Negative Case
“Whether nations are permitted to ignore the immediate welfare of their citizens depends in large part on whether
there is an enforceable right to work under the international framework. Economic rights developed under the human
rights agenda, and an international covenant, guarantees the right to work as well as other economic rights. Even so,
implementation of economic rights is difficult, and enforcement has not been pursued extensively. Despite the struggles
with implementation and enforcement, the international community now publicly recognizes economic rights as human
rights, and the economic right to work is directly applicable to the struggle of displaced workers.”
because I agree with this quotation from:
Borghard, 2006 [Aleah Borghard (staff writer; attorney), “Free Trade, Economic Rights, and Displaced Workers: It Works if
you Work it,” Brooklyn Journal of International Law 32:161, 2006, p. 161.]
I oppose the resolution offered by the affirmative in today’s debate.
As this quotation suggests, the most important issue to be addressed in any discussion of international economics, rights,
or trade, is citizen welfare of individual nations. The negative case will demonstrate that, advocacy of support for a single
approach to all international trade would inevitably result in adverse consequences.
The Value offered by the negative in today’s debate is nationalism.
An explanation of this concept is found in the Encarta Dictionary. It is defined as, “proud loyalty and devotion to
a nation
The criterion for evaluating the negative value will be security..
The concept will be defined as: “the degree of enjoyment and satisfaction experienced in everyday life as opposed to
financial or material well being.” From Encarta World Dictionary, (St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1999, p. 1468.)
The relationship between the value and criterion is supported by David Lyons in Ethics and the Rule of Law (Cambridge
University Press, 1984, p. 110.)
“Utilitarianism takes many forms, but the central idea of its most common and traditional forms is that acts and
institutions must be judged solely by their effects on human welfare, where the welfare of an individual is understood to be
determined by facts about the individuals interests, wants and needs.”
CONTENTION ONE: THE CONCEPT OF FREE TRADE IS HYPOTHETICAL
A.
Free trade is unattainable
Irwin, 2010 [Douglas A. Irwin (professor of economics, author), “Protectionism vs. Free Trade,” CoBank Outlook:
Economic Data and Commentary 7:7, July 2010, p. Internet access.]
There has been substantial liberalization over the past few decades in terms of trade in manufactured goods. U.S.
tariffs, European tariffs and tariffs from other countries are at pretty low levels. I would say that world commerce is pretty
open and there is a lot of world trade, but there is still quite a bit of government intervention in trade. In manufactured
goods, there are still a lot of implicit policies that favor domestic industries. For instance, even if China doesn’t have an
import tariff on a particular item, they still can provide subsidized bank credit or have other means of promoting domestic
firms. The U.S. still does this, too, through the Export-Import Bank of the United States, which provides subsidized export
financing to companies like General Electric and Boeing. We also have some trade restrictions and remaining high tariffs
for labor-intensive manufactured goods, like shoes and clothing.
B.
Free trade policy can become protectionist
Bhagwati, 2008 [Jagdosh Bhagwati (Professor and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations), “Protectionism,”
Laurel Rawley
Manvel High School
The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, Library of Economics and Liberty, 2008, p. Internet access.]
Much economic analysis shows that, in the 1980s, fair trade mechanisms turned increasingly into protectionist
instruments used unfairly against foreign competition. U.S. rice producers got a countervailing duty imposed on rice from
Thailand, for example, by establishing that the Thai government was subsidizing rice exports by less than 1 percent—and
ignoring the fact that Thailand also imposed a 5 percent tax on exports. We usually think that a foreign firm is dumping
when it sells at a lower price in our market than in its own. But the U.S. government took an antidumping action against P
oland’s exports of golf carts even though no golf carts were sold in Poland.
C.
Consensus among economists is lacking
Lopez, 2010 [Matthew L. Lopez (attorney, staff writer), “The Effects of Free Trade on the Environment: Conserving the
Environment While Maintaining Increased Levels of Economic Prosperity for Developing Countries,” Phoenix Law Review
3:701, Summer, 2010, p. 701.]
Renowned Yale University economist Dr. Thomas Palley supports this theory: "[G]lobal economic growth has
actually slowed relative to the prior quarter-century. This suggests that trade is at best only weakly associated with growth
. . . ." Palley further argues that developing countries should consider abandoning free trade and primarily focus on
preserving and growing their domestic markets in hopes of having a better opportunity to prosper economically.
CONTENTION TWO: ON BALANCE FREE TRADE WILL ERODE THE QUALITY OF LIFE
A.
Free trade is not the answer for developing countries
Lopez, 2010 [Matthew L. Lopez (attorney, staff writer), “The Effects of Free Trade on the Environment: Conserving the
Environment While Maintaining Increased Levels of Economic Prosperity for Developing Countries,” Phoenix Law Review
3:701, Summer, 2010, p. 701.]
