1ac
Plan
Plan: The United States federal government should curtail domestic surveillance of
electronic information stored by American citizens and service providers
extraterritorially by requiring search warrants under the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act that comply with the laws of foreign countries.
Solvency—1AC
CONTENTION 1: ALL YOUR DATA ARE BELONG TO US
Existing warrant process governing info stored abroad is ill-equipped for the digital
age – allows for expansive application of the ECPA and forces U.S. companies to
violate foreign law
Solove 15 (Daniel J, John Marshall Harlan Research Professor of Law at the George Washington
University Law School, “Surveillance Law in Dire Need of Reform: The Promise of the LEADS Act,” March
24, https://www.teachprivacy.com/surveillance-law-in-dire-need-of-reform-the-promise-of-the-leadsact/, CMR)
Microsoft v. United States Microsoft
v. United States exemplifies some of the shortcomings of existing law to fit
modern technology. Officially named (in clunky fashion) In the Matter of a Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled and
Maintained by Microsoft Corporation, the case shows how ECPA has fallen out of date and wasn’t really created
with contemporary cloud computing in mind. A New York magistrate judge issued a warrant requested
by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Microsoft to turn over data stored in Ireland. The warrant was issued
under ECPA’s Stored Communications Act (SCA). Microsoft sought to quash the warrant. Microsoft argued
that the government should not be able to demand from Microsoft data stored in a foreign country
without going through the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) between that country and the United
States. The government cannot use a warrant under the Fourth Amendment to gather data oversees. The warrant would be meaningless in
other countries because each country has its own laws for when government officials can obtain data and engage in surveillance. In order to do
so, U.S. government officials would need to follow the MLAT process. This process involves U.S. officials going through a judge in the foreign
country to obtain the information. But the
MLAT process is also in need of reform, and so the government has found
an end-run around it by serving Microsoft with the warrant under ECPA to fetch the information in Ireland
and bring it to the government officials in the U.S. ECPA isn’t clear about how to address the issue of
data stored beyond U.S. borders. Were ECPA being written today, it would surely cover this issue, as cloud computing often
involves data stored in foreign countries. But ECPA was created in 1986, nearly 30 years ago. The result is that cloud
service providers are put in a very difficult position, as they are in the middle, forced to violate foreign
law in order to comply with U.S. law. Being put in this position puts U.S. companies at a competitive
disadvantage over other companies. Imagine that John Doe is a citizen of Utopia, a country that has
strong civil liberty and privacy protections, that actually keeps its laws up to date, that doesn’t let its spy agencies
run amok, and that doesn’t interpret its Constitutional protections into near oblivion. John Doe is deciding
between whether to use YSoft cloud service or the cloud service of Zsoft, a company in Utopia. Doe could store his data
with YSoft in Utopia, but now the U.S. government could use the weaker U.S. laws to gather Doe’s data
from YSoft in the U.S. Doe doesn’t want to be subject to the U.S. law – he wants the protections his own
country provides to him. So he chooses ZSoft instead. YSoft is thus put at a competitive disadvantage.
That’s why so many U.S. technology companies are supporting Microsoft in this case. If the U.S. government
ignores foreign law when obtaining data abroad, then other countries might reciprocate by ignoring U.S.
law. What if countries with weaker laws than the United States demanded information on U.S. citizens stored
abroad? These countries might start ignoring U.S. protections and grab the data according to their own
permissive rules.
The plan strengthens warrant requirements and prevents further breaches in foreign
law
– protects MLATs
Solove 15 (Daniel J, John Marshall Harlan Research Professor of Law at the George Washington
University Law School, “Surveillance Law in Dire Need of Reform: The Promise of the LEADS Act,” March
24, https://www.teachprivacy.com/surveillance-law-in-dire-need-of-reform-the-promise-of-the-leadsact/, CMR)
The LEADS Act
A key proposed reform of ECPA is the Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad (LEADS) Act of 2015,
a bipartisan bill sponsored by Senators Hatch, Coons and Heller. The bill was introduced last term and died, but it has been reintroduced again
this year.
The LEADS Act would require the government to obtain a warrant under ECPA to obtain electronic
information stored by a “U.S. person.” The LEADS Act attempts to clarify at least two deficiencies in ECPA:
1. The LEADS Act’s warrant requirement
for all communications overrides a provision in ECPA’s Stored
Communications Act that allows the government to obtain a stored email more than 180 days old with a
court order less protective than a warrant, a provision that has been found to be unconstitutional under
the Fourth Amendment (see United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010)). The LEADS Act’s warrant
requirement would get rid of the 180-day distinction.
2. The LEADS Act also directly
addresses the problems raised in Microsoft v. United States. Under the LEADS Act,
warrants would be required whether the information is held in the U.S. or overseas, but they would not be
allowed to override conflicting foreign law. The LEADS Act also attempts to improve upon the MLAT
process to ease its burden.
For U.S. persons, if the information is maintained in a foreign country, the service provider could request
that the court modify the warrant if compliance would make the provider violate the law in the country
where the data is stored. For non-U.S. persons, warrants would not apply. The MLAT process would need to
be followed. So if the government wanted to obtain information stored in Ireland by Microsoft by Jane
America, a U.S. citizen, it could obtain the information through a warrant issued to Microsoft, but only if
compliance didn’t force Microsoft to violate the laws of Ireland. But if it wanted to obtain information stored oversees
by Microsoft by Jane Ire, an Irish citizen, it would need to follow the MLAT process. The LEADS Act is a great step towards
reforming ECPA. The U.S. government should not put itself above the laws of other countries. Nor should
the U.S. government force cloud service providers and other companies to violate those laws so that
government officials can take a shortcut around the MLAT process. There are issues in reforming ECPA that are quite
controversial, but the LEADS Act has bipartisan support and the support of industry and a wide array of diverse special interest groups. The
LEADS Act is a strong step in the right direction.
Competitiveness—1AC
CONTENTION TWO: COMPETITIVENESS
Current risk of arbitrary government seizure of U.S. companies electronic
communications will destroy confidence in the tech industry – safeguards from the
plan are key to restore trust
McKenna 15 (Rob, Former Washington State Attorney General, to Serve as NAJI President, “NAJI
supports bipartisan, bicameral LEADS Act and digital privacy,” Feb 27, http://naji.org/naji-supportsbipartisan-bicameral-leads-act-and-digital-privacy/, CMR)
Dear Representatives Marino and DelBene, Thank you for your leadership on the Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad Act (LEADS
Act) and for promoting a thoughtful public dialogue on the complex and important issues surrounding data privacy in the digital age. Legal
protections for our electronic communications must be updated to reflect the realities of data storage
today and to maintain our global competitive position. The National Alliance for Jobs and Innovation (NAJI) supports this
important legislation which will ensure that the privacy of our members’ electronic communications is
protected and respected, while also improving our trade position in the world. I am NAJI’s President and also the
former Attorney General of Washington State and past President of the National Association of Attorneys General. NAJI represents over 400
small- and medium-size manufacturing enterprises and 35 manufacturer and business associations around the United States. For our members,
the confidentiality of business data and electronic communications, and their protection from arbitrary
government seizure, are of the utmost importance. Like other businesses, and perhaps even more than most, U.S.
manufacturers have benefited tremendously from the strong growth and continuing innovation of the
U.S. information technology (IT) industry. But in order for U.S. companies to achieve their full potential and for
our nation to maintain its position at the pinnacle of innovation and competitiveness, our data, business
records, and other electronic information must be protected from arbitrary government intrusion. The
LEADS Act will strengthen privacy in the digital age and promote trust in U.S. IT technologies worldwide, while
enabling law enforcement to fulfill its public safety mission. The LEADS Act will not only require law enforcement to obtain
search warrants before accessing private data stored by cloud computing services, but will also
strengthen international law enforcement cooperation through the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT)
process. NAJI believes these provisions are essential and strongly supports their adoption. Again, we appreciate your willingness to address
these vital issues and look forward to engaging with you and all Members of Congress in this important dialogue. Sincerely, RobMcKenna
The alternative is cascading shocks throughout the tech sector, collapsing US
competitiveness
Pociask 14 (Steve Pociask, president of the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research, a
nonprofit educational and research organization, “Spy in the Clouds: How DOJ Actions Could Harm U.S.
Competitiveness Abroad,” 9/8, The American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research,
September 8, 2014, http://www.theamericanconsumer.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/BalkanizedInternet.pdf, CMR)
The Cost of Economic Sanction s The U.S. has 10% of the world’s online users, but only 4.5% of the population. 7 Yet, the
U.S. has nearly
one - third of research and development investment in science and technology. 8 However, its worldwide presence
in technology could be threatened by a backlash of anti-American sentiment, now fueled by the
Microsoft lawsuit and the resulting concerns of privacy and espionage. While the Information Technology and
Innovation Foundation predicted a $35 billion loss in cloud computing from an international backlash from privacy concerns , Forrester
Research estimated the larger high
- tech sector could suffer financial losses as high as $180 billion or about a quarter
of industry revenues. 9 Using the Bureau of Economic Analysis industry multipliers, that loss would be equivalent to losing
more than 2 million U.S. jobs. That would increase the unemployment rate by from 6.1% to 7.6%. These
losses would be devastating for American high - tech businesses and could spill into non - tech commerce
as well. Indeed, losses to U.S. corporations are already starting to surface. Following the NSA spying revelation, there were reports that IBM,
Microsoft, Cisco and other American Companies may have lost customers and were not invited to bid on multi - year international contracts.
The latest threat by t he DOJ to access records on foreign consumers and businesses , particularly if successful in the courts, will certainly fuel
further sanctions. The
shunning of U.S. high - tech products and services by consumers, businesses and
governments will be a major setback for U.S. companies working abroad. Because the U.S. is a world
leader in technological services and products, the effects of complying with the DOJ request would
significantly stunt U.S. sales abroad and encourage foreign countries to buy products and services from
their domestic sources, including developing a balkanized Internet that keeps its citizens, businesses and government away from
buying U.S. products, cloud services, software and applications. This would affect U.S. competitive abroad for decades to
come U.S. Government Needs to Fix This Mess The DOJ’s quest for personal information on a n Irish citizen living abroad
could open up a cascade of problems overseas -- conflicts with laws in other countries, customer losses,
contract sanctions by foreign business and governments, retaliation , and balkanization of the Internet. A
balkanized Internet will not support the rapid growth of high-tech trade and free exchange of ideas that
we have enjoyed over the past 20 years. I t will lead to a substantial financial impact on U.S. high - tech firms and lost jobs for workers . It would
also produce long - term harm to U.S. competitiveness in the high - tech sector. The
quick and easy solution is for the full and
immediate attention of Congress in its consideration of legislation just introduced by Senators Hatch, Coons and Heller – The Law Enforcement
Access to Data Stored Abroad Act . 10 This proposed legislation would address the issue by limiting the reach of
warrant s to U.S. citizens and companies, as well as keeping conformity with foreign treaties and laws.
Congress needs to act before the negative economic consequences of the DOJ’s actions cause
irreparable harm to U.S. interests abroad. The legislative solution makes the U.S. keep its promises and respect its legal treaties
with other countries, and that work s to dispel any fears of spying or collection of personal information that our allies might have . We need to
take steps now to protect U.S. business interests abroad . To
do otherwise could lead to devastating financial
consequences on U.S. high-tech firms.
Competitiveness key to heg and preventing great power war
Colby 14 (Elbridge the Robert M. Gates fellow at the Center for a New American Security; and Paul
Lettow, was senior director for strategic planning on the U.S. National Security Council staff from 2007
to 2009, 7/3/14, “Have We Hit Peak America?,”
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/03/have_we_hit_peak_america)
Many foreign-policy
experts seem to believe that retaining American primacy is largely a matter of will -- of how
America chooses to exert its power abroad. Even President Obama, more often accused of being a prophet of decline than a
booster of America's future, recently asserted that the United States "has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world." The question,
he continued, is "not whether America will lead, but how we will lead."
But will is unavailing without strength. If the United States wants the international system to continue to
reflect its interests and values -- a system, for example, in which the global commons are protected, trade is
broad-based and extensive, and armed conflicts among great nations are curtailed -- it needs to sustain
not just resolve, but relative power. That, in turn, will require acknowledging the uncomfortable truth that global
power and wealth are shifting at an unprecedented pace, with profound implications. Moreover, many of the challenges
America faces are exacerbated by vulnerabilities that are largely self-created, chief among them fiscal policy. Much more quickly and
comprehensively than is understood, those vulnerabilities are reducing America's freedom of action and its ability to influence others.
Preserving America's international position will require it to restore its economic vitality and make policy
choices now that pay dividends for decades to come. America has to prioritize and to act. Fortunately, the United States still enjoys
greater freedom to determine its future than any other major power, in part because many of its problems
are within its ability to address. But this process of renewal must begin with analyzing America's competitive
position and understanding the gravity of the situation Americans face.
Declining power-differential ensures U.S. lash-out
Goldstein 7 - Professor of Global Politics and International Relations @ University of Pennsylvania,
Avery Goldstein, “Power transitions, institutions, and China's rise in East Asia: Theoretical expectations
and evidence,” Journal of Strategic Studies, Volume30, Issue 4 & 5 August 2007, pages 639 – 682
Two closely related, though distinct, theoretical arguments focus explicitly on the consequences for international politics of a shift in power
between a dominant state and a rising power. In War and Change in World Politics, Robert Gilpin
suggested that peace prevails
when a dominant state’s capabilities enable it to ‘govern’ an international order that it has shaped. Over time, however, as economic
and technological diffusion proceeds during eras of peace and development, other states are
empowered. Moreover, the burdens of international governance drain and distract the reigning hegemon,
and challengers eventually emerge who seek to rewrite the rules of governance. As the power
advantage of the erstwhile hegemon ebbs, it may become desperate enough to resort to theultima ratio of
international politics, force, to forestall the increasingly urgent demands of a rising challenger. Or as the power
of the challenger rises, it may be tempted to press its case with threats to use force. It is the rise and
fall of the great powers that creates the circumstances under which major wars, what Gilpin labels ‘hegemonic
wars’, break out.13 Gilpin’s argument logically encourages pessimism about the implications of a rising China. It leads to the expectation
that international trade, investment, and technology transfer will result in a steady diffusion of American economic power,
benefiting the rapidly developing states of the world, including China. As the US simultaneously scurries to put out the
many brushfires that threaten its far-flung global interests (i.e., the classic problem of overextension), it will be unable to devote
sufficient resources to maintain or restore its former advantage over emerging competitors like China. While the
erosion of the once clear American advantage plays itself out, the US will find it ever more difficult to
preserve the order in Asia that it created during its era of preponderance. The expectation is an increase in the likelihood
for the use of force – either by a Chinese challenger able to field a stronger military in support of its demands for greater influence over
international arrangements in Asia, or by a besieged American hegemon desperate to head off further decline. Among the trends
that alarm those who would look at Asia through the lens of Gilpin’s theory are China’s expanding share of world trade and wealth(much of
it resulting from the gains made possible by the international economic order a dominant US established); its acquisition of technology
in key sectors that have both civilian and military applications (e.g., information, communications, and electronics linked with to forestall,
and the challenger becomes increasingly determined to realize the transition to a new international order whose contours it will
define. the ‘revolution in military affairs’); and an expanding military burden for the US (as it copes with the challenges of its global war on
terrorism and especially its struggle in Iraq) that limits the resources it can devote to preserving its interests in East Asia.14 Although similar
to Gilpin’s work insofar as it emphasizes the importance of shifts in the capabilities of a dominant state and a rising challenger, the powertransition theory A. F. K. Organski and Jacek Kugler present in The War Ledger focuses more closely on the allegedly dangerous
phenomenon of ‘crossover’– the point at which a dissatisfied challenger is about to overtake the established leading state.15 In such
cases, when the power gap narrows, the dominant state becomes increasingly desperate. Though suggesting why a rising China may
ultimately present grave dangers for international peace when its capabilities make it a peer competitor of America, Organski and Kugler’s
power-transition theory is less clear about the dangers while a potential challenger still lags far behind and faces a difficult struggle to catch
up. This clarification is important in thinking about the theory’s relevance to interpreting China’s rise because a broad consensus prevails
among analysts that Chinese military capabilities are at a minimum two decades from putting it in a league with the US in Asia.16 Their
theory, then, points with alarm to trends in China’s growing wealth and power relative to the United States, but especially looks ahead to
what it sees as the period of maximum danger – that time when a dissatisfied China could be in a position to overtake the US on
dimensions believed crucial for assessing power. Reports beginning in the mid-1990s that offered extrapolations suggesting China’s growth
would give it the world’s largest gross domestic product (GDP aggregate, not per capita) sometime in the first few decades of the twentieth
century fed these sorts of concerns about a potentially dangerous challenge to American leadership in Asia.17 The huge gap between
Chinese and American military capabilities (especially in terms of technological sophistication) has so far discouraged prediction of
comparably disquieting trends on this dimension, but inklings of similar concerns may be reflected in occasionally alarmist reports about
purchases of advanced Russian air and naval equipment, as well as concern that Chinese espionage may have undermined the American
advantage in nuclear and missile technology, and speculation about the potential military purposes of China’s manned space program.18
Moreover, because a dominant state may react to the prospect of a crossover and believe that it is wiser to embrace the logic of
preventive war and act early to delay a transition while the task is more manageable, Organski and Kugler’s power-transition
theory also provides grounds for concern about the period prior to the possible crossover.19 pg. 647-650
MLATs—1AC
CONTENTION THREE: MLATs
The current US legal regime for overseas data acquisition compromises Mutual Legal
Assistance Treaties or MLATS – the plan is necessary to update and strengthen the
process
Rogers 15 (Jerry, the president of Capitol Allies and the founder of its Six Degrees Project, an
independent, nonpartisan effort that promotes entrepreneurship, economic growth, and free market
ideals, “Congress LEADS Privacy Rights into the 21st Century,” May 13,
http://townhall.com/columnists/jerryrogers/2015/05/13/congress-leads-privacy-rights-into-the-21stcentury-n1998505/page/full, CMR)
Bipartisan legislation, introduced in both Houses of Congress, seeks to
modernize the wholly inadequate and outdated
rules regulating government surveillance and information
gathering are obsolete and in dire need of reform. Americans believe—rightly—their privacy rights are not properly
protected from government infringement. Enacted in 1986, the ECPA is the major federal statute that regulates
electronic surveillance and data gathering, and it does not sufficiently address the challenges presented
by modern day computing. The ECPA was designed to protect the privacy of electronic communications, and in the mid-1980s, many
of the issues of today’s interconnected world could not have been anticipated. The Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad (LEADS)
Act amends the ECPA by bringing into the Twenty-first Century the rules determining how U.S.
authorities can gain access to electronic data. On the international level, LEADS mandates that U.S. agencies
cannot use search-warrants to compel the disclosure of an individual’s content stored outside the United
States unless the account holder is an American citizen (or U.S. person). It clarifies how U.S. authorities can
access data held overseas by settling questions of jurisdiction and transparency. What’s more, the reform
legislation will make stronger the international process of MLATs (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties) through
which governments obtain evidence in criminal investigations. Simply, LEADS will thwart government
overreach into personal data stored on U.S.-corporation servers abroad. On the national level, the LEADS Act
would make documents and material stored in the cloud subject to the same search-warrant
requirements as a user’s personal property. LEADS is a significant step toward protecting due process
and privacy rights by extending Fourth Amendment protections to data stored by commercial services (or
cloud storage). The need for reform is clearly validated in Microsoft v. United States. The Department of Justice (DOJ) swayed a
federal court to issue a warrant forcing Microsoft to turn over data it had stored in Ireland. With cloud
computing, data can readily be stored in foreign countries. Microsoft maintains that for the federal government to obtain data
in a foreign country, it must go through the MLAT process between that country and the United States. The
Microsoft case demonstrates that the current legal regime cannot keep pace with changing technology. Real reform
to both the ECPA and the MLAT process is needed now. European governments are threatening to ban Americancloud service providers over alarm that their citizens’ data is not properly safeguarded by companies
within reach of U.S. law enforcement. Such a scenario would stifle economic growth and be a
devastating blow to the American innovation sector. Twentieth Century law should not be governing Twenty-first Century
technology. The two-part aim of LEADS is simple and reasonable: 1) LEADS will make certain that data stored in the cloud
must receive the same legal protections as data stored in our homes (Fourth Amendment protection from
unreasonable searches and seizures). 2) LEADS will update and strengthen the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty
process. The LEADS Act is good for our allies; good for business; good for security; and good for privacy.
