kadena Lon Okinawal.” If it does this, while at the same time sinking or compelling the withdrawal of
American aircraft carriers, China could force the United States to rely on airbases as many as fifteen
hundred miles away from the Taiwan Strait. Maintaining air superiority from such distances would
require vastly more fighters and tankers than the U.S. Air Force presently has the money to build.
Military war games reportedly reach more optimistic conclusions, but only because they assume that the United
States will harden existing airbases, disperse its forces to others across the region in the event of crisis, buy
more tankers, minimize its vulnerability to cyberwarfare, and preserve its existing advantages in stealth
technology.
To sum up: despite their vast cost, past success, and impressive appearance, America’s power
projection forces in East Asia are in danger of becoming wasting assets. Unless it is willing to make
substantial investments of its own, the United States may soon find that its promises to use conventional
force to defend its regional friends lack credibility and its threats have lost their persuasiveness.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 120 of 265
February 2013
Con: Military Threat
China’s Military Power is Growing and Sustainable
Huge Increases in Chinese Military Spending
Eric A. Posner and John Yoo. “International Law and the Rise of China.” The University
of Chicago. May 2006. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/127.pdf.
China has experienced remarkable economic growth over the last quarter century. Since 1978, China’s
gross domestic product has grown 9.4 percent per year; in a good year, the US economy might grow 4
percent. In 1978, China’s GDP was less than 1 percent of the world’s; today it accounts for 4 percent. In 1978,
foreign trade with China amounted to $20.6 billion; today that figure has risen to $851 billion. Yet, because of
its population of approximately 1.3 billion, China today still ranks about 100th in the world in per capita GDP.
The relative growth of China’s economy in comparison to the US causes the most concern. While in 1978
China’s GDP was far behind that of the US, today it ranks sixth in the world. Only the US, Japan, Germany, the
United Kingdom, and France rank higher. While China’s GDP is still only one-tenth that of the US, once
purchasing power parity is taken into account, China actually rises to second in the world, with a GDP
approximately 60 percent that of the US. If current growth rates continue, by 2025 China’s nominal GDP will
pass Japan’s and rank second only to the US. By 2050, China’s economy is expected to surpass the size of
the US economy. Increases in military spending have paralleled China’s economic rise. While reliable
figures are elusive, the Department of Defense (DoD) estimates that current Chinese military
expenditures amount to roughly $90 billion--the third largest in the world after the US and Russia.
According to the DoD, China has increased its defense budget by double digits every year for the past fifteen
years. If the proportion of defense spending as a ratio of GDP stays constant, defense analysts predict that
China’s defense budget will triple over the next 20 years. In comparison, the current US defense budget is
approximately $500 billion.
American military analysts fear that as China’s economy booms, it will be able to spend more on defense. As its
military becomes stronger, China will be able to assert itself as a regional and perhaps global superpower. It
may threaten or invade Taiwan, which the US has suggested in the past could trigger a military response. Since
the end of World War II, after all, Communist China has engaged in military conflicts not just against the US
and South Korea, but against the Soviet Union, India, and Vietnam. As China uses its economic gains to
modernize its armed forces, the US can no longer be sure that its current military advantage in the region
will continue.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 121 of 265
February 2013
Con: Military Threat
China’s Economy Allows It To Grow Its Military
Aaron Friedberg, A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for
Mastery in Asia, W.W. Norton & Company, 2011 [Book]
Rapid growth makes it easier for Beijing to afford a sustained, fast-paced, and wide-ranging military
buildup. In marked contrast to the Soviet Union, Chinas engagement in the global economy also
guarantees it ready access to many of the cutting-edge technologies it needs to become a world-class
industrial and military power. Finally, although participation in commerce creates vulnerabilities it also
gives China powerful new instruments for exerting diplomatic influence. This too is an advantage that the
Soviet Union denied itself. Both in its own neighborhood and beyond, Beijing has already proved adept at using
its growing economic clout to shape the perceptions and policies of its trading partners, including the United
States.
Growth of the Chinese economy causes the military to grow significantly
Friedberg, Aaron. "The Future of U.S.-China Relations." International Security. 30.2 (
(2005): 7-45. Web. 2005
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/016228805775124589
As was true of the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, so too is China’s rapidly
growing economy bringing expanding military capabilities in its train. A fast-growing GNP has made it
comparatively easy for the PRC to sustain a large and expanding military effort and in China’s spending
on arms and military equipment has grown at an impressive pace. The rising levels of productivity, per
capita incomes, and technological competence that accompany economic growth should also translate into an
increasing ability both to absorb sophisticated weapons imported from foreign suppliers and eventually to
develop such systems indigenously. Although the picture is mixed, and the PRC continues to lag in many areas,
these expectations too are borne out by the general pattern of Chinese military development over the last several
decades. There are good reasons to expect that China will be able to build and deploy more increasingly
capable military systems in the years ahead.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 122 of 265
February 2013
Con: Military Threat
Economic growth causes a shift in military strategy
"The dragon’s new teeth A rare look inside the world’s biggest military
expansion." Economist. 7 2012: n. page. Print.
<http://www.economist.com/node/21552193>.
That China is rapidly modernising its armed forces is not in doubt, though there is disagreement about what
the true spending figure is. China's defence budget has almost certainly experienced double digit growth
for two decades. According to SIPRI, a research institute, annual defence spending rose from over $30
billion in 2000 to almost $120 billion in 2010. SIPRI usually adds about 50% to the official figure that China
gives for its defence spending, because even basic military items such as research and development are kept off
budget. Including those items would imply total military spending in 2012, based on the latest announcement
from Beijing, will be around $160 billion. America still spends four-and-a-half times as much on defence, but
on present trends China's defence spending could overtake America's after 2035 (see chart).
All that money is changing what the People's Liberation Army (PLA) can do. Twenty years ago, China's
military might lay primarily in the enormous numbers of people under arms; their main task was to fight an
enemy face-to-face or occupy territory. The PLA is still the largest army in the world, with an active force of
2.3m. But China's real military strength increasingly lies elsewhere. The Pentagon's planners think China is
intent on acquiring what is called in the jargon A2/AD, or “anti-access/area denial” capabilities. The idea
is to use pinpoint ground attack and anti-ship missiles, a growing fleet of modern submarines and cyber
and anti-satellite weapons to destroy or disable another nation's military assets from afar.
In the western Pacific, that would mean targeting or putting in jeopardy America's aircraft-carrier groups and its
air-force bases in Okinawa, South Korea and even Guam. The aim would be to render American power
projection in Asia riskier and more costly, so that America's allies would no longer be able to rely on it to
deter aggression or to combat subtler forms of coercion. It would also enable China to carry out its
repeated threat to take over Taiwan if the island were ever to declare formal independence.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 123 of 265
February 2013
Con: Military Threat
China’s Military Power Presents a Threat to US Hegemony
Chinese growth deteriorates US hegemony in the region- this disrupts peace
Ross, Robert. National Interest. (2005): 81-87. Web. 4 Jan. 2013.
<https://www.cerium.ca:488/IMG/pdf/Assessing_the_China_Threat.pdf>.
In conjunction with the development of its economy, China has been modernizing its military since 1979.
Chinese purchases of Russian military hardware, including missiles, naval vessels and fighter aircraft,
are a well-known trend. Annual Defense Department reports on Chinese military power have repeatedly
warned of emerging Chinese superiority over Taiwan and of Chinese efforts to develop "asymmetric
capabilities" to disrupt U.S. naval superiority in the western Pacific. Taken with the realignment toward
China—for both economic and military reasons—of some East Asian nations, China's ongoing military
improvements seem to pose a serious problem to U.S. strategy in the region. The key issue in appraising the
Chinese threat to U.S. security, however, is not the ongoing growth of Chinese military and economic
power per se, but its effect on the U.S. presence in the western Pacific and maritime Southeast Asia.
Chinese military and regional political advances to date refiect its improved ground force and land-based
capabilities. But the United States keeps the peace and maintains the balance of power in East Asia
through its overwhelming naval presence. This is the source of ongoing local alignment with the United
States. For the rise of China to pose a direct threat to U.S. security, China must possess sufficient military
capabilities to challenge the United States in the western Pacific,including sufficient capability to risk war.
Alternatively, it must have at its disposal sufficient economic or military power to undermine U.S. security
guarantees for the region's maritime countries, compelling them to align with China.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 124 of 265
February 2013
Con: Military Threat
There can only be one global hegemon, US and China are mutually exclusive
Shaofeng, Chen. "China’s Self-Extrication from the “Malacca Dilemma” and
Implications*."International Journal of China Studies
<http://cmsadmin.um.edu.my/images/ics/IJCSV1N1/chen.pdf>.
On the other hand, China’s military buildup is very liable to lead to arms race, which might bring about an
environment unfriendly for its development. Other countries in the Asia Pacific are not willing to see the
power balance being broken, and lack of transparency can often lead to misunderstandings and
suspicions about China being a “threat” to world security. (Wu, 2009) In particular, the US would not
allow its hegemonic status being challenged by other powers. Irritated by China’s naval expansion, Japan
has embarked on operational deployment of its quasi-aircraft carriers which are next below aircraft
carriers banned by Japanese Constitution. India also came up with its blue water drive to counter against
China. (Toshi and Holmes, 2007; and Toshi, 2006: 23-51) China’s hasty naval development would also force
other countries particularly ASEAN states to take a hedging. They would try to get other big powers
involved in regional affairs, constructing closer alliance with the US, or push their territorial disputes
with China, say the South China Sea dispute, to the international community, thus making regional
security more complicated.
Bilateral arrangements between the US and south-east Asian countries make us money and
keep things stable- China's growth challenges this
ATANASSOVA-CORNELIS, Elena. "Reshaping the East Asian Security Order: USChina Hedging and the EU’s Strategic Choices." ©Institute of International
Relations and Area Studies. 10. (2011): 221-241.
The rise of China and its consolidation as a major power is one of the most important changes in global politics
in the 21st century. China’s rise presents a challenge to the international strategic order and US global primacy
by questioning, in particular, America’s hegemonic position in East Asia. Indeed, for more than half a century
the US dominance in Asia has been sustained by the “hub-and-spoke” security system of bilateral military
alliances between Washington and regional states, notably Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK), as well
as countries in Southeast Asia. American commitments in the political, economic and security areas have
provided for regional economic growth and stability, thereby ensuring the US its leadership position in East
Asia. However, America’s regional primacy is no longer that obvious. Since the late 1990s the People’s
Republic of China (PRC) has strengthened its regional role and military posture, and, more importantly,
has become the driving force of East Asia’s economic dynamism. China’s emergence as a locomotive for
regional economic growth and its embrace of multilateralism has significantly reduced the “China
threat” perception in the region. As a result, most Asian states have come to perceive China’s rise as
beneficial to Asian stability, which, in turn, has opened up the way for a reshaping of regional order
along the lines of expanded cooperation and multilateralism
foundationbriefs.com
Page 125 of 265
February 2013
Con: Global Consequences of Rise
Global Consequences of China’s Rise
China’s Push for Regional Hegemony is Causing Global Repercussions
John Mearshimer. “The Rise of China Will Not be Peaceful at All.” November 18, 2010.
The Australian. http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/P0014.pdf
Consider these comments from that document: ‘As other powers rise, and the primacy of the United States
is increasingly tested, power relations will inevitably change. When this happens there will be the possibility
of miscalculation. There is a small but still concerning possibility of growing confrontation between some
of these powers’.
At another point in the White Paper, we read that, ‘Risks resulting from escalating strategic competition could
emerge quite unpredictably, and is a factor to be considered in our defence planning’.
In short, the Australian government seems to sense that the shifting balance of power between China and
the United States may not be good for peace in the neighborhood. Australians should be worried about
China’s rise because it is likely to lead to an intense security competition between China and the United States,
with considerable potential for war. Moreover, most of China’s neighbors, to include India, Japan,
Singapore, South Korea, Russia, Vietnam—and Australia—will join with the United States to contain
China’s power. To put it bluntly: China cannot rise peacefully.
A much more powerful China can also be expected to try to push the United States out of the Asia-Pacific
region, much the way the United States pushed the European great powers out of the Western Hemisphere in
the 19th century. We should expect China to come up with its own version of the Monroe Doctrine, as
Imperial Japan did in the 1930s. In fact, we are already seeing inklings of that policy. Consider that in
March, Chinese officials told two high-ranking American policymakers that the United States was no
longer allowed to interfere in the South China Sea, which China views as a ‘core interest’ like Taiwan
and Tibet.
And it seems that China feels the same way about the Yellow Sea. In late July 2010, the United States and
South Korean navies conducted joint naval exercises in response to North Korea’s alleged sinking of a South
Korean naval vessel. Those naval maneuvers were originally planned to take place in the Yellow Sea, which is
adjacent to the Chinese coastline, but vigorous protests from China forced the Obama administration to move
them further east into the Sea of Japan.
These ambitious goals make good strategic sense for China. Beijing should want a militarily weak Japan and
Russia as its neighbors, just as the United States prefers a militarily weak Canada and Mexico on its
borders. No state in its right mind should want other powerful states located in its region. All Chinese surely
remember what happened in the last century when Japan was powerful and China was weak. Furthermore, why
would a powerful China accept US military forces operating in its backyard? American policymakers, after all,
express outrage whenever distant great powers send military forces into the Western Hemisphere. Those foreign
forces are invariably seen as a potential threat to American security. The same logic should apply to China.
Why would China feel safe with US forces deployed on its doorstep? Following the logic of the Monroe
foundationbriefs.com
Page 126 of 265
February 2013
Con: Global Consequences of Rise
Doctrine, would not China’s security be better served by pushing the American military out of the Asia-Pacific
region? Why should we expect China to act any differently than the United States over the course of its history?
Are they more principled than the Americans? More ethical? Are they less nationalistic than the Americans?
Less concerned about their survival? They are none of these things, of course, which is why China is likely
to imitate the United States and attempt to become a regional hegemon.
China’s neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region are certain to fear its rise as well, and they too will do whatever
they can to prevent it from achieving regional hegemony. Indeed, there is already substantial evidence that
countries like India, Japan, and Russia, as well as smaller powers like Singapore, South Korea, and
Vietnam, are worried about China’s ascendancy and are looking for ways to contain it. India and Japan,
for example, signed a ‘Joint Security Declaration’ in October 2008, in good part because they are worried
about China’s growing power.
India and the United States, which had testy relations at best during the Cold War, have become good friends
over the past decade, in large part because they both fear China. In July 2010, the Obama administration, which
is filled with people who preach to the world about the importance of human rights, announced that it was
resuming relations with Indonesia’s elite Special Forces, despite their rich history of human rights abuses. The
reason for this shift was that
Washington wants Indonesia on its side as China grows more powerful, and as the New York Times reported,
Indonesian officials ‘dropped hints that the group might explore building ties with the Chinese military if the
ban remained’.
Singapore, which sits astride the critically important Straits of Malacca and worries about China’s growing
power, badly wants to upgrade its already close ties with the United States. Toward that end, it built a deepwater pier at its new Changi Naval Base so that the US Navy could operate an aircraft carrier out of Singapore
if the need arose.
And the recent decision by Japan to allow the US Marines to remain on Okinawa was driven in part by Tokyo’s
concerns about China’s growing assertiveness in the region and the related need to keep the American security
umbrella firmly in place over Japan.
Most of China’s neighbors will eventually join an American-led balancing coalition designed to check China’s
rise, much the way Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and even China, joined forces with the United States
to contain the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
The picture I have painted of what is likely to happen if China continues its impressive economic growth
is not a pretty one. Indeed, it is downright depressing. I wish that I could tell a more optimistic story about the
prospects for peace in the Asia-Pacific region. But the fact is that international politics is a nasty and dangerous
business and no amount of good will can ameliorate the intense security competition that sets in when an
aspiring hegemon appears in Eurasia. And there is little doubt that there is one on the horizon.
The card above explores the grave geopolitical consequences of China’s rise as well as the logic and
importance of their push for regional hegemony.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 127 of 265
February 2013
Con: Global Consequences of Rise
Rising powers are historically trouble makers- China is no exception
Friedberg, Aaron. "The Future of U.S.-China Relations." International Security. 30.2 (
(2005): 7-45. Web. 2005
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/016228805775124589
Realist pessimists note that, throughout history, rising powers have tended to be troublemakers, at least
insofar as their more established counterparts in the international system are concerned. This is the case, in the
realists’ view, regardless of regime type; it was as true of a rising, democratic United States as it was of a
rising, autocratic Germany. As Samuel Huntington has pointed out
“The external expansion of the UK and France, Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union and the United
States coincided with phases of intense industrialization and economic development.”
There appear to be a number of reasons for this pattern. As a state’s capabilities grow, its leaders tend to define
their interests more expansively and to seek a greater degree of influence over what is going on around them.
Rising powers seek not only to secure their frontiers but to reach out beyond them, taking steps to ensure access
to markets, materials, and transportation routes; to protect their citizens far from home, defend their foreign
friends and allies, and promulgate their values; and, in general, to have what they consider to be legitimate say
in the affairs of their region and of the wider world. This correlation between growing power and expanding
interests has been succinctly summarized by Robert Gilpin: “A more wealthy and more powerful state . . . will
select a larger bundle of security and welfare goals than a less wealthy and less powerful state.”
As they seek to assert themselves, rising powers are often drawn to challenge territorial boundaries,
international institutional arrangements, and hierarchies of prestige that were put in place when they
were relatively weak. Their leaders and people often feel that they were unfairly left out when the pie was
divided up, and may even believe that, because of their prior weakness, they were robbed of what was rightfully
theirs. Like Germany at the turn of the twentieth century, rising powers tend to want their “place in the
sun,” and this often brings them into conflict with more established great powers, which are typically the
architects and principal beneficiaries of the existing international system.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 128 of 265
February 2013
Con: Global Consequences of Rise
Chinese Growth is bad, whenever it stagnates they turn to expansionism
Marks, Ben. "China Turns Attention To Military As Economy Cools." Forbes. 27 2012: n.
page. Web. 4 Jan. 2013.
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/11/27/china-turns-attention-tomilitary-as-economy-cools/>.
The timing of China’s deteriorating growth and its increasingly hard-line stance with Japan over the
Senkaku Islands is not a coincidence, but rather a product of its recent economic slowdown.
No longer able to depend solely on organic economic growth to maintain its legitimacy, China’s
government has chosen instead to stoke the fires of nationalism. One sure way to generate support is
through intensified confrontation with old political rivals like Japan. In the event that the Chinese
economy continues to weaken, do not be surprised if China deepens its nationalistic tone, which could
lead to even more military hostility with its neighbors over disputed territories in Asia.
China Represents a Unique Threat
Aaron Friedberg, A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for
Mastery in Asia, W.W. Norton & Company, 2011 [Book]
Even without the distraction and costs of dealing with other dangers, responding to China’s rise would
not be easy. Our country has dealt with other powerful nations in the course of its own rise to primacy,
but for well over a century we have not had to face a strategic competitor of the sort that China now
seems set to become. Nazi Germany and imperial Japan did not have the people, the resources, or the
industrial base to compete on an equal footing with us. The Soviet Union might have been able to do so,
but fortunately for the democratic world, its leaders were committed to disastrously inefficient policies of
economic autarky and centralized planning.
China has vast human and natural resources, and over the last thirty years it has adopted a
market-oriented approach to development that has produced extraordinarily rapid rates of economic
growth and technological progress. While its huge population ensures that it will remain comparatively
poor in terms of per capita income, the sheer size of China’s economic output may soon begin to
approach that of the United States. Such an outcome is not preordained; China will have to avoid numerous
obstacles and pitfalls if it is to keep its economy on track. If and when this transition occurs, however, it will
mark something truly new under the sun. Not since the 1880s when it displaced Britain as the “workshop
of the world,” has America faced a potential strategic rival with an economy bigger than its own.
Analysis: Notice the rebuttal of the popular pro argument that China will remain poor on a per capita
basis.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 129 of 265
February 2013
Con: Destabilizing Surrounding Region
China’s Rise is Destabilizing the Surrounding Region
China’s Rise Destabilizes the Regional Security Architecture in East Asia
Ross, Robert S., and Aaron L. Friedberg. "Here Be Dragons." The National Interest
(2009): n. pag. National Interest Online. 1 Sept. 2009. Web. 5 Jan. 2013.
The system of alliances and diplomatic relationships that make up the U.S. strategic position in Asia is
built on a foundation of military power. The credibility of America’s security guarantees—and the
willingness of others to accept them—is a direct result of its perceived strength and its reputation for
resolve. If these erode, the superstructure of alliances and over- seas bases on which the United States currently
depends may persist for a time, but will not do so indefinitely. Whether the end comes gradually or in a sudden,
catastrophic collapse will depend on chance and circumstance….
America’s influence in and access to Asia will be drastically reduced, with harmful long-term
consequences for its security, prosperity and ability to promote the spread of liberal democracy, if it is
seen to be in long- term decline relative to China or, even worse, if it appears irresolute, incompetent,
unwilling or simply unable to fulfill its commitments. Other governments will then have no choice but to
reconsider their national strategies either by developing their own nuclear capabilities or—worse—by
bandwagoning with Beijing. If it wants to reassure its strategic partners and bolster deterrence, Washington
must find ways to counter China’s evolving anti-access capabilities. If it does not, America’s long- standing
military dominance in East Asia will quickly disappear. What the Pentagon has done up to this point mostly
involves the redistribution of existing assets: basing more B-2s and F-22s on Guam, for example, and
reassigning submarines, carrier battle groups and advanced surface ships to the Pacific Fleet.1 The next steps
are likely to be costlier
A militarily strong China able to challenge the U.S. has dramatic consequence for regional security that
are contrary to U.S. interests, namely a loss of influence over events and military buildup by China’s
neighbors that portends more conflict in the region.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 130 of 265
February 2013
Con: Destabilizing Surrounding Region
China’s Rise Has Led to An Arms Race between China and Japan
Seriwaza, Sarah. "China’s Military Modernization and Implications for Northeast Asia."
The National Bureau of Asian Research, 2 Aug. 2012. Web. 5 Jan. 2013.
What I’m referring to is a kind of slow-motion understated arms race. It’s not a purely classical, symmetrical
kind of arms race because not all countries are trying to match China plane by plane, ship by ship, etc. In some
cases, they’re trying to match China’s asymmetrical buildup with their own kind of even more
asymmetrical capabilities. But, there is also some form of a more classic arms race in terms of a tit-for-tat
matching of particular kinds of weapons. We can see this in terms of air defense capabilities, with both sides
pursuing advanced ballistic missile defense, surface-to-air missiles, and early warning radar systems in addition
to fourth- and fifth-generation fighter aircraft. China and Japan are also both expanding their maritime
capabilities by building more advanced destroyers and submarines as well as developing a maritime air
power projection component.
There is always a risk for conflict. An arms race spirals upward, generating the potential for mistakes.
The result is a classic security dilemma, which exacerbates tensions and increases the likelihood of
miscalculation. However, the United States obviously does not welcome conflicts in the first place,
especially because it would be obliged to intervene on behalf of its allies.
At the moment, Japan is taking a nonmilitary approach in the East China Sea to defend its interests around the
Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. Nevertheless, if China increases its activities in the East China Sea and were to deploy
more capable assets that outmatch the Japanese coast guard, then Japan would be obliged to deploy its defense
forces, which could potentially lead to provocations and miscalculations. However, since such a minor conflict
could escalate quickly, it is in everyone’s interest to keep a lid on a major arms race.
China deteriorates ASEAN
Bowrig, Philip. "ASEAN at sea over China's expanding territorial claims." Australian 27
11 2012, n. pag. Web. 4 Jan. 2013.
ASEAN remains a key regional institution, but members for whom the sea is a burning issue will be forever
frustrated by the fact that the rest of ASEAN has no desire to create difficulties in relations with China.
With frustration comes weakness: ASEAN disunity supports Beijing's refusal to discuss the South China
Sea with groups of states, allowing China to instead pursue a divide-and-conquer bilateral negotiation
strategy.
The damage these divisions can do to ASEAN was vividly illustrated at its foreign ministers meeting in
Phnom Penh in July. For the first time in that meetings' history, the group failed to issue a joint communique.
Last week's summit has again led to a direct confrontation between The Philippines and Cambodia.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 131 of 265
February 2013
Con: Destabilizing Surrounding Region
We are losing ground to China; Allies Will Desert Us
Aaron Friedberg, A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for
Mastery in Asia, W.W. Norton & Company, 2011 [Book]
For the fact is that if current trends continue, we are on track to lose our geopolitical contest with China.
Defeat is more likely to come with a whimper than a bang. China’s leaders do not seek confrontation. To the
contrary, since the end of the Cold War they have been pursuing a cautious strategy of expanding their
own power and influence while working to undermine and constrict the power and influence of the
United States. If Beijing’s military buildup continues apace and if, due to a mix of fiscal constraints, domestic
political pressures, and misplaced strategic inhibitions, we do not respond more vigorously than we have to
date, the military balance in the Western Pacific is going to start to tilt sharply in China’s favor. Such a
change would weaken the security guarantees that we extend to our allies and on which our entire
posture in the region rests. Doubts about our continuing commitment, combined with economic
inducements and diplomatic pressures emanating from Beijing, could compel some of our longtime
friends to reappraise their own national security policies including their alignments with us. Our position
in Asia already depends on a relatively small number of alliances and quasi-alliance partnerships. If
these are dissolved or reduced to insignificance, we could find ourselves pushed to the margins of Asia if
not out of the region altogether. In time our military presence could be reduced to a few bases on a
handful of small islands that remain under our sovereign control, like Guam, Saipan and Tinian. Long
before matters reached this point, our government too would likely feel compelled to seek an
accommodation with China and to acknowledge it as the preponderant regional power.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 132 of 265
February 2013
Con: Destabilizing Surrounding Region
China has sapped America’s Regional Influence
Christensen, Thomas. “Fostering Stability or Creating a Monster? The Rise of China and
U.S. Policy Towards East Asia.” Project Muse. 2006.
http://www.princeton.edu/politics/about/file-repository/public/christensen-1.pdf
From the zero-sum perspective, however, U.S. policy seems to be heading down the wrong track. Through what
many observers have dubbed the “engagement strategy,” the United States seems to be promoting rather
than constraining China’s increasing regional power in comparison to the United States and U.S. security
partners. From this point of view, China’s deepening economic and diplomatic ties to the region have come
at a high price for the United States because, by necessity, those newly developed ties increase China’s
power in the region. Advocates of this position argue that the United States has been unable or unwilling to
take actions to slow or reverse these trends for some combination of the following reasons: business interests
have hijacked U.S. national security policy; U.S. elites place false hope in the pacifying effects of economic
interdependence and the liberalizing effects on China of economic and diplomatic engagement with the
United States and other democracies; and the United States has become distracted by the war on terror,
failing to pay sufficient attention to changes in East Asia. From this zero-sum view of the world, the United
States’ Asia policy has been poor, if not disastrous, especially in the early part of the twenty-first century
America’s Alliances And Military Strength Are Based On Its Security Guarantees
Aaron Friedberg, A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for
Mastery in Asia, W.W. Norton & Company, 2011 [Book]
Americas strategic position in Asia is built on a foundation of military power. Since the end of the
Second World War, the United States has bound itself to others (and others to it) by extending security
guarantees, offering defense assistance, and, in some cases, stationing its forces on foreign soil. The
credibility of U.S. promises to come to the aid of its friends, and the willingness of others to accept them,
are direct results of its perceived strength and its reputation for resolve. If these erode, the
superstructure of alliances and overseas bases that rests on them may persist for a time, but it cannot do
so forever. Whether the end takes the form of a graceful decoupling or a sudden, catastrophic collapse will
depend largely on chance and circumstance.
In the more than twenty years that have elapsed since the end of the Cold War, the American military
has enjoyed an interval of unmatched global prowess but it has also seen the beginnings of a sharp decline in its
margin of advantage in East Asia. Unless it acts soon to counter recent Chinese advances, the United States
will find it increasingly dangerous in a future crisis to deploy its air and naval forces across a wide swath
of the Western Pacific. A dawning recognition that this is the case cannot help but diminish the
credibility of America’s guarantees thereby weakening the network of alliances and strategic
partnerships on which its Asian presence depends.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 133 of 265
February 2013
Con: Destabilizing Surrounding Region
China’s Ballistic Missiles Present a Serious Threat to the US and our Allies
Aaron Friedberg, A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for
Mastery in Asia, W.W. Norton & Company, 2011 [Book]
The ability of the United States to sustain its forces in East Asia is heavily dependent on a relative handful of
regional bases, most of them on the territory of its allies. Since the 196os Beijing has had at least some capacity
to strike at these targets with nuclear weapons, but it has only recently acquired the means to do so effectively
using precision conventional munitions. Having found a method of attack that promises quick results against
nearby Taiwan, China now seeks to apply the same approach throughout Northeast Asia. The range, accuracy
and number of medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles in China’s arsenal will soon give it the option
of hitting every major American and allied base in the region with warheads that could put craters in the
middle of runways, smash through concrete aircraft shelters, and shut down ports, power plants, and
communications networks. What is new and significant here is that all of this can now be done without
radioactive fallout, huge civilian casualties, and the virtual certainty of an equally devastating nuclear
response from the United States.
Analysis: Obviously executing this type of attack would prompt a response from the U.S., but the point is
that having this capability will force the U.S. to abandon all of its bases—and therefore lose its military
control of East Asia.
U.S. and China Are Inherently At Odds In the Region
Mark Valencia, “Diplomatic Drama: The South China Sea Imbroglio,” Global Asia,
September 2011, http://www.globalasia.org/V6N3_Fall_2011/Mark_J_Valencia.html
It is no secret that the United States and china are at strategic odds in the South China Sea. One is striving to
maintain, and if necessary demonstrate, its dominance while the other is bent on expanding its might and reach.
Respective nuclear warfare strategies may even play a role. The recently released U.S. National Military
strategy states that “to safeguard U.S. and partner nation interests, we will be prepared to demonstrate the will
and commit the resources needed to oppose any nation’s actions that jeopardize access to and use of the global
commons and cyberspace, or that threaten the security of our allies.” this was clearly aimed at China, including
its actions in the south china sea and its “anti-access” strategy vis-a-vis the United States. But if China perceives
that it is being strategically constrained and contained it will likely strive to break out both politically and
militarily.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 134 of 265
February 2013
Con: Destabilizing Surrounding Region
China Is Bullying the Region
Mark Valencia, “Diplomatic Drama: The South China Sea Imbroglio,” Global Asia,
September 2011, http://www.globalasia.org/V6N3_Fall_2011/Mark_J_Valencia.html
I am talking here not just about blatant violations of the solemnly agreed DOC — all of the parties are guilty of
that. Instead, Chinese leaders found themselves contradicted by the poorly timed — or, depending on your point
of view, well-timed — actions of official Chinese agencies. When Chinese Defense Minister general Liang
guanglie was telling the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore on June 3 that “China is committed to maintaining
peace and stability in the south china sea” and that “China stood by” the DOC, news media were reporting that
on May 26 a Vietnamese survey ship operating on its claimed continental shelf had its seismometer cables
cut by a Chinese patrol boat. Shortly after that event, china sent two vice chairmen of its central Military
commission to southeast Asia to try to reassure ASEAN claimants. But a second such incident occurred on
June 9, just two weeks later. Earlier, on March 4, the Philippines had protested an incident on the reed
Bank in which two Chinese patrol boats allegedly threatened to ram a Philippine survey ship. Then, on
the eve of general Liang’s visit to Manila, Chinese fighter jets allegedly harassed Philippine fisherfolk
near disputed islands in the South China Sea. Worse, China responded to frenetic protests from Vietnam
and the Philippines by warning that any exploration in the vicinity of the disputed Spratly Islands
without its consent was a violation of its jurisdiction and sovereignty, as well as of the DOC. the real-time
link between china’s stark and sweeping position and its enforcement sent a chill down the spines of ASEAN
claimants and drew U.S. attention.
China Is Going to Become Aggressive
Mark Valencia, “Diplomatic Drama: The South China Sea Imbroglio,” Global Asia,
September 2011, http://www.globalasia.org/V6N3_Fall_2011/Mark_J_Valencia.html
But this may only be temporary. China’s charm offensive is unraveling. It has complained that Vietnam
and the Philippines are violating the DOC by unilaterally exploring for hydrocarbons in areas claimed by
China — but to no avail. It would appear that China’s leadership is losing patience with its Southeast
Asian neighbors. It has warned darkly of “due consequences” if challenged in the South China Sea. And
it has warned Vietnam that in their particular dispute it will “take whatever measures are necessary.”
Yet more Vietnamese and Philippine-sanctioned surveys and even exploratory drilling are planned in areas
claimed by China. Philex Mining Corporation has announced its plan to drill at least two wells on the Reed
Bank. So far, China has only used maritime police to enforce its jurisdiction, but this could change.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 135 of 265
February 2013
Con: Destabilizing Surrounding Region
U.S. and China Have Scuffled in the Past
Mark Valencia, “Diplomatic Drama: The South China Sea Imbroglio,” Global Asia,
September 2011, http://www.globalasia.org/V6N3_Fall_2011/Mark_J_Valencia.html
The United States and China have had their own rather dangerous flare-ups in the South China Sea
regarding what the former believes is its right to freedom of navigation. Indeed, the EP-3, Bowditch and
Impeccable incidents — in which the Chinese forcefully contested the US presence in the South China
Sea in recent years — have tested the nerves of commanders and defense leaders on both sides. Although
the two continue to fundamentally and vehemently disagree regarding the principles involved, they may have
worked out a modus operandi. At least all has been relatively quiet on that front, although a recent incident over
the Taiwan Strait shows that the issue is alive and kicking. Despite China’s positive rhetoric, some ASEAN
nations were genuinely alarmed by its contradictory behavior and they began to explore closer co-operation
between their navies and to set up hotlines. And they publicly sought succor and support from the United States,
which had cleverly conflated the disputes with freedom of navigation issues. The United States — having
confronted China and injected itself into the issues via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s speech at the
ASEAN Regional Forum foreign ministers’ meeting in Hanoi in July 2010 — was only too happy to help
the ASEAN claimants, at least verbally and with signals that militaries understand like co-operative
exercises and port visits, both planned and unplanned.
U.S. Has Drawn the Line in the Sand
Mark Valencia, “Diplomatic Drama: The South China Sea Imbroglio,” Global Asia,
September 2011, http://www.globalasia.org/V6N3_Fall_2011/Mark_J_Valencia.html
At the end of the Bali summit, just in case China had not gotten the full message, Clinton laid the US
cards on the table. First, she proclaimed that the United States has a national interest in freedom of
navigation, peace and stability and respect for international law in the South China Sea. Second, it
opposes the threat or use of force by any claimant to advance its claims. Third, it supports a multilateral
diplomatic process for resolving the disputes. Fourth, it “calls on all parties to clarify their claims in the
South China Sea in terms consistent with customary international law, including as reflected in the Law
of the Sea Convention. Consistent with international law, claims to maritime space in the South China
Sea should be derived solely from legitimate claims to land features.” These were all challenges to China.
At the time of this writing, the US Senate had just passed a resolution urging support for the Philippines in its
dispute with China and US Senator James Webb, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was
visiting the region.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 136 of 265
February 2013
Con: Destabilizing Surrounding Region
Can’t Underestimate the Chinese Navy
Robert Kaplan, “Where’s the American Empire When We Need It?” Washington Post,
December 3, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120303448.html
China's navy is decades behind America's, but that should offer little consolation. The United States, having just
experienced asymmetric warfare on land, should now expect asymmetric challenges at sea. With its improving
mine-warfare capability, seabed sonar networks and cyber-warfare in the service of anti-ship ballistic missiles,
not to mention its diesel-electric and nuclear submarines, China will make U.S. Navy operations more
dangerous over the coming years.
China is Flexing Its Muscle Over Taiwan
Robert Kaplan, “Where’s the American Empire When We Need It?” Washington Post,
December 3, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120303448.html
As for Taiwan, China has 1,500 short-range ballistic missiles pointed at the island, even as hundreds of
commercial flights each week link Taiwan with the mainland in peaceful commerce. When China effectively
incorporates Taiwan in the years to come, that will signal the arrival of a truly multipolar and less predictable
military environment in East Asia.
Analysis: As China increases its control over Taiwan, the balance of power in the Pacific will adjust
accordingly
China has Institutionalized Hatred of the Japanese
Xia, Ming. “China Threat or a Peaceful Rise of China.” New York Times. Nd. Web. 8 Jan
2013. http://www.nytimes.com/ref/college/coll-china-politics-007.html
Among the new generation that is educated within a highly politically controlled environment, many young
people become the so-called "angry youth" (fengqing). Their anger now has a strong tone of nationalism. Since
in China, nationalism has been manipulated to serve the government 's ideological needs, it has a strong edge
against foreign countries. Anti-Japanese sentiment has been the cornerstone of Chinese education of patriotism.
Therefore, many American and Japanese gestures and policies can be quickly interpreted as an intentional
assault upon China 's pride and dignity.
The argument here is that China teaches its youth to hate Japan, one of the US major regional allies. An
action that works against the US and its allies would be contrary to US interests
foundationbriefs.com
Page 137 of 265
February 2013
Con: Destabilizing Surrounding Region
Consequences of losing East Asia to China
Aaron Friedberg, A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for
Mastery in Asia, W.W. Norton & Company, 2011 [Book]
If through inadvertence, error, or deliberate decision we permit China as presently constituted to
dominate Asia, our prosperity, security and hopes of promoting the further spread of freedom will be
seriously impaired. Our businesses could find their access to the markets, high-technology products, and
natural resources of some of the world’s most dynamic economies constricted by trade arrangements
designed to favor their Chinese counterparts. While it is unlikely to engage in outright military conquest, an
unchecked China would be well situated to enforce claims over resources and territory that are currently
disputed by its weaker neighbors. Control over the vast oil and gas reserves believed to lie beneath the