It would be reasonable to expect that world leaders like the United States and Western European countries
should have the power to enforce international environmental regulations. However, they face barriers to initiating their
attempts because developing countries do not have the necessary economic resources to comply with developed
countries' proposed environmental regulations.
B.
Free Trade allows for environmental abuse of developing countries
Lopez, 2010 [Matthew L. Lopez (attorney, staff writer), “The Effects of Free Trade on the Environment: Conserving the
Environment While Maintaining Increased Levels of Economic Prosperity for Developing Countries,” Phoenix Law Review
3:701, Summer, 2010, p. 701.]
This method of foreign direct investment provides manufacturers from developing countries with the opportunity to
increase their revenue by not having to comport with their home country's rigid and often-expensive environmental
regulations. From this standpoint, opponents of globalization argue that free trade is a tool devised by the world's richest
countries as an effort to continue their economic prosperity at the expense of less developed countries that have cheap
labor and little or no environmental regulations.
C.
Worker rights are denied
Routh, 2010 [Supriya Routh (professor of law), “Globalizing Labor Standards: The Developed-Developing Divide,” Jindal
Law 2:153, September, 2010, p. 153.]
In view of the destabilizing nature of global free trade on workers worldwide, worker protection is increasingly
taking center stage in the free trade domain. Scholars are calling for the protection of workers from the vagaries of the
global economic order. The welfare measures sculpted by the juxtaposition of the legislation on labor standards on a
country-specific basis are taken to be the testimony of protection of the workers globally.
Laurel Rawley
Manvel High School
D.
Social justice is denied
Routh, 2010 [Supriya Routh (professor of law), “Globalizing Labor Standards: The Developed-Developing Divide,” Jindal
Law 2:153, September, 2010, p. 153.]
The globalization thesis is being tested against the background of the realities of the globe. The liberalized market
economy is finding it difficult to combine the varied interests of the nation states, situated at their typical developmental
stages. The social justice promises of free trade are increasingly being perceived as illusionary by a vast majority of the
liberalized world whom globalization ignored.
(
)
Benefits outweigh concerns
Borghard, 2006 [Aleah Borghard (staff writer; attorney), “Free Trade, Economic Rights, and Displaced Workers: It Works if
you Work it,” Brooklyn Journal of International Law 32:161, 2006, p. 161.]
In the pursuit of free trade, nations have experienced extreme gains and losses, and many economists consider
the losses to be a necessary part of advancement. The detrimental effects faced by displaced workers, however, cannot
be overlooked and regarded as an insignificant byproduct of the pursuit of liberalization. This byproduct is not only a
human struggle; it is a struggle of people who are protected under international law. Displaced workers have a legal right
under the ICESCR, and this right must be promoted to the maximum extent possible.
Borghard, 2006 [Aleah Borghard (staff writer; attorney), “Free Trade, Economic Rights, and Displaced Workers: It Works if
you Work it,” Brooklyn Journal of International Law 32:161, 2006, p. 161.]
Displaced workers' rights, however, cannot come at the expense of free trade development. Free trade must be
promoted as displaced workers' rights are simultaneously protected. Towards that end, any measures taken must help
nations adapt to the future of trade, rather than impede the progress of liberalization. This Note's proposed solution of
requiring participation in assistance programs and presumption in favor of developing nations also avoids the difficulties
surrounding protectionist measures and quota restrictions which impede liberalization. Such protectionism injures all
trading partners, impedes the growth of the global economy, and injures the greater potential for securing the right to work
in the future.
(
)
Free trade policy can become protectionist
Bhagwati, 2008 [Jagdosh Bhagwati (Professor and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations), “Protectionism,”
The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, Library of Economics and Liberty, 2008, p. Internet access.]
Much economic analysis shows that, in the 1980s, fair trade mechanisms turned increasingly into protectionist
instruments used unfairly against foreign competition. U.S. rice producers got a countervailing duty imposed on rice from
Thailand, for example, by establishing that the Thai government was subsidizing rice exports by less than 1 percent—and
ignoring the fact that Thailand also imposed a 5 percent tax on exports. We usually think that a foreign firm is dumping
when it sells at a lower price in our market than in its own. But the U.S. government took an antidumping action against
Poland’s exports of golf carts even though no golf carts were sold in Poland.
Bhagwati, 2008 [Jagdosh Bhagwati (Professor and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations), “Protectionism,”
The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, Library of Economics and Liberty, 2008, p. Internet access.]
Economists have been thinking about how these fair trade mechanisms can be redesigned so as to insulate them
Laurel Rawley
Manvel High School
from being “captured” and misused by special interests. Ideas include the creation of binational, as opposed to purely
national, adjudication procedures that would ensure greater impartiality, as in the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement,
then incorporated into the enlarged North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico. Also, greater use of WTO
dispute-settlement procedures, and readier acceptance of their outcomes, is a possibility.