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). The
Continued degradation of MLATs will compromise US and global law enforcement
responses to organized crime and terrorism
Cunningham 15 (Bryan, information security, privacy, and data protection lawyer, and a senior
advisor of The Chertoff Group, a global security advisory firm that advises clients on cyber security and
cloud computing, Formerly, he was a U.S. civil servant, working for the CIA and serving as Deputy Legal
Adviser to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, “Why State and Local Law Enforcement Should
Be Part of the MLAT Reform Process,” March 25, http://www.govexec.com/state-local/2015/03/mlatreform-state-local-law-enforcement/108427/, CMR)
MLATs are formal agreements between countries establishing procedures for requesting evidence
stored outside the requesting country’s jurisdiction. Historically, in many time-sensitive cases, law enforcement
agencies officials exchanged information informally and private companies cooperated without formal
legal process. But with increasing overseas attention to privacy rights and concerns about secret, unilateral data
collection by national governments against other countries’ citizens, companies increasingly are refusing to cooperate
informally and governments are retaliating for unfair “spying” on their citizens. State and local law
enforcement agencies (LEAs) should care about this problem not only because of its potential impact on
the general ability of the U.S. to take down international terror and other criminal organizations, but
because, in our increasingly interconnected world, what once could have been treated largely as “local”
cases, such as cyber fraud and child pornography now require retrieval of evidence from overseas, and even basic
crimes without any obvious cyber component will require evidence stored overseas. The problem will
get worse as cloud storage providers increasingly globalize data storage, in order to: store data close to the account
holder for faster service; take advantage of excess capacity; and/or save on infrastructure costs or tax burdens. There is broad
agreement that the current MLAT system has not kept pace with technology and must be reformed to
support fast and effective global law enforcement and many countries, especially in Europe, are
threatening to cut off U.S. LEAs from some data altogether in retaliation for perceived spying abuses.
Unchecked, both trends threaten to damage the ability of state and local LEAs to prosecute many types
of crimes. But U.S.-led MLAT reform can stem this dangerous tide. What should state and local law enforcement
leaders do about it? First, stay informed. The Law Enforcement Data Stored Abroad (LEADS) Act, currently under debate in the United
States Senate, and a similar measure in the House, aim to begin the process of MLAT reform. A number of law enforcement and
civil liberties advocacy groups are tracking such legislation. Second, be heard. Particular facets of legislation may be more or less acceptable to
individual state and local law enforcement agencies but such LEAs shouldn’t let the federal government be the only law enforcement voice in
the debate. Finally, think through the issues carefully. The immediate reaction of many LEAs may be to oppose any congressional “meddling”
with the current system, particularly if an LEA has not itself experienced problems. But efforts to
streamline and improve U.S.
MLAT processing, as the LEADS Act, for example, can benefit state and local LEAs both because such agencies
must go through the U.S. government to request foreign-stored evidence and because U.S. efforts may
prompt improvement abroad. Further, shows of U.S. “good faith” may forestall new foreign restrictions
on U.S. LEAs access to data stored in their countries. State and local law enforcement should be part of the MLAT reform
process.
Transnational organized crime risks global conflict, drug-resistant viruses, and collapse
of ecosystems
CFR 13 (“The Global Regime for Transnational Crime,” June 25, http://www.cfr.org/transnationalcrime/global-regime-transnational-crime/p28656#p2, CMR)
Over the past two decades, as
the world economy has globalized, so has its illicit counterpart. The global impact
of transnational crime has risen to unprecedented levels. Criminal groups have appropriated new technologies, adapted
horizontal network structures that are difficult to trace and stop, and diversified their activities. The result has been an unparalleled scale of
international crime. As many as fifty-two
activities fall under the umbrella of transnational crime, from arms
smuggling to human trafficking to environmental crime. These crimes undermine states' abilities to
provide citizens with basic services, fuel violent conflicts, and subject people to intolerable suffering.
The cost of transnational organized crime is estimated to be roughly 3.6 percent [PDF] of the global economy.
Money laundering alone costs at least 2 percent of global gross domestic product every year according to UN reports. Drug traffickers have
destabilized entire areas of the Western Hemisphere, leading to the deaths of at least fifty thousand people in Mexico alone in the past six
years. Counterfeit medicines further sicken ill patients and contribute
to the emergence of drug-resistant strains
of viruses. Environmental crime—including illegal logging, waste dumping, and harvesting of endangered
species—both destroy fragile ecosystems and endanger innocent civilians. Between twelve and twenty-seven million people toil in
forced labor—more than at the peak of the African slave trade. For many reasons, global transnational crime presents nations
with a unique and particularly challenging task. To begin with, by definition, transnational crime crosses borders. But the law
enforcement institutions that have developed over centuries were constructed to maintain order primarily within national boundaries. In
addition, transnational crime affects nations in diverse ways. In
many states, political institutions have strong links to
transnational crime, and citizens in numerous communities across the world rely on international criminal groups to provide basic
services or livelihoods. Finally, the international community requires solid data to gauge the challenge and
effectiveness of responses, but data on transnational organized crime is notoriously difficult to gather and is often politicized.
Nuclear war
Dobriansky 1 (Paula – Under Secretary for Global Affairs at the State Department , “The Explosive
Growth of Globalized Crime,” http://www.iwar.org.uk/ecoespionage/resources/transnationalcrime/gj01.htm)
international crime -- terrorism, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and contraband
smuggling -- involve serious violence and physical harm. Other forms -- fraud, extortion, money laundering, bribery,
Certain types of
economic espionage, intellectual property theft, and counterfeiting -- don't require guns to cause major damage. Moreover, the spread of
information technology has created new categories of cybercrime. For the United States, international crime poses threats on three broad,
interrelated fronts. First, the impact is felt directly on the streets of American communities. Hundreds of thousands of individuals enter the U.S.
illegally each year, and smuggling of drugs, firearms, stolen cars, child pornography, and other contraband occurs on a wide scale across our
borders. Second, the expansion of American business worldwide has opened new opportunities for foreign-based criminals. When an American
enterprise abroad is victimized, the consequences may include the loss of profits, productivity, and jobs for Americans at home. Third,
international criminals engage in a variety of activities that pose a grave threat to the national security of the
United States and the stability and values of the entire world community. Examples include the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction, trade in banned or dangerous substances, and trafficking in women and
children. Corruption and the enormous flow of unregulated, crime-generated profits are serious threats
to the stability of democratic institutions and free market economies around the world.
Disease causes extinction
Keating 9 Foreign Policy web editor, Joshua, “The End of the World”, 11-13-09,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/13/the_end_of_the_world?page=full
How it could happen: Throughout
history, plagues have brought civilizations to their knees. The Black Death
killed more off more than half of Europe's population in the Middle Ages. In 1918, a flu pandemic killed an estimated 50
million people, nearly 3 percent of the world's population, a far greater impact than the just-concluded World War I. Because of
globalization, diseases today spread even faster - witness the rapid worldwide spread of H1N1 currently unfolding. A global
outbreak of a disease such as ebola virus -- which has had a 90 percent fatality rate during its flare-ups in rural Africa -- or a
mutated drug-resistant form of the flu virus on a global scale could have a devastating, even civilization-ending impact.
How likely is it? Treatment of deadly diseases has improved since 1918, but so have the diseases. Modern industrial farming techniques have
been blamed for the outbreak of diseases, such as swine flu, and as
the world’s population grows and humans move into
previously unoccupied areas, the risk of exposure to previously unknown pathogens increases. More
than 40 new viruses have emerged since the 1970s, including ebola and HIV. Biological weapons experimentation has added a new and just as
troubling complication
Risk of environmental collapse is real and will cascade---we haven’t crossed the
tipping point yet but we’re really close---and, anthropogenic destructions destroys
resilience and causes extinction
Johan Rockström et al 9 is a Environmental Professor in natural resource management at
Stockholm University, and the Executive Director of the Stockholm Environment Institute and the
Stockholm Resilience Centre, along with 27 other members of the SEI and SRC, A safe operating space
for humanity, Nature 461, 472-475 (24 September 2009),
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/461472a.html
Crossing certain biophysical thresholds could have disastrous consequences for humanity Three of nine
interlinked planetary boundaries have already been overstepped Although Earth has undergone many periods of significant environmental
change, the
planet's environment has been unusually stable for the past 10,000 years 1, 2, 3. This period of
stability — known to geologists as the Holocene — has seen human civilizations arise, develop and thrive. Such
stability may now be under threat. Since the Industrial Revolution, a new era has arisen, the Anthropocene4, in which human
actions have become the main driver of global environmental change5. This could see human activities
push the Earth system outside the stable environmental state of the Holocene, with consequences that are
detrimental or even catastrophic for large parts of the world. During the Holocene, environmental change
occurred naturally and Earth's regulatory capacity maintained the conditions that enabled human
development. Regular temperatures, freshwater availability and biogeochemical flows all stayed within a relatively narrow range. Now,
largely because of a rapidly growing reliance on fossil fuels and industrialized forms of agriculture, human activities
have reached a level that could damage the systems that keep Earth in the desirable Holocene state. The
result could be irreversible and, in some cases, abrupt environmental change, leading to a state less conducive to
human development6. Without pressure from humans, the Holocene is expected to continue for at least several thousands of years7. To meet
the challenge of maintaining the Holocene state, we
propose a framework based on 'planetary boundaries'. These
boundaries define the safe operating space for humanity with respect to the Earth system and are associated with the
planet's biophysical subsystems or processes. Although Earth's complex systems sometimes respond smoothly to
changing pressures, it seems that this will prove to be the exception rather than the rule. Many
subsystems of Earth react in a nonlinear, often abrupt, way, and are particularly sensitive around
threshold levels of certain key variables. If these thresholds are crossed, then important subsystems, such
as a monsoon system, could shift into a new state, often with deleterious or potentially even disastrous consequences
for humans8, 9. Most of these thresholds can be defined by a critical value for one or more control variables, such as carbon dioxide
concentration. Not all processes or subsystems on Earth have well-defined thresholds, although human actions that undermine
the resilience of such processes or subsystems — for example, land and water degradation — can increase the risk
that thresholds will also be crossed in other processes, such as the climate system. We have tried to identify the
Earth-system processes and associated thresholds which, if crossed, could generate unacceptable
environmental change. We have found nine such processes for which we believe it is necessary to define
planetary boundaries: climate change; rate of biodiversity loss (terrestrial and marine); interference with the
nitrogen and phosphorus cycles; stratospheric ozone depletion; ocean acidification; global freshwater
use; change in land use; chemical pollution; and atmospheric aerosol loading (see Fig. 1 andTable). The inner green
shading represents the proposed safe operating space for nine planetary systems. The red wedges represent an estimate of the current
position for each variable. The boundaries in three systems (rate of biodiversity loss, climate change and human interference with the nitrogen
cycle), have already been exceeded. In general, planetary boundaries are values for control variables that are either at a 'safe' distance from
thresholds — for processes with evidence of threshold behaviour — or at dangerous levels — for processes without evidence of thresholds.
Determining a safe distance involves normative judgements of how societies choose to deal with risk and uncertainty. We have taken a
conservative, risk-averse approach to quantifying our planetary boundaries, taking into account the large uncertainties that surround the true
position of many thresholds. (A detailed description of the boundaries — and the analyses behind them — is given in ref. 10.) Humanity
may soon be approaching the boundaries for global freshwater use, change in land use, ocean
acidification and interference with the global phosphorous cycle (see Fig. 1). Our analysis suggests that three of the
Earth-system processes — climate change, rate of biodiversity loss and interference with the nitrogen cycle — have already transgressed their
boundaries. For the latter two of these, the control variables are the rate of species loss and the rate at which N2 is removed from the
atmosphere and converted to reactive nitrogen for human use, respectively. These
are rates of change that cannot continue
without significantly eroding the resilience of major components of Earth-system functioning. Here we
describe these three processes.
AND, existing US policy forces companies to violate foreign privacy laws – creates a
dangerous precedent that guarantees retaliation by both allies and potential
aggressors
Horowitz 6/10 (Daniel, former staff Director of the House Small Business Committee and a veteran of
the House Republican Leadership “LEADS Act will Protect Privacy and Innovation,” 2015,
http://humanevents.com/2015/06/10/leads-act-will-protect-privacy-and-innovation/, CMR)
Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) in 1986 to protect our right to private telephone calls. To place that in
perspective, in 1986 “disruptive technology” was the latest IBM Selectric typewriter. 1986 was the same year Microsoft released Windows 1.0
and Apple celebrated the second anniversary of the original Macintosh. Incredibly, judges
in the U.S. Court system have
successfully stretched the ECPA to provide limited privacy for everything our mobile devices do now – the
selfies on our phone or the future best-selling novel on our laptop. However, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has successfully
pressured a U.S District Court Judge to establish a precedent that threatens to break this fragile
protection – both within the U.S. and internationally. It is necessary for Congress to act to protect our increasingly
electronic identities and to establish standards of conduct protecting U.S. citizens, our digital identities
and innovative products and services we utilize for our convenience. By forcing U.S. law into direct
conflict with the privacy protections of the European Union, this action by DOJ does not simply place US
companies in an impossible position Catch-22 whereby either the company opposes a just action by the
U.S. government or the company violates the laws and regulations in the country where the data is
stored. Further, this precedent creates a gaping vacuum of protection for everyone else’s electronic identities
in the age of international mobile commerce. By taking this action, DOJ is not helping the American people, but
rather they are weakening protections for US citizens – both domestically and around the globe. With this
action by the DOJ, other countries – even Russia, North Korea and China – have the reciprocal ability to
access our emails or any digitally stored files based in any other country. The challenge of protecting our electronic
information while providing security in the mobile economy is complex and difficult to solve. More mobile apps are released everyday, hosted
by an increasingly borderless system of cloud based remote storage. The amount of data per person – photos, apps and even personal medical
data – is exponentially increasing every day. By the very nature of the distributed network that is the Internet, the data running these apps is
stored in multiple countries located in almost any country around the globe. However, the
solution at this moment is fairly simple.
Senators Hatch, Coons and Heller introduced the bipartisan “Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad Act” (S. 2871) a few weeks
ago. The bill is
a simple and prudent update to ECPA. It formally extends ECPA protections to our
electronically data. The LEADS Act also assists our law enforcement agencies by providing a clear and
unambiguous path to access electronic data with a properly issued warrant. The bill also updates the Mutual Legal
Assistance Treaty process by directing DOJ enter into the 21st Century, with the creation of an ordinary online form to allow other nations to
submit legal requests to access data systems based in the US. However, hesitating will only empower
rogue nations to
determine how and when they access our personal data, and our normal trading partners will have yet
another excuse to enact protectionist laws that discriminate against our world-leading technology
companies. Hopefully, Congress will see fit to consider this legislation in a timely manner before DOJ’s
unprecedented action triggers retaliatory actions by our allies and even those less friendly.
Conflicts over data acquisition ensure US-China war
IBT 6/24 (International Business Times, by Sounak Mukhopadhyay, “War ‘Inevitable’ Between US,
China: Russian, Chinese Media,” http://www.ibtimes.com/war-inevitable-between-us-china-russianchinese-media-1982123, CMR)
Chinese and Russian media have started suggesting the possibility of a China-U.S. war. While the national news
agency in China calls it “inevitable,” a Russian news agency listed a number of indications that it said “proved’ the two nations were heading
toward a military conflict. Clearly, there
has been growing diplomatic tension between China and the United States.
And according to reports, both countries have been spending lots of money on military preparations. China's Xinhua
News Agency reported that the present political situation put a question mark on building peaceful coexistence
between China and the U.S. “The situation has many people pondering how the two countries can avoid 'Thucydides's trap' -- the
notion an established power becomes so anxious about the rise of a new power that a struggle leading to war becomes inevitable,” Xinhua
reported. Russia's Pravda reported that China
had conducted a number of military exercises simulating an attack
against Taiwan. “Since the U.S. is committed to protecting Taiwan, a real conflict of this nature would almost certainly
involve the United States” the Russian news agency predicted. The U.S. government blames Beijing for theft of the
personal data of some 14 million U.S. government workers. According to U.S. authorities, it was “an act of
war.” The U.S. says the breach also has compromised background information about intelligence and military personnel.
Escalates to nuclear war
Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. 13, deputy editor for defense publication Breaking Defense and 13 year
journalist at National Journal and has won awards from the association of Military Reporters & Editors in
2008 and 2009, as well as an honorable mention in 2010, 10/1/13, China’s Fear Of US May Tempt Them
To Preempt: Sinologists, http://breakingdefense.com/2013/10/chinas-fear-of-us-may-tempt-them-topreempt-sinologists/
Because China believes it is much weaker than the United States, they are more likely to launch a
massive preemptive strike in a crisis. Here’s the other bad news: The current US concept for high-tech warfare,
known as Air-Sea Battle, might escalate the conflict even further towards a “limited” nuclear war, says one
of the top American experts on the Chinese military. [This is one in an occasional series on the crucial strategic relationship
and the military capabilities of the US, its allies and China.] What US analysts call an “anti-access/area denial” strategy is
what China calls “counter-intervention” and “active defense,” and the Chinese appraoch is born of a
deep sense of vulnerability that dates back 200 years, China analyst Larry Wortzel said at the Institute of
World Politics: “The People’s Liberation Army still sees themselves as an inferior force to the American
military, and that’s who they think their most likely enemy is.” That’s fine as long as it deters China from attacking its
neighbors. But if deterrence fails, the Chinese are likely to go big or go home. Chinese military history from the
Korean War in 1950 to the Chinese invasion of Vietnam in 1979 to more recent, albeit vigorous but nonviolent, grabs for the disputed Scarborough Shoal suggests a preference for a sudden use of
overwhelming force at a crucial point, what Clausewitz would call the enemy’s “center of gravity.” “What they do is very
heavily built on preemption,” Wortzel said. “The problem with the striking the enemy’s center of gravity is,
for the United States, they see it as being in Japan, Hawaii, and the West Coast….That’s very escalatory.”