South and East China Seas, plus assured access on favorable terms to energy imports from Central Asia
and Russia, could greatly reduce Beijing’s dependence on seaborne imports from the Persian Gulf and
hence its vulnerability to a possible American (or Indian) naval blockade.
With the United States gone from East Asia, China would be able to bring Taiwan to terms, and it
would most likely be able to block, neutralize, or preempt the emergence of serious military challenges
from Japan or South Korea. Freed of the necessity of defending against possible threats from its
maritime periphery, Beijing would be able to devote more resources to setting terms with its continental
neighbors and it would be able to more easily project military power to defend or advance its interests in
other parts of the world, including the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. Before it can hope to
compete with the United States on a global scale, China must first establish itself as the foremost power in
its own region.
If Asia comes to he dominated by an authoritarian China, the prospects for liberal reform in any
of its non-democratic neighbors will be greatly diminished. Even the region’s established democracies
could find themselves inhibited from pursuing policies, foreign and perhaps domestic as well, that might
incur Beijing’s wrath. With its enhanced global reach and influence, China would also be able to more
effectively support nondemocratic regimes in other parts of the world and to present some variant of its
own internal arrangements as a viable alternative to the liberal democratic capitalism of the West.
.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 138 of 265
February 2013
Con: Trade-Related Harms
Trade-Related Harms
General Examples of China’s Trade-Related Harms
Claire Reade. Hearing before the Congressional-Executive Commission on China One
Hundred Twelfth Congress. First Session. “Ten Years in the WTO: Has China Kept
Its Promises?” United States Government Printing Office. December 13, 2011.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg74026/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg74026.pdf
The first area I want to focus on is effective enforcement of intellectual property rights in China. This
remains a massive challenge. Counterfeiting and piracy in particular remain at unacceptably high levels in
China and trade secret theft is also becoming very worrisome. Second, China’s pursuit of an array of
industrial policies raises serious concerns. Subsidies and other discriminatory policies benefit state-owned
enterprises, as well as other favored companies. Third, even though China is now the United States’ largest
agricultural export market, this massive and beneficial trade does not flow as smoothly as it should, given
problems with regulatory transparency and predictability.
Finally, even though the United States continues to enjoy a substantial surplus in trade and services with
China and the market for U.S. service suppliers remains promising, China’s discriminatory regulatory
processes and other similar problems frustrate efforts of foreign suppliers to achieve their full market
potential in China. Going forward, Ambassador Kirk will continue to vigorously pursue increased benefits for
U.S. stakeholders in all of these areas.
Let me turn, now, to another important area: transparency. This is one of the core principles of the
WTO agreement and is reflected throughout China’s WTO accession commitments. These commitments
required a profound shift in Chinese policies and China did make important strides to improve transparency.
Nevertheless, it appears that China still has more work to do. Three areas of remaining work stand out. First,
China committed to publish all of its trade-related laws, regulations, and other measures. While China has
complied in many respects, it still does not appear that China publishes all its measures. Second, China
committed to published trade-related measures for public comment before implementation. China has
made important improvements in this area, but some agencies continue to promulgate final measures with
little or no opportunity for public comment. Third, China committed to make its trade-related measures
available in one or more WTO languages, but it appears China has made very limited progress in
implementing this commitment. The administration will continue to push China to undertake further
necessary steps to improve transparency. China’s WTO membership offers an important tool for managing the
increasingly complex U.S.-China trade relationship. A common WTO rulebook and an impartial body in
Geneva have helped the two sides resolve differences and the United States has not hesitated to pursue its rights
with China through WTO dispute settlement. In the last three years alone, the United States has brought
five cases to the WTO on wind power subsidies, misuse of trade remedy law, discriminatory barriers in
the service sector, and trade-distortive export restraints. These disputes, combined with the enforcement
work we pursue in the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade, the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, and
other trade tools, including Special 301, help try to ensure that U.S. stakeholders derive the full promise of
China’s WTO membership.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 139 of 265
February 2013
Con: Trade-Related Harms
Trade Barriers, Subsidies and Dumping
China’s trade barriers hurt America’s economy
Gerwin, Ed and McConaghy, Ryan. “China’s Trade Barrier Playbook:
Why America Needs a New Game Plan” The Bernard L. Schwartz Initiative
on American Economic Policy. February 2012.
If America’s economy is to experience the kind of growth necessary for the middle class to thrive, American
businesses must have the opportunity to export freely to the world’s second largest economy. Currently, the
United States is last among major industrialized nations in the share of its economyderived from exports.
Chinese barriers are one of the reasons. If our exports to China increased by just an additional 10%, that
would add some $10 billion new American exports and some 60,000 U.S. jobs.
China is an increasingly lucrative market for U.S. exports. It’s America’s third largest and fastest growing
export market, accounting for over $100 billion in U.S. exports of goods and services annually and growing by
an average of over 15% each year. China now has the world’s largest mobile phone network, is the largest
producer of light vehicles, and leads the world in internet users. Over the next decade, China is expected to
be the largest source of global demand, as it adds over 260 million new middle class consumers to the
world economy and actively encourages significantly increased private consumption.
China uses a variety of means to deliver performance-enhancing subsidies that unfairly pump up its state-owned
enterprises (SOEs) and other favored domestic firms. For example:
• Subsidies by China’s provincial and local governments account for some 20% of China’s industrial
investment, and often go to sectors, such as steel, that already have significant excess capacity.
In recent years, China has shown similar mastery in frustrating American exports and investments by moving
deftly from one unfair trade barrier to another China has very effectively used this tactic to dominate its home
market for wind turbines and severely restrict foreign competition. In 2005, China required that wind
turbines sold in China have 70% Chinese content. This restriction and other policies caused the foreign
share of China’s wind turbine market to plummet from 75% in 2004 to 14% in 2009. After repeated
complaints by the United States and other foreign governments, China eliminated the 70% requirement
in late 2009. By this point, however, China’s move was largely symbolic because Chinese producers now
dominated their home market.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 140 of 265
February 2013
Con: Trade-Related Harms
China’s subsidies are huge and unfair
Scissors, Derek. “The Most Important Chinese Trade Barriers” The Heritage Foundation.
July 20, 2012.
The subsidies problem starts with the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO definition of what
constitutes a harmful subsidy is too narrow. It focuses on financial contributions yet is difficult to apply when
dubious financial practices are widespread but not universal, as with preferential bank lending. WTO violations
are much easier to establish when trade is directly involved than when trade is inhibited indirectly, but losses in
the latter case can be massive.
The PRC (People’s Republic of China) is far from alone as a subsidy abuser, but it stands out in the size and
nature of subsidization. Subsidies are both huge and directed almost entirely to state-owned enterprises (SOEs).
The status of SOEs (in any country) is itself at issue under the WTO, making it that much harder to come to
grips with the subsidies these enterprises receive.
When market concentration is high, Beijing acts to preserve it. The PRC is 151st of 183 countries on the
World Bank measure of the ease of starting a business.
But the best protection from competition is by direct order of the central government. The state must own all
participating firms in oil and gas, petrochemicals, electric power, and telecommunications. In aviation, coal, and
shipping, the state must control the sector as a whole. In autos, construction, machinery, metals, information
technology, and environmental technology, the state is to expand until it controls the sector. SOEs also
comprise nearly all of insurance, the media, railways, and the huge tobacco industry. Most important, nearly all
banks are state-owned, a lever to control the rest of the economy.
State control/dominance is undefined, but it plainly blocks a market-leader role for foreign firms either based in
or exporting goods and services to the PRC. For instance, the foreign share in telecom and oil is trivial.
Foreign banks and insurers have less than 2 percent of sector assets. The mandate that SOEs must come
to control the domestic market kept auto imports below 5 percent of total sales even when Chinese
automakers were backward.
There can be no better subsidy than an assured share—in this case, an assured share of a very large market.
When the market share for American goods and services is tightly limited from the outset, other policies make
little difference. Yet the WTO cannot address this.
The chief financial subsidy is bank lending by state banks to state firms at below-market interest rates. Banking
dominates Chinese financing: From 2009 to 2011, bank lending totaled $3.7 trillion. State banks control over
90 percent of banking assets. Unsurprisingly, they make as much as 80 percent of loans to SOEs, with
even the central government concerned about the amount and cost of credit going to private
foundationbriefs.com
Page 141 of 265
February 2013
Con: Trade-Related Harms
firms.[14] For SOEs, the People’s Bank has kept real (adjusted for inflation) interest rates near or below
zero for years. And since SOEs do not truly go bankrupt, even trivial interest payments can be ignored.
This is not an export subsidy; it is an existence subsidy. Chinese SOEs do not borrow in order to dump on
foreign markets, though that happens; they borrow in order to maintain or expand their position at
home.
There are other subsidies. The state owns all land, and SOEs often receive it for free. In contrast, acquiring land
is difficult and expensive for non-state companies. Non-state firms also suffer from insecure ownership: Local
governments can evict them for reasons that include reducing competition for SOEs.
General policy support of SOEs is essentially guaranteed. At the orders of the Communist Party, SOE officers
move back and forth from policymaking positions. Further, many are closely related to high-level Party cadres.
The results are stunning. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) puts China’s 2011 per capita income
lower than Namibia’s. Nonetheless, with the lion’s share of the domestic market guaranteed, Chinese
state-dominated steel and coal production is approaching half the world total. State banks and telecoms
are, on some measures, the world’s largest. The PRC has the second-most companies in the
global Fortune 500 at 73, now ahead of Japan despite being far poorer. Almost all of the entrants are
SOEs, and three SOEs are in the world’s top 10. American companies face artificially inflated giants.
China does not open up to foreign investment
Scissors, Derek. “The U.S. and China: Jobs, Trade, and More” Heritage Foundation.
October 11, 2012.
Trade is about comparative advantage: people doing what they are best at. If I’m better at fighting fires and
you’re better at making cars, I can protect you from fires and you can build cars for me. That way, we’re both
better off. If the PRC assembles computers better, we benefit from that because it lets us buy computers at
lower prices. China doesn’t hurt the U.S. by trading with us. It hurts the U.S. by undermining our comparative
advantage.
The most important way China undermines our comparative advantage is by blocking American exports. The
PRC reserves large parts of its market for state-owned enterprises. Beijing demands that its state-owned firms
dominate domestic markets in coal, telecom, railways, and so on. These firms can’t go bankrupt. This means
that American products can only do so well in the Chinese market, whether they’re better or not.
Competition creates prosperity, because it leads to better products at lower prices. When China competes in the
American market that helps our economy. When China doesn’t allow American companies to compete in
China that hurts everyone except the Chinese state-owned firms that should go out of business.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 142 of 265
February 2013
Con: Trade-Related Harms
Chinese dumping hurts American businesses
Barker, Ned. “U.S. Trade with China: Expectations vs. Reality” PBS November 16, 2004.
Another major source of friction between the U.S. and China has been the fairly frequent American
charge that Chinese producers are guilty of dumping -- that is, producing exports and selling them in the
U.S. below the price in China, or below what it costs to manufacture and ship abroad.
In recent years, U.S. companies in a variety of industrial sectors have brought trade complaints to the
International Trade Commission (ITC), an independent, nonpartisan, quasi-judicial federal agency in
Washington that provides trade expertise to both the legislative and executive branches of government,
determines the impact of imports on U.S. industries, and directs actions against certain unfair trade practices,
such as patent, trademark, and copyright infringement. The American companies have accused Chinese
companies of dumping everything from shrimp to household goods like brushes and plastic bags, from tissue
paper and bedroom furniture to color television sets.
"It's not a matter of China versus the U.S.," says Hartquist, who has represented several American companies in
anti-dumping cases against the Chinese. "It's a matter of the Chinese producers are pricing their products in a
manner that simply doesn't allow anybody else in the world to compete with that, and that's not fair," he says.
Earlier this year, the ITC gave relief to a company Hartquist represents, Five Rivers Electronic Innovations,
located in Greeneville, Tenn. It employs more than 700 workers, and is the last American-owned color TV
maker in the U.S.
In May 2003, Five Rivers filed an anti-dumping petition in Washington, charging that color television makers in
China were illegally dumping their larger-sized color sets in the U.S., thereby threatening to put Five Rivers out
of business. The company tracked TV imports from China and found that sales of the Chinese televisions
skyrocketed from just over 50,000 sets in 2001 to 1.5 million sets during the first nine months of 2003.
Last December, Five Rivers CEO Tom Hopson told a congressional committee, "Imports of large screen TVs
from China have created havoc in the U.S. marketplace. In my 24 years in the television business, I have never
a similar or more worrisome situation."
In May 2004, the ITC unanimously agreed that the surge of these imports from China had injured Five
Rivers, and then imposed duties averaging about 23 percent on these sets.
Hopson says without the decision, Five Rivers would have gone out of business. "I strongly believe that
we would have already closed this factory," he says. "Had we not found the data … we would have
looked very strongly at … laying our employees off."
Dumping is a predatory economic policy where companies sell their products so cheap that they incur a
loss, but they also put their competitors out of business. China has often been found guilty of this
practice.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 143 of 265
February 2013
Con: Trade-Related Harms
China is clearly guilty of dumping
Van, Le and Tong, Sarah. “China and Anti-dumping: Regulations, Practices and
Responses” East Asian Institute. May 14, 2009.
China was the number one target of anti-dumping cases, with 640 antidumping investigations and 441 antidumping measures against exports from China between January 1995 and June 2006 . These accounted for
20% of the world total of anti-dumping filings.
According to WTO, about 70% of all anti-dumping investigations against Chinese export have led to the
imposition of some sort of anti-dumping measures.
Statistics show that in 2002, Chinese enterprises were very active in responding to anti-dumping cases, at
a response rate of 70% and at an increasing recovering rate. In particular, the response rate to dumping
charges from the US and EU was 100%...
China has often been accused of dumping and most of those accusations (70%) have been proven right.
Even when Chinese businesses have appealed these charges (through World Trade Organization dispute
settlement) anti-dumping measures have been upheld. As described in the previous source, dumping is a
predatory policy that attempts to literally put the competition out of business. Continuous trade with
China will result in even more U.S. companies getting hurt by this kind of behavior.
China Violates World Trade Organization
Representative Chris Smith. Hearing before the Congressional-Executive Commission on
China One Hundred Twelfth Congress. First Session. “Ten Years in the WTO: Has
China Kept Its Promises?” United States Government Printing Office. December
13, 2011. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg74026/pdf/CHRG112hhrg74026.pdf
Finally, in response to many reports that we have all seen in the papers recently of U.S. technology being used
to track down or conduct surveillance of activists through the Internet or mobile devices, the barrier to prohibit
the export of hardware or software that can be used for potentially illicit activity, such as surveillance, tracking,
and blocking to the governments of Internet-restricting countries, especially China.
So could China have kept its promises of a decade ago? Of course it could have, though doing so would have
meant the Chinese Communist Party would have had to submit to the rule of law. China faced many
challenges when it joined the WTO, however, given its economic success and clout, as well as the immense
resources it has poured into the expansion of the state’s—on its economy, China certainly could have
kept its promises if it had wished to do so.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 144 of 265
February 2013
Con: Trade-Related Harms
So how is China doing by WTO standards? Awful. China has agreed to abide by the WTO principles of
non-discrimination and transparency, however, U.S. exporters face many barriers when trying to sell
products to China, starting with customs delays and other problems at the border. Those problems
extend into China’s markets.
Companies in the large and growing state-owned sector operate under a set of policies that favor Chinese
producers. Also, it is extremely difficult for our companies to access government procurement.
Some of these barriers are obvious, such as China’s indigenous innovation policy, which has created strong
incentives to condition market access on the transfer of valuable technology, contrary to WTO rules.
Others, such as directed purchasing of China’s main products by Chinese state-owned companies are
harder to prove, notwithstanding China’s agreements that state-owned companies would operate on a
market basis.
There is no reciprocity—not strictly speaking a WTO requirement, but certainly a principle underlying the
WTO. It is much more difficult for American companies to access the Chinese market than it is for
Chinese companies to reach buyers in the United States. Even China’s Internet censorship serves to keep
American products and services out of the Chinese market, blocking access to China and U.S. Web sites, in
many cases.
China’s record of protection of intellectual property rights, a fundamental WTO obligation, is abysmal.
Infringement of our companies’ intellectual property [IP] leads to lost sales to China from the United
States and other countries, lost royalty payments, and damaged reputations, and presents a risk to
consumers here and in China of unwittingly buying counterfeit pharmaceuticals or unsafe, fake products.
The level playing field promised as part of China’s WTO ascension has not arrived. WTO membership has
resulted in a massive shift of jobs and wealth from the United States to China, which has come, again, at a huge
cost to us.
Let us not forget the trade deficit is in China’s favor and it has tripled over the past 10 years. In 2010, it
was a whopping $273 billion. It also has come at a cost to the credibility of the WTO itself, raising the question:
Is China killing the WTO? Given China’s state capitalism and poor governance, the impact of China’s failure
to comply with WTO norms is compounded by the WTO’s relative inability to deal effectively with a
mercantilist state-directed economy such as China’s. The WTO presupposes transparency and rule of
law. These do not exist.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 145 of 265
February 2013
Con: Trade-Related Harms
Currency Manipulation
China is a currency manipulator
Palmer, Brian. “If Currency Manipulation Is So Great for Exports, Why Don’t We Do
It?” Slate Magazine. October 17, 2012.
How does China manipulate its currency?
By buying U.S. government debt. In a free market, a trade surplus should increase the value of a country’s
currency. People want to be paid in local money, creating demand for the currency, which in turn raises its
value. Over time, this provides a counterweight against runaway trade imbalances. That process doesn’t happen
in China, because the government constantly prints new currency and uses it to buy U.S. dollars and U.S.
government debt, thereby flooding the market with Chinese currency and increasing demand for American
dollars. As of this writing, China holds $1.15 trillion in U.S. government debt, and the country’s foreign
exchange reserves are nearly as great as those of all advanced economies combined.
Until June 2010, the Chinese government dictated the value of the yuan against the U.S. dollar, a strategy
known as “pegging.” China claim to have abandoned the pegging system, but the country still manages the
value of the yuan within a narrow range. According to many estimates, Chinese government intervention
keeps the yuan approximately 20 percent below its free market value against the dollar.
Is currency manipulation legal?
No. International law grants sovereigns the right to manage their currencies, but a country can limit those rights
through international agreements. China’s membership in the IMF requires the government to “avoid
manipulating exchange rates ... in order to prevent effective balance of payments adjustment or to gain
an unfair competitive advantage over other members.” The IMF agreement, however, is toothless. China
claims that it manages its currency to ensure domestic stability, not to cheat trading partners, and there’s no
venue in which anyone can effectively challenge that claim.
The WTO, unlike the IMF, has a dispute-resolution mechanism, but its rules don’t directly address currency
manipulation. A WTO complaint would have to shoehorn China’s currency practices into an existing provision.
The United States could argue, for example, that currency manipulation represents an illegal, market-wide
export subsidy. Alternatively, the Obama administration could bring a so-called “non-violation complaint,”
alleging that China has undermined the spirit of the WTO agreement through a loophole. These arguments,
although plausible, would be unprecedented.
Dissatisfied with international enforcement options, Congress passed its own law in 2011 that requires the
Treasury Department to publish semiannual reports on suspected currency manipulators. If the administration
deems a country a currency manipulator, the president may impose tariffs against its imports to offset the effects
foundationbriefs.com
Page 146 of 265
February 2013
Con: Trade-Related Harms
of the depressed currency. Citing slow but steady appreciation of the yuan, the administration has repeatedly
declined to apply the label to China.
China’s trade practices harm the U.S. economy. The chief reason that the Chinese are beating America in
manufacturing is that they can sell their goods at cheaper prices. When that happens naturally, it’s
acceptable. However, when the Chinese government pursues policies that depreciate their currency and
therefore make their goods cheaper, that undermines U.S. businesses. Clearly, China’s rise hurts
American interests due to their subversive and duplicitous economic policies. Moreover, these contribute
to our outsized trade deficit which, as the below evidence demonstrates, is yet another harm to the
US.U.S. is harmed by trade China
Chinese WTO Violations and Currency Manipulation
Sherrod Brown. Hearing before the Congressional-Executive Commission on China One
Hundred Twelfth Congress. First Session. “Ten Years in the WTO: Has China Kept
Its Promises?” United States Government Printing Office. December 13, 2011.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg74026/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg74026.pdf
The most damaging of China’s unfair trade practices is its currency manipulation. By deliberately holding
down the value of its currency to boost exports, China has built the largest trade surplus in history, to the
detriment of the United States and other trading partners. Currency manipulation provides an unfair subsidy
to Chinese exports of up to 40 percent, by the estimate of some economists.
One of those economists is here today with us, Clyde Prestowitz, who has estimated that the percentage of
the unfair subsidy to China is up to 40 percent. It practices the most protectionist policy of any major
country since World War II, according to economist Fred Bergsten of the Peterson Institute. Additionally,
American manufacturers seeking to sell their products to China, our Nation’s fastest-growing export market—
from a fairly small base, I would add—are hit with the same percentage in what amounts to an unfair tariff. The
advantages enjoyed by Chinese manufacturers cost American jobs not just in traditional industries like
steel and autos and textiles, but jobs in wind, solar, and clean energy sectors, critical to our recovery.
There is no indication it will get better. In fact, China’s state- owned sector is growing, further skewing the
playing field in favor of China’s heavily subsidized state-owned enterprises. With no end in sight, we have got
to do something.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 147 of 265
February 2013
Con: Trade-Related Harms
Jobs
Chinese trade practices have hurt American job growth
Navarro, Peter. “America's best jobs program? Trade reform with China” The Christian
Science Monitor. September 28, 2012.
Instead, since 2001, China has flagrantly violated WTO rules by flooding our markets with illegally subsidized
exports. Meanwhile, putatively “American” multinationals like Boeing, Caterpillar, and GM have shut down
plants in cities like Seattle, Peoria, and Detroit while opening massive operations in places like
Beijing, Chengdu, and Shanghai – all to leverage China’s illegal subsidies and ultra-lax environmental and
worker rules and then dump their products back into American markets.
As a result of this twin assault on America’s manufacturing base by state-run Chinese companies and offshoring
multinationals, our once great country has devolved into a “Triple Zero Economy” characterized by near zero
growth in jobs, wages, and, stock returns even as over 50,000 factories have disappeared along with 6 million
manufacturing jobs.
Here is an even more chilling set of statistics: For the five and half decades prior to China’s entry into the
WTO, our gross domestic product grew at a rate of 3.5 percent. Since 2001, however, that rate has fallen
to a mere 1.6 percent annual growth rate. This slower growth, in turn, has led to the failure to create
more than 20 million jobs – not coincidentally, exactly what we need to put America back to work.
Meanwhile, pundits like Tom Friedman and Fareed Zakaria insist our manufacturing jobs are gone
forever to the forces of globalization and are never coming back – this despite the fact that Germany has
25 percent of its workforce in manufacturing compared with only 9 percent here in the US.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 148 of 265
February 2013
Con: Trade-Related Harms
Trade With China Costs the U.S. Jobs
Scott, Robert E. "The China Toll." Trade and Globalization Report. Economic Policy
Institute, 23 Aug. 2012. Web. 5 Jan. 2013.
Since China entered the World Trade Organization in 2001, the extraordinary growth of trade between China
and the United States has had a dramatic effect on U.S. workers and the domestic economy, though in neither
case has this effect been beneficial. The United States is piling up foreign debt and losing export capacity, and
the growing trade deficit with China has been a prime contributor to the crisis in U.S. manufacturing
employment. Between 2001 and 2011, the trade deficit with China eliminated or displaced more than 2.7
million U.S. jobs, over 2.1 million of which (76.9 percent) were in manufacturing. These lost
manufacturing jobs account for more than half of all U.S. manufacturing jobs lost or displaced between
2001 and 2011.
As a direct consequence of the rise of the export-led growth model in China, the U.S. has been bleeding
manufacturing jobs at a pace that it can ill afford amidst a large recession.
Trade with China Hurts U.S. Wages
Scott, Robert E. "The China Toll." Trade and Globalization Report. Economic Policy
Institute, 23 Aug. 2012. Web. 5 Jan. 2013.
But the jobs impact of the China trade deficit is not restricted to job loss and displacement. Competition with
low-wage workers from less-developed countries such as China has driven down wages for workers in U.S.
manufacturing and reduced the wages and bargaining power of similar, non-college-educated workers
throughout the economy. The affected population includes essentially all workers with less than a fouryear college degree—roughly 70 percent of the workforce, or about 100 million workers (U.S. Census
Bureau 2012b).
Put another way, for a typical full-time median-wage earner, earnings losses due to globalization totaled
approximately $1,400 per year as of 2006 (Bivens 2008a). For a typical household with two earners, the annual
cost is more than $2,500. China is the most important source of downward wage pressure from trade with lessdeveloped countries because it pays very low wages and because its products make up such a large portion of
U.S. imports (China was responsible for 55.3 percent of U.S. non-oil imports from less-developed countries
in 2011).
In addition to hurting U.S. jobs numbers, Chinese expansion and competition has also lowered wages
even in sectors that retained their jobs on U.S. soil. The resulting losses are substantial and counter to the
goals of economic prosperity in the United States.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 149 of 265
February 2013
Con: Trade-Related Harms
Trade deficit harms jobs
Isidore, Chris. “Are Chinese exports good for America?” CNN Money. November 17,
2009.
But there are plenty of critics who believe that nothing good comes out of the U.S. trade gap with China, which
so far this year has dwarfed the combined gap with the rest of the world by more than a third.
"I think the U.S.-China relationship was the worst economic policy mistake of the last generation," said Scott
Paul, executive director of Alliance for American Manufacturing, a coalition of small-to-mid-size
manufacturers and some unions which has been a long-time critic of U.S. trade policy.
Paul and other critics argue currency manipulation by the Chinese to undervalue their currency, government
subsidies to Chinese manufacturers and low wages paid to Chinese workers have put U.S. workers at an unfair
disadvantage.
The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, estimates that 2.3 million U.S. jobs were lost between
2001 and 2007 due to the Chinese trade gap.
University of Maryland professor Peter Morici has written that this trade gap "threatens to torpedo the
economic recovery and keep unemployment above 10 percent for the foreseeable future."
foundationbriefs.com
Page 150 of 265
February 2013
Con: Intellectual Property
Unemployment harms the economy
Ryssdal, Kai. “The downsides to trade with China” Marketplace. September 27, 2011.
Kai Ryssdal: Gordon Hanson is an economist at the University of California, San Diego whose most recent
research says exactly that.
Hanson: …the impact of China trade has really been felt nationally. Here in San Diego, where I live, we've
lost sporting goods industries as a result of Chinese competition. Callaway golf clubs, which used to be made
right here in Carlsbad, are now made in China.
Ryssdal: And when you are exposed, what happens?
Hanson: Larger reductions in manufacturing employment; larger increases in the fraction of your population
that is unemployed; and ultimately, what that leads to is greater uptake of government benefits of various types.
Ryssdal: And the commensurate increases taxes that we have to have to pay for those, right?
Hanson: Correct.
Ryssdal: Is there a way for us to know what trade with China is costing us? I mean, yes, there's a net benefit,
but there are significant downsides, right? Do we know how big those downsides are?
Hanson: We have a sense. So the benefits from China we're estimating are on the order of $100 per capita in
the United States. So we're talking about efficiency losses associated with the government benefits that are on
the order of $25 to $30 per capita. And so you say that $100 savings we got from making purchases at WalMart, well we're going to lose $25, $30 of that associated with a tax liability, we might face today, we
might face somewhere down the line.
Chinese competition hurts American businesses
Kenny, Charles. “What’s Wrong with China Trade? Ask the Candidates” Bloomberg
Businessweek. October 15, 2012.
The trouble is that some of those imports replaced goods formerly made in U.S. factories by American workers.
MIT’s David Autor and colleagues argue (PDF) that Chinese exports were responsible for job losses in
manufacturing equal to around eight of every 1,000 people of working age in the U.S. from 1990 to
2007—as many as 1.5 million jobs. Analysis for the National Bureau of Economic Research by Harvard’s
Avraham Ebenstein and colleagues also suggests that increased competition from enterprises in the developing
world has had a significant downward effect on U.S. manufacturing wages and employment.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 151 of 265
February 2013
Con: Intellectual Property
China Harms US Intellectual Property
China steals America’s intellectual property
Scissors, Derek. “The U.S. and China: Jobs, Trade, and More” Heritage Foundation.
October 11, 2012.
Another problem is the way China deals with intellectual property. America is the world’s leader in innovation.
We have the most ideas, and we try to protect those ideas with patents, trademarks, and copyrights. These ideas
are a major part of what makes many of our products appealing here and around the world. The iPad uses many
of the same computer chips as a lot of other products; what’s special about it is the way it’s designed and
programmed. That’s intellectual property.
The PRC is the world’s biggest thief of that kind of property. Chinese firms and individuals frequently
ignore patents and other legal guarantees, or even steal trade secrets outright. By illegally taking our
ideas and our technology, China undermines our biggest advantage in trade. When this occurs, trade
becomes far less beneficial. This is why so many Americans see trade with China as harming our economy, and
it is one of the real issues in U.S.–China trade that our government should be working on.
China is the chief thief of U.S. intellectual property
Gerwin, Ed and McConaghy, Ryan. “China’s Trade Barrier Playbook: Why America
Needs a New Game Plan” The Bernard L. Schwartz Initiativeon American
Economic Policy. February 2012.
The extent of China’s outright IP theft—and its impact on the U.S. economy—is staggering. Business
groups estimate that 99% of China’s music and 78% of its personal computer software is pirated. China’s
massive failure to enforce the intellectual property rights of U.S. companies effectively provides free
intellectual property to Chinese firms. This includes some $2 billion in benefits to Chinese internet firms
that profit from reselling music that they’re essentially allowed to pilfer for free.
According to China’s own estimates, between 15 to 20% of the products made in China are counterfeits.
Over three-quarters of the counterfeited and pirated goods seized by U.S. customs in 2010 originated in
China or Hong Kong. A recent analysis by the U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that China’s
infringement of IP rights cost America’s IP-intensive firms over $48 billion annually in lost sales,
royalties and license fees.
China’s IP theft also saps a key driver of American economic growth and good jobs. The USITC estimates
that, if China protected IP at levels comparable to the United States, U.S. exports and affiliate sales to
China would increase by $107 billion and the U.S. economy would add some 2.1 million jobs.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 152 of 265
February 2013
Con: Intellectual Property
China stealing intellectual property increases the trade deficit
Scissors, Derek. “The Most Important Chinese Trade Barriers” The Heritage Foundation.
July 20, 2012.
The Committee’s focus on intellectual property is entirely justified. Incentives come from secure property
rights, and the incentive to innovate comes from secure intellectual property rights (IPR). When IPR is weak,
the incentive to innovate weakens.
This is crucial because America’s comparative advantage is in innovation. Our comparative advantage is
expressed in export of technology goods, focused on computing but also including medical and other advanced
equipment. Innovation makes competitive a wide range of American services, from education to entertainment.
This is true for U.S. trade with all countries.
The Committee’s focus on intellectual property is entirely justified. Incentives come from secure property
rights, and the incentive to innovate comes from secure intellectual property rights (IPR). When IPR is weak,
the incentive to innovate weakens.
This is crucial because America’s comparative advantage is in innovation. Our comparative advantage is
expressed in export of technology goods, focused on computing but also including medical and other advanced
equipment. Innovation makes competitive a wide range of American services, from education to entertainment.
This is true for U.S. trade with all countries.
Top U.S. Exports to China, 2011
Value ($
Category
billions)
Waste and Scrap
11.5
Soybeans
10.5
Aircraft
6.4
Autos
5.3
Semiconductors
5.2
Organic Chemicals
3.6
Plastics Materials
3.1
Cotton
2.6
Meat and Poultry
2.2
Computer Equipment
2.0
Sub-total
52.4
All U.S. Exports
103.9
Source: United States Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, U.S. International Trade
Statisticshttp://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/naic3_6/naicCty.pl.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 153 of 265
February 2013
Con: Intellectual Property
With innovation thus blunted, American comparative advantage is distorted. Scrap metal is the leading
export. Other top goods exports make sense but volumes are painfully small, such as for computer
equipment. This is stark in comparison to Chinese exports to the U.S in 2011, where the top three
categories are computers, communication equipment, and computer equipment, and just these were
slightly larger than all American exports to the PRC. With IPR at risk, the U.S. does not export at
volumes consistent with combined Sino–American GDP of over $22 trillion.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 154 of 265
February 2013
Con: Quest for Oil
China’s Quest for Oil Harms the United States
China Has Sought to Secure Oil Assets Abroad
Chietigj Bajpaee, ‘China fuels energy Cold War’, Asian Times, 2 March 2005.
China's unprecedented growth not only makes it a driver of a long-term increase in energy prices, but also the
most vulnerable to rising oil prices. China, which has been a net oil importer since 1993, is the world's
number two oil consumer after the US and has accounted for 40% of the world's crude oil demand
growth since 2000. China's proven oil reserves stand at 18 trillion barrels, and oil imports account for one-third
of its crude oil consumption. As a result, energy security has become an area of vital importance to China's
stability and security. China is stepping up efforts to secure sea lanes and transport routes that are vital
for oil shipments, and diversifying beyond the volatile Middle East to find energy resources in other
regions, such as Africa, the Caspian, Russia, the Americas and the East and South China Sea region.
In order to fuel its large-scale economic growth, China has sought to secure oil reserves and production
facilities throughout the world in areas ranging from the Middle East to Africa.
Chinese Middle East Oil Imports Are Increasing
Gal Luft, ‘US, China are on collision course over oil’, Los Angeles Times, 2 February
2004.
With 1.3 billion people and an economy growing at a phenomenal 8% to 10% a year, China, already a net oil
importer, is growing increasingly dependent on imported oil. Last year, its auto sales grew 70% and its oil
imports were up 30% from the previous year, making it the world's No. 2 petroleum user after the U.S. By
2030, China is expected to have more cars than the U.S. and import as much oil as the U.S. does today.
Dependence on oil means dependence on the Middle East, home to 70% of the world's proven reserves.
With 60% of its oil imports coming from the Middle East, China can no longer afford to sit on the
sidelines of the tumultuous region.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 155 of 265
February 2013
Con: Quest for Oil
Chinese Oil Activities Increase Sino-Japanese Tensions
Chietigj Bajpaee, ‘China fuels energy Cold War’, Asian Times, 2 March 2005.
These tensions are likely to be further enflamed by both states' quest for energy security. Both states are net oil
importers, with Japan importing as much as 80% of its oil needs. Closer to home, a territorial dispute
between China and Japan in the East China Sea, which both sides claim as their exclusive economic zone
(EEZ), is being further fueled by reports of vast supplies of oil and gas in the region. The disputed territory
includes the Diaoyu or Senkaku islands and the Chunxiao gas field northeast of Taiwan, which, according to a
1999 Japanese survey, holds 200 billion cubic meters of gas. Japan regards the median line as its border, while
China claims jurisdiction over the entire continental shelf. In 2003, China began drilling in the area after the
Japanese rejected a Chinese proposal to develop the field jointly. Although the Chunxiao gas field is on the
Chinese side of the median line, Japan claims that China may be siphoning energy resources on the Japanese
side.
Tensions between Japan and China are exacerbated over competition for energy security, which creates
more regional tension contrary to U.S. interests of stability in East Asia.
Chinese Oil Ties with Iran Undermine U.S. Sanctions
Chietigj Bajpaee, ‘China fuels energy Cold War’, Asian Times, 2 March 2005.
China has also attempted to improve relations with its already-established oil suppliers, such as Saudi
Arabia and Iran, by selling them military technology, investing in their industries and energy
infrastructure and looking the other way with respect to their human-rights records. Currently, China
derives 13.6% of its oil imports from Iran. In March 2004, China signed a $100 million deal with Iran to
import 10 million tons of liquefied natural gas over a 25-year period in exchange for Chinese investment in
Iran's oil and gas exploration, petrochemical and pipeline infrastructure. Growing Sino-Iranian relations are
undermining US sanctions against Iran. The Bush administration has sanctioned Chinese companies 62
times for violating US or international controls on the transfer of weapons technology to Iran and other
states. The US Central Intelligence Agency has submitted a report to US Congress stating that Chinese
companies have "helped Iran move toward its goal of becoming self-sufficient in the production of ballistic
missiles". In the ongoing controversy over Iran's uranium enrichment program, China has also opposed
bringing the issue before the UN Security Council, and has even threatened to veto any resolution that is
brought against Iran.
As part of its energy security project, China harms U.S. diplomatic efforts with Iran by violating
international sanctions on the country and proving the mullahs with petrodollars.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 156 of 265
February 2013
Con: Quest for Oil
China’s Peaceful Rise Policy Does Not Apply to Oil Interests
Chietigj Bajpaee, ‘China fuels energy Cold War’, Asian Times, 2 March 2005.
Friction between China and the West has so far focused on the question of China's undervalued exchange rate,
its human-rights record and relations with "rogue" states. However, competition over energy resources is now
becoming an additional area of contention.
China's growing presence on the international energy stage could ultimately bring it into confrontation
with the world's largest energy consumer, the US. While China and the US have launched the US-China
Energy Policy Dialogue, both states are also engaged in a competition for energy resources in Russia, the
Caspian, the Middle East, the Americas and Africa. This competition could potentially combine with other
areas of friction. For example, in the event of China engaging in a conflict with Taiwan, Japan or India or
internal repression such as a repeat of the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989, the US could censure China's
actions by an oil embargo or by blocking vital sea lanes in the Malacca Strait, thus sparking a wider conflict. It
is not by coincidence that China has made progress in resolving its border disputes with India and Russia, while
failing to make progress on territorial disputes with Japan in the East China Sea and in the South China Sea,
given that the latter involve access to potential oil and gas resources. In this context, China's claim to
pursuing a "peaceful ascendancy" policy and putting aside areas of disagreement in favor of creating a
stable environment for economic development is limited to areas where China's vital strategic interests
are not threatened.
While the Pro will attempt to highlight peaceful aspects of China’s rise, when oil interests are involved,
China has consistently acted in a manner contrary to U.S. interests, which increases the possibility for
conflict over oil reserves.
China Props Up Dangerous Regimes
Gal Luft, ‘US, China are on collision course over oil’, Los Angeles Times, 2 February
2004.
Its way of forming a footprint in the Middle East has been through providing technology and components for
weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems to unsavory regimes in places such as Iran, Iraq and
Syria. A report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a group created by Congress to