Bhagwati, 2008 [Jagdosh Bhagwati (Professor and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations), “Protectionism,”
The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, Library of Economics and Liberty, 2008, p. Internet access.]
Increasingly, domestic producers have labeled as “unfair trade” a variety of foreign policies and institutions. Thus,
opponents of the U.S.-Mexico Free Trade Agreement claimed that free trade between the two nations was impossible
because of differences in Mexico’s environmental and labor standards. The litany of objections to gainful free trade from
these alleged sources of unfair trade (or its evocative synonym, “the absence of level playing fields”) is endless. Here lies
a new and powerful source of attack on the principles of free trade.
(
)
Free trade is unattainable
Irwin, 2010 [Douglas A. Irwin (professor of economics, author), “Protectionism vs. Free Trade,” CoBank Outlook:
Economic Data and Commentary 7:7, July 2010, p. Internet access.]
There has been substantial liberalization over the past few decades in terms of trade in manufactured goods. U.S.
tariffs, European tariffs and tariffs from other countries are at pretty low levels. I would say that world commerce is pretty
open and there is a lot of world trade, but there is still quite a bit of government intervention in trade. In manufactured
goods, there are still a lot of implicit policies that favor domestic industries. For instance, even if China doesn’t have an
import tariff on a particular item, they still can provide subsidized bank credit or have other means of promoting domestic
firms. The U.S. still does this, too, through the Export-Import Bank of the United States, which provides subsidized export
financing to companies like General Electric and Boeing. We also have some trade restrictions and remaining high tariffs
for labor-intensive manufactured goods, like shoes and clothing.
Irwin, 2010 [Douglas A. Irwin (professor of economics, author), “Protectionism vs. Free Trade,” CoBank Outlook:
Economic Data and Commentary 7:7, July 2010, p. Internet access.]
There are also still a lot of trade restrictions and domestic subsidies for agriculture. The U.S. protects a wide
range of agricultural industries with price supports and other subsidies. For American producers, the Japanese rice
market is very closed; South Korea’s rice market is closed and is also closed for U.S. beef; and Europe still has
restrictions on U.S. beef imports.
Irwin, 2010 [Douglas A. Irwin (professor of economics, author), “Protectionism vs. Free Trade,” CoBank Outlook:
Economic Data and Commentary 7:7, July 2010, p. Internet access.]
You almost have to take it on a country-by-country, industry-by-industry basis. The banking industry in China is
still to a large extent government controlled. They control credit and access to credit for various firms, which means they
can provide a lot of credit to industries they favor. That allows those industries to build capacity, and that excess capacity
can sometimes depress world prices. As an example, some people claim there is excess capacity in the steel and
chemical industries as a result of China’s accommodative banking policies for those industries. That creates problems in
the West, because domestic industries that do not get subsidies are competing against capacities that are built up in
China and other developing countries as a result of cheap government credit. In some cases the money doesn’t even
have to be repaid; there are a lot of nonperforming loans at Chinese banks. You might also say that Airbus in Western
Europe is an example of a protectionist policy. Airbus gets subsidized credit from E.U. countries, and European airlines
have a financial incentive to buy from Airbus as opposed to Boeing. There is just a lot of implicit government support for
that large firm.
Irwin, 2010 [Douglas A. Irwin (professor of economics, author), “Protectionism vs. Free Trade,” CoBank Outlook:
Economic Data and Commentary 7:7, July 2010, p. Internet access.]
Unlike the Great Depression, this big recession has not been characterized by very intense protectionist
Laurel Rawley
Manvel High School
pressures. In contrast, we saw a lot of protectionism during the early 1980s recession. A bunch of U.S. industries were
being hit by foreign competition at the same time we were having that recession – the automobile industry faced
competition from Japan; the steel industry had competition from Europe, Japan and Korea; and the textile industry was
facing competition from developing countries.
Irwin, 2010 [Douglas A. Irwin (professor of economics, author), “Protectionism vs. Free Trade,” CoBank Outlook:
Economic Data and Commentary 7:7, July 2010, p. Internet access.]
All those industries got a lot of trade protection in the 1980s because the dollar was strong and imports were still
coming in despite the fact we had this recession. This recent recession is quite different, because the dollar did not
strengthen dramatically and imports haven’t been surging. But those three industries have also adjusted a great deal to
foreign competition. Now, the auto industry is much more multi-national, the steel industry has picked out its niche in the
market where it can compete most effectively, and the textile industry, while it has shrunk, has moved toward higher-end
types of products, where there is less competition. Those three industries aren’t demanding a lot of protection today,
unlike the situation in the early 1980s.
Laurel Rawley
Manvel High School