(Students of the American military will nod sagely, of course, as we remind everyone that President George Bush made preemption a
centerpiece of American strategy after the terror attacks of 2001.) Wortzel argued that the
current version of US Air-Sea Battle
concept is also likely to lead to escalation. “China’s dependent on these ballistic missiles and anti-ship
missiles and satellite links,” he said. Since those are almost all land-based, any attack on them “involves
striking the Chinese mainland, which is pretty escalatory.” “You don’t know how they’re going to react,”
he said. “They do have nuclear missiles. They actually think we’re more allergic to nuclear missiles landing
on our soil than they are on their soil. They think they can withstand a limited nuclear attack, or even a
big nuclear attack, and retaliate.”
EU Relations—1AC
CONTENTION FOUR: US-EU RELATIONS
Surveillance scandals have compromised transatlantic relations – the plan sends a key
signal for reconciliation – alt causes are irrelevant
Gould 15 (Jeff, CEO Peerstone Research, “The LEADS Act: A Transatlantic Olive Branch from the U.S. to
Europe Over Government Access to Data,” Feb 20, https://medium.com/@jeffgould/the-leads-act-atransatlantic-olive-branch-over-government-access-to-data-411fab0c8538, CMR)
A group of American senators from both parties
are offering Europe an olive branch in the transatlantic war of
words over Internet surveillance. Concretely, they propose to update the antiquated 1986 Electronic Communications
Privacy Act (ECPA) by putting tighter limits on when and how U.S. courts can access electronic data stored
abroad. ECPA was a forward looking law when it was passed. Such things as the Internet and email already existed. Personal computers were
commonplace. A few people even had (brick-sized) mobile phones. The law was expressly intended to give courts and police agencies
conducting criminal investigations a legitimate way to get at data stored on these devices while still protecting the privacy rights of users. But
the role and scale of online technology in the world are vastly different today than in 1986. No
one could have imagined then
that one day hundreds of millions of Europeans would routinely store trillions of personal electronic
documents on shared computers located in Europe but owned and remotely operated by American
firms. Such a scenario would have been pure science fiction. Nor of course did anyone in 1986 dream that a handful of terrorists could knock
down New York’s tallest skyscrapers and kill thousands of innocents. By now most Europeans who follow privacy and surveillance issues know
about the specific case that led to the Senators’ proposed ECPA amendment. In a nutshell, a U.S. Federal court in New York issued a warrant
demanding that a U.S. Internet firm (Microsoft) turn over emails belonging to a foreign national that were stored on the firm’s servers in
Ireland. According to press reports the case concerns drug trafficking, not terrorism. But instead of complying with the demand, Microsoft
fought it and took the case to a Federal Appeals court. Observers expect that whatever the Appeals ruling the case will wind up at the Supreme
Court. The dispute between the court which issued the warrant and Microsoft turns on the meaning of ECPA as originally written. Both sides
agree that American law enforcement officials do not have the right to conduct searches or seize evidence overseas. For example, an FBI agent
can’t hop on a plane to France warrant in hand, knock on the door of an American bank in Paris, and demand that the bank turn over the
contents of a customer’s safe deposit box. This is especially true if the customer is not a citizen or resident of the United States. But it would
even be true if the customer were American. Everyone agrees on this much. But the prosecutors in the case argue that the emails stored on
Microsoft’s servers in Dublin are different. They argue that they won’t really be searching or seizing the emails until Microsoft brings them back
to the United States. According to this logic the warrant will only actually be executed in New York, not in Ireland. It is easy to mock this
reasoning as twisted, perverse or insincere. Some have even speculated that the Department of Justice, recognizing that more and more
evidence of interest to prosecutors resides on overseas servers, deliberately picked this fight in the hope that it could establish an
advantageous precedent. No one can predict today whether the prosecutors will ultimately prevail. It will be up to the Supreme Court to
decide. Here is where the proposed amendment to ECPA comes in. Known as the LEADS Act (Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad
Act), the bill was introduced by two Republicans (Senators Hatch and Heller) and a Democrat (Senator Coons). They recognize that regardless of
the outcome of Microsoft’s current legal battle, the fundamental question of how and when U.S. authorities can demand access to data abroad
will only grow in importance. They therefore propose two simple but powerful rules governing what U.S. courts can do. A warrant for overseas
data will only be valid if: (1) It concerns a U.S. citizen or permanent resident; and (2) It does not violate the laws of the foreign country where it
is to be executed. The LEADS Act is broadly supported by U.S. high tech and media companies, as well as by leading privacy advocates. The
government of Ireland and one of the leading advocates of data protection reform in the European
Parliament, while not specifically endorsing the act, have submitted amicus briefs in support of Microsoft’s appeal.
Surprisingly, among the few significant industry players yet to publicly endorse the LEADS Act are Google, Facebook and Yahoo. Perhaps they
fear that the bill in its current form might encourage some foreign users in the belief that putting their data on foreign rather than U.S.-based
cloud servers will protect them from the long arm of U.S. authorities. But there can be little doubt that these firms share the same concerns
about U.S. access to overseas data as Microsoft, and they may yet give it their full support. Early indications are that the LEADS Act has a good
chance of passing in the current session of Congress. It has strong support from both political parties and has so far not aroused any open
opposition from the U.S. law enforcement community. Europeans
should welcome the LEADS Act and acknowledge that, even
if it falls short of addressing all their concerns in the wake of the Snowden revelations, it is a powerful and
incontestable sign that the U.S. seeks reconciliation and compromise rather than continued conflict with
Europe over these vital issues.
The plan is a starting point for halting broader conflicts – restores trust and strategic
cooperation
*also a potential IL for a modeling adv
Cunningham 15 (Bryan, information security, privacy, and data protection lawyer as well as senior
advisor of The Chertoff Group, a security and risk management advisory firm with clients in the
technology sector, “Big Brother is watching EU,” 1/6, http://www.politico.eu/article/eu-privacysurveillance-us-leads-act/, CMR)
A strange — and strangely unnoticed — trend is emerging in the evolving global response to massive 2013 leaks about US surveillance activities.
While our European cousins talk privacy reform, the United States is actually moving ahead with it, albeit more slowly than many would like.
As the American side of the Atlantic inches toward self-restraint, many European governments are
seeking sweeping new spying powers. Europe is at risk of falling behind the US in privacy reform. Following
two post-Snowden reviews of US surveillance activities, the United States announced new limitations to its electronic surveillance activities,
including additional privacy protections for Europeans and other non-US citizens, which few European countries currently afford Americans.
Much-criticized US surveillance activities, including the bulk telephone metadata program, are set to expire in days unless Congress intervenes.
Meanwhile, the bipartisan Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Overseas (LEADS)
Act and similar draft laws are moving through
Congress and garnering broad support from technology companies, business organizations, and privacy and civil liberties advocacy groups.
Meanwhile, across the pond, key European Union member states, some harshly critical of US spying, are seeking
dramatically enhanced surveillance powers in the wake of the horrific Charlie Hebdo attacks in January. France’s lower house of
parliament just passed a sweeping new spying bill that would empower French intelligence to deploy hi-tech tools such as vehicle tracking and
mobile phone identification devices against individuals without judicial oversight; allow the government to force communications companies
(including US companies) to sift through massive amounts of phone and internet metadata for potential terrorist communications and report
results to the government; and give French intelligence services real-time access to “connection” data of possible terrorists. Prior to his
reelection, British Prime Minister David Cameron promised to authorize British intelligence agencies to read “all messages sent over the
Internet,” in a package of legal provisions called by critics the “snoopers’ charter.” This comes amidst admissions by British intelligence of
extensive electronic communications surveillance and sophisticated “Computer Network Exploitation” (CNE) hacking, all without judicial
supervision. At the same time, a parliamentary inquiry approved of ongoing British intelligence bulk data collection. And while Ireland
recently filed a brief opposing the enforcement of US search warrants for data stored in Ireland, the country
recently joined Britain and Germany as “one of Europe’s top three offenders in undermining citizens’ rights,” according to a privacy lobbying
group purporting to analyze 11,000 pages of confidential European Council documents concerning EU governments’ “secret” efforts to weaken
EU privacy reforms. Reports citing leaked classified files indicate that “Germany’s external spy agency saves tens of millions of phone records
every day,” collecting metadata on some 220 million calls daily, and carrying out “surveillance of international communications sent by both
satellites and internet cables that pass through one of several key locations.” Such efforts reportedly are targeted, in significant part, at nonGerman citizens. Other European nations also are using or seeking broad surveillance powers in the wake of the Paris massacre and a number
of smaller terrorist attacks and near misses. Even before the Paris attacks, then-EU
Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding, a harsh
critic of reported US surveillance activities, called out her continental colleagues for their hypocrisy: “If the
EU wants to be credible in its efforts to rebuild trust…it also has to get its own house in order.” Where you
stand depends upon where you sit — it’s not surprising that Europeans critical of US surveillance activities in the wake
of the September 11, 2001 attacks are today, after less severe (though no less despicable) attacks on their own soil, seeking powers
every bit as sweeping as those enacted in the United States. But it’s nonetheless apparent that, just as privacy reform
appears to be trending in the United States, government snooping is ascendant in Europe, the rhetoric of some EU politicians
notwithstanding. So, I present a neighborly challenge to American friends and allies in Europe: Will you work
to reform the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) criminal evidence sharing system as the United States has begun to do with the
LEADS Act? Will you expand the rights of Americans with regard to your governments’ surveillance as the United States has begun to do for
your citizens? No nation will unilaterally disarm and none of us are safer when some are more vulnerable than others. Our
nations may
be working to reform their own surveillance practices to better protect privacy, but their efforts will only
be sustainable if we work together. US and European leaders should accelerate efforts towards true
reform, without sacrificing our collective ability to defeat the growing threats to all of us. And perhaps
tone down the cross-Atlantic attacks in the bargain.
US-EU relations solve nuclear war and multiple transnational threats
Stivachtis 10 – Director of International Studies Program @ Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State
University [Dr. Yannis. A. Stivachtis (Professor of Poli Sci & Ph.D. in Politics & International Relations
from Lancaster University), THE IMPERATIVE FOR TRANSATLANTIC COOPERATION,” The Research
Institute for European and American Studies, 2010, pg. http://www.rieas.gr/research-areas/globalissues/transatlantic-studies/78.html
There is no doubt that US-European
relations are in a period of transition , and that the stresses and strains of globalization
are increasing both the number and the seriousness of the challenges that confront transatlantic relations. The events of 9/11 and the Iraq War
have added significantly to these stresses and strains. At the same time, international terrorism, the nuclearization of
North
Korea and especially Iran, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the transformation of Russia into a stable and
cooperative member of the international community, the growing power of China, the political and economic transformation and
integration of the Caucasian and Central Asian states, the integration and stabilization of the Balkan countries, the
promotion of peace and stability in the Middle East, poverty, climate change, AIDS and other emergent
problems and situations require further cooperation among countries at the regional, global and institutional levels. Therefore,
cooperation between the U.S. and Europe is more imperative than ever to deal effectively with these
problems. It is fair to say that the challenges of crafting a new relationship between the U.S. and the EU as well
as between the U.S. and NATO are more regional than global, but the implications of success or failure will be
global. The transatlantic relationship is still in crisis, despite efforts to improve it since the Iraq War. This is not to say that differences
between the two sides of the Atlantic did not exist before the war. Actually, post-1945 relations between Europe and the U.S. were fraught
with disagreements and never free of crisis since the Suez crisis of 1956. Moreover, despite trans-Atlantic proclamations of solidarity in the
aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. and Europe parted ways on issues from global warming and biotechnology to peacekeeping and national missile
defense. Questions such as, the future role of NATO and its relationship to the common European Security and Defense policy (ESDP), or what
constitutes terrorism and what the rights of captured suspected terrorists are, have been added to the list of US-European disagreements.
There are two reasons for concern regarding the transatlantic rift. First, if
European leaders conclude that Europe must
become counterweight to the U.S., rather than a partner, it will be difficult to engage in the kind of open
search for a common ground than an elective partnership requires. Second, there is a risk that public opinion in both the
U.S. and Europe will make it difficult even for leaders who want to forge a new relationship to make the necessary accommodations. If both
sides would actively work to heal the breach, a new opportunity could be created. A
vibrant transatlantic partnership remains
a real possibility, but only if both sides make the necessary political commitment. There are strong reasons to
believe that the security challenges facing the U.S. and Europe are more shared than divergent. The most dramatic case is terrorism. Closely
related is the common interest in halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the nuclearization of Iran and North Korea. This
commonality of threats is clearly perceived by publics on both sides of the Atlantic. Actually, Americans and Europeans see eye to eye on more
issues than one would expect from reading newspapers and magazines. But while elites on both sides of the Atlantic bemoan a largely illusory
gap over the use of military force, biotechnology, and global warming, surveys of American and European public opinion highlight sharp
differences over global leadership, defense spending, and the Middle East that threaten the future of the last century’s most successful alliance.
There are other important, shared interests as well. The transformation of Russia into a stable cooperative
member of the international community is a priority both for the U.S. and Europe. They also have an interest in promoting
a stable regime in Ukraine. It is necessary for the U.S. and EU to form a united front to meet these challenges
because first, there is a risk that dangerous materials related to WMD will fall into the wrong hands; and second, the
spread of conflict along those countries’ periphery could destabilize neighboring countries and provide safe
havens for terrorists and other international criminal organizations. Likewise, in the Caucasus and Central Asia both
sides share a stake in promoting political and economic transformation and integrating these states into
larger communities such as the OSCE. This would also minimize the risk of instability spreading and prevent those countries of becoming havens
for international terrorists and criminals. Similarly, there is a common interest in integrating the Balkans politically and economically. Dealing
with Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as other political issues in the Middle East are also of a
great concern for both sides although the U.S. plays a dominant role in the region. Finally, US-European cooperation will
be more effective in dealing with the rising power of China through engagement but also containment. The post Iraq War
realities have shown that it is no longer simply a question of adapting transatlantic institutions to new realities. The changing structure of
relations between the U.S. and Europe implies that a new basis for the relationship must be found if transatlantic cooperation and partnership
is to continue. The
future course of relations will be determined above all by U.S. policy towards Europe
and the Atlantic Alliance. Wise policy can help forge a new, more enduring strategic partnership, through which the two sides of the
Atlantic cooperate in meeting the many major challenges and opportunities of the evolving world together. But a policy that takes
Europe for granted and routinely ignores or even belittles Europe an concerns, may force Europe to conclude
that the costs of continued alliance outweigh its benefits.
1NC
Terror DA – 1NC
surveillance successfully checks terror incidents now. Prefer longitudinal studies.
Boot ‘13
Max Boot is a Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. In 2004, he was named by the
World Affairs Councils of America as one of "the 500 most influential people in the United States in the field of foreign policy."
In 2007, he won the Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism. From 1992 to 1994 he was an editor and writer at
the Christian Science Monitor. Boot holds a bachelor's degree in history, with high honors, from the University of California,
Berkeley and a master's degree in history from Yale University. Boot has served as an adviser to U.S. commanders in Iraq and
Afghanistan. He is the published author of Invisible Armies: An Epic History of Guerrilla Warfare from Ancient Times to the
Present. From the article: “Stay calm and let the NSA carry on” - LA Times – June 9th http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/09/opinion/la-oe-boot-nsa-surveillance-20130609
After 9/11, there was a widespread expectation of many more terrorist attacks on the United States. So far that hasn't
happened. We haven't escaped entirely unscathed (see Boston Marathon, bombing of), but on the whole we have been a lot safer than most
security experts, including me, expected. In light of the current controversy over the National Security Agency's monitoring of telephone calls and
emails, it is worthwhile to ask: Why is that? It is certainly not due to any change of heart among our enemies.
Radical Islamists still want to kill American infidels. But the vast majority of the time, they fail. The Heritage Foundation estimated last year that 50 terrorist attacks on the American
homeland had been foiled since 2001. Some, admittedly, failed through sheer incompetence on the part of the would-be terrorists. For instance, Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani American
jihadist, planted a car bomb in Times Square in 2010 that started smoking before exploding, thereby alerting two New Yorkers who in turn called police, who were able to defuse it. But it would be naive to adduce all of our security
more attacks would have succeeded absent the ramped-up counter-terrorism efforts
undertaken by the U.S. intelligence community, the military and law enforcement. And a large element of the intelligence community's
success lies in its use of special intelligence — that is, communications intercepts. The CIA is notoriously deficient in human intelligence — infiltrating spies into terrorist
organizations is hard to do, especially when we have so few spooks who speak Urdu, Arabic, Persian and other relevant languages. But the NSA is the best in the world at intercepting communications. That is the
most important technical advantage we have in the battle against fanatical foes who will not hesitate to
sacrifice their lives to take ours. Which brings us to the current kerfuffle over two NSA monitoring programs that have been exposed by the
Guardian and the Washington Post. One program apparently collects metadata on all telephone calls made in the United States. Another program provides access to all the
emails, videos and other data found on the servers of major Internet firms such as Google, Apple and Microsoft. At first
blush these intelligence-gathering activities raise the specter of Big Brother snooping on ordinary American citizens who might
be cheating on their spouses or bad-mouthing the president. In fact, there are considerable safeguards built into both programs to ensure
that doesn't happen. The phone-monitoring program does not allow the NSA to listen in on
conversations without a court order. All that it can do is to collect information on the time, date and
destination of phone calls. It should go without saying that it would be pretty useful to know if someone in the U.S. is calling a number in Pakistan or Yemen that is used by a terrorist organizer. As for
success to pure serendipity. Surely
the Internet-monitoring program, reportedly known as PRISM, it is apparently limited to "non-U.S. persons" who are abroad and thereby enjoy no constitutional protections. These are hardly rogue operations. Both programs were
initiated by President George W. Bush and continued by President Obama with the full knowledge and support of Congress and continuing oversight from the federal judiciary. That's why the leaders of both the House and Senate
It's possible that, like all government programs, these could be
abused — see, for example, the IRS making life tough on tea partiers. But there is no evidence of abuse so far and plenty of evidence — in the
lack of successful terrorist attacks — that these programs have been effective in disrupting terrorist plots. Granted there is something inherently
intelligence committees, Republicans and Democrats alike, have come to the defense of these activities.
creepy about Uncle Sam scooping up so much information about us. But Google, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, Citibank and other companies know at least as much about us, because they use very similar data-mining programs to
track our online movements. They gather that information in order to sell us products, and no one seems to be overly alarmed. The NSA is gathering that information to keep us safe from terrorist attackers. Yet somehow its actions
have become a "scandal," to use a term now loosely being tossed around. The real scandal here is that the Guardian and Washington Post are compromising our national security by telling our enemies about our intelligencegathering capabilities. Their news stories reveal, for example, that only nine Internet companies share information with the NSA. This is a virtual invitation to terrorists to use other Internet outlets for searches, email, apps and all
to stop or scale back the NSA's special intelligence efforts would amount to
unilateral disarmament in a war against terrorism that is far from over.
the rest. No intelligence effort can ever keep us 100% safe, but
(Note to students: a “longitudinal study” is research carried out over an extended period of time. In this
case, several years.)