monitor U.S.-China relations, warned in 2002 that "this arms trafficking to these regimes presents an
increasing threat to U.S. security interests in the Middle East." The report concludes: "A key driver in
China's relations with terrorist-sponsoring governments is its dependence on foreign oil to fuel its
economic development. This dependency is expected to increase over the coming decade."
This card demonstrates U.S. national security is directly harmed by Chinese activities in the Middle East
by allowing unsavory and dangerous regimes to fund arms trafficking and maintain their holds on
power.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 157 of 265
February 2013
Con: Quest for Oil
Increased Chinese Demand for Oil Has Driven Prices Upward
Marron, Donald. "China’s Growing Demand for Oil and Its Impact on U.S. Petroleum
Markets." Congressional Budget Office, Apr. 2006. Web. 05 Jan. 2013.
Over the next five years, the likely impacts of economic growth in China on oil markets in the United
States all relate to prices: increased crude oil prices, greater costs to refine oil, and, as a result, higher
prices for gasoline and diesel fuel. The combined changes in crude oil costs and costs to refine it could add a
total of 19 cents to 38 cents to the cost of a gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel in the United States in the next
five years.
The growing total demand for oil products in China will add pressure on worldwide crude oil prices over the
next five years. And the growing relative demand for motor fuels and other light products within China will add
pressure on costs to refine oil worldwide and in the United States.
In addition to the national security dimension of China’s increasing demand for oil, increased oil imports
lead to increases in prices worldwide and in the U.S. for crude oil and gasoline, which raises the cost of
doing business and has adverse effects on economic growth.
China’s Oil Demand Increases Crude Oil Price Volatility
Marron, Donald. "China’s Growing Demand for Oil and Its Impact on U.S. Petroleum
Markets." Congressional Budget Office, Apr. 2006. Web. 05 Jan. 2013.
A part of the current concern about the impact of China’s growing energy demand on oil price volatility
relates to the fact that the available buffer of excess production capacity in the world market is already
very slim (see Figure 4-3). Without that buffer—crude oil that is avail- able on short notice at a relatively
constant cost—any increase in demand must be met from costly incremental sources. The ability of crude
oil producers worldwide to boost output in response to supply disruptions or demand surges is likely to
remain limited or even diminish further for the next few years.
Just as higher total prices for crude has negative effects on U.S. economic growth, so too does increased
price volatility in oil markets because of the corresponding uncertainty this volatility creates.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 158 of 265
February 2013
Con: Threatens the Environment
China’s Rise Threatens the Environment
China’s Resource Consumption Rate is Rising
"The State of Consumption Today." Worldwatch Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Jan. 2013.
A growing share of the global consumer class now lives in developing countries. China and India alone
claim more than 20 percent of the global total—with a combined consumer class of 362 million, more than in
all of Western Europe. (Though the average Chinese or Indian member consumes substantially less than the
average European.)
Developing countries also have the greatest potential to expand the ranks of consumers. China and India’s large
consumer set constitutes only 16 percent of the region’s population, whereas in Europe the figure is 89 percent.
Indeed, in most developing countries the consumer class accounts for less than half of the population—
suggesting considerable room to grow.
Every day in 2003, some 11,000 more cars merged onto Chinese roads—4 million new private cars during
the year. Auto sales increased by 60 % in 2002 and by more than 80 % in the first half of 2003. If growth
continues apace, 150 million cars could jam China’s streets by 2015—18 million more than were driven on U.S.
streets and highways in 1999.
China Leaves a Huge Ecological Footprint That Must be Addressed
"China Needs Innovative Solutions to Reduce Footprint." WWF. World Wildlife Fund,
n.d. Web. 08 Jan. 2013.
Increasing consumption associated with economic growth and urbanization are placing growing pressure
on China’s natural environment, reveals the 2012 edition of WWF’s China Ecological Footprint Report, a
biennial survey on the country’s demand on nature. Carbon remains the largest component of China’s overall
Ecological Footprint, increasing from 10 per cent in 1961 to 54 percent in 2008. Only a small portion of this
comes from direct consumption of fuel or electricity in households or of gasoline for transport – the vast
majority are indirect emissions, embodied in consumer goods and services, which account for up to 90 per cent
of carbon footprint in some regions.
The drivers of the average Chinese person’s Ecological Footprint have also changed, with a significant turning
point around 1985 when growth rates of per capita consumption outstripped production efficiency.
“Of all the demands China is now placing on its environment, carbon emissions are having the biggest impact
by far. More than ever, the country needs innovative solutions to reduce its carbon footprint. Production
efficiency needs to improve, and consumers need to shift their choice to low footprint products.” added Dr. Lin.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 159 of 265
February 2013
Con: Threatens the Environment
China’s Emissions Will Grow Until at Least 2030
Kaiman, Jonathan. “China’s Emissions expected to Rise Until 2030.” The Guardian. 26
Nov. 2012. Web. 8 Jan 2013. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/2
6/china-e missions-rise-green-policies
Analysts say that beneath the apparent contradiction lies a consensus that barring any significant changes in
policy, China's emissions will rise until around 2030 – when the country's urbanisation peaks, and its population
growth slows – and then begins to fall. Proposed policy changes could speed up the process.
China is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gasses, responsible for about a quarter of all emissions. The
country accounted for over 70% of the world's energy consumption growth in 2011, according to the BP
Statistical Review of World Energy. Its emissions have risen accordingly.
China's chief negotiator to the Doha climate change conference, Xie Zhenhua, told Xinhua that the country's
greenhouse gas emissions – which rose 171% between 2000 and 2011, and by just under 10% last year alone –
would continue to rise until its per capita GDP had reached $20,000 to $25,000. It currently stands at $5,000.
China’s Leading Officials Recognize Massive Environmental Degradation As a Result Of
China’s Economic Growth (or Rise)
Jacobs, Andrew. "China Issues Warning On Climate And Growth." The New York Times.
The New York Times, 01 Mar. 2011. Web.
“We must not any longer sacrifice the environment for the sake of rapid growth and reckless roll-outs, as
that would result in unsustainable growth featuring industrial overcapacity and intensive resource
consumption,” said Mr. Wen in an Internet chat widely publicized by the state media.
The remarks come at a time of unrelenting environmental degradation that has accompanied doubledigit economic growth. Last year, China registered 10.3 percent growth, higher than its official target.
Mr. Zhou’s vow to weigh factors like climate change when approving new factories would be significant given
that such policies were largely the domain of China’s top economic planning agency, the National Development
and Reform Commission, which had been reluctant to sacrifice economic growth for environmental protection.
This is card shows that China’s Officials have recognized that their rapid economic espansion and
growth has caused massive environmental impacts. This is important because it links back to the
resolution to prove that it is in fact China’s rise that has caused environmental catastrophes.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 160 of 265
February 2013
Con: Threatens the Environment
Despite China’s Recognition of Major Harm to the Environment, China Has Now Overtaken
the U.S. as the World’s Largest Greenhouse Gas Contributor
Zhang, Junjie. "Is Environmentally Sustainable Economic Growth Possible in
China?"Asia Society. N.p., 2012.
However, growing gross domestic product (GDP) at any cost has created a series of social and
environmental problems, and consequently, economic losses. In 2008, pollution and environmental
degradation accounted for 10.51 percent of gross national income, according to calculations based on
figures provided by the World Bank. Though problems have been prevalent since the beginning of China's
modern industrialization, environmental challenges have dramatically increased over the past three decades,
raising both international and domestic concern. China is currently ranked 116 of 132 countries on
the Environmental Performance Index, and since 2007, China has overtaken the U.S. as the world's
largest greenhouse gas emitter. Rapid industrial development has depended upon increasing inputs of energy,
natural resources, and environmental services. As a result, resource depletion and environmental pollution have
become serious problems that require the rethinking of governmental policies.
This card indicates that China is the number one contributor to the Global Warming Problem.
This is bad for the U.S. and the World Because It Increases Global Warming
Hays, Jeffrey. "Facts and Details." GLOBAL WARMING IN CHINA. N.p., Apr. 2012.
Web.
China is the largest producer of greenhouse gases and the largest emitter of carbon dioxide. It was not
supposed to overtake the United States as the world’s leading producer of greenhouse gases until 2020 but
a study by a Dutch government-funded group released in June 2007 determined that China was already the
world’s No. 1 emitter of carbon dioxide then. It surpassed the United States in 2006 when it produced 7.5
percent more of these gasses than the United States compared to 2 percent less in 2005. In August 2008,
Germany’s IWR Institute concluded that China’s carbon dioxide emissions in 2008 were 6.8 million tons—the
most of any nation and 178 percent higher than the 1990 level. By 2025 the emission levels in China are
expected to double or triple, equaling increase in the entire industrialized world. Already emission increases in
China cancelled the progress made in other countries by reducing emissions in accordance with the
Kyoto protocol. Greenhouse gas emissions are increasing, due mainly to increase in coal use to fuel
China’s industrial and economic boom. New power plants are being built, more coal is being burned,
sales of cars, refrigerators and air conditioners are soaring. All of these things produce more carbon
dioxide and other gases.
The card reveals the extent to which China has damaged the environment and its contribution to green
house gas emissions if the other team asks for specific numbers. Furthermore it indicates to the other
team that there is no evidence that China will be slowing down emissions soon.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 161 of 265
February 2013
Con: Threatens the Environment
China Emits Massive Amounts of CO2 and is Exempt due to Its Developing Country Status
Hays, Jeffrey. "Facts and Details." GLOBAL WARMING IN CHINA. N.p., Apr. 2012.
Web.
According to a 2007 survey by the Center of Global Development the China power sector alone releases
2.68 billion tons of carbon dioxide, compared to 2.79 billion released by the United States and 400 million
tons in Japan. China has not signed the Kyoto Protocol and is exempt anyway because it is considered a
developing country.
It is extremely relevant that China has not yet signed the Kyoto Protocol because that means that China
is not restricted or restrained by any international treaty to slow down its rate of carbon emissions. Only
a commitment to the Kyoto Protocol would indicate that China is serious about changing its policies to be
more environmentally friendly.
China’s Number One Priority is Economic Growth, Not the Environment
Brubaker, Richard. "China and Sustainability: Connecting the Dots between Economy
and Ecology." The Guardian. N.p., 10 Sept. 2012. Web.
For generations, the notion of sustainability for most Chinese meant simply having enough to eat. For many, life
is much improved. Since China started adopting free enterprise in the early 1980s, an estimated 400
million have been lifted out of absolute poverty and it now has a prosperous middle class. But
unrestrained growth has brought problems of its own. These include rampant corruption, growing social
unrest because of the widening gap between rich and poor, and a wide array of environmental problems.
Looking at sustainability issues in China today, it is important for outsiders to understand the following:
• China's issues of sustainability are not historically linked to private consumption as they are in the United
States or western Europe; they are linked to the industrial processes that are supporting China's economic
development model.
• China does not see emissions as a problem that must be dealt with immediately. With millions
remaining in poverty, economic growth is still the priority.
• The largest pressure China faces to solve sustainability issues comes from within. External pressures or
concerns about the planet as a whole are secondary.
Simply put, the issues that China faces are largely tied to economic development, the problems themselves are
growing in size and frequency, and China will do what it takes to fix those problems in a way that considers
the needs of its people first.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 162 of 265
February 2013
Con: Threatens the Environment
Global Warming Risks Extinction and Other Astronomically Negative Impacts
Tickell, Oliver. "On a Planet 4C Hotter, All We Can Prepare for Is Extinction." The
Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 08 Oct. 2008. Web.
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At
first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could
adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that
would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the
beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction.
The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80
metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial
infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be
transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the
Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and
unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying
capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die.
Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who
warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway
increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant
feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice.
Use this card to show that none of the advantages possibly gained from China’s rise is negative impacts
we can expect if China continues to emit astronomical amounts of carbon emissions.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 163 of 265
February 2013
Con: Threatens the Environment
Global Warming Causes Disease, Famine, and Flood
Khasnis, Atul A., and Mary D. Nettleman. "Global Warming and Infectious Disease."
Archives of Medical Research, 29 Mar. 2005.
For example, altered climatic conditions can change the habitats of vectors such as mosquitoes or rats
and affect the parasites they carry. Changing the abundance and geographic range of carriers and
parasites could shift the seasonal occurrence of many infectious diseases and cause them to spread. The
effect of global warming depends heavily on the ability of humans and public health systems to adapt.
Human migration and economic stresses from climate variability could threaten human settlement and
seriously overwhelm the public health infrastructure. This scenario might be worsened further by malnutrition
due to crop failure. Facing this complex threat makes interdisciplinary cooperation among health professionals,
climatologists, environmental biologists and social scientists imperative to understand and effectively manage
this threat that could result from globalwarming. Renewed understanding of linkages between public health
and global life-support systems is emerging in the literature (11). New collaborative efforts can confront these
tough challenges through advances in preventive medicine. In much of the world, the current increasing life
expectancy is likely to be blunted by increased difficulty in accessing basic requirements such as sanitation and
potable water. The direct and indirect impacts of climate change on human health have a considerable toll
on life, resources (natural and financial) and working manpower. Altered environmental influences
would also mean courting environmental disasters such as famines and floods.
Utilize this card to show that while the Pro might argue that China’s rise is beneficial to the United States
none of the advantages possibly gained from China’s rise is worth the famine and flood and disease we
can expect if China continues to emit astronomical amounts of carbon emissions.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 164 of 265
February 2013
Con: No Regime Collapse
The Chinese Regime Won’t Collapse
The evidence below demonstrates that the CCCP is neither anachronistic nor corrupt and, more
importantly, that it isn’t going anywhere. While this may seem like a counter, we have included it in the
more constructive part of the brief due to the popularity of the “China will collapse or decline” argument
as a response by affirmative teams. It may be worth leading with something about China’s durability and
how that makes China a unique, important threat to US interests.
CCP is Adaptable
Eric Li, “The Life of the Party,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party
The assertion that one-party rule is inherently incapable of self-correction does not reflect the historical record.
During its 63 years in power, the CCP has shown extraordinary adaptability. Since its founding in 1949, the
People's Republic has pursued a broad range of economic policies. First, the CCP initiated radical land
collectivization in the early 1950s. This was followed by the policies of the Great Leap Forward in the late
1950s and the Cultural Revolution in the late 1960s to mid-1970s. After them came the quasiprivatization of farmland in the early 1960s, Deng Xiaoping's market reforms in the late 1970s, and Jiang
Zemin's opening up of the CCP's membership to private businesspeople in the 1990s. The underlying goal
has always been economic health, and when a policy did not work-for example, the disastrous Great Leap
Forward and Cultural Revolution-China was able to find something that did: for example, Deng's reforms,
which catapulted the Chinese economy into the position of second largest in the world.
CCP Can Regulate Itself
Eric Li, “The Life of the Party,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party
On the institutional front as well, the CCP has not shied away from reform. One example is the
introduction in the 1980s and 1990s of term limits for most political positions (and even of age limits, of
68–70, for the party's most senior leadership). Before this, political leaders had been able to use their
positions to accumulate power and perpetuate their rules. Mao Zedong was a case in point. He had ended the
civil wars that had plagued China and repelled foreign invasions to become the father of modern China. Yet his
prolonged rule led to disastrous mistakes, such as the Cultural Revolution. Now, it is nearly impossible for the
few at the top to consolidate long-term power. Upward mobility within the party has also increased.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 165 of 265
February 2013
Con: No Regime Collapse
CCP Foreign Policy is Adaptable
Eric Li, “The Life of the Party,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party
In terms of foreign policy, China has also changed course many times to achieve national greatness. It moved
from a close alliance with Moscow in the 1950s to a virtual alliance with the United States in the 1970s and
1980s as it sought to contain the Soviet Union. Today, its pursuit of a more independent foreign policy has once
more put it at odds with the United States. But in its ongoing quest for greatness, China is seeking to defy recent
historical precedents and rise peacefully, avoiding the militarism that plagued Germany and Japan in the first
half of the last century.
CCP Is Meritocratic
Eric Li, “The Life of the Party,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party
As counterintuitive as it might seem to Westerners, the CCP, whose political preeminence is enshrined in the
Chinese constitution, is one of the most meritocratic political institutions in the world.
Of the 25 members that made up the pre-18th-Congress Politburo, the highest ruling body of the CCP,
only five (the so-called princelings) came from privileged backgrounds. The other 20, including the
president, Hu, and the premier, Wen Jiabao, came from middle- or lower-class backgrounds. In the
CCP's larger Central Committee, which was made up of more than 300 people, the percentage of people
born into wealth and power was even smaller. The vast majority of those in government worked and
competed their way through the ranks to the top. Admittedly, the new general secretary, Xi, is the son of a
previous party leader. However, an overwhelming number of those who moved up the ranks this past fall had
humbler beginnings.
Xi Proves that China is Meritocratic
Eric Li, “The Life of the Party,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party
Xi's career path is illustrative. Over the course of 30 years, Xi rose from being a fu ke level deputy county chief
in a poor village to party secretary of Shanghai and a member of the Politburo. By the time he made it to the
top, Xi had already managed areas with total populations of over 150 million and combined GDPs of more than
$1.5 trillion. His career demonstrates that meritocracy drives Chinese politics and that those who end up leading
the country have proven records.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 166 of 265
February 2013
Con: No Regime Collapse
How the Meritocracy Works
Eric Li, “The Life of the Party,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party
Every year, the government and its affiliated organizations recruit university graduates into entry-level positions
in one of the three state-controlled systems: the civil service, state-owned enterprises, and government-affiliated
social organizations such as universities or community programs. Most new recruits enter at the lowest level,
or ke yuan. After a few years, the Organization Department reviews their performance and can promote them up
through four increasingly elite managerial ranks: fu ke, ke, fu chu, and chu. The range of positions at these
levels is wide, covering anything from running the health-care system in a poor village to attracting commercial
investment in a city district. Once a year, the Organization Department reviews quantitative performance
records for each official in each of these grades; carries out interviews with superiors, peers, and subordinates;
and vets personal conduct. Extensive and frequent public opinion surveys are also conducted on questions
ranging from satisfaction with the country's general direction to opinions about more mundane and specific
local policies. Once the department has gathered a complete dossier on all the candidates, and has confirmed the
public's general satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their performances, committees discuss the data and promote
winners.
[…]
Over time, the most successful workers are promoted again, to what are known as thefu ju and ju levels, at
which point a typical assignment is to manage districts with populations in the millions or companies with
hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues. To get a sense of how rigorous the selection process is, in 2012,
there were 900,000 officials at the fu keand ke levels and 600,000 at the fu chu and chu levels. There were
only 40,000 at the fu ju and ju levels.
After the ju level, a very talented few move up several more ranks and eventually make it to the party's Central
Committee. The entire process could take two to three decades, and most of those who make it to the top have
had managerial experience in just about every sector of Chinese society.
CCP is Legitimate
Eric Li, “The Life of the Party,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party
No doubt, performance is a major source of the party's popularity. In a poll of Chinese attitudes published by
the Pew Research Center in 2011, 87 percent of respondents noted satisfaction with the general direction of the
country, 66 percent reported significant progress in their lives in the past five years, and a whopping 74 percent
said they expected the future to be even better.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 167 of 265
February 2013
Con: No Regime Collapse
CCP Derives Its Legitimacy from Moral Legitimacy
Eric Li, “The Life of the Party,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party
Performance legitimacy, however, is only one source of the party's popular support. Much more significant is
the role of Chinese nationalism and moral legitimacy.
The CCP's role in saving and modernizing China is a far more durable source of its legitimacy than the
country's economic performance. It explains why, even at the worst times of the party's rule in the past
63 years, including the disastrous Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, the CCP was able to
keep the support of mainstream Chinese long enough for it to correct its mistakes. China's recent
achievements, from economic growth to space exploration, are only strengthening nationalist sentiments
in the country, especially among the youth. The party can count on their support for decades to come.
Chinese Government Isn’t Repressive Beyond Measure
Eric Li, “The Life of the Party,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party
Still, the party knows very well that general repression is not sustainable. Instead, it seeks to employ smart
containment. The strategy is to give the vast majority of people the widest range possible of personal liberties.
And today, Chinese people are freer than at any other period in recent memory; most of them can live
where they want and work as they choose, go into business without hindrance, travel within and out of
the country, and openly criticize the government online without retaliation. Meanwhile, state power
focuses on containing a small number of individuals who have political agendas and want to topple the
one-party system. As any casual observer would know, over the last ten years, the quantity of criticism against
the government online and in print has increased exponentially -- without any reprisals. Every year, there are
tens of thousands of local protests against specific policies. Most of the disputes are resolved peacefully.
But the government deals forcefully with the very few who aim to subvert China's political system, such
as Liu Xiaobo, an activist who calls for the end of single-party rule and who is currently in jail.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 168 of 265
February 2013
Con: No Regime Collapse
No Impending Corruption-Driven Collapse
Corruption Won’t Derail the Government
Eric Li, “The Life of the Party,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party
Corruption, for one, could seriously harm the CCP's reputation. But it will not derail party rule anytime soon.
Far from being a problem inherent to the Chinese political system, corruption is largely a byproduct of
the country's rapid transformation. When the United States was going through its industrialization 150
years ago, violence, the wealth gap, and corruption in the country were just as bad as, if not worse than,
in China today. According to Transparency International, China ranks 75th in global corruption and is
gradually getting better. It is less corrupt than Greece (80th), India (95th), Indonesia and Argentina (tied at
100th), and the Philippines (129th) -- all of which are electoral democracies. Understood in such a context, the
Chinese government's corruption is by no means insurmountable. And the party's deeply rooted popular support
will allow it the breathing room to grapple with even the toughest problems.
China Is Tackling Corruption
Eric Li, “The Life of the Party,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party
Corruption remains the hardest nut to crack. In recent years, family members of some party leaders have used
their political influence to build up large networks of commercial interests. Cronyism is spreading from the top
down, which could eventually threaten the party's rule. The CCP has articulated a three-pronged strategy to
attack the problem, which the new leadership will carry out. The most important institution for
containing corruption is the CCP's Central Commission for Discipline Inspection. Its leader usually sits
on the Standing Committee of the Politburo and has more power than the state judiciary. This person
can detain and interrogate party members suspected of corruption without legal limits. In recent years,
the commission has been very aggressive. In 2011, it conducted formal investigations into 137,859 cases
that resulted in disciplinary actions or legal convictions against party officials. This number represents a
nearly fourfold increase since the years before 1989, when corruption was one of the main issues that
drove the Tiananmen protests.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 169 of 265
February 2013
Con: No Regime Collapse
Media Is More Independent, Allows for Anti-Corruption
Eric Li, “The Life of the Party,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party
Complementing the party's own antigraft efforts is the increasing independence of media outlets, both state- and
privately owned. News organizations have already exposed cases of official corruption and disseminated their
findings on the Internet. The CCP has responded by pursuing some of the cases that the media have brought to
light.
Competition Will Reduce Corruption
Eric Li, “The Life of the Party,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party
Also to tackle corruption, the party plans to increase open competition within its own ranks, inspired by the
efforts of officials such as Qiu. The hope is that such competition will air dirty laundry and discourage
unseemly behavior. The Hu administration initiated an "intraparty democracy" program to facilitate direct
competition for seats on party committees, an idea that received high praise at the 18th Congress.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 170 of 265
February 2013
Con: No Regime Collapse
No Impending Economic Collapse
Some teams will argue that the slowdown of the Chinese economy will accelerate the collapse of the
regime. The 2 pieces of evidence below prove that Chinese economic growth will not taper off. For those
of you with the Advanced Level Brief, be sure to see the counter on this same topic.
Urbanization Will Drive the Economy
Eric Li, “The Life of the Party,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party
The current economic slowdown is worrying, but it is largely cyclical, not structural. […] In 1990, only about
25 percent of Chinese lived in cities. Today, 51 percent do. Before 2040, a full 75 percent -- nearly one billion
people -- are expected to be urban. The amount of new roads, housing, utilities, and communications
infrastructure needed to accommodate this expansion is astounding. Therefore, any apparent infrastructure or
housing bubbles will be momentary. In fact, China's new leadership will need to continue or even increase
investment in these sectors in the years to come. That investment and the vast new urban work force, with all its
production and consumption, will drive high economic growth rates.
Entrepreneurship Will Reinvigorate the Economy
Eric Li, “The Life of the Party,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138476/eric-x-li/the-life-of-the-party
Meanwhile, entrepreneurship will help China overcome threats to its export-fueled economic model. Externally,
the global economic downturn and a rising currency value have dampened Chinese trade. Internally, labor costs
have risen in the country's coastal manufacturing regions. But the market will sort out these problems. After all,
China's economic miracle was not just a centrally planned phenomenon. Beijing facilitated the development of a
powerful market economy, but private entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of the system. And these
entrepreneurs are highly adaptive. Already, some low-end manufacturing has moved inland to contain
labor costs. This is coinciding with local governments' aggressive infrastructure investments and
innovative efforts to attract new business. In the costal regions, many companies are producing
increasingly-higher-value goods.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 171 of 265
February 2013
Con: R&D and S&E Hurt US
Chinese Research and Development Hurts United States
Basic Effects of Decline in U.S. Research and Development
Richard B. Freeman, Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce and
National Security. RAND Corporation.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/conf_proceedings/2007/RAND_CF235.
pdf
This paper shows that changes in the global job market for science and engineering (S&E) workers are
eroding U.S. dominance in S&E and diminishing comparative advantages in high-tech production. This
will make it more difficult for the United States to maintain its technological dominance in production,
including areas of national security. The evidence shows that:
1. The U.S. share of the world’s science and engineering graduates is declining rapidly as European
and Asian universities, particularly those in China, have increased S&E degrees while U.S. degree
production has stagnated.
2. The job market has worsened for young workers in S&E fields relative to many other high-level
occupations, which discourages U.S. students from going on in S&E, but which still has sufficient
rewards to attract large immigrant flows, particularly from developing countries.
3. Populous low-income countries such as China and India can compete with the United States in
high tech by having many S&E specialists although those workers are a small proportion of their
workforces. This will weaken U.S. dominance in high tech, potentially including sectors involved in
national security.
These trends have three implications for U.S. national security:
1. The increased supply of S&E specialists overseas and accompanying economic and technological
competence will give foreign countries that seek to compete in high-tech military areas the
potential resources to do so.
2. The diminished U.S. share of S&E talent will make it harder for some U.S. agencies to maintain
high productivity if they rely solely on citizens for critical research and development work.
3. The diminished U.S. share of scientific papers suggests that the United States develop new ways of
monitoring and benefiting from scientific and technological advances in other countries.
This paper explains the reasons why a decline in research and development as well as science and
engineering hurts the United States. This source will provide context for the subsequent evidence of
United States decline.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 172 of 265
February 2013
Con: R&D and S&E Hurt US
The Importance of Research/Science Dominance
Adam Segal. “The Global Diffusion of S&T and the Rise of China.” RAND.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/conf_proceedings/2007/RAND_CF235.
pdf
Greater China (China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan) and India are trying to exploit the opportunities created
by globalization. These countries want to do more than provide the lab space for American firms to innovate;
they want to develop the next wave of advanced technologies that generate new industries, new jobs, and higher
standards of living. They have made innovation a national priority, and they are amassing the investment, talent,
and infrastructure required to compete globally. In China, expenditures on R&D rose from 0.6 percent of
GDP in 1995 to 1.44 percent in 2005; the goal for 2020 is 2.5 percent of GDP. In support of the drive
toward a “knowledge-based economy,” Chinese universities have awarded a growing number of
advanced degrees. In order to encourage individual risk taking and reward technological
entrepreneurship, countries throughout the region are experimenting with stock options and venture
capital funds; cities such as Shanghai and Beijing now offer financial incentives to students and managers to
return from Silicon Valley to set up their own companies. Political influence and military power all flow from
the United States’ technological predominance.
After World War II, the United States built a political order in Asia based on close security alliances and
economic access to the U.S. domestic markets. As allies in the battle against communism Japan, Korea, and
Taiwan were allowed to sell increasingly sophisticated goods to American consumers, even as they protected
their own markets from competition. Today, the emergence of China and India as technology innovators
not only raises the possibility of bitter conflicts over trade, but also that new consumer markets within
Asia may displace the American economy as the most important final market for technology products.
During his April 2005 trip to India, Chinese premier Wen Jiabao spoke of the potential combination of Chinese
hardware and Indian software, claiming, “We will be able to lead the world in the sector and a day will come
when we can herald the beginning of the Asian century of information technology.” Technological capacity
also generates less traditional forms of influence. Having the most innovative economy not only gives the
United States the ability to set the rules for technology standards and implementation, it also means that
it takes the leading role in defining business practices that brush against political and cultural values like
the right to privacy, the uses of information security, and the granting of intellectual property rights.
There is also a diffusion of American culture and values as scientists and engineers return home from Silicon
Valley with new ideas about competition, opportunity, and personal relations.
During the Cold War, Soviet scientists and students returned home to become key forces in liberalizing
the Communist Party. The political scientist James Kurth has written that the real source of American soft
power is . . . the foreign students who come to American universities and learn American principles and
practices. . . . When (or if) they return to their home countries, they will know both the culture and
foundationbriefs.com
Page 173 of 265
February 2013
Con: R&D and S&E Hurt US
customs of their own society and the principles and practices of American society. . . . National security is
also clearly tied to technological capabilities, and the rest of this paper focuses on how the globalization of S&T
complicates the security environment in at least three ways, especially in regard to China. First, technological
capability is now more widely diffused to potential competitors. As a 1999 Defense Science Board Task Force
on Globalization and Security argued, “Over time, all states—not just the United States and its allies—will
share access to much of the technology underpinning the modern military” (Hicks, 1999).
India and China are building new, technologically advanced militaries. They are trying to replicate the U.S.
model of close relations between the defense sector and private high-technology companies, and they are busy
buying and using off-the-shelf software, computers, and telecommunication equipment in order to modernize
their armies.
Second, the United States’ access to the most advanced technologies is no longer guaranteed. The
leading edge of innovation in individual technological sectors may be located outside of the United States.
Moreover, the leading edge may be difficult to situate as it jumps around from country to country. In addition,
the dispersal of the components of the American innovation system to other countries—manufacturing to China
or R&D to India—may disrupt the ecosystem of innovation at home.
Third, even as the United States remains the predominant science and technology power, the long
lead times it historically has had over potential competitors are likely to disappear. The United States will
have to begin to think about how to respond when its technological lead is measured in months or years, not
decades.
During the Cold War, the American and Soviet economies were essentially two separate entities with
little or no contact between them. For security (and analytical) purposes, the ownership, operation, and control
of technology were all fairly limited and unified. Those neat distinctions no longer exist; the Chinese and
American economies, for example, are highly interdependent, and production chains stretch across the
Pacific, involving Chinese, American, and Taiwanese enterprises, managers, and technicians. In the final
section, I raise some of the analytical questions brought about by the globalization of science and technology.
This report analyzes the importance of science and technology power and the negative consequences of
the United States’ recent decline. The most important use for this card is to provide the link between the
declining S&E education in the US and China’s rise.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 174 of 265
February 2013
Con: R&D and S&E Hurt US
How Chinese Rise Hurts the United States Technologically
John Mearshimer. “The Gathering Storm: China’s Challenge to US Power in Asia.” The
University of Chicago. http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0056.pdf
Declinists associate globalization with diffusion. Robert Pape, for example, calculates that “just over half” of
the United States’ relative decline from 2000 to 2008, which he calls “one of the largest relative declines in
modern history,” resulted from “the spread of technology to the rest of the world.” Similarly, Fareed
Zakaria writes, “The unipolar order of the last two decades is waning not because of Iraq but because of the
broader diffusion of power across the world.”
This card provides a strong link between the rise of China and the decline of the United States in regards
to technology. Establishing and defending this link is undoubtedly the most important and difficult part
of making this argument so be sure that you have it down before heading into round!
Problems in United States Research and Development
Richard B. Freeman, Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce and
National Security. RAND Corporation.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/conf_proceedings/2007/RAND_CF235.pdf
Analysts attribute the country’s rapid productivity growth in the 1990s/2000s to the adoption of new
information and communication technologies to production. Scientific and technological preeminence is also
critical to the nation’s defense, as evidenced by the employment of R&D scientists and engineers in defenserelated activities and in the technological dominance of the U.S. military on battlefields. Changes in the global
job market for S&E workers is eroding U.S. dominance in science and engineering, diminishing the
country’s comparative advantage in high-tech goods and services, and reducing the country’s global
economic leadership, as the following propositions demonstrate.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 175 of 265
February 2013
Con: R&D and S&E Hurt US
The Decline of the United States’ Share of World S&E Workforce
Richard B. Freeman, Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce and
National Security. RAND Corporation.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/conf_proceedings/2007/RAND_CF235.pdf
The number of young persons going to college has increased more rapidly in other OECD countries and
in many less developed countries, particularly China, than in the United States. Enrollment in college or
university per person aged 20–24 in several OECD countries exceeded that in the United States. In 2001–
2002, the United States enrolled just 14 percent of tertiary level students—less than half the U.S. share 30 years
earlier. In most countries, moreover, a larger proportion of college students studied science and engineering
than in the United States, so the U.S. share of students in those fields was considerably lower than the U.S.
share overall. The U.S. share of world bachelor’s engineering degrees granted dropped from
approximately 12 percent in 1991 to 6 percent in 2000.
(…)
Table 1 records the ratios of Ph.D.’s earned in science and engineering in major Ph.D.-producing
countries relative to the numbers granted in the United States from 1975 to 2001and extrapolates the numbers to
2010. Ph.D.’s in science and engineering outside the United States rise sharply whereas the number
granted in the United States stabilizes at about 18,000 per year. The greatest growth is in China. In 1975
China produced almost no S&E doctorates. In 2003, the country graduated 13,000 Ph.D.’s,
approximately 70 percent in science and engineering. China will produce more S&E doctorates than the
United States by 2010! The quality of doctorate education surely suffers from such expansion, so the numbers
should be discounted to some extent. But overall, the U.S. share of world S&E Ph.D.’s will fall to about 15
percent by 2010. Within the United States, moreover, international students earn an increasing proportion of
S&E Ph.D.’s. In 2000, 35 percent of Ph.D.’s in the physical sciences, and 59 percent in engineering went to the
foreign-born.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 176 of 265
February 2013
Con: R&D and S&E Hurt US
While proportionately fewer U.S. men have chosen science and engineering careers, more women and
underrepresented minorities have chosen to major in science and engineering as undergraduates and to go on to
master’s and doctorate degrees. As a result the proportion of bachelor’s, masters, and doctorates degrees
awarded to women and minorities in science and engineering fields has trended upward from the 1970s through
the early 2000s. In 2004, women won 55 percent of National Science Foundation Graduate Research
Fellowships. Turning to employment, census data show that in 2000 the foreign-born made up 17 percent of
bachelor’s S&E workers, 29 percent of master’s S&E workers, and 38 percent of the Ph.D. S&E workforce—
huge increases over the comparable proportions in 1990. The foreign-born made up over half of doctorate
scientists and engineers under the age of 45 in 2000 and approximately 60 percent of post-doctorate
workers. Nearly 60 percent of the growth in the number of Ph.D. scientists and engineers in the country
in the 1990s came from the foreign-born.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 177 of 265
February 2013
Con: R&D and S&E Hurt US
With increased supplies of S&E workers in other countries, U.S. dominance of the scientific and
technological literatures has dropped in many areas. In spring 2004, the front page of the New York Times
reported a fall in the U.S. share of papers in physics journals while Nature reported a rise in the share of
papers in China. The NSF records a drop in the U.S. share of scientific papers from 38 percent in 1988 to 31
percent in 2001 and a drop in the U.S. share of citations from 52 percent in 1992 to 44 percent.
These statistics demonstrate the United States decline in science and engineering from 2000 until 2010.
These cards are best used with the first card explaining the importance of science and engineering.
The Decline of United States Technological Impact
Richard B. Freeman, Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce and
National Security. RAND Corporation.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/conf_proceedings/2007/RAND_CF235.pdf
Several indicators suggest that human resource leapfrogging is rapidly reducing U.S. technological and
economic leadership:

Major high-tech firms, from IBM to Cisco to Microsoft, are locating new R&D facilities in China
and India, in part because they want to create products for those for markets but also because of the
supply of science and engineering talent at wages far below those in the United States.

Off-shoring of some forms of skilled work.

Indices of technological prowess show a huge improvement in the technological capability of
China, in particular (…) In 1993 China received a 20.7 measure in the Georgia Tech measure of
technology, whereas in 2003 it was at 49.3. Consistent with this, the Georgia Tech group found that
China was fourth in the world, after the United States, Japan, and Germany, in publications in four
emerging technologies in 1999; the Nanotechnology Research Institute of Japan reported in 2004
that China was third and close behind Japan in publications and patents in this area.

Production and exports of high-tech products show that the improved capability of China in high
technology is showing in the economy, though many experts believe that the data exaggerate Chinese
high-tech production because firms import the highest tech parts or services.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 178 of 265
February 2013
Con: R&D and S&E Hurt US
Research and Development Increase in China
Michael Beckley. “China’s Century?” The Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs. Harvard University. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Chinas_Century.pdf
Declinists claim the United States produces too few scientists and engineers (and too many lawyers and
bankers) while China engages in “human-resource leapfrogging, in which large populous developing countries
employ enough scientists and engineers to compete with the advanced countries in the high tech vanguard
sectors.”
Some analysts compare China with nineteenth century Germany, which surged ahead of Britain by training
massive numbers of scientists and engineers.
For example, by 1900, German chemical firms typically employed fifty to seventy researchers, allowing them to
conduct R&D while expecting to discard 90 percent of the results.
Today, China seems poised for scientific dominance, employing more scientists and engineers than any
other country and tripling its share of world scientific articles over the last ten years (from 2 percent to 6
percent). Over the same time period, the United States’ share declined from 34 percent to 28 percent.
(...)
Over the next few decades, Chinese scientific research will increase significantly. In fact, it is the law: the
Chinese government has decreed that, by 2020, R&D expenditures will constitute 2.5 percent of GDP and
China will rank among the top five countries in terms of scientific article output
foundationbriefs.com
Page 179 of 265
February 2013
Con: R&D and S&E Hurt US
The Effects of the United States S&E Decline
Richard B. Freeman, Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce and
National Security. RAND Corporation.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/conf_proceedings/2007/RAND_CF235.pdf
Foreign countries and groups will have potentially ample supplies of S&E workers for developing hightech sectors that may be critical for national security. As the number of scientists and engineers working
in foreign countries continues to increase, the United States’ comparative advantage in generating
scientific and engineering knowledge and in the high-tech sectors and products associated with that
knowledge will decline. Increased numbers of scientists and engineers will stimulate the rate of technological
advance, expanding the global production possibility frontier, and benefiting people worldwide. But the United
States will also face economic difficulties as its technological superiority erodes. The group facing the
biggest danger from the loss of America’s technological edge is workers whose living standards depend
critically on America’s technological superiority. The big winners from the spread of technology will be
workers in developing countries and the firms that employ them, including many U.S. multinational
corporations. In the long term, the spread of knowledge and technology around the world will almost certainly
outweigh the loss of U.S. hegemony in science and technology, but the transition period is likely to be
lengthy and difficult—more formidable than that associated with the recovery of Europe and Japan after
World War II.
In national security, however, the risks to the United States—in the form of more countries with
potentially competitive technologies in the military area or more groups with access to possibly
dangerous technologies—may outweigh any gains from a more multipolar world in which other leading
countries could take on greater responsibilities. The increased supply of S&E specialists overseas and
accompanying economic and technological competence will give foreign countries that seek to compete in hightech military areas the potential resources to do so.
Proposition 5: U.S. agencies that hire citizen S&E talent only will have increasing difficulty maintaining topflight workforces.
With a smaller U.S. share in the global supply of science and engineering talent, any policy that restricts
agencies involved in R&D and national security issues to U.S. citizens risks lowering the productivity of
those agencies relative to what it would be if, like the major multinationals, they globally searched for the best
candidates for jobs.
This card provides two substantial negative effects of the United States decline in science and
engineering. However, con teams must be sure to link this decline to the rise of China to win this point.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 180 of 265
February 2013
Con: R&D and S&E Hurt US
The United States Falls Back Economically
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of
Medicine of the National Academies.” Rising Above the Gathering Storm:
Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future—Executive
Summary.” Rand Corporation.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/conf_proceedings/2007/RAND_CF235.pdf
US Economy
 The United States is today a net importer of high-technology products. Its trade balance in hightechnology manufactured goods shifted from plus $54 billion in 1990 to negative $50 billion in 2001.
 US scheduled airlines currently outsource portions of their aircraft maintenance to China and El
Salvador.
 IBM recently sold its personal computer business to an entity in China
 It has been estimated that within a decade nearly 80% of the world’s middle-income consumers would
live in nations outside the currently industrialized world. China alone could have 595 million middleincome consumers and 82 million upper-middle-income consumers. The total population of the
United States is currently 300 million and it is projected to be 315 million in a decade.
 Some economists estimate that about half of US economic growth since World War II has been the
result of technological innovation.
 In 2005, American investors put more new money in foreign stock funds than in domestic stock
portfolios.
Comparative Economics
 Chemical companies closed 70 facilities in the United States in 2004 and tagged 40 more for shutdown.
Of 120 chemical plants being built around the world with price tags of $1 billion or more, one is in the
United States and 50 are in China. No new refineries have been built in the United States since 1976.
 The United States is said to have 7 million illegal immigrants, but under the law the number of visas set
aside for “highly qualified foreign workers,” many of whom contribute significantly to the nation’s
innovations, dropped to 65,000 a year from its 195,000 peak.
 The share of leading-edge semiconductor manufacturing capacity owned or partly owned by US
companies today is half what it was as recently as 2001.
 During 2004, China overtook the United States to become the leading exporter of informationtechnology products, according to the OECD.
 The United States ranks only 12th among OECD countries in the number of broadband connections per
100 inhabitants.
These statistics provide interesting numbers based off of the difference between the United States and
China economically.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 181 of 265
February 2013
Con: R&D and S&E Hurt US
The United States Falls Back in Education
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of
Medicine of the National Academies.”Rising Above the Gathering Storm:
Energizing and Employing
America for a Brighter Economic Future—Executive Summary.” Rand
Corporation.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/conf_proceedings/2007/RAND_CF235.pdf







In South Korea, 38% of all undergraduates receive their degrees in natural science or engineering. In
France, the figure is 47%, in China, 50%, and in Singapore 67%. In the United States, the
corresponding figure is 15%.
Some 34% of doctoral degrees in natural sciences (including the physical, biological, earth, ocean, and
atmospheric sciences) and 56% of engineering PhDs in the United States are awarded to foreignborn students.
In the U.S. science and technology workforce in 2000, 38% of PhDs were foreign born.
Estimates of the number of engineers, computer scientists, and information technology students who
obtain 2-, 3-, or 4-year degrees vary. One estimate is that in 2004, China graduated about 350,000
engineers, computer scientists, and information technologists with 4-year degrees, while the
United States graduated about 140,000. China also graduated about 290,000 with 3-year degrees
in these same fields, while the US graduated about 85,000 with 2- or 3-year degrees.
Over the past 3 years alone, both China and India have doubled their production of 3- and 4-year
degrees in these fields, while the United States’ production of engineers is stagnant and the rate of
production of computer scientists and information technologists doubled.
About one-third of US students intending to major in engineering switch majors before graduating. here
were almost twice as many US physics bachelor’s degrees awarded in 1956, the last graduating class
before Sputnik than in 2004.
More S&P 500 CEOs obtained their undergraduate degrees in engineering than in any other field.
These statistics demonstrate the United States decline in higher education comparative to China,
specifically in regards to science and engineering.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 182 of 265
February 2013
Con: R&D and S&E Hurt US
United States Falls Back Opening Quotes
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of
Medicine of the National Academies.”Rising Above the Gathering Storm:
Energizing and Employing
America for a Brighter Economic Future—Executive Summary.” Rand
Corporation.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/conf_proceedings/2007/RAND_CF235.pdf
Perspectives