Link – curtailing surveillance boosts terror risks. That risk’s serious and
underestimated.
Lewis ‘14
James Andrew Lewis is a senior fellow and director of the Strategic Technologies Program at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies in Washington, D.C., where he writes on technology, security, and the international economy. Before
joining CSIS, he worked at the US Departments of State and Commerce as a Foreign Service officer and as a member of the
Senior Executive Service. His diplomatic experience included negotiations on military basing in Asia, the Cambodia peace
process, and the five-power talks on arms transfer restraint. Lewis received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago.
“Underestimating Risk in the Surveillance Debate” - CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES - STRATEGIC
TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM – December - http://csis.org/publication/underestimating-risk-surveillance-debate
Americans are reluctant to accept terrorism is part of their daily lives, but attacks have been planned or
attempted against American targets (usually airliners or urban areas) almost every year since 9/11. Europe faces even greater
risk, given the thousands of European Union citizens who will return hardened and radicalized from fighting in Syria and Iraq. The threat of attack is
easy to exaggerate, but that does not mean it is nonexistent. Australia’s then-attorney general said in August 2013 that
communications surveillance had stopped four “mass casualty events” since 2008. The constant planning and preparation for attack by terrorist groups is not
apparent to the public. The
dilemma in assessing risk is that it is discontinuous. There can be long periods with
no noticeable activity, only to have the apparent calm explode. The debate over how to reform
communications surveillance has discounted this risk. Communications surveillance is an essential law enforcement
and intelligence tool. There is no replacement for it. Some suggestions for alternative approaches to
surveillance, such as the idea that the National Security Agency (NSA) only track known or suspected terrorists, reflect wishful
thinking, as it is the unknown terrorist who will inflict the greatest harm.
Relying on MLATs results in lengthy delays – compromises responses to terrorism and
drug trafficking
Schultheis 15 (Ned, Summer Associate at Ropes & Gray LLP, “WARRANTS IN THE CLOUDS: HOW
EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT THREATENS THE UNITED
STATES’ CLOUD STORAGE INDUSTRY,” Volume 9 Issue 2, CMR)
At the same time, there
is merit to the U.S. government’s argument that the current MLAT process is slow and
subject to political objectives that may not conform to time sensitive investigations of international
matters of concern.233 It is evident Microsoft and Ireland denounce the U.S. government’s alleged bypass of the U.S.-Irish MLAT.234
Although the U.S.- Irish MLAT’s purpose is “to improve the effectiveness of the law enforcement authorities of both countries in the
investigation, prosecution, and prevention of crime through cooperation and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters,”235 and, traditionally,
is the process by which the U.S. government would obtain evidence located in Ireland through a domestic warrant, the
U.S.
government’s arguments for efficiency in relation to criminal investigation has legitimate backing in
today’s post-9/11 era. Criminal investigations on high security matters, such as drug enforcement or
terrorism, need to run smoothly and efficiently because time of the essence. There is no reason to bog
down investigations where critical evidence is located abroad and risk losing valuable intelligence due
to another nation’s potential political goals that may be in opposition with the ongoing U.S. investigation
in sending the evidence in a timely manner.
Vigilance link - Strong intel gathering’s key to discourages initiation of BW attacks.
Pittenger ‘14
US Rep. Robert Pittenger, chair of Congressional Task Force on Terrorism, “Bipartisan bill on NSA data collection protects both
privacy and national security” - Washington Examiner, 6/9/14, http://washingtonexaminer.com/rep.-robert-pittengerbipartisan-bill-on-nsa-data-collection-protects-both-privacy-and-nationalsecurity/article/2549456?custom_click=rss&utm_campaign=Weekly+Standard+Story+Box&utm_source=weeklystandard.com&
utm_medium=referral
This February, I took
that question to a meeting of European Ambassadors at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe. During the conference, I asked three questions: 1. What is the current worldwide terrorist threat? 2. What is America’s role in addressing and mitigating this
threat? 3. What
role does intelligence data collection play in this process, given the multiple platforms for attack
including physical assets, cyber, chemical, biological, nuclear and the electric grid? Each ambassador
acknowledged the threat was greater today than before 9/11, with al Qaeda and other extreme Islamist terrorists
stronger, more sophisticated, and having a dozen or more training camps throughout the Middle East and
Africa. As to the role of the United States, they felt our efforts were primary and essential for peace and
security around the world. Regarding the intelligence-gathering, their consensus was, “We want privacy, but
we must have your intelligence.” As a European foreign minister stated to me, “Without U.S. intelligence, we are blind.” We cannot
yield to those loud but misguided voices who view the world as void of the deadly and destructive intentions of
unrelenting terrorists. The number of terrorism-related deaths worldwide doubled between 2012 and 2013, jumping from
10,000 to 20,000 in just one year. Now is not the time to stand down. Those who embrace an altruistic worldview
should remember that vigilance and strength have deterred our enemies in the past. That same
commitment is required today to defeat those who seek to destroy us and our way of life. We must make careful,
prudent use of all available technology to counter their sophisticated operations if we are to maintain our freedom and
liberties.
Bioterror attacks cause extinction
Mhyrvold ‘13
Nathan, Began college at age 14, BS and Masters from UCLA, Masters and PhD, Princeton “Strategic Terrorism: A Call to
Action,” Working Draft, The Lawfare Research Paper Series Research paper NO . 2 – 2013
As horrible as this would be, such a pandemic is by no means the worst attack one can imagine, for several reasons. First, most
of the classic
bioweapons are based on 1960s and 1970s technology because the 1972 treaty halted bioweapons
development efforts in the United States and most other Western countries. Second, the Russians, although solidly
committed to biological weapons long after the treaty deadline, were never on the cutting edge of biological research. Third and most important, the
science
and technology of molecular biology have made enormous advances, utterly transforming the field in the last
few decades. High school biology students routinely perform molecular-biology manipulations that would
have been impossible even for the best superpower-funded program back in the heyday of biologicalweapons research. The biowarfare methods of the 1960s and 1970s are now as antiquated as the
lumbering mainframe computers of that era. Tomorrow’s terrorists will have vastly more deadly bugs to
choose from. Consider this sobering development: in 2001, Australian researchers working on mousepox, a nonlethal virus that infects mice (as chickenpox
does in humans), accidentally discovered that a simple genetic modification transformed the virus.10, 11 Instead of producing mild symptoms, the new virus killed
60% of even those mice already immune to the naturally occurring strains of mousepox. The new virus, moreover, was unaffected by any existing vaccine or
antiviral drug. A team of researchers at Saint Louis University led by Mark Buller picked up on that work and, by late 2003, found a way to improve on it: Buller’s
variation on mousepox was 100% lethal, although his team of investigators also devised combination vaccine and antiviral therapies that
were partially effective in protecting animals from the engineered strain.12, 13 Another saving grace is that the genetically altered virus is no
longer contagious. Of course, it is quite possible that future tinkering with the virus will change that
property, too. Strong reasons exist to believe that the genetic modifications Buller made to mousepox would work
for other poxviruses and possibly for other classes of viruses as well. Might the same techniques allow chickenpox or another poxvirus
that infects humans to
be turned into a 100% lethal bioweapon, perhaps one that is resistant to any known antiviral therapy?
I’ve asked this question of experts many times, and no one has yet replied that such a manipulation
couldn’t be done. This case is just one example. Many more are pouring out of scientific journals and conferences every
year. Just last year, the journal Nature published a controversial study done at the University of Wisconsin–Madison in which virologists enumerated the changes
one would need to make to a highly lethal strain of bird flu to make it easily transmitted from one mammal to another.14 Biotechnology
is advancing
so rapidly that it is hard to keep track of all the new potential threats . Nor is it clear that anyone is even trying. In addition to
lethality and drug resistance, many other parameters can be played with, given that the infectious power of an
epidemic depends on many properties, including the length of the latency period during which a person is
contagious but asymptomatic. Delaying the onset of serious symptoms allows each new case to spread to more
people and thus makes the virus harder to stop. This dynamic is perhaps best illustrated by HIV , which is very
difficult to transmit compared with smallpox and many other viruses. Intimate contact is needed, and even then, the infection rate is low. The
balancing
factor is that HIV can take years to progress to AIDS , which can then take many more years to kill the
victim. What makes HIV so dangerous is that infected people have lots of opportunities to infect others. This property has allowed HIV to claim more than 30
million lives so far, and approximately 34 million people are now living with this virus and facing a highly uncertain future.15 A
virus genetically
engineered to infect its host quickly, to generate symptoms slowly—say, only after weeks or months—and to spread easily
through the air or by casual contact would be vastly more devastating than HIV . It could silently penetrate
the population to unleash its deadly effects suddenly. This type of epidemic would be almost impossible to
combat because most of the infections would occur before the epidemic became obvious. A technologically
sophisticated terrorist group could develop such a virus and kill a large part of humanity with it. Indeed, terrorists
may not have to develop it themselves: some scientist may do so first and publish the details. Given the rate at which
biologists are making discoveries about viruses and the immune system, at some point in the near future,
someone may create artificial pathogens that could drive the human race to extinction. Indeed, a detailed
species-elimination plan of this nature was openly proposed in a scientific journal. The ostensible purpose of that
particular research was to suggest a way to extirpate the malaria mosquito, but similar techniques could be directed toward
humans.16 When I’ve talked to molecular biologists about this method, they are quick to point out that it is slow and easily detectable and could be fought with
biotech remedies. If you challenge them to come up with improvements to the suggested attack plan, however, they have plenty of ideas. Modern
biotechnology will soon be capable, if it is not already, of bringing about the demise of the human race— or
at least of killing a sufficient number of people to end high-tech civilization and set humanity back 1,000
years or more. That terrorist groups could achieve this level of technological sophistication may seem far-fetched, but keep in mind that it takes only a
handful of individuals to accomplish these tasks. Never has lethal power of this potency been accessible to so few, so easily. Even more dramatically than nuclear
proliferation, modern biological science has frighteningly undermined the correlation between the lethality of a weapon and its cost, a fundamentally stabilizing
mechanism throughout history. Access to extremely lethal agents—lethal enough to exterminate Homo sapiens—will be available to anybody with a solid
background in biology, terrorists included.
TPP DA – 1NC
Obama’s all in on TPP, but PC key to bring deal itself across congressional finish line –
it’s the mother of all trade fights because its perceived as setting the new framework
for ALL FUTURE TRADE DEALS
Vinik, 15 -- Danny Vinik is a staff writer at The New Republic, New Republic, 4/8/15,
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121476/trans-pacific-partnership-foundation-all-future-tradedeals
A theme runs through these four disagreements: They're overrated. The actual effects of the TPP are exaggerated. Labor
unions warn
about mass job losses and the Obama Administration touts the significant labor provisions in the law, but
the academic evidence largely points to small job losses or gains. The left demands a chapter on currency manipulation
while knowing that the 11 other TPP countries will never accept one without significant restrictions on
the Federal Reserve. Even for Washington, a town where every policy decisions becomes a massive
lobbying free-for-all, the TPP seems overblown. Until, that is, you consider what’s really at stake with the
TPP. "I think its larger importance is trying to establish a new framework under which global trade deals
will be done,” said Hanson. “Now that the [World Trade Organization] seems to be pretty much ineffective
as a form for negotiating new trade deals, we need a new rubric." Looked at through that lens, it makes
sense why both the unions and the Obama administration have spent so much political capital on the
TPP. If the TPP sets the framework for future trade deals, it could be a long time before unions have
the leverage again to push for a crackdown on currency manipulation. They understand, as the Obama
Administration and many interest groups do, what much of the media doesn't: The TPP isn't just a 12-country
trade deal. It's much bigger than that. When I shared this theory with Jared Bernstein, he began to rethink his position. “When
you put it that way, I kind of feel myself being pulled back into the initial title of my post,” he said. “In other words, if this is the last
big trade deal, then perhaps the absence of a currency chapter is a bigger deal than I thought.” If the TPP
could determine the course of global trade for decades to come, then each interest group has a huge
incentive to fight for every last policy concession. It explains why labor and business groups are
putting huge amounts of money into this fight. That money and the accompanying rhetoric has only
made it harder for policy journalists to cut through these complex debates. It may take decades before we
really understand the stakes of the TPP.
Freedom act passage changed the politics – any additional new surveillance limits
uniquely drains PC
Gross, 6/5 – Grant, Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for the IDG News Service, and is based
in Washington, D.C., IDG News Service, PC World, 6/5/15, http://www.pcworld.com/article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-to-nsasurveillance-from-congress.html
Don't expect major changes to NSA surveillance from Congress After the U.S. Congress approved what critics
have called modest limits on the National Security Agency’s collection of domestic telephone records, many lawmakers may be
reluctant to further change the government’s surveillance programs. The Senate this week passed the USA
Freedom Act, which aims to end the NSA’s mass collection of domestic phone records, and President Barack Obama signed the bill hours
later. After that action, expect Republican leaders in both the Senate and the House of Representatives to
resist further calls for surveillance reform. That resistance is at odds with many rank-and-file lawmakers,
including many House Republicans, who want to further limit NSA programs brought to light by former agency contractor Edward Snowden.
Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates also promise to push for more changes. It may be
difficult to get “broad, sweeping
reform” through Congress, but many lawmakers seem ready to push for more changes, said Adam Eisgrau, managing director of the
office of government relations for the American Library Association. The ALA has charged the NSA surveillance programs violate the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. “Congress is not allowed to be tired of surveillance
reform unless it’s prepared to say it’s tired of the Fourth Amendment,” Eisgrau said. “The American public will not accept that.” Other
activists are less optimistic about more congressional action. “It will a long slog getting more
restraints,” J. Kirk Wiebe, a former NSA analyst and whistleblower said by email. ”The length of that journey will depend on public outcry—
that is the one thing that is hard to gauge.” With the USA Freedom Act, “elected officials have opted to reach for
low-hanging fruit,” said Bill Blunden, a cybersecurity researcher and surveillance critic. “The theater
we’ve just witnessed allows decision makers to boast to their constituents about reforming mass
surveillance while spies understand that what’s actually transpired is hardly major change.” The “actual
physical mechanisms” of surveillance programs remain largely intact. Blunden added by email. “Politicians may
dither around the periphery but they are unlikely to institute fundamental changes.”
Impact is multiple scenarios for conflict throughout asia and east asia – impact D and
thumpers don’t apply – TPP is necessary AND sufficient condition, accesses every
structural check – 11 reasons
-
Pivot
Institutions and Rules that moderate and constrain Territorial disputes and escalation
US regional leadership
Perception and credibility of US regional commitment
Perception and Regional credibility of US-Japan alliance effectiveness
Economy
Trade
Economic interdependence
Peaceful china rise and transition
Rule of law
Outweighs US military shift
Economist 14. [11-15-14 --- http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21631797-americaneeds-push-free-trade-pact-pacific-more-vigorously-americas-big-bet]
Mr Froman, the trade tsar, puts
TPP into a dauntingly ambitious context. He calls it central to America’s pivot to
Asia, a chance to show the country’s commitment to creating institutions that moderate territorial
disputes, and an opportunity to show emerging economies (meaning China) what economic rules the
global economy should follow. “At a time when there is uncertainty about the direction of the global
trading system, TPP can play a central role in setting rules of the road for a critical region in flux,” he says.
The flipside of this is that failure becomes an even bigger risk, which Mr Froman acknowledges. Perhaps in an effort to
prod a somnolent, introspective Congress into action, he makes the dramatic claim that failure could mean America “would forfeit its
seat at the centre of the global economy”. Many pundits in Washington agree that American leadership in
Asia is on the table. Michael Green of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies says TPP failure would
“undermine the impression of the United States as a Pacific power and look like an abdication of
leadership”. It would also take pressure off Japan and China to reform their economies. Mireya Solís, a
Japan expert at the Brookings Institution, says it would be a “devastating blow to the United States’
credibility”. Those views are echoed in East Asia. Mr Tay in Singapore says TPP failure would be a disaster: “If
the domestic issues of these two countries cannot be resolved, there is no sense that the US-Japan
alliance can provide any kind of steerage for the region.” Deborah Elms, head of the Singapore-based Asian Trade
Centre, suggests that so far the American pivot has manifested itself mainly as an extra 1,000 marines stationed in Australia. “Without
TPP, all the pivot amounts to is a few extra boots on the ground in Darwin,” she says. Even members of
America’s armed forces are worried. As one senior serving officer in the Pacific puts it, “the TPP unites
countries that are committed to a trade-based future, transparency and the rule of law. It is the model
that the United States and Europe have advanced versus that advanced by China. It is an opportunity to
move the arc of Chinese development, or identify it as a non-participant.”
Nuclear war
Landay 00 (Jonathan S., National Security and Intelligence Correspondent, Knight Ridder/Tribune
News Service, 3-10, Lexis)
Few if any experts think China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or India and Pakistan are spoiling to fight. But
even a minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia, jolt the global economy and even start a
nuclear war. India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons, and North Korea may have a few, too. Asia lacks the
kinds of organizations, negotiations and diplomatic relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades in
Cold War Europe. “Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes as high and relationships so fragile,” said Bates Gill, director
of northeast Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. “We see the convergence of great
power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no institutionalized security mechanism in place. There are
elements for potential disaster.” In an effort to cool the region’s tempers, President Clinton, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and
National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger all will hopscotch Asia’s capitals this month. For America, the stakes could hardly be higher. There
are 100,000 U.S. troops in Asia committed to defending Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, and the United States would
instantly become embroiled if Beijing moved against Taiwan or North Korea attacked South Korea. While Washington has no
defense commitments to either India or Pakistan, a conflict between the two could end the global taboo against using nuclear
weapons and demolish the already shaky international nonproliferation regime. In addition, globalization has made a stable
Asia, with its massive markets, cheap labor, exports and resources, indispensable to the U.S. economy. Numerous
U.S. firms and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia that totaled $600 billion last year, according to the
Commerce Department.
Advantage CP—MLATs 1NC
Text: The United States federal government should pass comprehensive reforms to
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties including a substantial increasing in funding and
establishing online request forms.
The counterplan institutes key reforms to streamline MLATs – dramatically improves
law enforcement cooperation
Hill 15 (Jonah Force, writes on Internet policy and cybersecurity issues, and formerly served in the
White House Office of the Cybersecurity Coordinator and as a Cybersecurity Teaching Fellow at Harvard,
“Problematic Alternatives: MLAT Reform for the Digital Age,” Jan 28,
http://harvardnsj.org/2015/01/problematic-alternatives-mlat-reform-for-the-digital-age/, CMR)
V. Policy Recommendations These MLAT
alternatives are potentially harmful to a robust and free Internet, and could
be rendered unnecessary by appropriate MLAT reforms like the following. A. Increase MLAT funding Insufficient
resources are a primary cause of MLAT backlogs. The United States must spend more money to make
MLATs work for foreign law enforcement. America’s recent $24 million in new funding was necessary
but insufficient. More MLAT requests will come in as criminal prosecutions increasingly focus on digital
evidence. The United States is also entitled to expect other countries to spend more to expedite responses
to American requests. Realistically, other nations must recognize that American prosecutors will turn to warrants like in Microsoft if
their MLAT requests gather dust in foreign justice ministries. B. Issue unilateral guidelines for direct data requests Governments should issue
unilateral, self-binding guidelines to limit prosecutors’ authority to bypass an applicable MLAT and compel production of electronic records
stored outside their own jurisdiction. For instance, when the information sought is particularly sensitive (perhaps political or financial
information) governments should unilaterally require that prosecutors use MLAT procedures. Further, once increased resources
(recommendation #1) speed up the MLAT process, governments ought to consider instituting a “first use” constraint, requiring that law
enforcement agencies try in good faith to use to the MLAT process prior to pursuing direct access. A “first use” constraint, of course, is likely to
be politically palatable only among nations that adopt parallel reciprocal procedures. C. Streamline the MLAT process The
MLAT review
process should be reformed and streamlined. There are no online submission forms for MLAT requests
today. MLATs must either be submitted by paper or by email to relevant authorities in a slow and
cumbersome process. All nations with MLATs should create an online submission form and guide. As the President’s Review Group has
noted, the current MLAT process also contains multiple, often redundant, request reviews. For instance, the U.S.
DOJ’s Office of International Affairs and the U.S. Attorney’s Office must conduct separate, independent reviews. Such redundancies
should be reevaluated for efficacy and necessity. D. Adopt industry-wide legal interpretations for data requests Major
technology and Internet firms should seek industry-wide consensus on how to interpret national and international law on data collection from
law enforcement authorities. This industry-wide statement will not necessarily alter the way in which governments seek to access data, but it
will give law enforcement a sense of the types of requests that will be challenged versus the types of requests that are broadly seen as
appropriate. This could help avoid unnecessary legal and political confrontations.[2] E. Renegotiate existing MLATs Tech sector innovation and
data globalization has complicated former notions of jurisdiction. Nevertheless, agreement can be reached on key terms and principles in a
sufficiently broad way as to avoid bottlenecks in the MLAT process. These key terms and principles must be incorporated into updated MLAT
agreements. To ensure that MLATs keep pace with changing technologies, provisions dealing with data issues should be revisited frequently
within multi-national working groups.[3] V. Conclusion Reforming
the MLAT system is tremendously important to interstate law enforcement cooperation and the future of the global Internet more generally. If left unreformed, or reformed
poorly, law enforcement and jurisdictional battles among and between governments and technology firms
could place yet another strain on the already stressed global Internet system. By contrast, developing
updated and efficient MLATs could pay enormous dividends, not only for law enforcement as it faces enormous
international challenges, but also by serving as confidence-building measures as sovereign nations take on the
task of resolution of other, even more difficult, global Internet policy challenges. The question is whether or not governments will
take the steps necessary to expedite and modernize the MLAT system before alternatives do irreversible damage to the international system.
Solvency 1NC
Circumvention
Ackerman 15 — Spencer Ackerman, national security editor for Guardian US, former senior writer for
Wired, won the 2012 National Magazine Award for Digital Reporting, 2015 (“Fears NSA will seek to
undermine surveillance reform,” The Guardian, June 1st, Available Online at
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/01/nsa-surveillance-patriot-act-congress-secret-law,
Accessed 06-08-2015)
The USA Freedom Act is supposed to prevent what Wyden calls “secret law”. It contains a provision
requiring congressional notification in the event of a novel legal interpretation presented to the secret
Fisa court overseeing surveillance.
Yet in recent memory, the US government permitted the NSA to circumvent the Fisa court entirely. Not
a single Fisa court judge was aware of Stellar Wind, the NSA’s post-9/11 constellation of bulk
surveillance programs, from 2001 to 2004.
Energetic legal tactics followed to fit the programs under existing legal authorities after internal
controversy or outright exposure. When the continuation of a bulk domestic internet metadata
collection program risked the mass resignation of Justice Department officials in 2004, an internal NSA
draft history records that attorneys found a different legal rationale that “essentially gave NSA the
same authority to collect bulk internet metadata that it had”.
After a New York Times story in 2005 revealed the existence of the bulk domestic phone records
program, attorneys for the US Justice Department and NSA argued, with the blessing of the Fisa court,
that Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorized it all along – precisely the contention that the second
circuit court of appeals rejected in May.
Specifically true for LEADS act
Rash 15 (Wayne, “U.S. Bill Would Ban DoJ Warrant for Email in Overseas Microsoft Server,” 2-14,
http://www.eweek.com/cloud/u.s.-bill-would-ban-doj-warrant-for-email-in-oversears-microsoft-server2.html, CMR)
However, if the LEADS Act were to be passed and signed by President Obama, there would be little choice. But of course that's the issue for
the current administration, which so far has
not hesitated to carry out actions of questionable legality, such as
ignoring existing treaties to gain access to foreign emails. Would President Barack Obama sign the LEADS Act? Considering
the level of support in both houses of Congress, he might realize that he has no choice, but the president might also dare Congress to override
his veto. However, I don't think a veto for this bill is likely. It has strong bipartisan support in both houses. It's also presented as a way to update
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to reflect current technology, which the Obama administration has consistently said it favors. The
act is also presented as a way to keep U.S. companies from breaking the law, which is pretty difficult for the president to oppose. "Law
enforcement agencies wishing to access Americans' data in the cloud ought to get a warrant," Coons explained when the act was introduced,
"and just like warrants for physical evidence, warrants for content under ECPA shouldn't authorize seizure of communications that are located
in a foreign country. "The government's position that ECPA warrants do apply abroad puts U.S. cloud providers in the position of having to
break the privacy laws of foreign countries in which they do business in order to comply with U.S. law. This not only hurts our businesses'
competitiveness and costs American jobs, but it also invites reciprocal treatment by our international trading partners," Coons said. While
there's every reason to believe that eventually federal prosecutors' demands that Microsoft disgorge emails stored abroad will be found
contrary to existing law, the LEADS
Act removes all doubt. Attempting to extend the reach of U.S. domestic laws to apply anywhere in the
world is one of the worst types of overreach. This law would rein in the DoJ's excesses. Assuming, of course, the DoJ
didn't decide to ignore that law as well.
No retaliation or risk to competitiveness or relations – it’s exaggeration that glosses
over existing protections
Bharara 14 (Preet, United States Attorney Southern District of New York, “GOVERNMENT’S BRIEF IN
SUPPORT OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DECISION TO UPHOLD A WARRANT ORDERING MICROSOFT TO
DISCLOSE RECORDS WITHIN ITS CUSTODY AND CONTROL,” July 9, http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/federalbrief-microsoftcase.pdf, CMR)
Microsoft asserts that, unless the Government is required to use MLATs to obtain data stored abroad, U.S.
foreign relations will be damaged and other countries will retaliate by asserting jurisdiction over
electronic data stored here. (Br. 29). Aside from being purely speculative, such concerns are exclusively for the
consideration of the political br anches and do not provide a sound basis to graft extra-statutory restrictions on duly
enacted legislation. See generally Oetjen v. Cent. Leather Co. , 246 U.S. 297, 302 (1918) (“The conduct of the foreign relations of our
Government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative—‘the political’—departments of the government, and the
propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or d ecision.”). They do not provide a basis
for challenging enforcement of a warrant validly issued under the SCA. Microsoft also argues
that, unless its position is
adopted, the U.S. technology sector stands to lose overseas customers who fear “the U.S. Government’s extraterritorial
access to their user information.” (Br. 30). However, an SCA warrant permits the Government to access user
information—wherever it may be stored—only after a neutral magistrate judge has found probable cause
to believe that the information contains evidence of criminal activity. This is a time-tested manner by
which the Government obtains evidence in criminal prosecutions, and nothing could be farther from an
unchecked exercise of power. The form of legal process at issue is specifically designed to protect
legitimate privacy interests, by requiring that a ny intrusion on those interests be properly justified by the need to uncover evidence
of a crime.
Competitiveness 1NC
Current Freedom Act restores confidence
CEA 15 (June 2, 2015, “Washington: CEA Praises Senate Passage of USA FREEDOM Act”
http://www.ce.org/News/News-Releases/Press-Releases/2015-Press-Releases/CEA-Praises-SenatePassage-of-USA-FREEDOM-Act.aspx, ekr)
The Consumer Electronics Association has issued the following news release: The following statement is attributed to Michael Petricone, senior
vice
president of government and regulatory affairs, Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)®, regarding the U.S. Senate’s passage of H.R.
2048, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring (USA FREEDOM) Act of 2015: “We
welcome this important reform to U.S. intelligence gathering which takes critical steps to increase
transparency and restore trust in American businesses, all while maintaining our commitment to
preserving our national security. The bipartisan USA FREEDOM Act is common-sense reform to our nation’s intelligence gathering
programs, which will preserve American businesses’ competitiveness worldwide, while continuing to protect our national
security. “Following the Senate passage, the legislation now heads to the White House, where we anticipate swift action by President Obama to sign this legislation
into law.”
Competitiveness durable and free riding solves
Fallows 10 – correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, studied economics at Oxford University as a
Rhodes Scholar. He has been an editor of The Washington Monthly and of Texas Monthly, and from
1977 to 1979 he served as President Jimmy Carter's chief speechwriter. His first book, National Defense,
won the American Book Award in 1981; he has written seven others (James. “How America Can Rise
Again”, Jan/Feb edition, http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/201001/american-decline)
This is new. Only with America’s emergence as a global power after World War II did the idea of
American “decline” routinely involve falling behind someone else . Before that, it meant falling
short of expectations—God’s, the Founders’, posterity’s—or of the previous virtues of America
in its lost, great days. “The new element in the ’50s was the constant comparison with the
Soviets,” Michael Kazin told me. Since then, external falling-behind comparisons have become not
just a staple of American self-assessment but often a crutch. If we are concerned about our
schools, it is because children are learning more in Singapore or India; about the development
of clean-tech jobs, because it’s happening faster in China. Having often lived outside the
United States since the 1970s, I have offered my share of falling-behind analyses, including a
book-length comparison of Japanese and American strengths (More Like Us) 20 years ago. But
at this point in America’s national life cycle, I think the exercise is largely a distraction, and that
Americans should concentrate on what are, finally, our own internal issues to resolve or
ignore. Naturally there are lessons to draw from other countries’ practices and innovations;
the more we know about the outside world the better, as long as we’re collecting information
calmly rather than glancing nervously at our reflected foreign image. For instance, if you have
spent any time in places where tipping is frowned on or rare, like Japan or Australia, you view
the American model of day-long small bribes, rather than one built-in full price, as something
similar to baksheesh, undignified for all concerned. Naturally, too, it’s easier to draw attention
to a domestic problem and build support for a solution if you cast the issue in us-versus-them
terms, as a response to an outside threat. In If We Can Put a Man on the Moon …, their new
book about making government programs more effective, William Eggers and John O’Leary
emphasize the military and Cold War imperatives behind America’s space program. “The race
to the moon was a contest between two systems of government,” they wrote, “and the
question would be settled not by debate but by who could best execute on this endeavor.”
Falling-behind arguments have proved convenient and powerful in other countries, too. But
whatever their popularity or utility in other places at other times, falling-behind concerns seem too
common in America now. As I have thought about why overreliance on this device increasingly
bothers me, I have realized that it’s because my latest stretch out of the country has left me less
and less interested in whether China or some other country is “overtaking” America. The question
that matters is not whether America is “falling behind” but instead something like John Winthrop’s
original question of whether it is falling short—or even falling apart. This is not the mainstream
American position now, so let me explain. First is the simple reality that one kind of “decline” is
inevitable and therefore not worth worrying about. China has about four times as many people as
America does. Someday its economy will be larger than ours. Fine! A generation ago, its people
produced, on average, about one-sixteenth as much as Americans did; now they produce
about one-sixth. That change is a huge achievement for China—and a plus rather than a minus
for everyone else, because a business-minded China is more benign than a miserable or
rebellious one. When the Chinese produce one-quarter as much as Americans per capita, as
will happen barring catastrophe, their economy will become the world’s largest. This will be
good for them but will not mean “falling behind” for us. We know that for more than a century, the
consciousness of decline has been a blight on British politics, though it has inspired some memorable,
melancholy literature. There is no reason for America to feel depressed about the natural emergence
of China, India, and others as world powers. But second, and more important, America may have
reasons to feel actively optimistic about its prospects in purely relative terms. The crucial american
advantage Let’s start with the more modest claim, that China has ample reason to worry
about its own future. Will the long-dreaded day of reckoning for Chinese development finally
arrive because of environmental disaster? Or via the demographic legacy of the one-child
policy, which will leave so many parents and grandparents dependent on so relatively few
young workers? Minxin Pei, who grew up in Shanghai and now works at Claremont McKenna
College, in California, has predicted in China’s Trapped Transition that within the next few
years, tension between an open economy and a closed political system will become
unendurable, and an unreformed Communist bureaucracy will finally drag down economic
performance. America will be better off if China does well than if it flounders. A prospering China
will mean a bigger world economy with more opportunities and probably less turmoil—and a China
likely to be more cooperative on environmental matters. But whatever happens to China,
prospects could soon brighten for America. The American culture’s particular strengths could
conceivably be about to assume new importance and give our economy new pep. International
networks will matter more with each passing year. As the one truly universal nation, the United
States continually refreshes its connections with the rest of the world—through languages, family,
education, business—in a way no other nation does, or will. The countries that are comparably
open—Canada, Australia—aren’t nearly as large; those whose economies are comparably
large—Japan, unified Europe, eventually China or India—aren’t nearly as open. The simplest
measure of whether a culture is dominant is whether outsiders want to be part of it. At the
height of the British Empire, colonial subjects from the Raj to Malaya to the Caribbean
modeled themselves in part on Englishmen: Nehru and Lee Kuan Yew went to Cambridge,
Gandhi, to University College, London. Ho Chi Minh wrote in French for magazines in Paris.
These days the world is full of businesspeople, bureaucrats, and scientists who have trained in
the United States. Today’s China attracts outsiders too, but in a particular way. Many go for
business opportunities; or because of cultural fascination; or, as my wife and I did, to be on the
scene where something truly exciting was under way. The Haidian area of Beijing, seat of its
universities, is dotted with the faces of foreigners who have come to master the language and
learn the system. But true immigrants? People who want their children and grandchildren to
grow up within this system? Although I met many foreigners who hope to stay in China
indefinitely, in three years I encountered only two people who aspired to citizenship in the
People’s Republic. From the physical rigors of a badly polluted and still-developing country, to
the constraints on free expression and dissent, to the likely ongoing mediocrity of a university
system that emphasizes volume of output over independence or excellence of research, the
realities of China heavily limit the appeal of becoming Chinese. Because of its scale and
internal diversity, China (like India) is a more racially open society than, say, Japan or Korea.
But China has come nowhere near the feats of absorption and opportunity that make up much of
America’s story, and it is very difficult to imagine that it could do so —well, ever. Everything we know
Or STEM shortage means US competitiveness is unsustainable
Waldron ‘12 [Travis, reporter for ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund,
“REPORT: How America’s Falling Share Of Global College Graduates Threatens Future Economic
Competitiveness,” http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/21/722571/report-us-share-of-collegegraduates-dropped-over-last-decade-compared-to-china-india/]
The United States’ share
of global college graduates fell substantially in the first decade of the 21st century and stands
to drop even more by 2020 as developing economies in China and India have graduated more college students, presenting
challenges for American workers’ ability to remain competitive in a global economy in the future. The U.S. share
of college graduates fell from nearly one-in-four to just more than one-in-five from 2000 to 2010, according to “The Competition That Really
Matters,” a report from the Center for American Progress and The Center for the Next Generation: From 2000 to 2010, the U.S. share of college
graduates fell to 21% of the world’s total from 24%, while China’s share climbed to 11% from 9%. India’s rose more than half a percentage point
to 7%. Based on current demographic and college enrollment trends, we can project where each country will be by 2020: the U.S. share of the
world’s college graduates will fall below 18% while China’s
and India’s will rise to more than 13% and nearly 8% respectively.
No impact to US competitiveness- it’s all hype
Krugman ’11 [Paul, Nobel Prize-winning economist, professor of Economics and International Affairs at
Princeton University, received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He
has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics,
“The Competition Myth,” 1-24-11,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/opinion/24krugman.html?_r=0]
Meet the new buzzword, same as the old buzzword. In advance of the State of the Union, President Obama has telegraphed his main theme:
competitiveness. The President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board has been renamed the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.
And in his Saturday radio address, the president declared that “We can out-compete any other nation on Earth.” This may be smart politics.
Arguably, Mr. Obama has enlisted an old cliché on behalf of a good cause, as a way to sell a much-needed increase in public investment to a
public thoroughly indoctrinated in the view that government spending is a bad thing.¶ But let’s not kid ourselves: talking about
“competitiveness” as a goal is fundamentally misleading. At best, it’s
a misdiagnosis of our problems. At worst, it could
lead to policies based on the false idea that what’s good for corporations is good for America.¶ About that
misdiagnosis: What sense does it make to view our current woes as stemming from lack of competitiveness?¶ It’s true that we’d have
more jobs if we exported more and imported less. But the same is true of Europe and Japan, which also have
depressed economies. And we can’t all export more while importing less, unless we can find another planet to sell to. Yes, we could demand
that China shrink its trade surplus — but if confronting China is what Mr. Obama is proposing, he should say that plainly.¶ Furthermore, while
America is running a trade deficit, this deficit is smaller than it was before the Great Recession began. It would help if we could make it smaller
still. But ultimately, we’re
in a mess because we had a financial crisis, not because American companies have
lost their ability to compete with foreign rivals.¶ But isn’t it at least somewhat useful to think of our nation as if it were America Inc.,
competing in the global marketplace? No.¶ Consider: A corporate leader who increases profits by slashing his work force is thought to be
successful. Well, that’s more or less what has happened in America recently: employment is way down, but profits are hitting new records.