“If you can solve the education problem, you don’t have to do anything else. If you don’t solve it,
nothing else is going to matter all that much.” —Alan Greenspan, outgoing Federal Reserve Board
chairman
“We go where the smart people are. Now our business operations are two-thirds in the U.S. and onethird overseas. But that ratio will flip over the next ten years.” —Intel spokesman Howard High
“If we don’t step up to the challenge of finding and supporting the best teachers, we’ll undermine
everything else we are trying to do to improve our schools.” —Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., Former Chairman,
IBM
“If you want good manufacturing jobs, one thing you could do is graduate more engineers. We had more
sports exercise majors graduate than electrical engineering grads last year.” —Jeffrey R. Immelt,
Chairman and Chief Executive Office, General Electric
“If I take the revenue in January and look again in December of that year 90% of my December revenue
comes from products which were not there in January.” —Craig Barrett, Chairman of the Intel
Corporation
“When I compare our high schools to what I see when I’m traveling abroad, I am terrified for our
workforce of tomorrow.” —Bill Gates, Chairman and Chief Software Architect of Microsoft
Corporation
“Where once nations measured their strength by the size of their armies and arsenals, in the world of the
future knowledge will matter most.” —President Bill Clinton
“Science and technology have never been more essential to the defense of the nation and the health of
our economy.”—President George W. Bush
These are useful quotes demonstrating the importance of science and technology and the United States
decline. This card can be used to show impacts or to open debates.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 183 of 265
Pro Counters
foundationbriefs.com
Page 184 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: China Trades Fairly
China trades fairly
Currency manipulation is an exaggerated threat
Klein, Ezra. “Five facts you need to know about China’s currency manipulation”
Washington Post. October 22, 2012.
China is not the world’s worst currency manipulator, or even particularly close to
it. Singapore is worse than China. Taiwan is worse than China. These days, Switzerland and Japan are arguably
worse than China. And there are other countries, like Israel, who aren’t worse than China, but who are still
pretty bad. Here’s a list (which, for technical reasons, doesn’t include the role of Sovereign Wealth Funds) from
Joe Gagnon, an economist at the Peterson Institution for International Economics who has been tracking
currency manipulation:
foundationbriefs.com
Page 185 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: China Trades Fairly
China is getting much better. They’ve allowed their currency to rise substantially in recent years.
Gagnon told me that China’s ”current account peaked at 10.7 percent of GDP in 2007. This year, it looks
like it’ll only be 2 percent.” It seems a bit weird to intensify the pressure on China, and to try and publicly
humiliate them, at the exact moment when they’re doing what we’ve been asking them to do. As economist
Nicholas Lardy told NPR,”there was a very good case for the [U.S.] to take action against China five years ago,
but not now.”
Officially, China is no longer a currency manipulator
Rapoza, Kenneth. “China: Currency Manipulator No More” Forbes. May 25, 2012.
China is no longer considered to be manipulating its currency to gain unfair economic advantages, but that
doesn’t mean the currency is not seriously undervalued, the U.S. Treasury Department said Friday morning.
The U.S. Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 requires Treasury to provide semiannual reports to
Congress on the exchange rate policies of the major trading partners of the U.S. The Treasury
department concluded that no major trading partner met the standards identified in the Act during the
period covered in Friday’s 28 page report. For the first time, China is no longer considered a currency
manipulator.
In fact, the renmimbi has been appreciating on par with market expectations — growing around 5% over the
dollar annually; all leading to higher labor costs in China.
Since June 2010, when China moved off of its peg against the dollar after holding it steady following the
2008 financial crisis, the RMB has appreciated by a total of 8%. Because inflation in China has been
higher than here, China’s currency gained faster against the dollar on a real, inflation-adjusted, basis,
appreciating 12.5% since June 2010 and about 40% since China initiated currency reform in 2005.
Currency manipulation does not cause unemployment
Scissors, Derek. “The U.S. and China: Jobs, Trade, and More” Heritage Foundation.
October 11, 2012.
Many Americans are concerned about the value of China’s currency. They hear arguments that China keeps its
currency cheap, so its products are less expensive than they would be, and that this drives everyone else out of
business. This is complicated—but a picture is worth a thousand words:
In the 1990s, China made its currency cheaper, which many people argue is bad for us. Yet in the 1990s,
our unemployment rate fell. Starting in 2005, the PRC slowly pushed the value of its currency up, making
foundationbriefs.com
Page 186 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: China Trades Fairly
its goods more expensive. Many people say this is good for us. Yet after 2005, American unemployment
soared.
The explanation for this is simple: The PRC barely matters to our unemployment rate. In the 1990s, we
had a healthy economy. In the 2000s, we didn’t. That’s the result of our choices, our failures, and our
successes. Blaming China is like saying it’s the neighbors that make your house clean or dirty.
Currency Manipulation Is Not the Problem
Lazear, Edward. "Chinese 'Currency Manipulation' Is Not the Problem." Wall Street
Journal. Dow Jones and Company, 7 Jan. 2013. Web. 7 Jan. 2013.
The reality is that the value of China's yuan in terms of dollars is not the major reason why China exports over
three times as much to us as we do to them. Its exchange rate is a minor source of weak U.S. job growth.
From 1995 to 2005, China pegged its currency, holding it steady at slightly over eight yuan to the dollar. Then,
in late 2005, China allowed its currency to appreciate relative to the dollar until July 2008. The rate held steady
again for the two years following that date at 6.8 yuan to the dollar. In 2010, gradual appreciation occurred
again. The current exchange rate now stands at about 6.2 yuan per dollar, which means that a yuan is worth
about 16 cents.
If currency movements were the key factor in determining trade patterns, one would expect that exports
to the U.S. from China would bear a strong relation to currency movements. They have not.
The dollar-yuan exchange rate did not change from 1995 to 2005, and during this period China's exports
to the U.S. increased sixfold, or at a rate of about 19.6% per year. Then, from 2005 to 2008, the value of the
yuan relative to the U.S. dollar appreciated by about 21%. China's currency was "stronger" and its exports in
dollars were more expensive—so Chinese exports to the U.S. should have fallen. Instead, China's exports to the
U.S. continued to grow at about the same pace, averaging 18.2% per year.
The only period during which exports from China to the U.S. fell to any significant extent was during the recent
recession, dropping by about one-third from late 2008 to early 2010. The dollar-yuan exchange rate was
unchanged throughout this entire period. The obvious explanation for the decline in Chinese exports to the U.S.
was the decline in demand for consumption goods in general.
This card empirically demonstrates that there is not a strong link between the yuan-dollar exchange rate
and trade deficits. When the rate has been constant, there have been large changes in the trade deficit
and Chinese esports, and, when the rate has been moving, Chinese exports and the deficit remained the
same. Thus, arrguement about the negative impact of China’s currency manipulation are essentially
moot because there is not strong impact of the trade deficit or the strength of Chinese exports.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 187 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Trade With China is Good
Trade with China is good
Trade deficit is not correlated with a bad economy
Scissors, Derek. “The U.S. and China: Jobs, Trade, and More” Heritage Foundation.
October 11, 2012.
A lot of talk about the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is a bit removed from the real world. But the big
question is very real world: Does trade and investment with the PRC take jobs away from Americans? The
answer is no, mostly… the idea that China is stealing millions of our jobs is wrong.
An eye-catching figure is the huge trade deficit we run with China, close to $300 billion last year.
Unemployment goes up and down, the value of the currency goes up and down, but the trade deficit just seems
to go up. In the past 25 years, the trade deficit has fallen only twice. The two years that it fell were 2001
(slightly) and 2009 (sharply).
Those were recession years, with 2009 being much more painful. The trade deficit is about the strength of
our economy; when it’s strong, our trade deficit with the PRC rises. Protectionists call 2009 a great year
because the trade deficit plunged—but no one else does.
We should also remember that we don’t track our trade deficit very accurately. For example, the way we count
it, an iPad assembled in China and sold in the U.S. makes our trade deficit bigger even if some of the parts for
the iPad originally came from the U.S.
Trade helps the U.S. economy,
Scissors, Derek. “The U.S. and China: Jobs, Trade, and More” Heritage Foundation.
October 11, 2012.
We gain much from the economic relationship. China was the third-largest buyer of our exports, a source of
strength for our economy. American companies looking for investors and American homeowners looking for
buyers benefit from Chinese money coming to the U.S. Chinese tourists are visiting the U.S. in greater numbers.
China cannot blackmail us with its investments,
Scissors, Derek. “The U.S. and China: Jobs, Trade, and More” Heritage Foundation.
October 11, 2012.
Americans are also concerned about Chinese investment in the U.S. The Chinese buy U.S. government bonds,
real estate, and American companies. Are the Chinese buying America? Can they use their holdings as
leverage? No, they can’t.
The amount of money the Chinese are investing in our companies is tiny compared to the size of our economy.
The Heritage Foundation follows this kind of Chinese investment all over the world in the China Global
foundationbriefs.com
Page 188 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Trade With China is Good
Investment Tracker. At the end of 2011, China had $30 billion invested in the U.S., much less than one
percent of the $15 trillion American economy.
The Chinese do buy a lot of U.S. government bonds. The PRC may hold about 10 percent of the U.S. national
debt, though their share has been falling. Unfortunately, this is because our debt has grown so much that
Chinese purchases can’t keep up. If we don’t like China owning so much of our national debt, the answer is
simple: We shouldn’t run such big deficits. Then we wouldn’t need to sell our debt to China or to anyone else.
Some people worry that China can sell off our Treasury bonds and hurt our economy. They can’t. All sellers
need buyers. If Beijing sells and there is strong demand, China will simply be replaced by other buyers. If
Beijing can’t find a buyer, it will have to cut the price it’s asking for. Then the U.S. government would be
able to buy back its own bonds for less money than they are worth. That would cut America’s debt at
China’s expense.
China does not hold a significant amount of U.S. debt
“Rep. Allen West says China holds 29 percent of U.S. debt” PolitiFact. June 2, 2011.
After examining a U.S. Treasury Department report of foreign holders of treasury securities as of March,
PolitiFact concluded:
"According to the report, as of February of this year, China held $1.15 trillion worth of U.S. Treasury securities.
Together, all foreign holders came to $4.47 trillion. So China's share of that comes to about 26 percent. China,
incidentally, tops the list of foreign holders of U.S. debt, followed by Japan and then, with a much smaller
share, countries such as the United Kingdom and Brazil.
"But that's just the foreign holders of Treasury securities. More than two-thirds of the debt is held by U.S.
residents and institutions. When you look at everyone who holds U.S. Treasury securities, China's share
drops to 8.1 percent ($1.15 trillion out of $14 trillion)."
(For the West fact-check, we contacted the U.S. Treasury to ask whether that report had been updated since
March and were told that it was the most recent data available.)
foundationbriefs.com
Page 189 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Trade With China is Good
Job losses due to competition are not inevitable
Kenny, Charles. “What’s Wrong with China Trade? Ask the Candidates” Bloomberg
Businessweek. October 15, 2012.
The federal government was pretty useless when it came to helping displaced American factory workers. David
Autor’s work suggests that the Federal Trade Adjustment Assistance Program—the system set up to help
displaced workers—was an almost insignificant force in helping people adjust to greater competition from
imports from 1990 to 2007. Each $1,000 in growth in Chinese imports per U.S. manufacturing worker
across U.S. regions was associated with just 23¢ per adult in additional trade adjustment assistance.
Compare that with Social Security disability payments, in-kind medical benefits, and other assistance
and retirement benefits, which increased by a total of $47 per $1,000 in growth in Chinese imports per
exposed worker. The evidence suggests that federal dollars largely helped people in exposed industries
exit the labor force, rather than move on to new jobs.
To see how U.S. policymakers could have done things differently, consider the experience of Germany.
Wolfgang Dauth and colleagues, writing for Germany’s Institute for the Study of Labor, looked at the country’s
rising trade with Eastern Europe and China. They concluded that import-competing industries did suffer job
losses, just as in the U.S. But in stark contrast to the U.S., the losses were not as large as the job gains by
German export-oriented firms. Over the period from 1988 to 2008, global trade integration led to the
creation of an additional 493,000 German manufacturing jobs. The regions that lost manufacturing
employment to import competition didn’t see rising unemployment. German measures to retain, retrain,
or help workers move to new job opportunities were apparently a lot more effective than the U.S. Trade
Adjustment Assistance Program was.
The lessons are twofold: First, the overall benefit to the U.S. of trade with China remains positive. Second, if
the U.S. had better policies for helping employees move to new occupations, the negative manufacturing
jobs impact of trade with China could have been significantly reduced—or even reversed. If every
American is to benefit from trade, government has to step up to the plate.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 190 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Trade With China is Good
China also depends on the U.S.
Chang, Gordon. “China Is 175.6% Dependent on the U.S.” Forbes. January 1, 2012.
The Chinese economy increased its dependence on the United States last year according to recently released
trade figures from Beijing and Washington.
China’s overall trade surplus in 2011 was $155.1 billion, according to the Ministry of Commerce.
And how much of that surplus is related to America? Commerce Department figures show that, through the
first 11 months of last year, China’s trade surplus against the United States was $272.3 billion. That’s up from
$252.4 billion for the same period in 2010, a 7.9% increase.
The Commerce Department has not released the December trade number yet, and some are predicting that
China’s surplus against us will top $300 billion when all the figures are in. Yet let’s assume, merely to be
conservative, that China’s December surplus is zero. If December’s surplus is zero, then 175.6% of China’s
overall trade surplus last year related to sales to the United States. That’s up from full-year figures for
the three preceding years: 149.2% for 2010, 115.7% for 2009, and 90.1% for 2008.
Notice a trend? The Chinese economy is becoming even more hooked on selling things to the United
States. Why the big jump last year? Because orders from the 27-nation European Union for Chinese
goods collapsed. And if Europe falls apart this year—increasingly likely—China will become even more
reliant on the American consumer.
Dumping can be easily countered
Van, Le and Tong, Sarah. “China and Anti-dumping: Regulations, Practices and
Responses” East Asian Institute. May 14, 2009.
Often, high anti-dumping duties are levied on imports from China by such economies as the US, EU, and
Brazil. The average anti-dumping duty against Chinese imports applied by the EU is around 41%,
ranging from 10% to 102% and that by the US is 54%. Anti-dumping duties from some developing
countries tend to be even higher.
For instance, in 2004, Brazil imposed anti-dumping duties on 12 types of Chinese product, of around 77% on
average, and ranging from 36% to 203%. Indeed, the level of anti-dumping duty imposed on Chinese
export is often significantly higher than that on imports from other countries. According to WTO
Committee’s report on anti-dumping practices (March 2002), the average antidumping duty that US
imposed on imports from China was 47.6% in 2001, compared to 9.6% on imports from South Korea
and 6.8% on imports from Taiwan.
It doesn’t matter how much China dumps; we can easily counter that kind of behavior with antidumping duties. While China may not have our best interests in mind, we can still benefit from this
economic relationship by taking simple measures to protect ourselves. We do not need to fear the rise of
China.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 191 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Trade With China is Good
No Connection with Trade Deficits and Industrial Decline
Griswold, Daniel. "America’s Maligned and Misunderstood Trade Deficit." Trade Policy
Analysis. Cato Institute, 20 Apr. 1998. Web. 05 Jan. 2013.
There is no connection between trade deficits and industrial decline. From 1992 and 1997, the U.S. trade
deficit almost tripled, while at the same time U.S. industrial production increased by 24 percent and
manufacturing output by 27 percent. Trade deficits do not cost jobs. In fact rising trade deficits correlate
with falling unemployment rates. Far from being a drag on economic growth, the U.S. economy has actually
grown faster in years in which the trade deficit has been rising than in years in which the deficit has shrunk.
Trade deficits may even be good news for the economy because they signal global investor confidence in the
United States and rising purchasing power among domestic consumers.
This card demonstrates that a decline in U.S. industrial competiveness, growth, or capacity is not
inevitable as a result of a trade deficit with China. In reality, there are domestic economic benefits that
can be reaped as a result of a deficit, making this a potential turn if the con discusses trade deficits.
A Trade Deficit Does Not Mean China Trades Unfairly
Griswold, Daniel. "America’s Maligned and Misunderstood Trade Deficit." Trade Policy
Analysis. Cato Institute, 20 Apr. 1998. Web. 05 Jan. 2013.
Many Americans are convinced that a bilateral trade deficit proves that the foreign country’s market is
relatively closed to U.S. exports compared with the “open” U.S. market. America’s large bilateral deficit with
Japan is almost unanimously seen as a problem by U.S. policymakers who share that view, with blame for the
deficits placed squarely on “unfair” foreign trade barriers.
A survey of America’s major trading partners challenges that assumption. Countries with which the United
States runs large deficits are not characteristically more protectionist toward U.S. exports than are those
with which we run a surplus. Canada and Mexico, two countries that are very open to U.S. exports
thanks in part to NAFTA, are both among the five countries with which the United States has the largest
bilateral trade deficits. On the other side, America’s third largest bilateral trade surplus is with Brazil, a
country whose barriers to imports remain relatively high. Americans face a common external tariff when
exporting to members of the European Union, yet some EU members (the Netherlands and Belgium) are among
the top surplus trade partners, and others (Germany and Italy) are among the top deficit partners. Trade policy
cannot explain those differences (Table 1).
foundationbriefs.com
Page 192 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Trade With China is Good
Table 1
America’s Top 10 Bilateral Deficits and Surpluses 1997 (billions of U.S. $)
U.S. Deficit
U.S. Surplus
Japan
-$55.9
Netherlands
+$12.5
China
-$49.8
Australia
+$7.4
Germany
-$18.7
Brazil
+$6.3
Canada
-$17.9
Belgium
+$5.5
Mexico
-$14.4
Hong Kong
+$4.8
Taiwan
-$12.2
United Kingdom
+$3.8
Italy
-$10.4
Argentina
+$3.6
Malaysia
-$7.2
Egypt
+$3.2
Venezuela
-$6.8
Chile
+$2.1
Nigeria
-$5.5
South Korea
+1.9
The mere existence of a large trade deficit does not necessarily mean that the country with which the U.S.
is trading is engaging in protectionist measures. The burden of proof is far higher and requires far more
detailed evidence, which is extremely difficult to find because China is does not publish many of the
requisite statistics due to the non-transparent government. Thus, the con will have difficulty in meeting
this much higher standard of proof.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 193 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Trade With China is Good
The Trade Deficit with China is much Smaller Than Reported
“Trade in Value-Added: Concepts, Methodologies and Challenges.” World Trade
Organization. March. 2012. Web. 8 Jan. 2012. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/.
..e/.../oecd_wto_mar2012_e.doc
US trade balance in iPhones with:
Gross
Value added
CHN
TWN
DEU
KOR
ROW
World
-1,646
0
0
0
0
-1,646
-65
-207
-161
-800
-413
-1,646
TWN
Components
207
229
161
USA
CHN
Assembly
65
800
DEU
KOR
?
Upstream
input
suppliers
413
ROW
Final good
1,875
The chart points out a better way to calculate trade deficits. Instead of simply calculating the entire
value of the product as coming from China due to it being manufactured there, Value-Added Trade
deficit calculation looks at each point along the way. Where components are made, where the materials
come from, etc. This means that the China only adds assembly value to a product like the iPhone for
example, reducing the calculated trade deficit on the iPhone from 1,646 million to just 65 million. If one
did this for every product, the trade deficit would be much smaller and more accurate.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 194 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Trade With China is Good
China Would Not Use its US Securities as Leverage
Morrison, Wayne M. "China’s Holdings of U.S. Securities: Implications for the U.S.
Economy." Foreign Press Centers. US Department of State. 9 Jan. 2008. Web. 6
Jan. 2012 http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/99496.pdf.
Other economists counter that it would not be in China’s economic interest to suddenly sell off its U.S.
investment holdings. Doing so could lead to financial losses for the Chinese government, and any shocks to the
U.S. economy caused by this action could ultimately hurt China’s economy as well.
The likelihood that China would suddenly reduce its holdings of U.S. securities is questionable because it is
unlikely that doing so would be in China’s economic interests. First, a large sell-off of China’s U.S. holdings
could diminish the value of these securities in international markets, which would lead to large losses on the
sale, and would, in turn, decrease the value of China’s remaining dollar-denominated assets. This would also
occur if the value of the dollar were greatly diminished in international currency markets due to China’s sell-off.
Second, such a move would diminish U.S. demand for Chinese imports, either through a rise in the value of the
Yuan against the dollar or a reduction in U.S. economic growth (especially if other foreign investors sold their
U.S. asset holdings, and the United States was forced to raise interest rates in response). The United States
purchases about 30% of China’s total merchandise exports. A sharp reduction of U.S. imports from China could
have a significant impact on China’s economy, which heavily depends on exports for its economic growth (and
is viewed by the government as a vital source of political stability).
foundationbriefs.com
Page 195 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Chinese Research Helps US
How Chinese Research Helps the United States
How to Work around China
Bloom, Nick. “Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Dragon? How Chinese Trade Boosts
Innovation.” Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. February 2011.
Take footwear, a classic low-tech sector that conventional wisdom says should have all been offshored to
China. Many Western shoe manufacturers have disappeared, but some are innovating in designs that serve
parts of the market where China is less able to compete. For example, Massai Barefoot Technology (MBT),
which makes posture-correcting shoes, began when Karl Muller, a Swiss engineer with a bad back, relieved his
condition by walking barefoot on Korean grass. He patented a design to emulate the effect, which has gone on
to great success and now attracts many imitators. Companies that can find a niche for high-end style or
technology can prosper in the face of stiff competition. Vermont-based Burton is a leading snowboard
manufacturer but also successfully designs and produces sportswear clothing. Last year, Burton offshored the
production of snowboards—not to low-wage China but to highwage Innsbruck in Austria. Firms like
MBT and Burton have responded to the threat of China by investing in new technology, human capital,
and by innovating in highly customized designs. So why were so few firms not already doing this kind of
innovation? The answer is simple—enjoying the “easy life” producing old goods is more attractive than coming
up with new ones. But a big shock like trade integration with China lowers the opportunity costs of innovation
and deters firms from coasting along with business as usual.
(...)
A startling finding is that around 15 percent of technical change can be attributed directly to competition
from Chinese imports, an annual benefit of almost $10 billion to European countries. Firms have
responded to the threat of Chinese imports by increasing their productivity through adopting better information
technology, higher spending on R&D, and increased patenting. Unsurprisingly, these lead to major increases in
productivity. Overall, our findings are consistent with a “trapped factor” explanation of how trade from China
drives innovation in exposed firms. The intuition behind this model is that some factors of production are costly
to move between firms because of adjustment costs and sunk investment (e.g., firm-specific skills). Chinese
imports reduce the relative profitability of making low-tech products but since firms cannot easily
dispose of their “trapped” labor and capital, the shadow cost of innovating and producing a new good
has fallen. Hence, by reducing the profitability of current low-tech products and freeing up inputs to innovate
and produce new products, Chinese trade reduces the opportunity cost of innovation. This trapped factor
model of innovation is something we have been jointly developing with fellow SIEPR economist Paul Romer.
This source explains that China has helped foreign companies by encouraging innovation. Economist
Nick Bloom calls this phenomenon a reduced opportunity cost for innovation. This argument is a clear
counter to con teams that bring up the low cost of Chinese exports.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 196 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Chinese Research Helps US
Trade Problems not China’s Fault
Ronald McKinnon: Economics Department of Stanford University and Gunther Schnabl
of Leipzig University. “China and Its Dollar Exchange Rate: A Worldwide
Stabilising Influence?” The World Economy, 2012. Stanford University.
http://www.stanford.edu/~mckinnon/papers/j%2014679701%202011%2001416%20x.pdf
China’s current uncomfortable inflation, about 6 per cent in the CPI and 6.6 per cent in its producer price index
(PPI) (through mid 2011) is not just ‘made in China’. Despite tightened capital controls, hot money flows into
China have forced the PBC to buy dollar reserves to prevent a precipitous appreciation of the RMB. But these
dollar purchases by the PBC tend to increase the monetary base unless contained by massive sterilisation
efforts. To further slow the inflows, the PBC has pegged domestic interest rates below their natural level. Both
because the sterilisation is imperfect (there is still some excessive issue of domestic money and credit) and the
controlled nominal interest rates are less than the rate of inflation, there is excess demand in China’s goods
markets that is inflationary – which further reduces ‘real’ rates. But this is not the whole story. Other
EM are experiencing the same problem. Low or zero short-term interest rates in the mature industrial
countries – the United States, Japan, the Euro-zone and Britain – are inducing hot money inflows into the
naturally higher growth, and higher interest rate, EM on their periphery. Like China, the other EM are also
losing monetary control to a greater or lesser extent. The result is much higher inflation than in the
mature industrial countries.
(...)
In addition, there is a second channel by which near-zero short-term interest rates in the mature ‘centre’ bid up
primary commodity prices. In well-organised international commodity futures markets, investors, desperately in
search of higher yields, are emboldened to borrow at short term in dollars or yen to invest in long positions in
primary commodities. Even if just episodic, such speculative activity in mature financial markets can also be a
source of inflationary pressure – was the case in 2010–11. High-growth China with its huge demand for
industrial raw materials is often blamed for the current surge in primary commodity prices. But China’s
growing demands for raw materials have been a major factor for more than a decade including the inaptly
named ‘great moderation’ of the late 1990s to the mid-2000s, where worldwide inflation in goods and services
seemed remarkably low. Clearly, the current outburst of commodity price inflation has a monetary origin:
the unusual conjunction of ultra low interest rates in the mature industrial countries led by the United
States (McKinnon, 2010d). Thus, China is caught up in the current inflationary maelstrom, which is not
primarily of its own making.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 197 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Chinese Research Helps US
How China Helps Technology Improve Worldwide
Nicholas Bloom. Stanford University and NBER. 2009. "Trade induced technical change?
The impact of Chinese imports on innovation, diffusion and productivity." Chicago
Booth.
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/workshops/AppliedEcon/archive/pdf/aut09%20AE
W%20Nicholas%20Bloom%2030-sep-2009.pdf
In this paper we have re-examined the impact of trade on technical change in 12 European countries. Our
motivation for this is that the rise of China constitutes perhaps the most important exogenous trade shock from
low wage countries to hit the “Northern” economies. This helps identify the trade-induced technical change
hypothesis. We use novel firm and plant-level panel data on innovation (patents, citations and R&D),
information technology diffusion and productivity combined with four digit industry-level data on trade. Our
results suggest that increased import competition with China has been caused a significant technological
upgrading in European firms through both faster diffusion and innovation. This has occurred within as
well as between establishments and firms. The results are easy to summarize.
First, patenting, IT and TFP have risen in manufacturing firms who were more exposed to increases in
Chinese imports. Second, in sectors more exposed to Chinese imports, jobs and survival fall in low tech
firms (as measured by patents, IT or TFP), but are relatively protected in high tech firms. This finding is
consistent with those found in US manufacturing establishments in Bernard, Jensen and Schott (2004, 2006)
using indirect measures of technology for the pre-1997 period. These results appear to be robust to many tests,
including treating trade as endogenous using China’s accession to the WTO in 2001. In terms of magnitudes,
China could account for around 15-20% of the overall technical change in Europe 2000-2007. Its effect
also appears to be increasing over time.
This card explains how other countries benefit from Chinese technological growth. This is an effective
counter to con teams arguing that China has hurt the United States’ ability to compete through its own
technological growth.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 198 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: US Assets Not Vulnerable
United States Assets are not Vulnerable
United States Turmoil Exaggerated
Ashley J. Tellis, Janice
Bially, Christopher Layne, Melissa McPherson, Jerry M. Sollinger.
“Measuring Power in the PostIndustrial Age.” RAND Corporation.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA386078
In theory, globalization should help developing countries obtain and absorb advanced technology. In
practice, however, this may not occur because some of the knowledge and infrastructure necessary to
absorb certain technologies cannot be specified in a blueprint or contained within a machine. Instead
they exist in peoples’ minds and can be obtained only through “hands-on” experience.
The World Bank recently calculated that 80 percent of the wealth of the United States is made up of
intangible assets, most notably, its system of property rights, its efficient judicial system, and the skills,
knowledge, and trust embedded within its society.
If this is the case, then a huge chunk of what separates the United States from China is not for sale and
cannot be copied.
(...)
Compared to developing countries such as China, the United States is primed for technological
absorption. Its property rights, social networks, capital markets, flexible labor laws, and legions of
multinational companies not only help it innovate, but also absorb innovations created elsewhere.
Declinists liken the U.S. economic system to a leaky bucket oozing innovations out into the international
system. But in the alternative perspective, the United States is more like a sponge, steadily increasing its
mass by soaking up ideas, technology, and people from the rest of the world. If this is the case, then the
spread of technology around the globe may paradoxically favor a concentration of technological and military
capabilities in the United States.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 199 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: US Economy Not Threatened
The United States is Not Economically Threatened by
China
The United States has Little Reason to Fear
John Mearshimer. “The Gathering Storm: China’s Challenge to US Power in Asia.” The
University of Chicago. http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0056.pdf
China has narrowed the gap in terms of GDP and now exports a greater volume of high-technology products
and employs more scientists than any country in the world. However, GDP correlates poorly with national
power; more than 90 percent of China’s high-tech exports are produced by foreign firms and consist of
low-tech components; and China’s quantitative advantage in scientists has not yet translated into
qualitative advantages in innovation. The United States suffers from a huge debt problem that its political
system appears ill-suited to solve. China, however, faces its own ªscal mess, which may be more intractable
than America’s.
The Historical Patter of Influence
Michael Beckley. “China’s Century?” The Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs. Harvard University. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Chinas_Century.pdf
The case for the decline of the United States and the rise of China rests heavily on a single statistic: GDP. Over
the last twenty years, China’s GDP has risen relative to the United States’ in terms of purchasing power parity
(PPP), though it has declined in real terms. Regardless of which measure is used, however, most projections
have China overtaking the United States as the world’s largest economy before 2050, and some as early
as 2015. Economic size, however, does not necessarily make China a contender for superpower status.
After all, China was the largest economy in the world throughout most of its “century of humiliation,” when it
was ripped apart by Western powers and Japan. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, ruled a quarter of the
globe for more than a century, but was never, even at its peak, the largest economy in the world. Britain’s GDP
was far smaller than China’s and India’s for all of the eighteenth century and much of the nineteenth century.
Britain, however, was able to establish imperial control over India and to defeat China militarily, imposing
unequal treaties on Beijing, acquiring Hong Kong and various other concessions, and establishing a sphere of
influence in East Asia. This dominance stemmed not from the absolute size of Britain’s economy, but from its
superior level of economic development, measured in terms of per capita income, which was the highest in the
world and several times higher than China’s and India’s at the time.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 200 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: US Economy Not Threatened
This is not to say that size is irrelevant. Luxembourg’s per capita income is almost double that of the United
States, but its tiny population precludes it from raising a meaningful army, let alone entering the ranks of the
great powers. It is, however, important to recognize that GDP is not synonymous with national power, and that
countries with larger economies do not necessarily have more resources at their disposal. Half a billion
peasants will produce a large volume of output, but most of it will be immediately consumed, leaving little
left over for national purposes. As Klaus Knorr argued, what matters for national power is not wealth,
but “surplus wealth.”
This card provides an interesting historical perspective and argument to rebut the importance of Chinese
economic growth.
The Chinese Debt-Fueled Bubble
Michael Beckley. “China’s Century?” The Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs. Harvard University.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Chinas_Century.pdf
The Chinese government projects annual growth rates of 7 percent between now and 2030. Some prominent
investors and economists, however, believe Chinese growth will plunge to 2 to 5 percent within the next decade
following the collapse of a “debt-fueled bubble.”
These predictions are speculative and may turn out to be overly pessimistic.
What is more certain, however, is that several factors that allowed for rapid Chinese growth (e.g., a
surplus of cheap labor and capital, expanding export markets abroad, and sufficient water supplies) are
disappearing.
Chief among these factors is China’s “demographic dividend.”
In the 1950s and 1960s, the Chinese government encouraged Chinese women to bear multiple children to boost
the working-age population. In the 1970s, however, the Chinese government reversed course and instituted the
one-child policy. As a result, China will soon confront the most severe aging process in human history.
Within twenty years, China will have 300 million pensioners, causing the ratio of workers per retiree to
plummet from 8 to 1 today to 2 to 1 by 2040.
The fiscal cost of this swing in dependency ratios may exceed 80 to 100 percent of China’s GDP.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 201 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: US Economy Not Threatened
The United States is Young
Michael Beckley. “China’s Century?” The Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs. Harvard University.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Chinas_Century.pdf
The United States, [in contrast to China] “can be said to be a young and even a developing country.”
Its working age population will grow by 17 percent over the next forty years while that of all the other
major powers (except India) will decline (see figure 2).
Moreover, its pension system is better funded, its public welfare commitments more modest, and its citizens
more productive (in terms of hours worked and years employed) than any other major power.
“Global aging,” Mark Haas writes, “is therefore not only likely to extend U.S. hegemony . . . but deepen it
as . . . other states are likely to fall even farther behind.”
Declinists claim that a rising GDP helps China attract foreign investment
The fundamental assumption behind this claim is that a nation’s GDP reflects the size of its domestic market.
Market size, however, is a measure of consumption whereas GDP is a measure of production. China’s citizens
produce many goods, but they consume relatively few. The Chinese market is much larger than it used to
be, but it has shrunk relative to the U.S. market over the last two decades: China now imports less
compared to the United States than it did in 1991.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 202 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: US Economy Not Threatened
Chinese Bargaining Power Falters
Michael Beckley. “China’s Century?” The Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs. Harvard University.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Chinas_Century.pdf
More important, China’s bargaining power vis-à-vis foreign firms seems to be waning.
Wholly foreign-owned enterprises now account for 70 percent of foreign direct investment (FDI) flowing
into China, whereas joint ventures between foreign and Chinese firms have steadily declined (see figure
3). Such rampant foreign ownership never occurred in past cases of successful technological development
(Japan and Korea grew with almost zero FDI or foreign ownership) and with good reason: wholly foreignowned enterprises, unlike joint ventures, are generally under no obligation to transfer technology to local
partners and may crowd domestic firms out of the market.
In sum, the United States is now wealthier compared to China than it was in 1991. This prediction runs
counter to declinism and provides suggestive support for the alternative perspective. The trends discussed
above may change, and historians may one day look back on the recent financial crisis as the beginning of a
massive transfer of wealth and power from the United States to China. Such an outcome will depend on, among
other things, the relative rates of innovation in each country.
This card and the preceding cards provide substantial evidence to defeat con arguments about the
Chinese economy’s power over the United States.
China has a high poverty rate
Huang, Yasheng. “The key to bringing democracy to China” Foreign Policy. November
19, 2012.
Second, the poverty threshold is commonly defined as living under $1 a day. Living above that line is an
improvement -- not prosperity. Based on data provided by the World Bank in 2008, roughly 30 percent of
China's population, or 390 million people, lived below $2 a day. By this measure, China has a comparable
percentage of people living in poverty as Honduras, a country that never experienced China's rapid GDP
growth.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 203 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: US Economy Not Threatened
China’s economic gains have not gone to its people
Huang, Yasheng. “The key to bringing democracy to China” Foreign Policy. November
19, 2012.
China's GDP growth over the 1990s and 2000s, however, has not been as beneficial to the average Chinese.
Using Chinese GDP data to diagnose the health of the Chinese economy is a bit like peering into a building
from an airplane; you need to move in closer to see what is really going on. Looking at measures of living
standards is a better way to determine the health of an economy. China's total energy consumption, for
instance, overtook that of the United States in 2009, but Chinese households only play a minor role in China's
energy explosion. Personal electricity consumption as a share of total electricity consumption peaked in
2001, at roughly 14 percent (compared with about 38 percent in the United States). The rest is for
industrial and commercial uses.
To put things in perspective: As of 2009, the electricity consumption of the average Chinese for personal
purposes was 8 percent of that of the average American. This is nowhere near the 20 percent implied by the
GDP per capita comparison. China has a lot of power -- the Chinese don't.
Digging deeper, one learns that Chinese household income growth has consistently lagged between 2 to 3
percentage points behind GDP growth each year over the last two decades. Average Chinese
unambiguously live better lives today than they did when Mao died in 1976, but much of the GDP gains went to
the government and corporate sector, not ordinary people.
A performance-based case for democracy is thus not about how to grow GDP faster but about how to distribute
the gains equitably and efficiently. An unrestrained government will do what it does best -- feeding itself off of
gains from growth. According to the calculations of Zhiwu Chen, a professor of finance at Yale University,
total Chinese government revenue in 2007 was 5.7 times that of 1995, but urban income in 2007 was only
1.6 times that of 1995; for rural income over the same period, only 1.2 times. Facing budget shortfalls due
to the slowdown this year, some local governments in China are now reportedly "pre-collecting" taxes for 2013.
An impoverished people cannot make a powerful nation. The majority of Chinese have not benefitted
from a growing economy because China’s economic gains have gone to the elite few and a handful of
major corporations. Even this helps China’s economy to grow, the lack of widespread prosperity cripples
China’s bid to become a superpower.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 204 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: US Holds Science Edge
The United States Still Holds the Science and
Engineering Edge
Why United States Research and Development is Safe
Jonathan Eaton and Samuel Kortum. “National Security in a Knowledge Based
Economy.” RAND Corporation.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/conf_proceedings/2007/RAND_CF235.
pdf
A basic measure of the importance of a region is simply the number of people who live there.
Figure 1 shows the population of our eight regions in 2000. The United States, with about
300 million people, is dwarfed by all but three of the regions in a world of over six billion. The
United State and Europe combined are still smaller than either India or China on its own. If
other regions catch up to the United States in per capita production, the world economy would
be vastly larger. Since human brainpower is the underlying source of new ideas, the vast populations of these
regions suggest an enormous world capacity for technological discovery which remains unexploited.
(…)
(...)
foundationbriefs.com
Page 205 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: US Holds Science Edge
Technology Indicators We now turn to measures of knowledge creation and diffusion. Some basic issues of
measurement are: (1) Who produces knowledge? (2) Who uses it? (3) Are the users paying the producers?
There are no direct measures, but various indirect ones, sometimes termed indicators. We start with expenditure
on research. Because technology is nonrival, we should not lose sight of the fact that scale matters. A big
country that devotes the same fraction of its income to research as does a smaller one is likely to generate
a lot more new technology. With this thought in mind, we begin by comparing overall research effort
across countries.
(…)
While the United States is a leader on both counts, its lead is substantially greater when measured by
R&D spending rather than by numbers of research scientists and engineers. This contrast in the two
measures reflects the same issues that arose in comparing GDPs. A poorer country with lower wages will spend
much less employing the same number of researchers. The question is, of course, how productive are the
researchers? If researchers everywhere are equally productive the body measure is appropriate. If differences in
researcher compensation reflect differences in research productivity, the expenditure measure tells us more
about how much research is being produced. The truth is likely somewhere in between. Before turning to
indicators of research output, we first examine changes over time in research effort.
(…)
Research intensity exhibits a slight upward trend over time, with a more pronounced rise in China and
Korea. Research intensity in Korea now exceeds that in the United States. Figure 9 shows largely similar
results for research scientists and engineers per million population.
(...)
We summarize with the following points:

Economists now recognize that knowledge is a substantial source of national wealth.
Unlike tangible resources, knowledge naturally spreads internationally. The direction and
speed may be hard to predict, however. A country may find it more difficult to keep
knowledge within its jurisdiction, relative to tangible resources. But, given its nonrival
nature, there is much less point in doing so.

Research indicators show that a few countries, such as South Korea, have significantly
increased their presence as world innovators in the last two decades. Nonetheless, the
foundationbriefs.com
Page 206 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: US Holds Science Edge
United States' position as the largest source of innovation, followed closely by Europe and Japan,
has remained fairly stable.

While China employs a large number of research scientists and engineers, they don't register in
standard indicators of the international impact of research, such as patents and royalty receipts.
An implication is that the source of Chinese growth is much more rapid adoption of advanced
technologies from abroad rather than domestic innovation.

The consequence of faster diffusion to China on living standards in innovating countries
is likely to be modest, whether positive or negative. The downside is limited to the loss of
cheap Chinese imports. While the implications for global security are less certain, there
is substantial upside potential if greater wealth leads China to assume a more responsible role in world
affairs.
Just as countries such as South Korea and China have grown rapidly relative to the United States in the
last two decades, Western Europe and Japan grew rapidly relative to the United States in the three
decades following WWII. At the time, their emergence generated concern about the potential erosion of U.S.
living standards and security. This growth turned out to reflect a catching up that, while reducing the U.S.
share of world GDP, has not undermined the U.S. standard of living or threatened U.S. national security.
This card explains the relationship between land, labor, and production in regards to the United States
and Chinese research and development. The most useful part of this piece of evidence is the four bullet
points above which summarize the report’s findings. These four bullets explain why the United States is
still at the top of science and engineering research and development of the world.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 207 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: US Holds Science Edge
Research Problems are Exaggerated
Jonathan Adams. “Scientific Wealth and the Scientific Investments of Nations.”
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/conf_proceedings/2007/RAND_CF235.pdf
The primary factor affecting the relative U.S. position is that others—particularly but not only new research
nations—have invested and improved their position. It is difficult to find, and probably erroneous to seek,
evidence that the United States has declined in absolute terms.

Input GERD for the United States is about 36 percent of the comparison group of nations that we
monitor (which includes the G8 and most of the lead EU15). OECD data show this is about 2.6
percent of GDP, which is similar to group average and ahead of the EU15.

Total business R&D (BERD) is about 1.9 percent of U.S. GDP, compared to an OECD average around
1.5 percent. Business R&D investment fell as a percentage of total R&D
spend in the U.S. public sector, however, from around 4 percent in the late 1990s to
around 3 percent now. There is a similar and worrying drop in the UK. Figures for business R&D in
countries such as China are unreliable at present.

The U.S. workforce has about 9.5 researchers per thousand, which is higher than the
group average (around seven). Researchers also make up an above-average percentage of the national
population. he UK has below-average workforce research capacity. China’s workforce percentage of
researchers remains low (around one per thousand) but in absolute terms this is already about half as
many researchers as the United States.

Output is a smaller share of group activity than input. The United States produces about
30 percent of group Ph.D.’s (down from 34 percent over the five years that data cover)
and about 30 percent of journal articles in serials covered by Thomson Scientific (down
from 36 percent over ten years, 1996–2005). There are no Ph.D. data for China but its
publication output has more than tripled since 1996, is now similar in volume to France,
and is accelerating. Iran’s publication output has increased tenfold.

The United States produces about 0.95 research articles per workforce “researcher” (down from 1.2 over
the decade) and has consistently ranked 16th of 20 nations (the UK is third at 2.1 articles per head).