Who, exactly, considers this economic success?¶ Still, you might say that talk of competitiveness helps Mr. Obama quiet claims that he’s antibusiness. That’s fine, as long as he realizes that the
interests of nominally “American” corporations and the interests of the
nation, which were never the same, are now less aligned than ever before.¶ Take the case of General Electric, whose chief
executive, Jeffrey Immelt, has just been appointed to head that renamed advisory board. I have nothing against either G.E. or Mr. Immelt. But
with fewer than half its workers based in the United States and less than half its revenues coming from U.S. operations, G.E.’s
fortunes
have very little to do with U.S. prosperity.¶ By the way, some have praised Mr. Immelt’s appointment on the grounds that at
least he represents a company that actually makes things, rather than being yet another financial wheeler-dealer. Sorry to burst this bubble,
but these days G.E. derives more revenue from its financial operations than it does from manufacturing — indeed, GE Capital, which received a
government guarantee for its debt, was a major beneficiary of the Wall Street bailout.¶ So what
does the administration’s embrace of the
rhetoric of competitiveness mean for economic policy?¶ The favorable interpretation, as I said, is that it’s just packaging
for an economic strategy centered on public investment, investment that’s actually about creating jobs now while promoting longerterm growth. The unfavorable interpretation is that Mr. Obama and his advisers really believe that the economy is ailing because they’ve been
too tough on business, and that what America needs now is corporate tax cuts and across-the-board deregulation.¶ My guess is that we’re
mainly talking about packaging here. And if the president does propose a serious increase in spending on infrastructure and education, I’ll be
pleased.¶ But even if he proposes good policies, the fact that Mr. Obama feels the need to wrap these policies in bad metaphors is a sad
commentary on the state of our discourse.¶ The financial crisis of 2008 was a teachable moment, an object lesson in what can go wrong if you
trust a market economy to regulate itself. Nor should we forget that highly regulated economies, like Germany, did a much better job than we
did at sustaining employment after the crisis hit. For whatever reason, however, the teachable moment came and went with nothing learned.¶
Mr. Obama himself may do all right: his approval rating is up, the economy is showing signs of life, and his chances of re-election look pretty
good. But the ideology that brought economic disaster in 2008 is back on top — and seems likely to stay there until it brings disaster again.
not key to heg
Nuno P. Monteiro is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yale University, where he teaches
International Relations theory and security studies. He earned his Ph.D. in Political Science from the
University of Chicago in 2009. “ Theory of Unipolar Politics” (Cambridge University Press) April 2014 p.
14-17
At the same time, the debate on unipolar durability is almost exclusively focused on differential rates of
economic growth and their determinants. Will China continue to grow faster than the United States, or
will its economic development slow down or even stall? When will China's economy overtake that of the
United States? What can the United States do to boost its own pace of economic growth?¶ Although
these are important questions in their own right, they are nearly irrelevant for the durability of U.S.
military power preponderance. The reason is simple: military power is not a side product of economic
development. Rather, military power is the result of purposeful state action. Specifically, it is the
product of a decision by a state to invest a fraction of the country's wealth into the production of
military capabilities over time. As such, military power does not necessarily follow from economic
growth.¶ Put in the context of a unipolar world in the nuclear age, this means that - independently from
recurrent arguments about U.S. economic decline - the power preponderance of the United States is
not set to end. But, again, nowhere in the literature do we have an argument laying out the conditions
under which a unipolar distribution of military power is likely to end - or, on the contrary, to endure for
a long time even in the presence of a shifting distribution of economic power. This book sets out to
provide one such theory, refocusing the debate on unipolar durability from differential rates of
economic growth to political decisions to invest in additional military capabilities.
MLATs 1NC
Organized crime resilient.
Ayling 9 - Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security, Regulatory
Institutions, Julie, “Criminal organizations and resilience”, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice
37 (2009) 182e196
Criminal organizations inhabit dynamic environments where the pressures of competition and state
opposition constantly challenge their very existence. To survive and prosper, they must be sufficiently
resilient to adapt to changing conditions arising from new competition, alterations in
laws, policies and law enforcement practices, expansion or contraction of illegal
markets and the availability of new technologies. Change may also result from internal
conflicts: the organization may splinter, merge with other groups or reorganize (Weisel, 2002a). While the
study of criminal organizations has not entirely overlooked resilience (see, for example, Williams, 2001;
Kenney, 2006, 2007; Jackson, 2006; Bouchard, 2007), little attention has been paid to how resilience in
criminal organizations develops. What is it about criminal organizations that have survived and flourished amid
constant threat and frequent confrontation that has given them the resilience to do so?
Organized crime doesn’t cause violence
Igor V. Dubinsky, 2007, B.A.: Integrated Science, Advanced Physics, and Molecular/Genetic Biology,
2004, Northwestern University; J.D. Candidate, May 2007: DePaul University College of Law Winter,
2007, (DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal, 5 DePaul Bus. & Comm. L.J. 379, COMMENT: How
Bad Boys Turn Good: The Role of Law in Transforming Criminal Organizations Into Legitimate Entities by
Making Rehabilitation An Economic Necessity, p. Lexis)
Yet even an underground business must still operate as close as possible to the guidelines of the law - the
further it deviates, the higher its costs. Destruction and gang wars may look like fun in movies, but they
are generally unprofitable and cause increased prosecutions. n33 In both legal and illegal markets,
"the best of all monopoly profits is a quiet life." n34 Instead of attempting competition in the same area,
criminal organizations split up territories establishing cartels and geographic monopolies. n35 For example, it
may be easier to kill a rival-drug selling mafia than to engage in product competition (manufacturing higher
quality and cheaper drugs), but if this will lead to government prosecutions, rival mafia wars, or increased
police enforcement, it may be cheaper to instead cartelize the industry or divide up the territory between the
various suppliers. n36 The more murders the mafia commits, the more police and judges it
has to bribe, and the more witnesses it has to kill. For example, when a Chicago drug ring leader
was asked by one of his subordinates why he could not just shoot and kill competitors, he explained: "you've
got to belong to a serious organization - you can't just tear [things] up. It's bad for business." n37 Thus a
mafia behaves just like any other profit maximizing organization - seeking to minimize
its costs and maximize its profits. However, unlike a legal organization, the mafia will use illegal
means if the expected profits from those means are more than the expected profits from their legal counterparts.
n38 As one Mafioso eloquently said in [*386] Mario Puzo's Godfather, "I don't like violence ... I'm a
businessman; blood is a big expense." n39
No risk of pandemics – new advances
Economist, 10
(11 22, http://www.economist.com/node/17493456)
Fortunately,
globalisation will also speed the flow of health data. In 2011 the growing field of digital epidemiology will attract more students, health
officials and resources than ever before. People in viral hotspots around the world will report suspicious human and animal deaths (often a warning sign of a coming plague) by mobile phones.
These data will be posted to the web, instantly enriching the data that came from traditional surveillance systems and electronic medical records. Organisations like Google.org will scour
search patterns around the world, expanding their search-based predictions of influenza to other infectious diseases. Still more creative early-detection systems will begin to pull together
allowing us to see changing disease patterns before they
make the morning news. Novel laboratory approaches to the discovery of new viruses will emerge. The longillness information present in social-networking sites like Facebook and Twitter,
awaited era of single-molecule DNA sequencing will begin in earnest with new machines from companies like Pacific Biosciences, and with a bit of luck this will improve the speed at which we
can recognise unknown bugs. At the cutting edge, new studies of virus evolution and chips housing tiny cell cultures will improve our capacity to sort through the viral chatter and determine if
a newly identified outbreak has the potential to spread globally or is likely to fade away. The discovery of new viruses will make the move from universities to laboratories around the world,
helping to facilitate international scientific collaboration and decrease fears of biopiracy. Towards a global immune system In 2011 you may be among those who will watch “Contagion”, a
forthcoming movie about a frightening fictional pandemic. But whether you are a head of state wary of the political and economic costs of a disease catastrophe, a CEO concerned by supplychain and staff disruption associated with the next pandemic or a citizen worried about your family, in 2011 you will have access to better, more accurate and rapidly available data on actual
In the increasingly popular Silicon Valley model, organisations like ours will mash up multiple data
sources—combining lab results in far-flung viral listening-posts with international news feeds, text
messages, social-networking and search patterns to create a new form of epidemic intelligence. The past ten
years have seen noteworthy progress in the development of truly global systems. In the world of outbreaks, 2011 will mark the beginning of
the development of a worldwide immune system that will detect and respond to biological threats
before they go global. Although this will take years to build fully, if successful it could make pandemic anniversaries a thing of the
past.
outbreaks.
Biodiversity is resilient and inevitable
Sagoff 8 Mark, Senior Research Scholar @ Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy @ School of Public Policy @ U. Maryland, Environmental Values, “On the Economic Value of
Ecosystem Services”, 17:2, 239-257, EBSCO
Biodiversity represents nature's greatest largess or excess since species appear
nearly as numerous as the stars the Drifters admired, except that "scientists have a better understanding of how
many stars there are in the galaxy than how many species there arc on Earth."70 Worldwide the variety
of biodiversity is effectively infinite ; the myriad species of plants and animals, not to mention
microbes that arc probably more important, apparently exceed our ability to count or identify them. The "next" or
"incremental" thousand species taken at random would not fetch a market price because another
thousand are immediately available, and another thousand after that. No one has suggested an economic application,
What about the economic value of biodiversity?
moreover, for any of the thousand species listed as threatened in the United States.77 To defend these species - or the next thousand or the thousand after that - on economic
grounds is to trade convincing spiritual, aesthetic, and ethical arguments for bogus, pretextual, and disingenuous economic ones.78 As David Ehrenfeld has written,
We do not know how many [plant] species are needed lo keep the planet green and healthy, but
it seems very unlikely to be anywhere near the more than quarter of a million we have now. Even a
mighty dominant like the American chestnut, extending over half a continent, all but disappeared without bring¬ing the eastern deciduous forest down with it. And if we turn to
what biologist is willing to find a value - conventional or ecological - for all
600,000-plus species of beetles?7*
the invertebrates, the source of nearly all biological diversity,
The disappearance in the wild even of agriculturally useful species appears to have no effect on
production. The last wild aurochs, the progenitor of dairy and beef cattle, went extinct in Poland
in 1742, yet no one believes the beef industry is threatened. The genetic material of crop species is
contained in tens of thousands of landraces and cultivars in use - rice is an example - and does not depend on the
persistence of wild ancestral types. Genetic engineering can introduce DNA from virtually any
species into virtually any other - which allows for the unlimited creation of biodiversity.
A neighbor of mine has collected about 4,000 different species of insects on his two-acre property in Silver Spring, Maryland. These include 500 kinds of Lepidoptera (mostly moths)
- half the number another entomologist found at his residence.80 When you factor in plants and animals, the amount of "backyard biodiversity" in suburbs is astounding and far
Biodiversity has no value "at the margin" because nature provides far more of
it than anyone could possibly administer. If one kind of moth flies off, you can easily attract
hundreds of others.
greater than you can imagine.8'
US – EU Relations 1NC
No impact to US/European relations
Haas 11—president of the CFR Lecturer in public policy, Harvard. DPhill, Oxford (17 June 2011, Richard,
Why Europe No Longer Matters, http://www.cfr.org/europerussia/why-europe-no-longermatters/p25308)
Gates sounded a pessimistic note, warning of "the real possibility for a dim if not dismal future for the transatlantic alliance." Yet, the outgoing Pentagon chief may not have been
The U.S.-European partnership that proved so central to managing and winning the Cold War will inevitably play a far
diminished role in the years to come. To some extent, we're already there: If NATO didn't exist today, would anyone feel compelled to create it? The
honest, if awkward, answer is no. In the coming decades, Europe's influence on affairs beyond its borders will be sharply
limited, and it is in other regions, not Europe, that the 21st century will be most clearly forged and defined. Certainly, one reason for NATO's increasing marginalization stems from
pessimistic enough.
the behavior of its European members. The problem is not the number of European troops (there are 2 million) nor what Europeans collectively spend on defense ($300 billion a year),
With NATO, the whole is far less than the sum of its parts.
Critical decisions are still made nationally; much of the talk about a common defense policy remains just
that -- talk. There is little specialization or coordination. Missing as well are many of the logistical and
intelligence assets needed to project military force on distant battlefields. The alliance's effort in Libya -- the poorly conceived intervention, the
but rather how those troops are organized and how that money is spent.
widespread refusal or inability to participate in actual strike missions, the obvious difficulties in sustaining intense operations -- is a daily reminder of what the world's most powerful
With the Cold War and the Soviet threat a distant memory, there is little political
willingness, on a country-by-country basis, to provide adequate public funds to the military. (Britain and France, which each spend more
military organization cannot accomplish.
than 2 percent of their gross domestic products on defense, are two of the exceptions here.) Even where a willingness to intervene with military force exists, such as in Afghanistan,
where upward of 35,000 European troops are deployed, there are severe constraints. Some governments, such as Germany, have historically limited their participation in combat
operations, while
the cultural acceptance of casualties is fading in many European nations. But it would be wrong, not to mention
fruitless, to blame the Europeans and their choices alone. There are larger historical forces contributing to the continent's increasing irrelevance to world affairs. Ironically, Europe's own
notable successes are an important reason that transatlantic ties will matter less in the future. The current euro zone financial crisis should not obscure the historic accomplishment that
was the building of an integrated Europe over the past half-century. The continent is largely whole and free and stable. Europe, the principal arena of much 20th-century geopolitical
competition, will be spared such a role in the new century -- and this is a good thing. The contrast with Asia could hardly be more dramatic. Asia is increasingly the center of gravity of the
world economy; the historic question is whether this dynamism can be managed peacefully. The major powers of Europe -- Germany, France and Great Britain -- have reconciled, and the
regional arrangements there are broad and deep. In Asia, however, China, Japan, India, Vietnam, the two Koreas, Indonesia and others eye one another warily. Regional pacts and
arrangements, especially in the political and security realms, are thin. Political and economic competition is unavoidable; military conflict cannot be ruled out. Europeans will play a
modest role, at best, in influencing these developments. If Asia, with its dynamism and power struggles, in some ways resembles the Europe of 100 years ago, the Middle East is more
reminiscent of the Europe of several centuries before: a patchwork of top-heavy monarchies, internal turbulence, unresolved conflicts, and nationalities that cross and contest
Political and demographic changes within Europe,
as well as the United States, also ensure that the transatlantic alliance will lose prominence. In Europe, the E.U. project still
consumes the attention of many, but for others, especially those in southern Europe facing unsustainable fiscal shortfalls,
domestic economic turmoil takes precedence. No doubt, Europe's security challenges are geographically, politically and psychologically less
boundaries. Europe's ability to influence the course of this region, too, will be sharply limited.
immediate to the population than its economic ones. Mounting financial problems and the imperative to cut deficits are sure to limit what Europeans can do militarily beyond their
ties across the Atlantic were forged at a time when American political and economic power was largely
in the hands of Northeastern elites, many of whom traced their ancestry to Europe and who were most interested in developments there. Today's
United States -- featuring the rise of the South and the West, along with an increasing percentage of
Americans who trace their roots to Africa, Latin America or Asia -- could hardly be more different.
American and European preferences will increasingly diverge as a result. Finally, the very nature of international relations has
continent. Moreover, intimate
also undergone a transformation. Alliances, whether NATO during the Cold War or the U.S.-South Korean partnership now, do best in settings that are highly inflexible and predictable,
where foes and friends are easily identified, potential battlefields are obvious, and contingencies can be anticipated. Almost none of this is true in our current historical moment. Threats
are many and diffuse. Relationships seem situational, increasingly dependent on evolving and unpredictable circumstances. Countries can be friends, foes or both, depending on the day
of the week -- just look at the United States and Pakistan. Alliances tend to require shared assessments and explicit obligations; they are much more difficult to operate when worldviews
diverge and commitments are discretionary. But as the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya all demonstrate, this is precisely the world we inhabit. For the United States, the
no amount of harping on what European governments are failing to do will push
them toward what some in Washington want them to do. They have changed. We have changed. The world has changed. Second, NATO
conclusions are simple. First,
as a whole will count for much less. Instead, the United States will need to maintain or build bilateral relations with those few countries in Europe willing and able to act in the world,
including with military force. Third,
other allies are likely to become more relevant partners in the regions that
present the greatest potential challenges. In Asia, this might mean Australia, India, South Korea, Japan and Vietnam, especially if U.S.-China relations
were to deteriorate; in the greater Middle East, it could again be India in addition to Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia and others.
EU/US relations resilient
Joyner 11—editor of the Atlantic Council. PhD in pol sci (James, Death of Transatlantic Relationship
Wildly Exaggerated, 14 June 2011, www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/death-transatlantic-relationshipwildly-exaggerated)
The blistering farewell speech to NATO by U.S. defense secretary Robert Gates warning of a "dim, if not dismal" future for the Alliance drew the Western public's attention to a longstanding debate about the state of the
transatlantic relationship. With prominent commenters voicing concern about much more than just a two-tiered defensive alliance, questioning whether the U.S.-Europe relationship itself is past its prime, doubts that the
fears are overblown, and may be mistaking short-term
bumps in the relationship for proof of a long-term decline that isn't there. Gates' frustration with the fact that only five of the 28
Western alliance that has dominated the post-Cold War world are reaching a new high. But those
NATO allies are living up to their commitment to devote 2 percent of GDP to defense, which has hindered their ability to take on even the likes of Muammar Qaddafi's puny force without American assistance is certainly
the U.S.-Europe partnership may not be living up to its potential, it is not worthless, and that relationship
continues to be one of the strongest and most important in the world. Gates is an Atlanticist whose speech was, as he put it, "in the spirit of solidarity and friendship,
legitimate and worrying. Though
with the understanding that true friends occasionally must speak bluntly with one another for the sake of those greater interests and values that bind us together." He wants the Europeans, Germany in particular, to
Europeans don't see their security as being in jeopardy and political leaders are hard pressed to divert
scarce resources away from social spending -- especially in the current economic climate -- a dynamic that has weakened NATO
but, despite fears to the contrary, not the greater Transatlantic partnership. It would obviously have been a great relief to the
understand what a tragedy it would be if NATO were to go away. Most
U.S. if European governments had shouldered more of the burden in Afghanistan. This disparity, which has only increased as the war has dragged on and the European economies suffered, is driving both Gates' warning and
broader fears about the declining relationship. But it was our fight, not theirs; they were there, in most cases against the strong wishes of the people who elected them to office, because we asked. We'd have fought it
exactly the same way in their absence. In that light, every European and Canadian soldier was a bonus. Libya, however, is a different story. The Obama administration clearly had limited interest in entering that fight - Gates
himself warned against it -- and our involvement is due in part to coaxing by our French and British allies. The hope was to take the lead in the early days, providing "unique assets" at America's disposal, and then turn the
fight over to the Europeans. But, as Gates' predecessor noted not long after the ill-fated 2003 invasion of Iraq, you go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had. The diminished capabilities of European
militaries, spent by nearly a decade in Afghanistan, should be of no surprise. NATO entered into Libya with no real plan for an end game beyond hoping the rebels would somehow win or that Qaddafi would somehow fall.