Outcomes are excellent. The United States has 37 percent of group citations (above input share
although down from 44 percent) but has an amazing 61 percent of the world’s most highly cited
papers. China, by contrast, has yet to make a major impact with the quality of its growing output.
So, there is a possible argument that U.S. productivity is below average, but against that must be seen as the
continuing level of excellence. Good science just does not come cheap.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 208 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: US Holds Science Edge
Problems in Chinese Scientific Development
Michael Beckley. “China’s Century?” The Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs. Harvard University. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Chinas_Century.pdf
Over the next few decades, Chinese scientific research will increase significantly. In fact, it is the law:
the Chinese government has decreed that, by 2020, R&D expenditures will constitute 2.5 percent of GDP and
China will rank among the top five countries in terms of scientiFIc article output. Topdown decrees and
resource infusions, however, will not necessarily turn China into an innovation powerhouse. After all, imperial
Germany coupled size with sophistication, producing not only many scientists but also world-class
research. Evidence to date suggests China tends to prioritize the former at the expense of the latter.
The rush to increase the quantity of Chinese scientists, for example, has reduced the quality of
their education, as evidenced by sharp declines in teacher-student and funding-per-student ratios.
Moreover, China’s determination to boost its article output has fostered “a Wild West climate where top
researchers, under intense pressure to produce, are tempted to fake results or copy the works of others.”
Chinese scientists are “preoccupied with quick outcomes and immediate returns,” and as a result,
“quantitative gains in Chinese research productivity have not always been matched by qualitative gains.”
According to a former Chinese biochemist turned whistle blower, “Misconduct is so widespread among Chinese
academics that they have almost become used to it.” Indeed, a significant portion of new R&D spending has
simply disappeared because China’s Ministry of Science and Technology lacks the capacity to monitor the
flood of new research grants.
According to the most comprehensive study on Chinese scientific research, the result of all these
deficiencies is that “much of the work coming out of Chinese laboratories and research institutes still
tends to be not yet close to the cutting edge or to be derivative of what has been done elsewhere, with
minor new contributions.” In the late 1800s, German universities ranked among the best in the world and
attracted talent from abroad. China, by contrast, currently suffers from a massive brain-drain problem. The
number of Chinese students enrolled in universities in the United States increased by an average of 9 percent
annually between 1996 and 2011 and 20 percent annually between 2007 and 2011.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 209 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: US Holds Science Edge
The Education Gap is Exaggerated
Michael Beckley. “China’s Century?” The Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs. Harvard University. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Chinas_Century.pdf
Declinists assume these students return to China after graduating and therefore “threaten U.S. technological
leadership.” But 90 percent of the Chinese students who received a science or engineering Ph.D. from an
American university between 1987 and 2007 joined the American workforce, and these students were
typically China’s best and brightest. China’s government recently announced its intention to develop a set of
world-class universities to attract young talent from around the world. At present, however, the United States
still dominates higher education. A study by the London-based Times Higher Educational Supplement
says the United States is home to fifteen of the top twenty universities in the world. According to a study
by China’s Jiao Tong University in Shanghai, the United States has seventeen of the top twenty. Among
the top 100 universities in the world, the United States has either thirty-three or fifty-four depending on which
survey is consulted; China has two or zero.
Basic United States Research Surpasses China
Michael Beckley. “China’s Century?” The Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs. Harvard University. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Chinas_Century.pdf
It is far from clear, therefore, that China is catching up to the United States in terms of basic scientific research.
More important, such a trend would not necessarily affect the balance of power. After all, what ultimately
matters is not scientific superiority but technological superiority—the ability to produce and use
commercially viable and militarily relevant innovations. In the nineteenth century, German scientists
excelled at turning scientific breakthroughs into practical products, developing major innovations in the
chemical, electrical, and industrial dye industries that formed what many scholars now refer to as the “second
industrial revolution.” Today, scientific superiority is not necessary for technological superiority because
published articles circulate globally—they sit in searchable databases and can be obtained by anyone
with access to a major library—and it is insufficient because most scientific breakthroughs are useless in
isolation from lower-level innovations and infrastructure. Thus, the ability to produce scientific
breakthroughs may be less important than the ability to capitalize on them.
This piece explains that Chinese scientific advances have little impact. If China produces more
knowledge, it will inevitably benefit other countries through the spread of information.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 210 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: US Holds Science Edge
Chinese Technological Stagnation
Michael Beckley. “China’s Century?” The Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs. Harvard University. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Chinas_Century.pdf
On first glance, China’s emergence as the world’s leading exporter of high technology products suggests it has
capitalized on its scientific investments and become an “advanced-technology superstate,” perhaps even “the
world’s leading technology-based economy.” On closer inspection, however, it becomes clear that China’s
high-technology exports are “not very Chinese, and not very high-tech”—more than 90 percent are
produced by foreign firms and consist of imported components that are merely assembled in China, a
practice known as “export processing.” These percentages have increased over time, a trend that suggests
Chinese firms are falling further behind foreign competitors. Moreover, approximately 50 percent of China’s
total exports are produced by foreign enterprises (see figure 5). By comparison, foreign enterprises produced
less than 25 percent of Taiwan and South Korea’s manufactured exports in the 1970s. Chinese
technological stagnation is also evident in sales and patent statistics. From 1991 to 2008, Chinese firms’
sales of new products as a share of total sales revenues remained flat at 15 percent.
United States Superiority in Patents
Michael Beckley. “China’s Century?” The Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs. Harvard University.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Chinas_Century.pdf
Since 1991, the United States has increased its lead in patent applications over China in all of these
industries. Finally, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has identified ten
“knowledge- and technology-intensive industries” that are capable of “altering lifestyles and the way business is
conducted across a wide range of sectors.” The U.S. lead, in terms of value added, in knowledge- and
technology-intensive manufacturing industries dipped during the 2001 recession but quickly recovered
and has increased overall since 1996. Over the same time period, the United States steadily increased its
lead in knowledge and technology-intensive services (…)
In sum, a comparison of U.S. and Chinese innovation systems over the past twenty years provides
strong evidence against declinism and in favor of the alternative perspective that China continues to lag
behind the United States. China has increased its investments in basic science, but these efforts have yet to
significantly enhance its innovative capabilities. Data on Chinese high technology exports show that Chinese
firms have increased their participation in high-technology industries. Data on commercial R&D, patents,
and profits, however, suggest Chinese firms engage primarily in low-end activities, such as manufacturing and
component supply. By contrast, U.S. firms seem to focus on activities in which profits and proprietary
knowledge are highest, such as product design, development, and branding. This division of labor has
remained stable over the last two decades; if anything, it has become more pronounced.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 211 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: US Holds Science Edge
Basic Flaws in General Measures of Chinese Scientific Superiority
Michael Beckley. “China’s Century?” The Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs. Harvard University.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Chinas_Century.pdf
Today, China seems poised for scientific dominance, employing more scientists and engineers than any other
country and tripling its share of world scientific articles over the last ten years (from 2 percent to 6 percent).
Over the same time period, the United States’ share declined from 34 percent to 28 percent.
There are, however, reasons to question comparisons between imperial Germany and contemporary
China. For starters, official Chinese statistics overstate the volume of China’s scientific resources. Half of
China’s “engineers” are auto mechanics or graduates of two-year vocational programs (zhuanke).
In addition, data on China’s R&D spending are inflated because they are based on the real purchasing power of
the Chinese yuan even though most research equipment is purchased on international markets.
Nevertheless, the United States increased its lead in terms of R&D spending over the last twenty years
(...) and still accounts for 50 percent of the world’s most highly cited scientific articles.
Chinese engineers are not that many and not that good
Pei, Minxin. “Think Again: Asia's Rise” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
July 2009.
Even Asia's much-touted numerical advantage is less than it seems. China supposedly graduates 600,000
engineering majors each year…The United States trails with only 70,000 engineering graduates annually.
Although these numbers suggest an Asian edge in generating brainpower, they are thoroughly misleading. Half
of China's engineering graduates... Once quality is factored in, Asia's lead disappears altogether. A much-cited
2005 McKinsey Global Institute study reports that human resource managers in multinational companies
consider only 10 percent of Chinese engineers…as even "employable," compared with 81 percent of
American engineers.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 212 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: US Holds Science Edge
The Big Chinese Firm Decline
Michael Beckley. “China’s Century?” The Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs. Harvard University.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Chinas_Century.pdf
In the United States, by contrast, new products account for 35 to 40 percent of sales revenue. The
Chinese government grants the majority of its invention patents to foreign firms even though Chinese firms are
five times more numerous. This result is all the more startling because many foreign firms do not seek Chinese
patents. Instead they seek “triadic patents,” which are simultaneously recognized by the patent offices of the
three largest markets for high-technology products (the United States, Europe, and Japan), and are thus the most
secure and most difficult to obtain.
(...)
Chinese firms, moreover, do not seem to be taking genuine steps to improve their technological
abilities. For the past twenty years, Chinese firms’ total spending on R&D as a percentage of sales
revenue has remained at levels seven times below the average for American firms. Between 1995 and
2008, the share of Chinese enterprises engaged in scientific or technological activities declined from 59
percent to 37 percent, and the share of Chinese firms with an R&D department declined from 60 percent
to 24 percent.
When Chinese firms import technology, they spend a fraction of the total cost on absorbing the
technology. This fraction increased recently from 4 percent to 25 percent, but it remains far lower than the 200
to 300 percent spent by Korean and Japanese firms when they were trying to catch up to the West in the 1970s.
Technological leaders sometimes rest on their laurels and abandon innovative efforts in favor of “finding new
markets for old products.”
The United States, however, looks set to excel in emerging high-technology industries. It has more
nanotechnology centers than the next three nations combined (Germany, the United Kingdom, and China)
and accounts for 43 percent of the world’s nanotechnology patent applications (...) In biotechnology, the United
States accounts for 41.5 percent of patent applications (China accounts for 1.6 percent) and 76 percent of global
revenues. The United States accounts for 20 to 25 percent of all patent applications for renewable energy, air
pollution, water pollution, and waste management technologies; China accounts for 1 to 4 percent of the patent
applications in these areas.
This report provides incredibly useful analysis of Chinese success. The report points out several reasons
why typically cited statistics of Chinese research growth are not a threat to the United States.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 213 of 265
Pro Counters: China ‘Benign’ to US Interests
February 2013
China’s Oil Activities Are Benign to U.S. Interests
Both China and the U.S. Seek Peace and Stability in the Middle East
Lai, Hongyi Harry. "China’s Oil Diplomacy: Is It a Global Security Threat?" Third World
Quarterly 28.3 (2007): 519-37. Web. 05 Jan. 2013.
Understandably China may sympathise with these nations over issues that they deem vital, as long as this
requires only limited efforts on its part and implies little or limited harm to China’s own interests. Several
examples are illustrative. First, the Middle East and the Palestine–Israeli conflict. Partly out of its need to
sustain oil supplies from the Middle East, China sympathises with the Arab’s world stance on Palestine. At the
request of Saudi Arabia, China called on all parties in 2003 to stop the vicious cycle of violence against
violence and to tackle outstanding issues in Israeli relations with Palestine, Lebanon and Syria on the
principle of land for peace; it also supported a nuclear-free Middle East. China has also forged multilateral
ties with the Arab world. In September 2004 the China–Arab League biennial forum on politics and economy
affirmed China’s 2003 stance on the Middle East.
China will not pursue a course of action that increases tension or violence in the Middle East because that
would cut off its oil supplies and raise oil prices worldwide, which is contrary to its goals of economic
growth.
China Seeks to Accommodate the U.S. in the Middle East
Lai, Hongyi Harry. "China’s Oil Diplomacy: Is It a Global Security Threat?" Third World
Quarterly 28.3 (2007): 519-37. Web. 05 Jan. 2013.
It is tempting, given the above analysis, to assume that China, out of its own need to get oil from these nations,
will undermine US oil security or contravene US policies towards these oil-producing nations. The most
noticeable areas that critics and pessimists have suggested include Iraq, Iran, Sudan, sea-lanes, and US oil
security. However, China’s stances in these cases have so far indicated that these fears have been greatly
exaggerated.
First, Iraq. Before the US invasion of Iraq, many believed that, in order to secure oil from the region and
show solidarity with Saddam Hussein, China might block the US-backed initiatives over Iraq at the UN.
However, China actually voted in favour of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 in 2002 that held Iraq in
‘material breach’ of disarmament obligations, which opened the way for the US-led war against Saddam
Hussein.
Second, Iran. In 2004 and 2005, when Iranian – US tension was escalating over Iran’s nuclear programme,
many observers predicted that China would fully back Iran in the crisis and oppose the US efforts to
refer the issue to the UN. One comment sums up popular sentiment about a China – Iran oil deal in 2004: ‘For
a United States increasingly pointing at China as the next biggest challenge to Pax Americana, the Iran – China
foundationbriefs.com
Page 214 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: China ‘Benign’ to US Interests
energy cooperation cannot but be interpreted as an ominous sign of emerging new trends in an area considered
vital to US national interests’.50 However, in early 2006 China backed a proposal initiated by the USA and
Europe to refer Iran’s nuclear programme to the UN Security Council should Iran fail to co-operate.
China also agreed with the principle that Iran should not develop nuclear weapons.51
Third, Sudan. In September 2004 the UN Security Council was deliberating a resolution which threatened to
halt Sudan’s oil exports if it did not stop the atrocities by pro-government militias in the Darfur region that have
led to the deaths of tens of thousands through starvation or illness. In this case China distanced itself from the
stance led by the EU, which used sanctions to force Sudan to take action. However, China was not alone.
Russia, Pakistan and Algeria abstained from voting on the resolution. China did try to find a compromise
by talking the USA into watering down the UN resolution before allowing it to pass, instead of vetoing it.
Many observers attributed the Chinese action to the fact that China obtained 6.9% of its oil imports from the
African country. A stronger reason, however, might be China’s $3 billion investment in the country, the largest
it had made in any single country at that time.52 China’s position on Darfur raises concerns among advocates of
human rights. But the Darfur issue is extremely complex. Darfur is a battle- field where rebels fight
Sudanese troops, aiming to topple the government. Fighting, lawlessness, and poorly paid and equipped
and corrupt police permit crimes to proliferate. A practical solution, which the USA and the UN are
promoting, is to send in peacekeeping troops to enforce a ceasefire as well as maintain law and order. China
seems open to this solution.53
Fourth, the security of sea-lanes. It has been feared that China might rapidly develop its capability to
safeguard its sea-lanes from the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Malacca and the South China Sea to
China and that it could disrupt US and Japanese sea-lanes in the case of war. However, so far China’s
naval capability mainly covers the Taiwan Strait and copes with a possible Taiwanese provocative
declaration of independence. Its blue-water navy is still more of a concept than a reality. Its ability to
safeguard and/or disrupt sea-lanes from the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea have been rather limited. Any
disruption of sea-lanes by China would invite strong counter-moves by the other parties and could be highly
counterproductive. Therefore most of China’s efforts at securing its oil routes have been to find alternative land
pipelines or railway links. China also apparently falls back on US protection to ensure the safety of its sea-lanes
for oil
This card goes line by line to counter the main arguments and examples that the con will use to highlight
the destabilizing impact of Chinese oil interests in the Middle East. Overall, China has largely sought to
achieve a balance between its own energy needs and larger goals of peace and regional stability.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 215 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: China ‘Benign’ to US Interests
China Does Not Threaten U.S. Oil Security
Lai, Hongyi Harry. "China’s Oil Diplomacy: Is It a Global Security Threat?" Third World
Quarterly 28.3 (2007): 519-37. Web. 05 Jan. 2013.
Intensified concern in the media with China’s oil diplomacy leaves an impression that China’s quest for oil in
the Middle East could reduce the oil available to the USA and undermine US oil security.55 This worry is not
based on fact. USA imports from Arab OPEC nations (presumably the Middle East) only accounted for
14.8% of its oil consumption in 2005. The top two importing sources for the USA are Canada and
Mexico. US annual oil consumption in 2004 amounted to 1011.6 million tons and its imports to 590.3
million tons.56 China’s oil imports from the Middle East totalled 51.7 million tons, taking up 51.3% of its oil
imports in 2003. However, this accounted for 20.5% of its oil consumption and only 4.7% of its total energy
consumption.57 It was equivalent to 8.8% of the US total imports and 5.1% of its oil consumption. China’s
imports are thus not large enough to upset US oil imports.
As a percentage of total imports, Canada and Mexico are much more significant than the Middle East in
terms of oil imports, so China and the U.S. have plenty of room to maneuver to achieve balance in the
Middle East rather than cut-throat, zero-sum competition that would harm U.S. interests.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 216 of 265
Pro Counters: China ‘Benign’ to US Interests
February 2013
Oil Driven Conflict in the South China Sea is Not Inevitable
Lai, Hongyi Harry. "China’s Oil Diplomacy: Is It a Global Security Threat?" Third World
Quarterly 28.3 (2007): 519-37. Web. 05 Jan. 2013.
Into the 2000s China has also made noticeable progress in oil and gas co-operation with Southeast Asian
and South Asian nations. Therefore, the worst-case scenario about clashes over oil between China and
other claimant states in the South China Sea, or between China and India, or even between China and
Japan have not happened.
The South China Sea contains deposits of oil and gas. The US Geological Survey and others estimate that about
60% – 70% of the region’s hydrocarbon resources are gas. South China Sea has proven oil reserves estimated at
about 7 billion barrels. Oil production in the region is around 2.5 million barrels per day and has increased
gradually over the past few years, as China, Malaysia and Vietnam step up production. China and Southeast
Asian nations have overlapping claims over the Spratly and Paracel Islands in the South China Sea.
Nevertheless, these nations have worked out a temporary solution. In November 2002 China and 10 Association
of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) members signed a Joint Declaration on the Conduct of the Parties,
pledging to ‘resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means’.61 In March 2005 three oil
companies from China, Vietnam and the Philippines signed a landmark tripartite agreement in Manila on joint
exploration of oil and gas resources in the disputed South China Sea. The three parties stated their willingness
to prospect the reserve of petroleum resources within the area agreed by them, without undermining the basic
positions held by their own governments.62
China has also furthered its co-operation with Indonesia in gas exploration and trade. In September 2002 China
awarded a $8.5 billion liquefied natural gas (LNG) purchase contract to Indonesia.63 In 2002, with a purchase
of a field from the Spanish firm Repsol YPF SA, CNOOC became the largest offshore oil producer in
Indonesia.
This card demonstrates that, despite several con arguments to the contrary, China has engaged in
substantial cooperation with other Southeast Asian nations in the South China Sea. Thus, conflict is not a
natural conclusion to the current disputes because we can expect the country to continue its trend of
cooperation to maintain a peaceful environment for economic growth.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 217 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Support for Pariah States
China’s Support For Pariah States Is Waning
China Has Overhauled Its Policies Toward Pariah States
Small, Andrew, and Stephany Klein-Ahlbrandt. "China's New Dictatorship Diplomacy."
Foreign Affairs, Jan.-Feb. 2008. Web. 05 Jan. 2013.
Over the last two years, Beijing has been quietly overhauling its policies toward pariah states. It strongly
denounced North Korea’s nuclear test in October 2006 and took the lead, with the United States, in
drafting a sweeping United Nations sanctions resolution against Pyongyang. Over the past year, it has voted
to impose and then tighten sanctions on Iran, it has supported the deployment of a United Nations–African
Union (un-au) force in Darfur, and it has condemned a brutal government crackdown in Burma (which
the ruling junta renamed Myanmar in 1989). China is now willing to condition its diplomatic protection of
pariah countries, forcing them to become more acceptable to the international community. And it is
supporting— in some cases even helping to create—processes that chart a path to legitimacy for these
states, such as the six-party talks on North Korea, thereby minimizing their exposure to coercive
measures.
Chinese activities over the past few years suggest a departure from the previous position of support for
despotic regimes on the principle of non-interference and a move towards a posture more aligned with
the goals of the international system. Note that some suggest, as in the case of North Korean talks, the
benefit of creating a new path of legitimacy for some states, which could be used as a turn if the con
argues that China is still supporting these states.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 218 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Support for Pariah States
Chinese Concern Over Image Limit Its Support for Pariah States
Small, Andrew, and Stephany Klein-Ahlbrandt. "China's New Dictatorship Diplomacy."
Foreign Affairs, Jan.-Feb. 2008. Web. 05 Jan. 2013.
It no longer sees providing uncritical and unconditional support to unpopular, and in some cases fragile,
regimes as the most effective strategy. An even more important motivator has been the West’s heightened
expectations for China’s global role. Faced with the 17th Party Congress last October, the Beijing Olympics in
2008, and presidential elections in Taiwan also later this year, Chinese officials would have preferred to think
about avoiding trouble at home rather than about developing a new foreign policy. But the nuclear crises in
North Korea and Iran and international outcry over developments in Darfur and Burma have forced their hand:
Beijing has no choice but to worry about its international image. China’s fears about a backlash and the
potential damage to its strategic and economic relationships with the United States and Europe have
prompted Beijing to put great effort into demonstrating that it is a responsible power
As China seeks to be seen as a responsible power and member of the international system, it will continue
to reduce its support for states that are outside of the international system. In essence, as China becomes
more of an insider in the U.S. led world order, it has fewer incentives to seek to overturn it.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 219 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: US Allies Not Topical
US allies in the region is irrelevant
You cannot evaluate this debate on whether or not US allies need to be protected-Countries under the US
hegemonic umbrella should defend themselves-it is bankrupting the US and they are perfectly capable of
protecting themselves
Preble, Christopher. "Why Does U.S. Pay to Protect Prosperous Allies?." CNN/CATO
Institute. (2012): n. page. Web. 4 Jan. 2013.
<http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-does-us-pay-protect-prosperousallies>.
But partisan politics aside, what our foreign policy leaders have consistently ignored is an argument that
should have strong sway at a time of economic uncertainty: This country’s tax dollars can be better spent
than on defending wealthy allies who are more than capable of protecting themselves.
The administration plans to withdraw some U.S. troops from Europe, but as many as 70,000 are likely to
remain. Meanwhile, the number of troops in Asia will be increased. These troops serve to reassure our
allies of our commitment to defend them. It is working as designed: Other countries do not spend enough
to satisfy their defense needs.
The end result is that Americans pay more. The Obama administration’s budget will cost every American
nearly $2,000 next year. The figure rises by hundreds of dollars when one accounts for homeland security,
payments to veterans, and the few billion dollars tucked away in the Department of Energy for the nation’s
bloated nuclear arsenal. All told, every American will likely shell out more than $2,700 on spending
classified as national defense. That is at least 2½ times what the British spend, five times more than what
the Germans spend, and six times what the Japanese spend.
It is hard to see how that is good news for Americans struggling to make ends meet. Obama’s magnanimity is
especially ironic given his emphasis on “fairness” and “shared sacrifice.” His rhetoric apparently does not apply
to people living outside the United States. American troops will continue to be tasked with policing the world,
and American taxpayers will be on the hook to pay for it.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 220 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Not Bad For Environment
China’s Rise Not Bad for the Environment
Despite China’s Rise, U.S. is Still Number One Culprit for Global Warming
Blakemore, Bill. "Who’s ‘Most to Blame’ for Global Warming?" ABC News. ABC News
Network, 22 July 2012. Web.
Who’s most to blame for global warming? Nobody meant it to happen.
But it has, and there’s no debate among the world’s scientists about which country is “most responsible.”
That is, about which nation has injected the greatest amount of the heat-trapping invisible gas CO2 into
to the atmosphere, where a lot of it remains for years, piling up and only adding to the heat.
The answer: United States has, with China a distant second.
And figured on a per person basis, the “most responsible” is the United Kingdom, with the United States a close
second, Germany a close third, and China a distant seventh.
If you’re surprised the “most to blame” isn’t China, the explanation is simple:
In about 2007, China did pass the United States in putting the greatest amount of CO2 into the air per
year, but China’s economic boom only got started recently and they still have a couple of decades to go (if
there are no drastic changes) before they catch up with the United States in the total cumulative amount
of heat-trapping CO2 they will have been piling up in the air.
Even if the affirmative argues that China is incredibly bad for the environment or is increasing Global
Warming, it is irrelevant because China is has not nearly polluted the environment as much as the U.S.
has. The United States is its own worst enemy in this scenario.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 221 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Not Bad For Environment
China’s Populace Is Pushing For a Change in Environmental Policy
Bradsher, Keith. "Bolder Protests Against Pollution Win Project’s Defeat in China." The
New York Times. N.p., 4 July 2012. Web.
China has long been known as a place where the world’s dirtiest mines and factories can operate with
impunity. Those days may not be over, but a growing environmental movement is beginning to make the
most polluting projects much harder to build and operate.
Large and sometimes violent demonstrations against the planned construction of one of the largest
copper smelting complexes on earth prompted local officials in southwestern China’s Sichuan Province to
continue backpedaling furiously on Wednesday. The local government of Shifang, the planned site of the
smelter, announced in a statement that the construction of the $1.6 billion complex had not only been suspended
but also permanently canceled.
The smelter was supposed to be the centerpiece of a planned economic revitalization of an area devastated by
the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, through the creation of thousands of construction jobs at a time when the overall
Chinese economy is suffering a sharp slowdown.
A police official in Shifang said in a telephone interview that everyone detained in the protests had been
released. The police acted after a crowd estimated by local residents in the tens of thousands defied the police
and assembled Tuesday evening to demand the release of dozens of students jailed in the protests on Sunday
and Monday.
In a country infamous for its polluted air and water, the protests were only the latest in a series of large,
sometimes violent demonstrations that appear to be having some success in pushing China to impose
more stringent safeguards on new manufacturing and mining projects.
The people of China are moving to change the way China’s economic policies affect the environment.
This piece of evidence indicates movements have been successful and China has changed its policies in the
past. From this piece of evidence we can extrapolate that China is headed for major reform because
citizen oppose the impact rise of industry has had on the environment.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 222 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Not Bad For Environment
The Current Zeitgeist in China is Pushing for Environmental Reform
Freidman, Thomas L. "China Needs Its Own Dream." The New York Times. N.p., 2 Oct.
2012. Web.
“Success in the ‘American Dream,’ ” notes Peggy Liu, the founder of the Joint U.S.-China Collaboration on
Clean Energy, or Juccce, “used to just mean a house, a family of four, and two cars, but now it’s escalated to
conspicuous consumption as epitomized by Kim Kardashian. China simply cannot follow that path — or the
planet will be stripped bare of natural resources to make all that the Chinese consumers want to consume.”
Liu, an M.I.T. graduate and former McKinsey consultant, argues that Chinese today are yearning to create a
new national identity, one that merges traditional Chinese values, like balance, respect and flow, with its
modern urban reality. She believes that the creation of a sustainable “Chinese Dream” that breaks the
historic link between income growth and rising resource consumption could be a part of that new
identity, one that could resonate around the world.
Respect for the environment is something that is deeply rooted in Chinese Culture. This means that the
Chinese are more likely to push for environmental reform and see resulting changes.
China’s New Five Year Plan Means A Shift in Environmental Policy NP 12-9
Watts, Jonathan. "China Ready to Quell Disquiet over New Environmental Policies." The
Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 07 Sept. 2011.
China has announced plans to tighten environmental controls and ramp up internal security spending.
Though no link was made between these two developments, the government may be anticipating one.
At first sight, the issues of environment and security could not be further apart, at least in terms of their very
different contributions to China's international image. This was evident this weekend, when the government of
prime minister Wen Jiabao drew plaudits from green groups and anger from human rights organisations.
The praise was for the new five-year economic plan, which contains several progressive environmental
policies (listed below) aimed at slowing emissions growth, cutting pollution and switching the focus of
development from GDP quantity to sustainable quality.
This card indicates a concrete change in China’s official public records. In an opening address to the
National People’s Congress many of the changes were outlined. This card proves there is some sort of
environmental shift in policy expected.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 223 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Declining Hegemony
Answers To Declining U.S. Hegemony
The U.S. Has Already Lost its Clout as A Global Superpower—it has nothing to do with the
Rise of China
Holdridge, David. "The Hegemon at the Crossroads." Fair Observer°. N.p., 30 Oct. 2012.
Web.
Sixty-seven years after the end of World War 2, America is at an historical junction. It no longer has the
internal resources nor the lion's share of global GDP which it enjoyed for most of that time. The era of
"controlling the narrative" is evolving to a possible era of "influencing the narrative".
The US remains the world's largest economy, the pre-eminent culture and the unchallenged military force that
will surely support its ability to be persuasive, if not controlling. To maintain its primary role as
"influencer", it will need to assure three components of that leadership: the maintenance of an
unchallenged strategic military force (parallel to a significant modernization and reduction of its
conventional land forces), the transfer of its soft-power from the government to the American private
sector (both profit and non-profit), and the provision of public sector incentives for the enhancement of
"America as incubator'.
For the past 4 years and the next four years under the Obama administration it is becoming clear that
the U.S. won’t be able to return to its position as global hegemon or “controller” because the U.S.
continues to maintain soft-power in the government instead of the private sector. Independent of China’s
Rise, the U.S. has already lost its ability to play Superpower.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 224 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Declining Hegemony
The U.S.’s Diminished Ability to Lead the World has Been Substantiated in the Last Decade
through its Failed attempts to resolve the Iran-Israel Conflict
Hadar, Leon T. "The US Is No Longer a Global Hegemon." Cato Institute. N.p., 3 Feb.
2012. Web. 07
Such assumptions about US omnipotence are woefully out of touch with reality. The mess the Bush
administration made in the Middle East, where US military power was overstretched to the maximum,
coupled with the dramatic loss of American financial resources, has produced a long-term
transformation in the balance of power in the region and worldwide. The confluence of these negative
factors has significantly eroded Washington’s diplomatic and political clout. The increasing wariness of the
American public regarding new US military interventions, as a consequence of the Iraq war, will reinforce this
trend.
This is not the first time there has been a lag between when an international crisis, such as a military conflict or
a loss of geostrategic standing, takes place and the time when officials, pundits and the public recognize its
effect on the global balance of power. In the aftermath of World War II, which devastated the military and
economic power of Britain and France, the two leading imperial powers, officials and journalists continued to
refer to those two declining nation-states as Great Powers. It was not until the late 1950s that the diminished
status of Great Britain and France was widely recognized and the adjective “great” was finally dropped when
the two countries were mentioned.
That the US has already been losing some of its leverage has been demonstrated by Washington’s failure
to contain the rising power of Iran and Tehran’s growing influence through surrogates in Iraq, Lebanon,
and the Palestinian territories. Notwithstanding strong opposition from Washington, Israel decided to
open negotiations with Syria, while Hizbullah was once again invited to join the government in Lebanon.
While the US does not now occupy the same kind of drastically weakened geopolitical position that Britain and
France did after World War II, we must recognize that it is no longer a global hegemon, as it was during the
first decade or so after the end of the Cold War. Even the most visionary and competent US president will be
that much more constrained in his ability to “do something” when an international crisis takes place.
This card indicates that the U.S.’s status as a world leader has already been diminishing and has no
relation to the rise of China. Instead the U.S.’s standing as world hegemon has been due to White House
Foreign Policy mistakes.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 225 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Declining Hegemony
China’s Rise Means a World without a Global Hegemon-this is good for peace and relations
Muzaffar, Chandra. "The Decline of US Helmed Global Hegemony." World Public
Forum: Dialogue of Civilizations. Rhodes Forum, 4 Oct. 2012. Web.
China’s phenomenal rise signals the birth of a post-hegemonic world. There are of course sceptics who
dispute this. China they say will be the next hegemon.
There is no basis for drawing such a conclusion. For three sets of reasons, it is very unlikely that China will
attempt to conquer other lands militarily or usurp their resources through aggression or massacre hundreds of
thousands of people in its drive to control and dominate the world.
One, historically, China has never sought hegemony even when it possessed the strongest fleet in the
world during the time of the Ming Dynasty. The commander of the fleet, the famous admiral, Zheng He,
made seven voyages to various parts of the world but did not pillage or plunder the lands he visited. It is also a
matter of some significance that the land territory that China occupies today is what it was since the Western
Han Dynasty (206 BC- 24 AD).
It is true that throughout history China has been obsessed with safeguarding its borders. It has sometimes
resorted to force to protect its territorial integrity. But this is quite different from marauding land and ocean in
order to subjugate some unknown alien people through barbaric violence.
Two, even in the contemporary period, in spite of China’s voracious appetite for oil and gas and other
minerals, it has not tried to control the source of these resources. All it wants is access, not control. This is
why China does not have a single overseas military base.
Indeed, as I have often pointed out, China is the first nation to emerge as a big power on the world stage
that has not resorted to imperial wars or bloody conquests or the usurpation of someone’s resources in its
ascent up the ladder. To put it in another way, China’s rise to power without violence, and through peaceful
means, is unique. This is something that the world should appreciate.
Here again, one must concede that when it comes to what it defines as its territorial integrity, China has no
qualms about using force. This is what it did in 1962 vis-a-vis India in the dispute over the McMahon Line. In
1974 and 1988, China clashed with Vietnam over the Spratly Islands. But even in such conflicts, China is more
inclined towards bilateral talks, negotiations and peaceful settlement.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 226 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Declining Hegemony
China Does Not Have the Ability to Take Over as Global Hegemon
Muzaffar, Chandra. "The Decline of US Helmed Global Hegemony." World Public
Forum: Dialogue of Civilizations. Rhodes Forum, 4 Oct. 2012. Web.
Three, all said and done, China, the world’s second largest economy, is still a poor country and is
determined to concentrate upon raising the standard of living of its people in the next three or four
decades. Seeking hegemonic power, especially through war and violence, is certainly not on its agenda.
Chinese policy-makers and analysts never cease to remind the world that with 1.3 billion people,
“China’s per capita GDP is only US 3,800, ranking about 104th in the world, even lower than many
African countries. By the United Nations standard of one US dollar a day, 150 million Chinese are still living
below the poverty line.”
It is also important to note that China is perhaps the only big power that has a clause in its Constitution
that repudiates hegemony. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) also renounces hegemony. Every major
Chinese leader in the present phase of US helmed hegemony from Deng Xiaoping to Hu Jin Tao has pledged
that his country will never ever seek hegemony. This was also the position of the late Chinese Prime Minister,
Chou En-Lai.
Even if the Con Argues that China’s rise will place it as a Global hegemon, it is impossible for China to
become a Global hegemon because of its internal and domestic setbacks. While economically China may
be a giant, it first needs to solve problems of extreme poverty in order to continue its economic growth.
Thus China will not take over as a hegemon.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 227 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Declining Hegemony
We are Now Entering a Post Hegemonic World
Muzaffar, Chandra. "The Decline of US Helmed Global Hegemony." World Public
Forum: Dialogue of Civilizations. Rhodes Forum, 4 Oct. 2012. Web.
Apart from historical and contemporary evidence, constitutional guarantees and verbal undertakings, that
underline China’s non-hegemonic character and orientation, one must also acknowledge that the regional and
global environment will not allow any one nation to dominate and control regional and international
politics and economics. Even within China’s immediate neighbourhood, countries such as Japan and South
Korea are economically powerful and politically influential. If South and North Korea re-unify over the next
two decades - which is not inconceivable - it would be a formidable force which the world will not be able to
ignore.
In Southeast Asia, Indonesia and Vietnam, with huge populations and credible economic performances, could
well emerge as important players in the future. India is often spoken of as a rising power. Iran has the spiritual
strength, the material resources and the human capital to contribute towards a more equitable global order. So
has Turkey whose economy and society exhibit some positive traits. Russia, given its history, its resources and
its leadership is destined to become a major world actor again. South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela and
Cuba, among others, all have the potential of emerging as important centres in a post-hegemonic world.
The United States, though no longer a hegemon, will still be a significant player. Its northern neighbour,
Canada, will continue to wield some economic clout. And in Europe, there is no doubt at all that Germany
which in the midst of the European sovereign debt crisis has remained resilient and viable will be a major force
to reckon with well into the future.
There will be other states in all continents that will also rise to the forefront in a post-hegemonic world.
The post-hegemonic world I envisage will have multiple centres of power, some more important than
others. Even in their exercise of power, these centres would be varied, with some commanding more clout
in politics, others exhibiting more economic strength and yet others displaying their prowess in the realm
of culture. What is important is that there will be no one dominant centre combining the different
manifestations of power and coercing all others into submission.
There is a trend in international relations which, it seems to me, could well strengthen post-hegemonic
politics and economics. This is the formation of regional bodies. I have already lauded the birth of ALBA. It
should be mentioned in passing that there is an even newer regional grouping from that part of the world called
CELAC, The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, which hopes to enhance cooperation in
economic, security and social matters among all the 33 states that constitute the Latin American and Caribbean
region. I have noted the role of BRICS and the SCO. NAM was mentioned in the context of the first phase of
hegemony. Then there are the older regional entities such as the Arab League or the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN) or the South Asian Association for regional Cooperation (SAARC) or the African
Union. There are also outfits such as the European Union and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
China’s rise is beneficial to the U.S. because it launches us into a post hegemonic world where all
countries, while still able to emanate power flexes, will not have the ability to dominate and control other
countries.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 228 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Declining Hegemony
Lack of Counterbalancing Power bad for US
Zappone, Chris. “Rise of China Could Be Just What US Politics Needs.” Sydney Morning
Herald. 25 Oct. 2012. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/rise-of-china-couldbe-just- what-us-politics-needs-20121025-287r1.html
The absence of a strategic counterbalance encouraged a strain of recklessness in Washington that has been
watched with dismay from abroad. America's triumphalism manifested itself in a sort of politics seemingly
without consequence: the embarrassment of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the disputed 2000 election, the rush
to war in Iraq, the Tea Party-led freak show against Obama's healthcare plan. The attacks of September 11
stirred war fever, while hurricane Katrina exposed a chasm between the haves and have-nots.
China will Force a Needed Change in American Politics
Zappone, Chris. “Rise of China Could Be Just What US Politics Needs.” Sydney Morning
Herald. 25 Oct. 2012. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/rise-of-china-couldbe-just- what-us-politics-needs-20121025-287r1.html
In order for America to adjust to its global competitor, it will need to focus its domestic politics towards a broad
ideological middle ground, rather than pandering to the extremes. At the Democratic convention, Mr Obama
called for a “new economic patriotism”. There's no reason a similar concept can't be embraced and promoted by
a Republican Party that, if the recent primaries are anything to go by, seems to be in need of a unifying
platform.
Realising the scale of China's clout may help restore the bipartisanship that has been missing in
Washington politics for years. Rather than the ongoing spectacle of a hyperpower exorcising its internal
demons, the superpower may be forced to accept the challenging new geopolitical landscape with
renewed seriousness and purpose.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 229 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Corruption in China
Answers to Cyber Security
Western Portrayals of a China Cyber “Build Up” Are Inaccurate
“China and Cybersecurity: Political, Economic, and Strategic Dimensions”. Study of
Innovation and Technology in China and the University of California. April 2012.
Contrary to popular perceptions in the United States, China does not have a monolithic, coordi- nated policy
approach to cybersecurity. Although political power is centralized in the Chinese Communist Party, Chinese
governance is fragmented regionally and functionally. For civilian or industrial cybersecurity, China has to
contend with a complicated tangle of regulatory institu- tions, inconsistent implementation of policy directives,
and public and private sector actors pur- suing incompatible interests. At the same time, there is a fractious
network of military, intelli- gence, and other state entities involved in cyber policy and activity who are
concerned about international as well as domestic security.
China is a the Number 1 Victim of Cyber Attacks
“China and Cybersecurity: Political, Economic, and Strategic Dimensions”. Study of
Innovation and Technology in China and the University of California. April 2012.
In 2011, about 8.531 million computers in China were attacked by rogue programs every day, which
accounted for 5.7 percent of daily networked computers, reaching a growth rate of 48 percent compared with
the year of 2010.
Accordingly, we can see that China’s situation of Internet information security is quite severe. The phenomenon
of information leakage under the environments is serious, so the protection of privacy and personal data should
be strengthened. Internet abuses are unscrupulous. There is a lack of protection for privacy and data. There are
legal loopholes in public information safety, and China lacks an effective management mechanism.
The deep reasons for the situation are as follows. China’s current emphasis on information security is not
enough. Its institutions and the legal system are incomplete. Information security strategies and plans are
insufficient. Internet technologies need further development. General public education is barely satisfactory.
Further international cooperation is really needed. Chinese media have published articles purporting that China
is the “number one victim of cyber-attacks in the world.” These articles largely define “hacking” and
“cybercrime” as domestic and international law enforcement issues. Sources claim many attacks originate
abroad, while others stress that bank fraud, gambling, and other cybercrimes are often perpetrated by domestic
actors.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 230 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Corruption in China
China has a Host of Cyber Security Problems, Not a Threat
“China and Cybersecurity: Political, Economic, and Strategic Dimensions”. Study of
Innovation and Technology in China and the University of California. April 2012.
China’s networks face a variety of idiosyncratic risks, such as ballooning levels of domestic cy- bercrime,
widespread dependence on Western software, and uneven legal regimes and enforce- ment. While cybercrime
has been on the rise around the world, it exhibits some interesting char- acteristics in China. There is a large
underground market targeting virtual goods such as video game accounts and currencies in which both the
criminals and the victims are Chinese; by con- trast, cybercrime from Eastern Europe targets victims in Western
Europe and the United States, avoiding domestic predation. Chinese cybercriminals exploit online forums to
buy and sell their goods, whether stolen assets or hacker infrastructure, and lax law enforcement means they are
often quite open about it; this makes some promising research possible for researchers who have a native
command of the jargon which criminals use.
Most Cyber Attacks Come From US
“China and Cybersecurity: Political, Economic, and Strategic Dimensions”. Study of
Innovation and Technology in China and the University of California. April 2012.
In recent years the security of global information systems has become a contentious issue in U.S.–China
relations. U.S. government sources allege that Chinese intrusions targeting proprietary economic data and
sensitive national security information are on the rise. At the same time, a large proportion of malicious activity
globally originates from computer hosts located in the United States.
US-China Cooperation on Cybersecurity Key to Creating Secure World
Lieberthal, Kenneth, and Singer, Peter. “Cybersecurity and US-China Relations”.
Brookings Institution. Feb 2012.
Developing greater U.S.-China cooperation and understanding on the challenges of cybersecurity is now a
necessary step. How these two nations face these issues will be critical not just to the future of the Internet and
its billions of users but also to overall global order beyond the world of cyberspace.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 231 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Corruption in China
US Has Secure Control of Cyber
Lieberthal, Kenneth, and Singer, Peter. “Cybersecurity and US-China Relations”.
Brookings Institution. Feb 2012.
Of the 13 root servers that are essential to the function of the entire Internet, 10 were originally located in the
U.S. (and include U.S. gov- ernment operators like the U.S. Army Research Lab and NASA), and the other 3
are in U.S. allies (Japan, Netherlands, Sweden). Similarly, ICANN, which essentially manages the protocol
addresses so essential to preserving the stability and smooth operation of the global Internet, started out through
a U.S. government mandate.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 232 of 265
February 2013
Pro Counters: Corruption in China
Counter to Corruption in China
China Cuts Down on Corruption
Andrew Jacobs. ‘Chinese Officials Find Misbehavior Now Carries Cost.” December 25,
2012. The New York TImes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/world/asia/corrupt-chinese-officials-drawunusual-publicity.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=1&
“The anticorruption storm has begun,” People’s Daily, the party mouthpiece, wrote on its Web site this
month.
The flurry of revelations suggests that members of China’s new leadership may be more serious than
their predecessors about trying to tame the cronyism, bribery and debauchery that afflict state-run
companies and local governments, right down to the outwardly dowdy neighborhood committees that oversee
sanitation. Efforts began just days after Xi Jinping, the newly appointed Communist Party chief and China’s
incoming president, warned that failing to curb corruption could put the party’s grip on power at risk.
“Something has shifted,” said Zhu Ruifeng, a Beijing journalist who has exposed more than a hundred
cases of alleged corruption on his Web site, including the lurid exertions of Mr. Lei. “In the past, it might
take 10 days for an official involved in a sex scandal to lose his job. This time he was gone in 66 hours.”
foundationbriefs.com
Page 233 of 265
Con Counters
foundationbriefs.com
Page 234 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: Militarily Powerful
China’s Military is Powerful Enough to Present a Risk
China is Still a Threat
Robert D. Kaplan. “How We Would Fight China.” June 2005. The Atlantic Magazine.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/06/how-we-would-fightchina/303959/
There are many ways in which the Chinese could use their less advanced military to achieve a sort of
political-strategic parity with us. According to one former submarine commander and naval strategist I talked
to, the Chinese have been poring over every detail of our recent wars in the Balkans and the Persian Gulf, and
they fully understand just how much our military power depends on naval projection—that is, on the ability of a
carrier battle group to get within proximity of, say, Iraq, and fire a missile at a target deep inside the country. To
adapt, the Chinese are putting their fiber-optic systems underground and moving defense capabilities deep into
western China, out of naval missile range—all the while developing an offensive strategy based on missiles
designed to be capable of striking that supreme icon of American wealth and power, the aircraft carrier. The
effect of a single Chinese cruise missile's hitting a U.S. carrier, even if it did not sink the ship, would be
politically and psychologically catastrophic, akin to al-Qaeda's attacks on the Twin Towers. China is
focusing on missiles and submarines as a way to humiliate us in specific encounters. Their long-range-missile
program should deeply concern U.S. policymakers.
With an advanced missile program the Chinese could fire hundreds of missiles at Taiwan before we could
get to the island to defend it. Such a capability, combined with a new fleet of submarines (soon to be a
greater undersea force than ours, in size if not in quality), might well be enough for the Chinese to coerce
other countries into denying port access to U.S. ships. Most of China's seventy current submarines are pasttheir-prime diesels of Russian design; but these vessels could be used to create mobile minefields in the South
China, East China, and Yellow Seas, where, as the Wall Street Journal reporter David Lague has written,
"uneven depths, high levels of background noise, strong currents and shifting thermal layers" would make
detecting the submarines very difficult. Add to this the seventeen new stealthy diesel submarines and three
nuclear ones that the Chinese navy will deploy by the end of the decade, and one can imagine that China could
launch an embarrassing strike against us, or against one of our Asian allies. Then there is the whole field of
ambiguous coercion—for example, a series of non-attributable cyberattacks on Taiwan's electrical-power grids,
designed to gradually demoralize the population. This isn't science fiction; the Chinese have invested
significantly in cyberwarfare training and technology. Just because the Chinese are not themselves democratic
doesn't mean they are not expert in manipulating the psychology of a democratic electorate.
What we can probably expect from China in the near future is specific demonstrations of strength—like
its successful forcing down of a U.S. Navy EP-3E surveillance plane in the spring of 2001. Such tactics
may represent the trend of twenty-first-century warfare better than anything now happening in Iraq—
and China will have no shortage of opportunities in this arena. During one of our biennial Rim of the
Pacific naval exercises the Chinese could sneak a sub under a carrier battle group and then surface it. They
could deploy a moving target at sea and then hit it with a submarine- or land-based missile, demonstrating their
ability to threaten not only carriers but also destroyers, frigates, and cruisers. (Think about the political effects
foundationbriefs.com
Page 235 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: Militarily Powerful
of the terrorist attack on the USSCole, a guided-missile destroyer, off the coast of Yemen in 2000—and then
think about a future in which hitting such ships will be easier.) They could also bump up against one of our
ships during one of our ongoing Freedom of Navigation exercises off the Asian coast. The bumping of a ship
may seem inconsequential, but keep in mind that in a global media age such an act can have important strategic
consequences. Because the world media tend to side with a spoiler rather than with a reigning
superpower, the Chinese would have a built-in political advantage.
Some Affirmative teams will undoubtedly attempt to convince judges that China is technologically
inferior when faced with the argument that China presents a military risk. It is important to emphasize
that they do not have to win a war in the conventional sense—let alone fight in the conventional sense—to
present a threat to our interests.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 236 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: Rise Not Peaceful
China’s Rise Will Not Be Peaceful
History Proves that Great Power’s Rises are not Peaceful
Layne, Christopher. American Empire: A Debate. 2007. Np.
To be sure, the United States should not ignore the potential strategic ramifications of China’s arrival on the
world stage as a great power. After all, the lesson of history is that the emergence of new great powers in the
international system leads to conflict, not peace. On this score, the notion—propagated by Beijing—that
China’s will be a “peaceful rise” is just as fanciful as claims by American policy-makers that China has no need
to build up its military capabilities because it is unthreatened by any other state.
President of China has Declared a “Culture War”
Wong, Edward. “China’s President Lashes Out at Western Culture”. New York Times. 3
Jan. 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/world/asia/chinas-president-pushesback-against-w estern-culture.html?_r=0
President Hu Jintao has said China must strengthen its cultural production to defend against the West’s assault
on the country’s culture and ideology, according to an essay in a Communist Party policy magazine published
this week. The publication of Mr. Hu’s words signaled that a new major policy initiative announced in October
would continue well into 2012.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 237 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: America is in Decline
America is in Decline
China is beating the U.S. in manufacturing
Perry, Mark J. “Chart of the day: China is now world’s No. 1 manufacturer” American
Enterprise Institute. December 12, 2012.
The United Nations updated its National Accounts Main Aggregates Database today with data for 2011. The
chart above compares the annual manufacturing output of the US and China from 1970 to 2011 measured in
current US dollars. Before 2004, the United Nations only reported “Mining, Manufacturing and Utilities” for
China, so the comparison above is for that measure of manufacturing in both countries, rather than just
“manufacturing.”
In 2010, the manufacturing output of both countries was almost exactly equal, with China at $2.373 trillion and
the US at $2.365 trillion. But in 2011, China’s manufacturing output surged by 23% while manufacturing
output in the U.S. only increased by 2.8%. That brought China’s manufacturing output last year to more
than $2.9 trillion, which was almost half a trillion dollars (and 20%) more manufacturing output than the
$2.43 trillion of manufacturing output that was produced in the U.S. last year.
Looking at just manufacturing (without mining and utilities) in 2011, China’s factories produced $2.34
trillion of output, which was 23% higher than factory output in the US at $1.9 trillion. The chart below
shows annual manufacturing output only (without utilities and mining) in the U.S. and China from 1970 to
2011, with estimates of China’s annual manufacturing output before 2004.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 238 of 265
February 2013
foundationbriefs.com
Con Counters: America is in Decline
Page 239 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: America is in Decline
American entrepreneurship has been declining
Weissmann, Jordan. “The 30-Year Decline of American Entrepreneurship” The Atlantic.
September 25, 2012.
For roughly 30 years, new businesses have made up a steadily shrinking portion of companies in the United
States while generating a declining fraction of new jobs.
Earlier this month, the Hudson Institute published a report noting that brand new companies added 2.34
million jobs in 2010, compared to an average of about 3 million a year dating back to 1977. Since 2009,
we've averaged 7.8 start-up jobs per 1000 Americans, compared to 10.8 during the Bush years and 11.2
during the Clinton administration.
According to the Census Bureau's Business Dynamics Statistics, which track all new firms with paid
employees, start-ups made up more than 12 percent of U.S. companies in 1980, as shown in this graph
from a Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation report. Today, they're less than 8 percent. That share
declined sharply during the late 80s, late 90s, and late 00's. As the start-up rate has fallen, so has their
contribution to employment -- from as high as 4 percent of all jobs in the Reagan era down to 3 percent
in 2006 and finally 2 percent today.
As [University of Maryland economist] Haltiwanger writes, young companies that manage to survive their startup phase tend to be more productive than their old, established counterparts. They give the economy a new
injection of life, and the fewer that are created, the less of that energy we get. And we were losing that energy
well before the recession.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 240 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: America is in Decline
American entrepreneurs are failing
Gage, Deborah. “The Venture Capital Secret: 3 Out of 4 Start-Ups Fail” The Wall Street
Journal. September 19, 2012.
But now there is evidence that venture-backed start-ups fail at far higher numbers than the rate the industry
usually cites.
About three-quarters of venture-backed firms in the U.S. don't return investors' capital, according to
recent research by Shikhar Ghosh, a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School.
His findings are based on data from more than 2,000 companies that received venture funding, generally at least
$1 million, from 2004 through 2010. He also combed the portfolios of VC firms and talked to people at startups, he says. The results were similar when he examined data for companies funded from 2000 to 2010, he says.
Venture capitalists "bury their dead very quietly," Mr. Ghosh says. "They emphasize the successes but they
don't talk about the failures at all."
There are also different definitions of failure. If failure means liquidating all assets, with investors losing all
their money, an estimated 30% to 40% of high potential U.S. start-ups fail, he says. If failure is defined as
failing to see the projected return on investment—say, a specific revenue growth rate or date to break
even on cash flow—then more than 95% of start-ups fail, based on Mr. Ghosh's research.
The American education system is not producing entrepreneurs
Moltz, David. “Be Your Own Boss” Inside Higher Ed. April 30, 2010.
More broadly, the National Association of Colleges and Employers reports that the percentage of
graduates who say they want to pursue self employment has decreased slightly in recent years. In 2008,
2.2 percent said they planned to start their own business, while 1.8 percent said so in 2009. The
organization does not collect followup data to determine what percent actually went on to start their own
business. Still, the numbers indicate that it is still a relatively rare ambition for recent graduates.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 241 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: Does Not Create US Jobs
Answer to China’s Rise Increases Manufacturing Jobs In
the U.S.
Jobs Will Move to Other Countries Before Reaching the U.S.
Conrads, David. "As Chinese Wages Rise, US Manufacturers Head Back Home." The
Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor, 10 May 2012. Web. 08
Jan. 2013.
Not all the manufacturing moving from China is coming back to the US. Some of it is going to lower-cost
countries in Asia, like Vietnam and Singapore. Many US companies are likely to keep some production in
China because they want to sell into its fast-growing domestic market. Other US firms are opting for
“near-shoring,” moving manufacturing from Asia to Mexico or Central America, where they can take
advantage of low wages but reduce transportation costs and other problems that go with having a supply
chain that stretches halfway around the world.
Reshoring or even near-shoring may not work for everyone, cautions Mr. Sirkin, who consults with many
manufacturing firms. “That may not be the right answer for you in the same way that rushing to China
or Vietnam may not be the right answer.”
One of the Pro Arguments says that because of China’s economic rise and consequential increase in
wages for its labor force in the tech industry, many jobs will move back to the U.S. However, this is not
true. Jobs will first shift to other markets where the cost to manufacture is cheaper. An increase of wages
from 68 cents to $6 in China does not logically mean people will move their manufacturing to the U. S>
where minimum wage is at least $8.75
foundationbriefs.com
Page 242 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: Trade With China Not Good
Trade with China Not Good
China’s Economic Tactics are Manipulative and Unfair to the United States
Editorial Board. "China Raises the Ante on Trade with New Tariffs - The Washington
Post." The Washington Post: National, World & D.C. Area News and Headlines - The
Washington Post. 29 Dec. 2011. Web. 29 Dec. 2011.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/china-raises-the-ante-on-trade-withnew-tariffs/2011/12/16/gIQABBCGPP_story.html>.
As the U.S. ambassador to the WTO,Michael Punke, observed in a Nov. 30 speech, there is a growing
“perception” in this country and around the world that China uses “intimidation” to get its way in trade,
whether through aggressive subsidization of state-owned industries, technology transfer requirements for
foreign firms or slack enforcement of foreigners’ intellectual property rights. “China seems to be
embracing state capitalism more strongly each year, rather than continuing to move toward the economic
reform goals that originally drove its pursuit of WTO membership,” Mr. Punke said. “This is a troubling
development, and the United States urges the Chinese government to reconsider the path it is on.”
As if to answer Mr. Punke — or to prove him right — China slapped tariffs on U.S.-made large-engine
cars on Dec. 15. The move appeared timed to counter recent U.S. complaints about Chinese subsidies for its
solar-panel industry and alleged Chinese limits on U.S. poultry exports.
The economic impact is probably modest, since the tariff applies to only a tiny share of U.S. exports. But it’s a
worryingly aggressive gesture. Chinese Commerce Minister Chen Deming said his government was merely
fighting subsidized exports, as the United States does itself, and that its tariffs are “in line with WTO rules and
not a form of protectionism.” Mr. Chen challenged the United States “to ask the WTO experts to rule.” Maybe
the Obama administration should take him up on that. Or maybe Beijing should reflect on the fact that its own
economy, troubled by a deflating real estate bubble, has a lot to lose from a trade war, too.
In 2001, American businesses were eager to invite China to the WTO, captivated by the fast-growing
Chinese middle class. Now, Washington is afraid China has renounced its commitment to free trade,
deserting market capitalism for state mercantilism. This has made a level playing field difficult to sustain.
Many Chinese state-owned enterprises entertain the benefits of a monopoly or oligopoly. China’s weak
enforcement of intellectual property rights, inability to sustain full transparency of its regulations, failure
to maintain WTO deadlines, and interference with the value of their currency to support domestic
industries has left American businesses further disgruntled. With such Chinese policies, the US’ mixed
economy, dedicated to fair competition and free trade, loses its competitive edge.
2
24
foundationbriefs.com
Page 243 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: Trade With China Not Good
China’s Tariffs and Resulting U.S. Tariffs Create a Trade War that is Bad for the Health of
the Economy
La Monica, Paul R. "A Trade War with China Is a Bad Idea." CNNMoney. Cable News
Network, 14 Sept. 2009. Web. 07 Jan. 2013.
"It's not uncommon for the government to side with certain industries to protect American workers," said Keith
Hembre, chief economist with First American Funds in Minneapolis. "These tariffs wouldn't be happening if the
unemployment rate was substantially lower."
But we've been down this road before. The launching of tariffs during a severe economic slowdown has
done more harm than good in the past.
Many historians blame the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which raised tariffs to their highest levels
ever, for making the Great Depression worse.
Protectionism is a bad idea. In this increasingly globalized economy, it just doesn't make sense to alienate
trading partners.
"One would hope we can avoid more of this. There is no positive side to raising tariffs," said Kurt Karl,
chief U.S. economist with Swiss Re. "In this global crisis, you want global cooperation. This doesn't help."
And that's especially true with China since it is also the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury debt, owning
about $776 billion of Treasurys as of June.
If the Chinese stopped buying Treasurys -- or worse started selling them en masse -- it could have a catastrophic
effect on the dollar and the nation's fiscal state as a whole.
"A trade war would be very detrimental to the U.S. and the global economy," said Michael Pento, chief
economist with Delta Global Advisors, Inc., a money management firm. "We should have fair, open trade.
But our banker right now is the Chinese, and it's best not to bite your banker's hand."
Karl isn't too concerned that China would dump Treasurys. He argues that would be the equivalent of China
shooting itself in the foot since it would further erode the value of its holdings.
Nonetheless, Karl does worry that China could retaliate against the tire tariff with tariffs of its own and
even more government subsidies of Chinese manufacturers. That could make the trade deficit worse.
Protectionism is when another a country shields its domestic industries from foreign competition by
taxing imports from other countries. The problem with protectionism specifically with regards to China
and the U.S. is that it is proven that China has used protectionist policies in the past and so has the U.S.
This undermines a trade partnership between both countries and hurts the global economy.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 244 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: Trade With China Not Good
U.S. Trade with China is Unstable and Undermines U.S. Manufacturing Jobs
La Monica, Paul R. "A Trade War with China Is a Bad Idea." CNNMoney. Cable News
Network, 14 Sept. 2009. Web. 07 Jan. 2013.
On the one hand, it makes sense for the White House to try and enforce existing trade laws so that U.S.
tire makers can compete more effectively with cheaper tires imported from China.
The trade deficit with China has soared in recent years, hitting a record high in 2008. This is a concern
for obvious reasons: If we continue to buy a lot more from China than we sell to them, more U.S.-based
manufacturing jobs could be lost.
Tensions continue to rise. For the first time in October 2012, the US Senate passed a currency measure to
put levies on Chinese imports if China continues to thwart its currency value from rising. In December,
China placed tariffs on US made, large-engine cars. This reciprocal action makes it easier to label the
Chinese government as protectionist. Current trade relations are unhealthy; a lack of effective
negotiations between the US and China may further deteriorate any attempt to find middle ground.
3
foundationbriefs.com
Page 245 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: China Not Declining
China Not Declining
Chinese workers are extremely productive
Hu, Zuliu and Khan, Mohsin. “Why Is China Growing So Fast?” International Monetary
Fund. 1997.
While pre-1978 China had seen annual growth of 6 percent a year (with some painful ups and downs along the
way), post-1978 China saw average real growth of more than 9 percent a year with fewer and less painful ups
and downs. In several peak years, the economy grew more than 13 percent. Per capita income has nearly
quadrupled in the last 15 years, and a few analysts are even predicting that the Chinese economy will be larger
than that of the United States in about 20 years.
Curious about why China has done so well, an IMF research team recently examined the sources of that nation's
growth and arrived at a surprising conclusion. Although capital accumulation--the growth in the country's
stock of capital assets, such as new factories, manufacturing machinery, and communications systems-was important, as were the number of Chinese workers, a sharp, sustained increase in productivity (that
is, increased worker efficiency) was the driving force behind the economic boom. During 1979-94
productivity gains accounted for more than 42 percent of China's growth and by the early 1990s had
overtaken capital as the most significant source of that growth. This marks a departure from the traditional
view of development in which capital investment takes the lead. This jump in productivity originated in the
economic reforms begun in 1978.
Much previous research on economic development has suggested a significant role for capital investment in
economic growth, and a sizable portion of China's recent growth is in fact attributable to capital investment that
has made the country more productive. In other words, new machinery, better technology, and more investment
in infrastructure have helped to raise output. Yet, although the capital stock grew by nearly 7 percent a year
over 1979-94, the capital-output ratio has hardly budged. In other words, despite a huge expenditure of capital,
production of goods and services per unit of capital remained about the same. This pronounced lack of capital
deepening suggests a constrained role for capital. The labor input--an abundant resource in China--also saw its
relative weight in the economy decline. Thus, while capital formation alone accounted for over 65 percent of
pre-1978 growth, with labor adding another 17 percent, together they accounted for only 58 percent of the post1978 boom, a slide of almost 25 percentage points. Productivity increases made up the rest.
It turns out that it is higher productivity that has performed this newest economic miracle in Asia. Chinese
productivity increased at an annual rate of 3.9 percent during 1979-94, compared with 1.1 percent during
1953-78. By the early 1990s, productivity's share of output growth exceeded 50 percent, while the share
contributed by capital formation fell below 33 percent. Such explosive growth in productivity is remarkable-
foundationbriefs.com
Page 246 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: China Not Declining
-the U.S. productivity growth rate averaged 0.4 percent during 1960-89--and enviable, since productivityled growth is more likely to be sustained.
China's recent productivity performance is remarkable. By comparison, productivity growth for the Asian
tigers hovered around 2 percent, sometimes slightly more, for the 1966-91 period. China's rate of almost
4 percent simply puts it in a class by itself.
China is investing in education
Fogel, Robert. “$123,000,000,000,000*” Foreign Policy. January 2010.
The first essential factor that is often overlooked: the enormous investment China is making in education. More
educated workers are much more productive workers. (As I have reported elsewhere, U.S. data indicate that
college-educated workers are three times as productive, and a high school graduate is 1.8 times as
productive, as a worker with less than a ninth-grade education.) In China, high school and college
enrollments are rising steeply due to significant state investment. In 1998, then-President Jiang Zemin called
for a massive increase in enrollment in higher education. At the time, just 3.4 million students were
enrolled in China's colleges and universities. The response was swift: Over the next four years,
enrollment in higher education increased 165 percent, and the number of Chinese studying abroad rose
152 percent. Between 2000 and 2004, university enrollment continued to rise steeply, by about 50 percent.
I forecast that China will be able to increase its high school enrollment rate to the neighborhood of 100
percent and the college rate to about 50 percent over the next generation, which would by itself add more
than 6 percentage points to the country's annual economic growth rate. These targets for higher
education are not out of reach. It should be remembered that several Western European countries saw
college enrollment rates climb from about 25 to 50 percent in just the last two decades of the 20th
century.
And it's not just individual workers whose productivity jumps significantly as a result of more education; it's
true of firms as well, according to work by economist Edwin Mansfield. In a remarkable 1971 study,
Mansfield found that the presidents of companies that have been early adopters of complex new
technologies were on average younger and better educated than heads of firms that were slower to
innovate.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 247 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: China Not Declining
China’s Companies Continue to Grow in Success—Look to The Forbes Fortune 500
Chua, Jean. "China Overtakes Japan in Fortune Global 500 Companies for First
Time."CNBC.com. N.p., 9 July 2012. Web. 06 Jan. 2013.
Chinese firms have overtaken their Japanese peers on the Fortune Global 500 list of the world’s largest
companies for the first time, and will continue to gain market share at the expense of the more developed
competitors, the U.S. business magazine said on Monday.
China had 73 firms on the list, which ranks the world’s biggest companies by revenue, compared to 61
last year. Japan stayed steady, with 68 firms. The biggest Chinese firms on the list are state-owned energy
and utilities companies Sinopec Group, China National Petroleum and State Grid , which grabbed the
fourth, fifth and sixth spots on the list.
“(High oil prices) contributed to Chinese companies gaining on the list but we have also got a number of private
companies on the list as well, including Huawei, the big manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, and
that’s gaining at the expense of some of the Western companies they compete against,” Stephanie Mehta,
Executive Editor of Fortune, told CNBC Asia’s “Squawk Box” on Tuesday.
The rise of the Chinese enterprise will continue, Mehta said, signaling that a shift in the global economy is
underway. The U.S. for example, which has dominated the list for the past decade, lost more companies
during that period than any other country.
Entrepreneurship is responsible for current Chinese growth