That failure, to be fair, is a collective responsibility, not the fault of European militaries alone. But the concern goes deeper than different defensive priorities. Many Europeans worry that the United States takes the
relationship for granted, and that the Obama administration in particular puts a much higher priority on the Pacific and on the emerging BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) economies. New York Times
columist Roger Cohen recently wrote that this is as it should be: "In so far as the United States is interested in Europe it is interested in what can be done together in the rest of the world." In Der Spiegel, Roland Nelles and
Gregor Peter Schmitz lamented, "we live in a G-20 world instead of one led by a G-2." It's certainly true that, if it ever existed, the Unipolar Moment that Charles Krauthammer and others saw in the aftermath of the Soviet
collapse is over. But that multipolar dynamic actually makes transatlantic cooperation more, not less, important. A hegemon needs much less help than one of many great powers, even if it remains the biggest. Take the G20. Seven of the members are NATO Allies: the US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the UK, and Turkey. Toss in the EU, and you have 40 percent of the delegation. If they can form a united front at G-20 summits, they are
much more powerful than if each stands alone. Add in four NATO Partner countries (Russia, Japan, Australia, and South Korea) and you're up to 60 percent of the delegation -- a comfortable majority for the U.S.-European
partnership and its circle of closest allies. Granted, it's unlikely that we'll achieve consensus among all 12 states on any one issue, let alone most issues. But constantly working together toward shared goals and values
expands a sense of commonality. And, like so many things, projects end. Indeed, that's generally the goal. The transatlantic military alliance that formed to defeat fascism remained intact after victory; indeed, it expanded to
NATO outlasted the demise of its raison d'être, the Soviet threat, and went on
to fight together --along with many of its former adversaries -- in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and
Libya. Is there seriously any doubt that other challenges will emerge in the future in which the
Americans and its European allies might benefit from working together?
include its former German and Italian adversaries.
Or alt causes swamp – warming disputes make it inevitable - energy is the litmus test
Koryani, 11—Hungarian diplomat, former Undersecretary of State, foreign policy and energy expert.
He is also the Deputy Director of the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center of the Atlantic Council of the United
State (David [Editor], Tranatlantic Energy Futures, 2011, http://transatlantic.saisjhu.edu/publications/books/Transatlantic_Energy_Futures/Transatlantic_Energy_Futures.pdf)
Critical factors of divergence cannot be discounted either, as they have an almost equally strong pull.
Differing climate change perceptions and the lack of U.S. commitment and action is extremely dangerous, as
it alienates Europeans, both policymakers and the wider public alike. These differences, if not solved, could
drive a wedge for decades between the partners, undermine trust, create a value gap and hinder
cooperation not only in climate change and energy issues but in all other aspects as well. There is in fact
a chance that U.S. and European energy markets could largely decouple in coming years, due in part to differences
regarding the need to tackle climate change, and in part to diverging geopolitical and domestic trends. The U.S. has edged closer to
self sufficiency with respect to fossil fuels, with the extensive development of its vast unconventional gas resources and increasing reliance on
Canadian oil sands. This could lead to a more isolationist stance in U.S. policy . Meanwhile unconventional gas faces mixed reactions in
Europe; the EU, for example, plans to shun oil shales and tar sands in its impending Fuel Quality Directive. Friction in transatlantic perceptions on energy security
and divergences over preferred courses of action are real dangers that must be addressed head on. Towards a Transatlantic Energy Alliance The systemic
transformation of the world of energy, triggered by climate change and powered by new technologies, will likely cause the reorganization of our societies. The
benefits and pitfalls of transatlantic cooperation are beyond doubt. Renewing the transatlantic community’s leadership is essential to lead the world to a
sustainable, low carbon future. Transatlantic cooperation can contribute to provide secure and affordable energy to people in the EU and the U.S., foster economic
prosperity and create jobs. Current
cooperation on a wide range of subjects is encouraging but inadequate. What we
need is a new impetus, genuine political will, adequate resources and enhanced cooperation to advance a transatlantic green economy. Joint efforts in addressing
climate change, innovation
and investment into clean energy technologies, risk sharing and cost reduction, joint RD&D and
harmonized energy diplomacy must be the cornerstones of a Transatlantic Energy Alliance. A Transatlantic Energy Alliance is
desirable and feasible, but not self-evident. Climate change and energy cooperation will be the litmus test of converging or
diverging European and American norms, values and interests in the 21st century. We have to bridge our differences and we
have to do that quickly in order to remain in the driving seat. To amend Robert Kagan’s famous line, Americans may be from Mars and Europeans from Venus, but
we shall all soon need to move to some other planet if we do not adjust course. Transatlantic Energy Futures endeavors to give you a taste of the intricate and
multifaceted energy challenges facing our communities. It aims to do so with a strong conviction in the enduring prominence and necessity of the transatlantic
partnership.
Relations and coop high now
Mason ‘15
(Jeff Mason covers the White House for Reuters. He was the lead correspondent for President Barack Obama's 2012
campaign and has been posted in Washington since 2008, when he covered the historic race between Obama, Hillary
Clinton and John McCain, traveling with all three candidates. Jeff has also been posted in Frankfurt, Germany, where he
covered the airline industry and Brussels, Belgium, where he covered climate change and the European Union. He has
appeared on MSNBC, CNN, BBC, and NPR. Jeff is a graduate of Northwestern University and a former Fulbright scholar,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/06/us-g7-summit-obama-idUSKBN0OM0OJ20150606
When President Barack Obama attends the Group of Seven summit in Germany on Sunday, he will join fellow leaders
who are growing accustomed to a new dynamic in the transatlantic relationship: less direction from
Washington, more demands on Europe. In responding to Russia's intervention in Ukraine, the crisis in Libya and
efforts to advance Middle East peace, European leaders have stepped up their role after a real or perceived sense that
the United States was drawing back. The shift has created both annoyance and satisfaction among European officials.
Some privately express frustration at what they view as reluctance by the Obama administration to get involved. They
contrast a "leading from behind" strategy in the Middle East and Europe with the more proactive U.S. stance in Asia,
where Obama is acting diplomatically and militarily to counter growing Chinese influence. France has publicly berated
the U.S. administration for not launching air strikes in 2013 against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. It said that the
decision caused irreparable damage to the Syrian opposition on the ground and emboldened Russian President Vladimir
Putin on the international scene. "At the heart of what’s going on is that the Americans themselves don’t want to be on
the front line in this region" a senior French official said. The phrase "leading from behind" grew out of the 2011 NATO
intervention in Libya when Washington let France and Britain do most of the heavy military lifting. DIVISION OF LABOR
Other diplomats and U.S. officials say France and Germany's leading role in talks between Moscow and
Kiev, which led to a shaky ceasefire deal in eastern Ukraine, was appropriate for a crisis that hits them closer
to home. "It's not a question of ceding responsibility, it's the natural division of labor between us," said David
O'Sullivan, the European Union's ambassador to the United States. Other areas, however, have been hurt by a lack of
U.S. leadership, foreign policy analysts said. Stephen Hadley, Republican President George W. Bush's national security
adviser, said it was very attractive to Russia not to have the United States at the table in the Ukraine ceasefire talks. He
noted that Europeans were eyeing a new approach to peace between Israelis and Palestinians by potentially backing a
U.N. resolution for a Palestinian state. "Overhanging this, of course, is this perception of American disengagement and
stepping back from leadership on a lot of problems in the world, which is a perception that our Arab friends and allies
have in the Middle East and, you know, I think is very much prevalent in Europe," he said. "STRONG ALIGNMENT" The
White House rejects that charge, which is voiced by many Republican critics. It points to U.S.-European unity on
Iran's nuclear program, global climate change negotiations, strikes against Islamic State militants, and
sanctions against Russia. "If you look at the president’s key foreign policy priorities, every single one of them, just
about, is supported by these key European partners," Obama's deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes
said. "I think this is a moment of very strong alignment with Europe." That alignment has not translated into
pro-American sentiment in Germany, which is hosting the G7 summit. Germans remain angry at U.S. spying practices, an
issue German Chancellor Angela Merkel has raised repeatedly with Obama. In an effort to set a more positive tone,
Obama and Merkel will spend some public time together before the summit on Sunday, walking around a small village
and sampling local food. The United States has openly talked about the need for Europe to step up militarily and has
recently reiterated a long-standing message that its NATO partners must boost their military spending.
2AC
TPP DA
No link – no reason obama pushes plan or gets blamed
Not intrinsic – logical policy maker could do both
Uniqueness overwhelms - TPP Passage Guaranteed – even opponents are conceding
Werner, 6/24 – Erica, Reporter @ Associated Press, Boston Herald, 6/24/15,
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/national/2015/06/senate_vote_moves_o
bamas_trade_agenda_to_brink_of_enactment
Some anti-free-trade groups, however,
essentially conceded defeat. "Fast track makes it virtually certain
that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), and other secret trade deals will become
law," said the "Internet-freedom" group Fight for the Future. Tuesday's Senate vote was as painful for the AFL-CIO
and other unions as it was welcomed by the White House. Many corporate, agricultural and manufacturing groups
cheered.
No spillover – issues stay compartmentalized – anger at obama over unrelated issue
won’t trump trade specific ideological preferences, electoral calculations and lobbying
Fiat double bind
- A) it’s a magic wand – plan passes immediately without debate – doesn’t
require pc, or
- B) normal means is bottom of docket and it passes after TPP
No Asia War
*best data proves
*state legitimacy, growth, deterrence check
*no major war, even if minor disputes
Alagappa 12-19-14 (Muthiah Alagappa, Nonresident Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, Washington, D.C., “International Peace in Asia: Will it Endure?,”
http://www.theasanforum.org/international-peace-in-asia-will-it-endure/, CMR)
In contrast to those dire warnings, this article makes two claims. First, Asia has witnessed a substantial reduction in
the number of major and minor inter-state wars. After reaching a peak in the 1970s, major inter-state war has
declined in number, frequency, and intensity measured in terms of battle deaths. From 1979 to 2014, there were
only two major inter-state wars compared to 13 in 1945 to 1979. Connected to earlier wars, the nature, purpose, scope, and outcome of these
wars since 1979 reinforce rather than undermine my central claim that Asia
has witnessed substantial decline in major wars.6 It has even
enjoyed a long period of peace, comparable in duration, nature, and complexity to the “long peace” of the Cold War in Europe.7
Second, the long peace in Asia will continue in the foreseeable future. Entrenched conflicts will likely remain unresolved
with a few becoming even more acute. The Asian strategic environment will become more complex with growing economic interdependence,
cross-cutting links, and some new security challenges. And, armed clashes cannot be ruled out. Nevertheless, major
war in Asia is
unlikely in the coming decade or two. I made these claims about a decade ago.8 I am now even more convinced and set them out in this
article to balance the growing chorus—now, also in Asia—of conflict and war in Asia. What explains the substantial decline in the frequency of
major war in Asia and the claim that the inter-state peace that has endured in Asia since 1979 will continue in the foreseeable future? These are
the central questions animating this article, which advances three related arguments: 1. Decline
in the number and intensity of
inter-state wars in Asia since 1979 is due largely to the growing legitimacy of the Asian political map, rising
nationalism, focus on and success in economic growth, and the development of effective deterrence in relevant dyads.
Together, these developments reduced the salience as well as altered the role of force, more specifically war, in the international politics of
Asia. 2. Factors
that underpinned the decreasing frequency of inter-state war will continue to be salient in
the foreseeable future and sustain the long peace in Asia. A development that could substantially alter the strategic
environment would be a shift in military technology and strategy from deterrence to offense. Such a shift would make war more costly, but also
restore it as a rational instrument of policy in pursuit of certain political objectives. 3. The
international peace that has prevailed
in Asia, as in Europe during the Cold War, is of the minimal type (absence of major war but not devoid of competition,
conflict, minor war, and military incidents). That is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Stronger peace would
require resolution of outstanding disputes, which appears unlikely.
Pivot fails---too diluted and doesn’t solve US leadership
Rod Lyon 15, fellow at Australian Strategic Policy Institute and executive editor of The
Strategist, “The Real Problem With America's Rebalance to Asia: A Crisis of Expectations,”
1/16/15, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-real-problem-americas-rebalance-asiacrisis-expectations-12050
rebalance is occurring but its effects are somewhat diluted by an even larger
global shift within the US defense force—after Afghanistan and Iraq, a smaller emphasis on forwarddeployed forces and a larger one on reconstitution of US surge-force capabilities.¶ The second source
In Work’s view, the
is the majority staff report prepared for the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee back in April 2014. That report looked in greater
detail at the
non-military side of the rebalance—including diplomacy and aid—and in general found a set of policy
even less well-resourced than the military effort. The East Asia and Pacific Bureau in the
State Department, for example, had 12% less funding in 2014 than it had back in 2011.¶ So yes, the rebalance exists. But
it struggles for oxygen, in part because of the broader strategic baggage carried by the president.
Moreover, substantial parts of the rebalance will take time to unfold—it’s not designed to address
allies’ and partners’ demands for instant gratification and constant assurance. And, even when it’s run
its course, the rebalance isn’t going to restore the regional status quo ante China’s rise.¶ ¶ It’s that last
point that highlights the extent to which the rebalance faces what we might call a crisis of expectations. Since
instruments that were
different people believe it was meant to do different things, they judge it by different standards. Some of those metrics strike me as
unrealistic. For example, it’s perfectly true that even after the rebalance is completed,
the US’ position in the region
won’t be restored to what it was in the glory days of the 1990s. But the rebalance was never intended to do
that. It wasn’t meant to reverse the rise of the Asian great powers, nor to roll back the tides of history.¶ Similarly, the rebalance was
never intended to suggest that the US was happy to ignore what went on in Europe and the Middle East. Washington might have
thought it was overweight in those areas, but it certainly didn’t think they were irrelevant. So have events in Ukraine, Syria and Iraq
distracted the US from Asia? Of course. But the US is a global player, not just a regional one. ¶ The
rebalance, even if
merely one variable in a shifting strategic landscape. By itself, it won’t return the US to the
position of the ‘indispensable player’ in Asia. Still, its principal value lies in the fact that the policy strengthens
successful, is
Washington’s ties to Asia. And that’s why Australia should want the rebalance to succeed: because its various components—
including a comprehensive TPP agreement, a military reorientation into the region, and US membership of key regional
institutions—will mean a US more closely engaged with both our and the region’s strategic future.
TPP perceived as containment by China
Backer 14 (Larry Cata Backer, Richard and Mary Eshelman Faculty Scholar & Prof essor of Law,
Professor of International Affairs, 2012–13 Chair, University Fa culty Senate, The Pennsylvania State
University, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership,”
http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1473&context=law_globalstudies, CMR)
Indeed, Wen Jin Yuan notes the
sense among Chinese academic and policy circles that “the main reason behind
for the TPP agenda is the US’s desire to use the TPP as a tool to economically
contain China’s rise.” 128 Wen notes, for example, reports published in the People’s Daily , the official organ of
the Chinese Communist Party, that refer to TPP as “superficially an economic agreement but contain[ing] an
obvious political purpose to constrain China’s rise.” 129 More importantly, a successfully negotiated TPP would
result, according to other Chinese scholars, in trade diversion to the detriment of Chinese economic
interests. 130 Yet, according to Wen’s research, United States officials insist that the ultimate goal of the United States was not
the Obama Administr ation’s support
containment, but incorporation. The “U.S.’s ultimate goal is to integrate China into this regional trade system, rather t han keeping China out,
and the TPP initiative is actually similar to the strategy led by several U.S. agencies to incorporate China into the WTO sys tem.” 131 Yet
incorporation can be understood from the Chinese side as another form of containment. Rather than
have China lead a new effort at refining the rules and culture of trade in the Pacific, it would be forced
to part icipate as a junior partner in a regulatory exercise directed by the United St ates and its principal ally, Japan.
For the Chinese, the substantial effe ct might well be understood as containment, though that view/perception is lost
on the United States. 132
Nuclear war
Eland 5—MBA in economics, PhD in Public Policy, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace &
Liberty at The Independent Institute (Ivan, 11 April 2005, Coexisting with a Rising China?,
http://www.independent.org/NEWSROOM/ARTICLE.ASP?ID=1494, RBatra)
Instead of emulating the policies of pre-World War I Britain toward Germany, the
United States should take a page from another chapter in
British history. In the late 1800s, although not without tension, the British peacefully allowed the fledging United States to rise
as a great power, knowing both countries were protected by the expanse of the Atlantic Ocean that separated them. Taking
advantage of that same kind separation by a major ocean, the United States could also safely allow China to obtain
respect as a great power, with a sphere of influence to match. If China went beyond obtaining a reasonable sphere of influence into an
Imperial Japanese-style expansion, the United States could very well need to mount a challenge. However, at present, little evidence exists of
Chinese intent for such expansion, which would run counter to recent Chinese history. Therefore, a U.S. policy of
coexistence, rather than neo-containment, might avoid a future catastrophic war or even a nuclear
conflagration.
TPP CRUSHES the environment and results in overfishing
*uniquely worse than previous trade pacts
Howard 14 (Brian Clark, “4 Ways Green Groups Say Trans-Pacific Partnership Will Hurt Environment,”
Jan 17, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140117-trans-pacific-partnership-freetrade-environment-obama/)
A leaked draft of a major free trade agreement among the United States, Canada, Mexico, and nations on the Pacific Rim
raises alarming questions about environmental protections, several leading green groups say. "If the environment
chapter is finalized as written in this leaked document, President Obama's environmental trade record would be
worse than George W. Bush's," Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said in a statement after a draft of
the agreement was published Wednesday on WikiLeaks. "This draft chapter falls flat on every single one of our issues—
oceans, fish, wildlife, and forest protections—and in fact, rolls back on the progress made in past free trade
pacts," he said. The proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership is a huge pact that would govern about 40 percent of the world's gross domestic
product and one-third of world trade, said Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC). The agreement involves a sprawling cast of countries: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam,
Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. The NRDC joined with the Sierra Club and WWF in criticizing the leaked draft of the environment chapter of the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, which WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange said proved the chapter was "a toothless public relations exercise with no
enforcement mechanism." The White House has pushed back against such criticisms. In a blog post responding to the leak this week, the Office
of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) wrote that "stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable
environment chapter in the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) or we will not come to agreement." Here are four grievances voiced by
environmental groups over the leaked chapter: 1. They say the pact lacks basic environmental provisions. This is all about what's not in the
proposed pact. The NRDC's Schmidt says that environmental
groups are asking for "some pretty basic environmental
provisions. "We're saying don't subsidize unsustainable fisheries and don't do illegal things," he said. Environmentalists say that the Obama
White House has hinted that it will not support an agreement without enforceable environmental provisions, in recent remarks by some of the
administration's key environmental players. But the
"overarching" problem with the leaked draft, Schmidt says, is that
"there's no
enforcement." The leaked document mentions that trade partners should take steps to protect the environment, but Schmidt
says that "there are many caveats that effectively allow countries to not make these enforceable . "References
to the word 'shall' are very rarely used," he says, "and are often paired with 'seek to' or 'attempt,' which are not legally enforceable." 2. Green
groups say the draft agreement does not discourage overfishing. The nations
considering the Trans-Pacific Partnership have a
"responsibility" to provide adequate protection against overfishing, but the draft agreement fails to
provide that, said Carter Roberts, president and CEO of WWF. The countries negotiating the agreement account for
about a third of global fisheries production, Roberts notes, so the stakes are high. Those countries have a range of direct
and indirect subsidies for their fishing fleets, including payments, discounted loans, reduced prices on fuel, and so on. "What we have been
pushing for is for countries to phase out harmful subsidies ... that lead to greater harvest of fishing stocks than can be sustained," said Schmidt.