Easton, Tom. “Bamboo Capitalism” The Economist. March 10, 2011.
Now one estimate…puts the share of GDP produced by enterprises that are not majority-owned by the
state at 70%. Zheng Yumin, the Communist Party secretary for the commerce department of Zhejiang
province, told a conference last year that more than 90% of China's 43m companies were private. The
heartland for entrepreneurial clusters is in regions, like Zhejiang, that have been relatively ignored by Beijing's
bureaucrats, but such businesses have now spread far and wide across the country.
Qiao Liu and Alan Siu of the University of Hong Kong calculate that the average return on equity of
unlisted private firms is fully ten percentage points higher than the modest 4% achieved by wholly or
partly state-owned enterprises. The number of registered private businesses grew at an average of 30% a
year in 2000-09. Factories that spring up alongside new roads and railways operate round-the-clock to make
whatever nuts and bolts are needed anywhere in the world. The people behind these businesses endlessly adjust
what and how they produce in response to extraordinary (often local) competition and fluctuations in demand.
Provincial politicians, whose career prospects are tied to growth, often let these outfits operate free not only of
direct state management but also from many of the laws tied to land ownership, labour relations, taxation and
licensing. Bamboo capitalism lives in a laissez-faire bubble.
The number one criticism of China’s economy is that most of the growth comes from the government.
However, this source shows that China’s growth is actually based on strong private sector.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 248 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: China Not Declining
China has time before it hits the middle income trap
Kenny, Charles. “Don’t bet on the end of China’s growth miracle” Bloomberg News.
September 02, 2012.
There are still strong reasons to believe fast growth remains possible for China during the next two decades.
And even if its growth were to collapse by 2 or 3 percentage points a year, the country will still get rich awfully
fast.
Yet, even absent deep structural reforms, there’s a strong likelihood that China’s economy will maintain high
levels of growth for the foreseeable future. Economic historian and Nobel laureate Robert Fogel argues
there is certainly the potential for China to continue growing at 8 percent until 2030. Despite an aging
population, there are still opportunities for more adults to work. And more of that labor will likely move into
more productive sectors over time—out of agriculture and into manufacturing and services. These two factors
alone could account for 30 percent of the country’s continued growth, Fogel suggests.
There are also considerable opportunities to increase labor productivity through education. From 1990 to 2004,
China’s college enrollment rate increased sixfold—but it’s still far behind Western levels, so there’s room
for continued improvement. And, at least in Shanghai, the schools are pretty good: The city’s scores in the
Program for International Student Assessment of 15-year-olds in math, science, and reading were higher than
the average for any country tested. Meanwhile, 18 Chinese universities made it into a list of the world’s top 500
(in a compilation by Shanghai University, which might be biased, of course). If China achieves universal
secondary enrollment, and by 2025 reaches levels of college and university enrollment achieved by
Western European nations in the 1980s, that might add more than 6 percent to growth rates, according
to Fogel.
The entire concept of the middle income trap is that when easy economic gains (like manufacturing cheap
goods) are exhausted, the lack of innovation and ability to make quality products hampers an economy’s
growth. However, according to the above source these easy gains have not been fully exhausted yet, and
thus China still has time to implement reforms for when it does hit the middle income trap.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 249 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: China Not Declining
China’s GDP per capita is growing rapidly
Zhu, Xiaodong. “Understanding China’s Growth: Past, Present, and Future” Journal of
Economic Perspectives. Fall 2012.
The pace and scale of China’s economic transformation have no historical precedent. In 1978, China was one of
the poorest countries in the world. The real per capita GDP in China was only one-fortieth of the U.S. level
and one-tenth the Brazilian level. Since then, China’s real per capita GDP has grown at an average rate
exceeding 8 percent per year. As a result, China’s real per capita GDP is now almost one-fifth the U.S.
level and at the same level as Brazil.
The number one point that is always made about China’s GDP growth is that its GDP per capita is very
low. However, China’s GDP per capita is also growing at a tremendous rate. Even though China has
more people than the United States, this should not cloud the fact that its economy is extremely
productive, and is only getting better.
China’s Population Poised For Economic Prowess
While U.S. Companies Slow, Chinese Consumers are Equipped with Larger Purchasing
Power than Ever Before
Chua, Jean. "China Overtakes Japan in Fortune Global 500 Companies for First
Time."CNBC.com. N.p., 9 July 2012. Web. 06 Jan. 2013.
Although the U.S. still hosts the lion’s share of Global 500 corporations, there are 132 U.S.–based
businesses on this year’s list, compared with 133 last year, and 197 a decade ago. The number of European
firms fell to 161 from 172 in 2011.
More emerging Chinese consumer brands may increasingly overtake Western firms as the middle-class
of the Asian economy grows, Fortune said in the July 9 issue in which the list was published. Names like
computer manufacturer Lenovo (No. 370) and carmaker Zhejiang Geely Holding Group (No. 475), which
boosted revenue by 126 percent last year after acquiring Volvo from Ford, will gain in prominence over
the next few years.
“Companies like Lenovo and Geely cut their teeth selling ‘good enough’ products at low prices to middleclass Chinese consumers,” the magazine. “After studying (and, increasingly, buying) Western
competitors and exploiting Chinese manufacturing efficiencies, they are now poised for global market
gains.”
foundationbriefs.com
Page 250 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: China Not Declining
China’s Population Headed Away From Social Tumult and Towards Economic Gains
World Economic Forum. "Poverty & Economic Development." WEF Reports â Global
Agenda Council 2012. Global Agenda Council, 2012. Web. 06 Jan. 2013.
In 2000, 189 countries made a promise to free people from extreme poverty and multiple deprivations. To
this end, eight Millennium Development Goals (MDG) were developed. The first goal is to eradicate extreme
poverty and hunger; it includes three interrelated targets: 1) halving, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of
people whose income is less than one dollar a day; 2) achieving full and productive employment and decent
work for all, including woman and young people; and 3) halving the proportion of people who suffer from
hunger. With three years left to 2015, estimates show that this MDG may be within reach, although the global
economic downturn and uncertainty about the future may jeopardize its achievement. Dramatic progress has
been achieved in Asia where, for instance, China has benefited from accelerated economic growth in past
decades, lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Latin America and Africa have also
experienced robust economic growth in the past five to ten years, allowing many countries to significantly
reduce poverty. However, according to World Bank estimates, almost one billion people will still live in
poverty in 2015, and addressing poverty, especially for the remaining pockets of the poorest, still constitutes an
important challenge for developing countries.
Recognizing that economic growth represents the single best answer to poverty, most governments and
the development community have focused their efforts on creating the right conditions for growth. These
conditions must take into account not only the quantitative aspect of growth, but also its qualitative
nature, so that it can be sustained over time, ensuring fair economic and social progress and meeting the
growing global population’s aspirations.
Many of the Pro Arguments indicate that China’s population is under duress and enduring social tumult;
however, China’s people are in fact now experiencing greater wealth and prosperity than ever before.
Furthermore China’s economic prowess has empowered millions out of poverty.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 251 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: China Not Declining
China’s Economic Growth Is Sustainable
While Other Countries Face Spending Cuts and the So-Called Fiscal Cliff, China Only has
to Focus on Growth-A Much Simpler Task
Grenville, Stephen. "China's Growth Is Still Sustainable." The Interpreter. Lowy Institute
for International Policy, 29 Aug. 2012. Web. 06 Jan. 2013.
How feasible is a continuation of this expansion?
It doesn't require any extra demand from a higher export surplus. China's surplus has already fallen to a
sustainable 3% of GDP and China's current rate of growth has been achieved with imports growing
faster than exports. What about the seemingly outlandish proportion of GDP going into investment? In
fact by international comparisons of countries going through the 'growth spurt', China's 50% investment
ratio doesn't look that unusual. It matches Singapore in 1978-88 and is not much higher than Japan,
South Korea and Thailand in their high-growth periods.
That said, this ratio wasn't sustained in those countries and at least in the case of Thailand, the slowdown was
very bumpy. Can China pull off the transition from high growth to medium growth without the painful
sudden stop experienced by Thailand in 1997?
To answer this, look at the nature of the growth spurt. When China was growing at over 10%, an
investment/GDP ratio of around 50% was needed just to keep the capital/output ratio around its usual
level and allow for the capital deepening ('more and more expensive equipment with a lesser
corresponding rise in wage expenses') that is part-and-parcel of the development process.
China's capital per worker is still only 8% of America's and 17% of South Korea's. If growth has now
slowed to around 7.5%, this still requires investment to be almost 30% of GDP just to maintain a steady
capital/output ratio, and quite a bit more to allow for capital deepening.
Of course, at some time in the not-too-distant future, China needs to shift consumption up from its current 35%
of GDP to a more conventional number, at least half of GDP. Compared with the task faced by most of
Europe and by America (cutting consumption and raising taxes to fix the budget, while maintaining
growth), China's task is the easier one, but it does require a major change in thinking.
China has the ability to sustain its growth if it is able to maintain a 30% of GDP investment into its
output; currently China invest 50% of its GDP. Therefore, a continuation of China’s growth or
sustenance of it’s growth is not impossible. GDP = Gross Domestic Product
foundationbriefs.com
Page 252 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: China Not Declining
China’s Economic Growth Will Be More Sustainable than it Has Been in the Past
Quinlan, Joe. "China Growth Slower But More Sustainable » Insights » Capital
Acumen Online." U.S. Trust Capital Acumen, 2012. Web.
The bottom line is that China is downshifting to a lower, yet more sustainable, level of growth. Nearterm, our base case is that China will avoid a "hard landing" or real economic growth under 5% this
year. Growth of 7% to 7.5% is more likely, in our view. That is good, though not great, by China's
standards — but investors need to adjust to China expanding at a slower clip than over the past three
decades.
The gradual shift toward more consumption-led growth and more productivity-enhanced manufacturing
production in the Middle Kingdom is bullish for a variety of U.S. companies. In other words, we believe
slower growth in China is not to be feared, but welcomed.
China’s New and Enlarged Middle Class will Sustain Economic Growth
Quinlan, Joe. "China Growth Slower But More Sustainable » Insights » Capital
Acumen Online." U.S. Trust Capital Acumen, 2012. Web.
As a footnote, personal consumption expenditures account for less than 40% of real Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) in China, one of the lowest ratios in Asia.That is another way of saying that there is tremendous upside
to the mainland's ongoing growth story. The nation's reliance on exports and fixed investments is
increasingly a thing of the past, but the Chinese consumer is ready to fill the void — a prospect that
should keep China among the strongest economies in the world over the medium term. This is a bullish
prospect for U.S. multinationals in the business of selling cars, computers and other consumer goods.
In addition, as wages rise across the manufacturing spectrum, many companies can be expected to boost
their capital expenditures to help offset rising wage costs. And the most effective way to absorb higher
wage costs is through productivity improvements using more machines, computers and networking
systems — a fortuitous trend for many U.S. technology leaders, who already count China as one of their
most important markets.
Finally, as labor costs rise in the coastal provinces of China, expect more production to shift inland. The
result will be more jobs and income for more Chinese workers previously excluded from the great China
growth story.
Because China’s economic growth in the past decade has lifted millions of Chinese Citizens out of poverty
and into middle class status, it has equipped them with a new form of purchasing power. This means that
China no longer has to solely rely on exports for a chunk of its economic growth, instead its own citizens
will propel its economy.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 253 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: China Not Declining
The Argument that China Needs to Invest Less and Consume More is Overstated
"Capital Controversy." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 14 Apr. 2012. Web.
China's rising investment and falling consumption as a share of GDP are commonly portrayed as an
economic anomaly. Yet this pattern is normal in a rapidly industrialising country. In a traditional
agricultural economy farmers consume most of their income, but once industrialisation gets under way a
rising share of national income goes to owners of capital, who invest it in factories and the like. Investment
rises as a share of GDP, and consumption falls. During their peak periods of industrialisation, South Korea and
Japan saw an even sharper rise in investment relative to GDP than China has seen over the past 20 years.
As for that oddly high level in its investment-to-GDP ratio, one explanation is that China's statistical
system (set up when it was a command economy) is better at recording investment than consumer spending.
Many think consumption (especially of services) is undermeasured as a share of GDP, and hence that
investment is overstated. A report by Morgan Stanley suggests that China's true investment-to-GDP ratio may
be up to ten percentage points lower than officially reported (ie, 38% rather than 48%).
Given China's rapid growth, cheap loans and the big role played by state-owned banks, it is inevitable that
capital has been wasted in some industries. But the evidence suggests that China has not seriously
overinvested. That does not mean rebalancing is unnecessary. Under China's capital-heavy model of growth,
owners of capital have been getting much richer than workers. The main reason for shifting from capitalintensive production to the more labour-intensive, consumer-friendly sort is not to sustain economic growth, but
to reduce inequality. Workers could then enjoy more of the rewards of China's past investment.
One of the Affirmative’s arguments is that China cannot sustain itself because China invests too much.
The Pro argues China needs to rebalance its economy by investing less and consuming more. Otherwise,
it is argued, diminishing returns on capital will cramp future growth. However, this piece of evidence
shows otherwise. China’s calculation system was set up on what was once a command economy, which
means that the numbers are flawed and need to be adjusted to reflect consumption rates that are
undermeasured by China’s current statistical analyses.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 254 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: Corruption Bad
Corruption in the Chinese Government is Bad for the
U.S.
Some analysts (and therefore potentially some pro teams) have pointed to China’s corruption as a reason
that it will never truly threaten the US. This section and the one to follow do much to dispel that notion.
Corruption may be the worst thing as it makes China harder to deal with (but it is still unlikely to fall)
and, even if it does fall, revolution would be extremely dangerous.
Corruption within the People’s Liberation Army Can Be Dangerous for the U.S.
Research., Jane Perlez; Bree Feng Contributed. "Corruption in Military Poses a Test for
China." The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Nov. 2012.
An insider critique of corruption in China’s military, circulating just as new leadership is
about to take over the armed forces, warns that graft and wide-scale abuses pose as much of a threat to
the nation’s security as the United States.
Col. Liu Mingfu, the author of the book, “Why the Liberation Army Can Win,” is not a lone voice.
Earlier this year, a powerful army official gave an emotional speech describing corruption as a “do-or-die
struggle,” and days later, according to widely published accounts, a prominent general, Gu Junshan, a deputy
director of the logistics department, was arrested on suspicion of corruption. He now awaits trial. The general is
reported to have made huge profits on illicit land deals and given more than 400 houses intended for retired
officers to friends.
Those excesses may be mere trifles compared with the depth of the overall corruption, the speech by Gen. Liu
Yuan, an associate of the new party leader, Xi Jinping, suggested.
For Mr. Xi, who boasts a military pedigree from his father — a guerrilla leader who helped bring Mao Zedong
to power in 1949 — China’s fast modernizing army will be a bulwark of his standing at home and influence
abroad.
But the depth of graft and brazen profiteering in the People’s Liberation Army poses a delicate problem for the
new leader, one that Colonel Liu and others have warned could undermine the status of the Communist Party.
As part of the nation’s once-a-decade handover of power, Mr. Xi assumed the chairmanship of the 12-member
Central Military Commission immediately. Hu Jintao, the departing party leader, broke precedent and did not
retain his position atop the body, which oversees the armed forces, for an extended period after his retirement,
unlike previous leaders.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 255 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: Corruption Bad
Recent territorial disputes with Japan and Southeast Asian neighbors have raised nationalist sentiment
in China, and the popular desire for a strong military could make it politically dangerous for Mr. Xi to
embark on a campaign that unmasks squandering of public funds.
In his opening speech to the 18th Party Congress, Mr. Hu said China would aim to become “a maritime
power.” It was one of the few references in the address about foreign affairs, and one that suggested the
government would continue the double-digit increases in expenditures for the military.
But along with the modernization and bigger budgets has come more corruption, a problem that
pervades China’s ruling party and its government.
For the first time in the history of the People’s Liberation Army, Chinese analysts say, the land-based army has
had to give up its dominance of the military commission.
The former commander of the air force, Xu Qiliang, will be a vice chairman, giving the air force new weight in
big decisions, they said. An army general, Fan Changlong, the former commander of the Jinan Military Region,
will also be a vice chairman.
These two men will run the day-to-day operations of the military, Chinese analysts said.
Secrecy and Corruption is More Dangerous for the U.S. Because of a Lack of Transparency
Created by the Government
Jones, Brent. "China: Missile Defense System Test Successful - USATODAY.com."China:
Missile Defense System Test Successful - USATODAY.com. USA Today, 11 Jan. 2010.
Web.
China's military is in the middle of a major technology upgrade, spurred on by double-digit annual
percentage increases in defense spending. Missile technology is considered one of the People's Liberation
Army's particular strengths, allowing it to narrow the gap with the U.S. and other militaries that wield
stronger conventional forces. Xinhua did not further identify the system tested, although China is
believed to be pursuing a number of programs developed from anti-aircraft systems aimed at shooting
down stealth aircraft and downing or disabling cruise missiles and precision-guided weapons. Such
programs are shrouded in secrecy, but military analysts say China appears to have augmented its air
defenses with homemade technologies adapted from Russian and other foreign weaponry. China
purchased a large number of Russian surface-to-air missiles during the 1990s and has since pressed
ahead with its own HQ-9 interceptor, along with a more advanced missile system with an extended range.
Foreign media reports in 2006 said Beijing had tested a surface-to-air missile in the country's remote northwest
with capabilities similar to the American Patriot interceptor system. According to South Korea's Dong-A Ilbo
newspaper, the test involved the detection and downing of both a reconnaissance drone and an incoming
foundationbriefs.com
Page 256 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: Corruption Bad
ballistic missile by an interceptor, adding that it appeared to mark the official launch of China's indigenous
interceptor unit. "There is an obvious concern in Beijing that they need an effective anti-ballistic missile defense
in some form," said Hans Kristensen, an expert on the Chinese military with the Federation of American
Scientists. Staging a successful test "shows that their technology is maturing," Kristensen said. The 2009
Pentagon report on China's military says the air force received eight battalions of upgraded Russian SA-20
PMU-2 surface-to-air missiles since 2006, with another eight on order. The missiles have a range of 125 miles
(200 kilometers) and reportedly provide limited ballistic and cruise missile defense capabilities. Such
interceptor missiles are believed to be deployed near major cities and strategic sites such as the massive Three
Gorges Dam, but they could also be used to protect China's own ballistic missile batteries that would
themselves become targets in any regional conflict. Such interceptors would be of relatively little use against
U.S. cruise missiles, although they could be effective against ballistic missiles deployed by Russia or India,
China's massive neighbor to the south with which it has a growing military rivalry and lingering territorial
disputes. Monday's report continues a growing trend of greater transparency over China's new military
technologies typified by last year's striking Oct. 1 military parade marking the 60th anniversary of the founding
of the communist state. Large numbers of missiles were displayed in the show, including ICBMs, together with
tanks, amphibious craft and latest-generation jet fighters. China's anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles —
capable of striking U.S. Navy aircraft carrier battle groups and bases in the Pacific — have drawn the most
attention from analysts in recent months. Military displays and announcements of successful tests help build
public pride in the military's rising capabilities and bolster support for rising defense spending that increased by
almost 15% last year to $71 billion. The figure is thought by many analysts to represent only a portion of total
defense spending, although it still amounts to only a fraction of the U.S. military budget. Meanwhile, showing
off such capabilities also helps put adversaries on notice, Kristensen said. "It's the new Chinese way to
signal that they are now able to do these things," he said.
Although the Pro may argue Chinese corruption undermines its own government, it also is a major
setback to predicting the sorts of capabilities China is developing. This puts the U.S. military in a state of
limbo where we must keep developing-unawares of China’s exact military prowess.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 257 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: Corruption Bad
Limited Transparency in China’s Military is Historically True and Increases Likelihood for
Miscalculation by The U.S.
Maginnis, Bob. "China Masking Huge Military Buildup." China Masking Huge Military
Buildup. N.p., 5 Apr. 2011.
Last week China’s Communist regime published the every-second-year edition of its defense white paper,
“China’s National Defense in 2010,” which claims to promote transparency in its defense planning and
deepen international trust, and asserts that its security policy is defensive in nature. But the paper’s
messages are not supported by the facts. Consider five of the many misleading messages imbedded in the 30page defense white paper. First, “China attaches great importance to military transparency,” the paper claims.
The Pentagon takes issue with that view in a report, stating, “The limited transparency in China’s military
and security affairs enhances uncertainty and increases the potential for misunderstanding and
miscalculation.” China fails the transparency test by understating its defense spending. The Pentagon’s
2010 report on China’s military estimates Beijing’s total military-related spending for 2009 was more
than $150 billion, but the white paper claims it spent about half that amount, $75.56 billion (495.11 billion
RMB). The difference, according to the Pentagon, is due to the fact that China’s defense budget “does not
include major categories of expenditure,” but the report fails to identify those categories. China’s defense
spending increased annually for more than two decades, but the white paper states, “The growth rate of defense
expenditure has decreased.” That statement is refuted by China’s official 2011 defense budget, which is $92
billion, up 12.7% from 2010, which grew from 7.5% during the previous year.
China ‘s lack of transparency enhances uncertainty and increases the potential that China will cause
problems. The Pentagono’s report indicates that China has the ability to do so.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 258 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: Corruption Bad
There Is Evidence Showing China is Not Transparent about Its Projection and
Weaponization Capabilities-this could potentially harm the U.S.
Maginnis, Bob. "China Masking Huge Military Buildup | Bible Prophecy Blog." China
Masking Huge Military Buildup. N.p., 5 Apr. 2011.
The Pentagon report also states China isn’t transparent regarding its growing force-projection
capabilities. For example, the so-called transparent white paper does not mention Beijing’s plan to deploy
an aircraft carrier known to be under construction. A question about the carrier was posed at the press
conference announcing the white paper, but was never answered. Second, “The Chinese government has
advocated from the outset the peaceful use of outer space, and opposes any weaponization of outer
space,” according to the white paper. China’s anti-space weaponization view hasn’t stopped it from
developing its own space weapon, however. The white paper makes no mention of China’s 2007
successful direct-ascent anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons test, which destroyed its own satellite in space.
“The test raised questions about China’s capability and intention to attack U.S. satellites,” according to a
Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. The Pentagon’s report states, "China continues to develop and
refine this [ASAT] system, which is one component of a multidimensional program to limit or prevent the use
of space-based assets by potential adversaries during times of crisis or conflict.”
The white paper mentioned in this card (also mentioned in the card before it) is a government paper that
gives information about China’s Military capabilities. Its purpose is to promote transparency and reach
international trust. However, pentagon analyses of the paper indicates that it is not transparent, but
misleading.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 259 of 265
February 2013
Con Counters: Collapse Bad
Counter to China Collapse
A China Collapse Would be a Disaster for World and US
Dube, Ryan. “Coming Collapse of China and Its Impact on the USA” Top Secret Writers.
12 Dec. 2012. Web Jan 8. 2013. http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/12/comingcollapse- of-china-and-its-impact-on-the-usa-%E2%80%93-part-2/
The US would be dragged into the struggle as the fear of armed bandits with nukes is unthinkable. Our primary
concern would be ensuring that loss of life was minimized but also tracking the nuclear arms. With China’s
close connections to the most despotic regimes in the world, including Iran, the sale of nuclear weapons is
horrifying.The problem is that as the country disintegrated, tracking the nukes would be impossible. China still
operates as little fiefdoms with little accountability and an implosion would ameliorate this. One of the first
things the Chinese would do would be to stake their claim on resources such as oil and rare earths as well. In
addition, they would wrest away weaponry to be sold and used in their uprising. Foreign assets and firms would
be seized and sold to fund uprising or plants would be converted to produce goods to be used in the on-going
conflicts. In this situation the collapse would be violent, brutal and immediate. It would catch the world by
surprise and would be the worlds biggest nightmare. Foreigners in China could be held as hostages and
ransomed or even killed. This scenario is the most brutal with a tremendous loss of life and property.
Even A Revolution Would be Contrary to US Interests
Dube, Ryan. “Coming Collapse of China and Its Impact on the USA” Top Secret Writers.
12 Dec. 2012. Web Jan 8. 2013. http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/12/comingcollapse- of-china-and-its-impact-on-the-usa-%E2%80%93-part-2/
This scenario would initially mirror the communist take over under Castro. State actors would be given a bigger
role and companies and assets of production would be removed from the private investors. There would be a
push to nationalize foreign assets and companies which would bring foreign involvement to a head. Should the
Chinese take Castro-like actions the threat of war would be real. Foreign countries would have to weigh the risk
of war against the return of their interests.Initially there would be chaos within the Chinese government and
military as well. If foreign countries were to take military action, it would have to be undertaken after the onset
of the revolution. The chaos would lend itself to foreign actors to influence separatist sentiments and aid and
weapons would be provided. The success of foreign influence would depend on the charisma and position of the
new leader. A man like Bo Xilai, who captured the hearts of the Chinese, would have probably be able to
control most of the anti-revolutionaries.
This card argues that a revolution will lead to an unstable region and nationalization of American
business, neither of which are the in the US’ interest.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 260 of 265
Cases
foundationbriefs.com
Page 261 of 265
February 2013
Pro Case
Pro Case
Introduction:
No one likes to be second. The same drive that pushes athletes to go for gold also pushes countries to try and
become the world’s biggest superpower. Recently, many claim that China has been threatening America’s grip
on that title. However, you don’t become an Olympic gold medalist by accident, and you surely do not become
the world’s preeminent superpower by sheer luck. America remains strong and China, while it has become more
powerful, is not powerful enough to harm the interests of the United States.
Contention One: America remains powerful
Despite the events of the past few years, America remains powerful. According to Robert Kagan, in 1969 the
United States had a 25% share of the world’s GDP and to this day it still has the same amount. Additionally,
according to Time magazine, America’s share of global manufacturing was 20% in 2009-almost identical to its
22 % share of global manufacturing in 1980. Most of China’s gains in manufacturing and economic output have
come at the expense of Europe and Japan, not the United States. Clearly, the U.S. and China can benefit at the
same time. Thus, China’ rise does not harm America’s interests, because its competition does not hurt our
production. Also, the bedrock of America’s economy is solid. The United States of America is renowned as the
most innovative country on the planet, and so far, it has lived up to that billing. A Thomson Reuters report finds
that of the 100 most innovative companies in the world, 40 of them are American. No other country comes
close. By creating new products, innovation opens up new markets in America even before they come into
existence in other countries. Another benefit of innovation is that even when other countries copy American
creations, the fact that we did it first makes us the best manufacturers in the market. There may be a foreign
version of the iPhone, but Apple continues to dominate the smartphone market because it made the iPhone first
and thus is already one step ahead of the competition. Therefore, the fundamentals of America’s economy are as
strong as ever and we have nothing to fear from China’s rise.
Contention Two: China’s rise is exaggerated
China is a rapidly improving country but it has not improved fast enough to challenge the United States for
supremacy. First off, China’s economic growth is highly overrated. While China’s GDP may be growing at an
extremely fast rate, this is not due to increased productivity, but instead a huge population. According to the
World Bank, China’s GDP per capita (GDP divided by total population) was only $6,710 in 2009 (compared to
$46,730 for the U.S.). China’s recent economic performance is to be expected; a country with so many people
foundationbriefs.com
Page 262 of 265
February 2013
Pro Case
will have to have an extremely large GDP. But a large economy doesn’t necessarily mean a more powerful one.
And because China is not becoming extremely powerful, the United States should not be threatened. More
importantly, China’s economic rise will not be sustained. Not only is it lacking innovation, but history has
shown that this kind of growth does not last for long. According to the same Thomson Reuters report that shows
America having 40 of the world’s 100 most innovative companies, not a single Chinese company made the list.
This was despite the fact that China files the most amount of patents each and every year has the most amount
of patents in the world. Additionally, the Christian Science Monitor reports that 90% of China’s high tech
exports are only put together in China, not made there. To summarize, bigger is not necessarily better. The size
of China’s economy is not indicative of its supremacy, especially considering its inability to create and
innovate. Clearly, America’s interests are secured by the most dynamic marketplace in the world, even if
Chinese economy is slowly inching upwards.
Contention Three: China’s rise is not sustainable
Even more concerning for the Chinese is that even their current growth seems unsustainable. China’s economic
growth, which is based off of easy economic gains like manufacturing cheap goods, does not last for long. Time
Magazine classifies China’s growth plan under the Asian developmental model, which was also used by Japan
and South Korea. The problem with this is that early on both countries had very good growth rates-before they
came crashing down. The Asian developmental model’s dependence on government spending cannot last
forever and already the signs are appearing in China. In 2012, China’s debt to GDP ratio was estimate at 75%150%. The type of growth that is forever dependent on government debt may work in the short term, but is
doomed in the long term. Thus, China’s current growth is insignificant and its future growth uncertain. So
China’s rise, if it rises at all, is not a threat to the interests of the United States.
Conclusion
There is only one Michael Jordan. No one can challenge him today, and back when he was playing no one even
dared. Similarly, the ball is in America’s court. The numbers show that America’s economy is stable while the
Chinese one is not. America remains the leader of the world because its economy is the perfect combination
between durability and dynamic ability. America’s challengers have never proven themselves, and due to the
strong fundamentals of the U.S. economy, they will never get that opportunity.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 263 of 265
February 2013
Con Case
Con Case
Introduction:
China has been growing all aspects of its national power: political, economic and military. But the force has
started getting bigger, better and badder. For instance, while the US strategic arsenal desperately needs
updating, Chinese nuclear forces are being modernized across the board. While the affirmative team will center
today’s debate about consistent, good relations between China and the U.S. This framing mechanism is
irrational. In the long run, China’s rise has positioned the communist nation in a position of overwhelming
dominance, militarily and economically.
Contention One: China Is Prepared To Confront the U.S.
China’s Cyber Warfare Doctrine is designed to achieve global “electronic dominance” by 2050, which would
include the capability of disruption of the information infrastructure of their enemies. This doctrine includes
strategies that would disrupt financial markets, military and civilian communications capabilities. In fact
China’s security capabilities have grown excessively in the past few years. Military and intelligence sources
indicate Chinese cyber forces have developed detailed plans for cyber attacks against the U.S. Furthermore,
while the U.S. committed to reducing its nuclear arsenal by signing the START treaty, China dodged this and
has increased its military budget by 10% a year for over a decade. Finally, the threat of China’s military power
has become even more evident due to characteristic corruption within China’s People’s Liberation Army. The
untrustworthy nature of the Chinese government and its impact on the United States will be further explored in
Contention three.
Contention Two: China’s Economic Rise Has Placed China in a
Position of Power Over the US.
China’s economic growth has not come without cost to U.S. industry. In fact, the trade deficit with China
eliminated or displaced more than 2.7 million U.S. jobs. These lost jobs account for more than half of all U.S.
manufacturing jobs lost or displaced between 2001 and 2011. Furthermore China’s economic rise has moved
beyond displacing US jobs and into acquiring large holdings of U.S. securities. In no way is this good for the
United States. Because in the past, various Chinese government officials are reported to have suggested that
China could dump a large share of its holdings to prevent the U.S. from implementing trade sanctions against
China’s currency policy. This is unfair and bad for the U.S. because it means that we will never be able to
balance our trade deficit with China. Furthermore balancing our trade deficit (exporting more than we import) is
foundationbriefs.com
Page 264 of 265
February 2013
Con Case
key to maintaining a healthy economy. Moreover, other Chinese officials have stated that China might try to use
its U.S. securities and public debt holdings to leverage against U.S. policies it opposes. This severely
undermines the sovereignty and independence of the United States as a nation.
Contention Three: Corruption and Lack of Transparency in the
Chinese Government Means China’s Rise Could be Measurably
Worse for the U.S.
It is clear from the evidence outlined so far in this speech that China has become an economic and military
threat to the United States. However, ultimately the rise of China is bad for the U.S. because of the political
nature of the Chinese government. This is a country with a track record of failure to be transparent, warring
bodies of government between the People Liberation Army of China (the enforcement arm of the government)
and the Communist Party of China (the political arm of the government), and finally an untrustworthy actor in
international relations. For example, China has consistently been unclear or blatantly untruthful about its
military spending increases (Maginnis). The limited transparency in China’s military and security affairs
enhances uncertainty and increases the potential for misunderstanding and miscalculation. This could be
dangerous to the U.S. in any confrontation with China. Furthermore, China has not only been manipulative in
the realm of security but also in the realm of the economy. The U.S. and other members of the WTO hotly
debated China’s admission to the World Trade Organization for 15 years before China joined the WTO.
However, China’s failure as a government to enforce its laws in a transparent manner has given China an unfair
advantage and has had lasting effects on its trade partners—namely the United States. China’s failure to adhere
to WTO standards and consequent economic rise has created an economic climate that is worse for the United
States.
Conclusion
At the end of this round, only one conclusion can be made. China’s military and economic rises have placed
China in a position of dominance over the United States. China’s rise means that it has the ability to subjugate
the U.S. and strip the U.S. of its sovereignty. Even the pro must agree that a reduction in U.S. power compared
to China growth is evident and China’s advancing capabilities compared to the U.S.’s slowing growth
(economic and military) are overpoweringly damaging to the U.S.
foundationbriefs.com
Page 265 of 265