"We're not saying end all fishing programs and support, but you
need to make sure that any support is targeted at
programs that don't lead to overconsumption of fish stocks." For its part, the U.S. Trade Representative's office
responded that the U.S. is "proposing that the TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership] include, for the first time in any trade or environment agreement,
groundbreaking prohibitions on fish subsidies that set a new and higher baseline for fisheries protections." 3. The
pact does not take a
strong enough stance against illegal wildlife products, activists say. Green groups would like to see stronger
enforcement of international laws on products made from endangered species, such as elephant ivory or tiger
pelts, as part of a new trade agreement. "The lack of fully-enforceable environmental safeguards means negotiators are allowing a unique
opportunity to protect wildlife and support legal sustainable trade of renewable resources to slip through their fingers," WWF's Roberts said in
a statement.
Biodiversity solves extinction – food crises and genetic irreplaceability
Mittermeier 11
(et al, Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct Professor at
the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has conducted fieldwork for over 30 years on three continents and in more than 20 countries in mainly tropical locations. He is the
President of Conservation International and he is considered an expert on biological diversity. Mittermeier has formally discovered several monkey species. From Chapter One of the book
Biodiversity Hotspots – F.E. Zachos and J.C. Habel (eds.), DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011. This evidence also internally references
Norman Myers, a very famous British environmentalist specialising in biodiversity. available at:
http://www.academia.edu/1536096/Global_biodiversity_conservation_the_critical_role_of_hotspots)
Extinction is the gravest consequence of the biodiversity crisis, since it is¶ irreversible. Human activities
have elevated the rate of species extinctions to a¶ thousand or more times the natural background rate (Pimm et al.
1995). What are the¶ consequences of this loss? Most obvious among them may be the lost opportunity¶ for future resource use. Scientists have discovered a mere fraction of Earth’s
As species vanish, so too does the health
security of every¶ human. Earth’s species are a vast genetic storehouse that may harbor a cure for¶ cancer, malaria, or the next new
pathogen – cures waiting to be discovered.¶ Compounds initially derived from wild species account for more than half of all¶ commercial medicines – even more in developing nations
species¶ (perhaps fewer than 10%, or even 1%) and understood the biology of even fewer¶ (Novotny et al. 2002).
(Chivian and Bernstein¶ 2008). Natural forms, processes, and ecosystems provide blueprints and inspiration¶ for a growing array of new materials, energy sources, hi-tech devices, and¶ other
With loss
of species, we lose the ultimate source of our crops¶ and the genes we use to improve agricultural resilience, the
inspiration for¶ manufactured products, and the basis of the structure and function of the ecosystems¶ that support humans and all life on
Earth (McNeely et al. 2009). Above and beyond¶ material welfare and livelihoods, biodiversity contributes to security, resiliency,¶ and freedom of choices and actions (Millennium
innovations (Benyus 2009). The current loss of species has been compared¶ to burning down the world’s libraries without knowing the content of 90% or¶ more of the books.
Ecosystem Assessment 2005).¶ Less tangible, but no less important, are the cultural, spiritual, and moral costs¶ inflicted by species extinctions. All societies value species for their own sake,¶
and wild plants and animals are integral to the fabric of all the world’s cultures¶ (Wilson 1984). The road to extinction is made even more perilous to people by the loss of the broader
ecosystems that underpin our livelihoods, communities, and economies(McNeely et al.2009). The loss of coastal wetlands and mangrove forests, for example, greatly exacerbates both human
mortality and economic damage from tropical cyclones (Costanza et al.2008; Das and Vincent2009), while disease outbreaks such as the 2003 emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome in East Asia have been directly connected to trade in wildlife for human consumption(Guan et al.2003). Other consequences of biodiversity loss, more subtle but equally damaging,
include the deterioration of Earth’s natural capital. Loss of biodiversity on land in the past decade alone is estimated to be costing the global economy $500 billion annually (TEEB2009).
Reduced diversity may also reduce resilience of ecosystems and the human communities that depend on them. For example, more diverse coral reef communities have been found to suffer
less from the diseases that plague degraded reefs elsewhere (Raymundo et al.2009). As Earth’s climate changes, the roles of species and ecosystems will only increase in their importance to
humanity (Turner et al.2009).¶ In many respects, conservation is local. People generally care more about the biodiversity in the place in which they live. They also depend upon these
ecosystems the most – and, broadly speaking, it is these areas over which they have the most control. Furthermore, we believe that all biodiversity is important and that every nation, every
region, and every community should do everything possible to conserve their living resources. So, what is the importance of setting global priorities?
Extinction is a global
phenomenon, with impacts far beyond nearby administrative borders. More practically, biodiversity, the threats to it, and the ability
of countries to pay for its conservation vary around the world. The vast majority of the global conservation budget – perhaps 90% – originates in and is spent in economically wealthy countries
(James et al.1999). It is thus critical that those globally flexible funds available – in the hundreds of millions annually – be guided by systematic priorities if we are to move deliberately toward a
where
should action toward reducing the loss of biodiversity be implemented first? The field of conservation planning addresses this
question and revolves around a framework of vulnerability and irreplaceability (Margules and Pressey2000). Vulnerability measures the risk to
global goal of reducing biodiversity loss.¶ The establishment of priorities for biodiversity conservation is complex, but can be framed as a single question. Given the choice,
the species present in a region – if the species and ecosystems that are highly threatened are not protected now, we will not get another chance in the future. Irreplaceability measures the
extent to which spatial substitutes exist for securing biodiversity. The number of species alone is an inadequate indication of conserva-tion priority because several areas can share the same
species. In contrast, areas with high levels of endemism are irreplaceable. We must conserve these places because the unique species they contain cannot be saved elsewhere. Put another
way, biodiversity is not evenly distributed on our planet. It is heavily concentrated in certain areas, these areas have exceptionally high concentrations of endemic species found nowhere else,
and many (but not all) of these areas are the areas at greatest risk of disappearing because of heavy human impact.¶ Myers’ seminal paper (Myers1988) was the first application of the
Myers described ten tropical forest “hotspots” on the basis
of extraordinary plant endemism and high levels of habitat loss, albeit without quantitative criteria for the designation of “hotspot” status. A subsequent
principles of irreplaceability and vulnerability to guide conservation planning on a global scale.
analysis added eight additional hotspots, including four from Mediterranean-type ecosystems (Myers 1990).After adopting hotspots as an institutional blueprint in 1989, Conservation International worked with Myers in a first systematic update of the hotspots. It introduced two strict quantitative criteria: to qualify as a hotspot, a region had to contain at least 1,500 vascular plants
an
extensive global review (Mittermeier et al.1999) and scientific publication (Myers et al.2000) that introduced seven new hotspots on the
basis of both the better-defined criteria and new data. A second systematic update (Mittermeier et al.2004) did not change the criteria, but revisited the set of hotspots based on
as endemics (¶ >¶ 0.5% of the world’s total), and it had to have 30% or less of its original vegetation (extent of historical habitat cover)remaining. These efforts culminated in
new data on the distribution of species and threats, as well as genuine changes in the threat status of these regions. That update redefined several hotspots, such as the Eastern Afromontane
region, and added several others that were suspected hotspots but for which sufficient data either did not exist or were not accessible to conservation scientists outside of those regions.
Sadly, it uncovered another region – the East Melanesian Islands – which rapid habitat destruction had in a short period of time transformed from a biodiverse region that failed to meet the
“less than 30% of original vegetation remaining” criterion to a genuine hotspot.
TPP devastates growth – ensures rapid offshoring – economic and trade benefits are
all hype
Hiltzik 2-7-15 (Michael, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, author of five books, “'Free trade' isn't what
Trans-Pacific Partnership would deliver,” http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik20150206-column.html#page=1, CMR)
In principle, almost everyone's in favor of free trade. It promotes international harmony, raises wages, helps economies grow. It's an article of
historical faith that the enactment of harsh protective U.S. tariffs in 1930 contributed to the Great Depression. And who wants that? But "free
trade" has little to do with the trade deal that President Obama hopes will be a high-water mark for his administration's foreign
policy: the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks, which now involve the U.S. and 11 Pacific Rim countries — Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan,
Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The pact — which has been under negotiation virtually since the turn of the
century — is in trouble on Capitol Hill, where its enemies include conservatives and liberals. The overall problem may be that the TPP, as it's
known in shorthand, has
become a symbol of everything that's wrong with free trade agreements today. The
pact is being negotiated in secret, although U.S. trade negotiators have given big industries nice long
looks behind the curtain. The White House is demanding "fast-track" approval from Congress, which limits the say
lawmakers will have and requires them to ratify in haste. And public interest advocates say it could undermine rules and
regulations governing the environment, health, intellectual property and financial markets (to name only a few topics). " Most of these
provisions have nothing to do with trade or jobs," says liberal economist Joseph Stiglitz, a leading critic of
the deal and the secrecy of the talks. On the other side of the argument is the trade pact's potential to foster economic growth
and job creation — "650,000 jobs in the U.S. alone," as Secretary of State John F. Kerry asserted last month. But that widely
challenged figure is extrapolated from a 2012 report by the Peterson Institute of International Economics,
which didn't offer a jobs estimate. In fact, the report said the TPP might dislocate workers and drive
older people out of the workforce — and that any benefits might be canceled out by the resulting costs to
workers and society. Evidence from earlier trade pacts, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, suggests
that the benefits for developing countries among the treaty signatories are similarly oversold. "Trade liberalization
on average has not brought economic growth for emerging economies," Stiglitz said. "The idea that it's
necessarily mutually beneficial is just wrong." Doubts about the TPP fall into three main categories. •Overreach. Domestic
policies and regulations shouldn't be treated as trade barriers subject to international negotiation, such
as patent and copyright terms, wage and working conditions, even environmental regulations. But provisions in the TPP
would protect brand-name pharmaceuticals from competition from generics in developing countries, forcing up the cost of healthcare, and
would impose the overly strict copyright terms of the U.S., where copyright lasts 70 years after the death of a copyright holder, on signatory
countries. Critics fear that bringing such issues into a trade pact will encourage a race to the bottom, favoring the most
business-friendly regulations. "Some of these provisions roll back important public interest policies on issues like food safety, product safety
and access to drugs," says Lori Wallach, the global trade watchdog at the public interest organization Public Citizen. "This
is diplomatic
legislating on things that affect our day-to-day lives that have nothing to do with trade." Especially worrisome is
a procedure allowing corporations to file claims in arbitration courts against sovereign countries over changes in their laws and regulations. As
is the case in some previous trade agreements, commercial interests will be able to seek compensation for "injuries" from anything from
minimum-wage increases to environmental and health regulations. Mexican truckers filed a $30-billion case objecting to safety and
environmental rules on U.S. roads; Eli Lilly & Co. is seeking $481 million from Canada for its invalidation of Lilly patents on several drugs; and
Philip Morris has sued Australia because its rule requiring plain packaging for cigarettes deprives the company of its property rights in
trademarks and logos. Even conservatives who otherwise favor the TPP detest this provision. The Cato Institute has urged that it be "purged"
from the pact. By
giving special privileges to corporations operating abroad, Cato said, the provision allows them
to undermine domestic sovereignty and "effectively encourages outsourcing." •Secrecy. U.S. Trade
Representative Michael Froman, who is conducting the talks, has been stingy with the text, critics say, out of fear of public
nitpicking. Most of what the public knows of the TPP's drafts and the U.S. negotiating position has come via
Wikileaks. Froman told the House Ways and Means Committee last month that he has taken "unprecedented steps to increase
transparency" by keeping Congress and the public in the loop, but most observers say disclosure has been nowhere near
adequate. In 2012, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) was so frustrated at being stonewalled by the USTR that he introduced a bill requiring that all
lawmakers with oversight on trade policy be given access to key documents. •"Fast-tracking." Fast-tracking allows the administration to present
Congress with a completed trade pact, which lawmakers must vote up or down within 90 days, without amendments and with limited debate
and no filibustering in the Senate. The White
House argues that fast-tracking allows negotiators to reassure trade partners that "the
administration and Congress are on the same page," as Froman told the House Ways and Means Committee. The system "puts Congress
in the driver's seat," he said, because the lawmakers can "define U.S. negotiating objectives and priorities." But the opposite is
true: The congressional directives aren't binding, and the result can be jammed through the House and
Senate. GOP leaders such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan
(R-Wis.) favor fast-tracking, but opposition is growing from conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats alike. Combined with secrecy,
fast-tracking encourages the overreach that makes the TPP so much more than a trade pact, and so dangerous. If fasttracking is turned down, the TPP will have to be widely published and openly debated, says Public Citizen's
Wallach. "That will bring out all the skunks that have been invited to the secret picnic," she says. "Some of
these things that should never have been in that agreement in the first place aren't going to fare very well
when they're exposed to sunshine. And that's good."
key to check all global war
--manufacturing capabilities key to technology necessary for U.S. deterrence
O’Hanlon 12 (Mackenzie Eaglen, American Enterprise Institute Rebecca Grant, IRIS Research Robert P.
Haffa, Haffa Defense Consulting Michael O'Hanlon, The Brookings Institution Peter W. Singer, The
Brookings Institution Martin Sullivan, Commonwealth Consulting Barry Watts, Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments “The Arsenal of Democracy and How to Preserve It: Key Issues in Defense
Industrial Policy January 2012,” pg online @
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/1/26%20defense%20industrial%20bas
e/0126_defense_industrial_base_ohanlon)
the U.S.
defense industrial base is in a much different place than it was in the past. Defense industrial
issues are too often viewed through the lens of jobs and pet projects to protect in congressional
districts. But the overall health of the firms that supply the technologies our armed forces
utilize does have national security resonance . Qualitative superiority in weaponry and other key
military technology has become an essential element of American military power in the modern era— not
only for winning wars but for deterring them . That requires world-class scientific and
manufacturing capabilities—which in turn can also generate civilian and military export
opportunities for the United States in a globalized marketplace.
The current wave of defense cuts is also different than past defense budget reductions in their likely industrial impact, as
Terrorism DA
Our entire MLats advantage is a turn to this – key to global law enforcement coop –
obviously a prerequisite to solving terrorism
US-EU law enforcement cooperation key to counter-terrorism
Archick 14 (Kristin, Specialist in European Affairs, “U.S.-EU Cooperation Against Terrorism,” Dec 1,
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22030.pdf, CMR)
Promoting law enforcement and intelligence cooperation with the United States has been another top EU
priority since 2001. Washington has largely welcomed enhanced counterterrorism cooperation with the EU,
which has led to a new dynamic in U.S.-EU relations by fostering dialogue on law enforcement and
homeland security issues previously reserved for bilateral discussions. Contacts between U.S. and EU officials on
police, judicial, and border control policy matters have increased substantially and a number of new
U.S.-EU agreements have also been reached; these include information-sharing arrangements between the
United States and EU police and judicial bodies, two U.S.-EU treaties on extradition and mutual legal
assistance, and accords on container security and airline passenger data. In addition, the United States and
the EU have been working together to curb terrorist financing and to strengthen transport security.
Strong MLATs is vital to disrupt financing for terrorism and preventing attacks
Acharya 9 (Arabinda, Adjunct Faculty, Department of Geo-Politics, Manipal University, India; Deputy
Director Centre for Peace and Development Studies; Project Taskforce Lead, Consortium for Countering
the Financing of Terrorism (CCFT); and Editor, Counter Terrorist Trends and Analysis (CTTA), “Targeting
Terrorist Financing: International Cooperation and New Regimes,” pg 114-116, CMR)
The United States is also at the forefront in providing training and technical assistance to help vulnerable
countries develop appropriate legal frameworks, financial regulatory oversight systems, law
enforcement capabilities, and judicial and prosecutorial processes needed for an effective AML/CFT regime.'““
Washington has entered into numerous mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs), which provide for the exchange
of financial information and evidence in criminal and related matters especially in asset forfeiture
proceedings."” According to US officials, Washington remains committed to leverage the comparative
advantage of the numerous institutions and organizations, drawing on what each does best, from setting
standards to developing regional strategies to providing forums for training and education. Through the
provision of training, equipment, and other assistance, the United States, along with a coalition of willing and
able states and organizations, will enhance the ability of partners across the globe to attack and defeat
terrorists, deny them funding and freedom of movement.'“" In fact, the US efforts to combat terrorist
financing may be considered the most successful part of the global war on terror since September 2001.“ The
United Kingdom, which has always been sensitive to terrorism, espe- cially because of its experience with the Irish Republican Army (IRA), was
one of the first countries that incorporated the 1999 Terrorist Financing Convention in its domestic law. This was done through the Terrorism
Act 2000. The United Kingdom has created 21 specialist unit in its police force, the National Terrorist Financial Investigation Unit (NTFIU) that
employs individuals well versed in financial investigative techniques, and is one of the first countries to do so.'” The 2000 Terrorism Act
provides for extra-territorial jurisdiction with regard to acts of financing that have been criminalized under the act. The US and UK leg- islations
have become models for terrorist financing legislation because of the regulatory framework they envisage and their overarching reach across
the public and private sector.” The
measures developed by the international community against terrorist
financing are comprehensive, encompassing all aspects of financial activity and involving participation by a very wide range of actors
and agencies both in the public and the private sector at the international. regional and domestic levels. In a broader sense, these
initiatives emphasize establishment of a legal framework and efficient and rapid dissemination of
information through legal mechanisms and mutual assistance programmes in order to help concerned
agencies identify, disrupt and dismantle terrorist financing networks. As the IMF has noted, the collection,
analysis, and dissemination of financial information is crucial to “disrupt, delay, interrupt, and defeat. both
terrorism and terrorist finance.”'” lmportantly, it has been recognized that different nations adopt different anti-terrorist financing regimes
in accordance with their differing legal traditions, constitutional requirements, systems of govemment and technological capabil- ities."5 This
ensures that all the nations do not have to employ a unilateral “US- only” model for countering the financing of terrorism.'"’ Thus, various
international and regional institutions and agencies engaged in a wide array of multilateral activities now collectively constitute a new international regime for countering the financing of terrorism.'” As Thomas Biersteker er al. put it, In many ways, cooperation against terrorist
financing now constitutes a regime where the principles [widely held beliefs about the utility of follow- ing the movement of money]; norms
[obligations arising under formal (UN) and informal (FATF) initiatives]; rules [the specific regulatory actions to be taken and best practices to be
pursued]; and decision-making procedures [whether they are manifest in global, regional or specialist organizations] are institutionalized in
multiple fora. Beneath this web of institutions are wide ranges of bilateral, trans-governmental networks on terrorist financing, which have also
reinforced and supplemented the regime."3 This collection of
new institutions, new laws, and cooperation among
states and between institutions is “an immense undertaking” and “no less than the military campaign”“”
against terrorism. Given these characterizations and the sheer breadth and depth of these new initiatives, Steve Kiser argues, depicting
the financial strategy, as a central component of the global war on terror is not unreasonable. '3”
MLATs key to fight terrorism and transnational crime
U.S. Department of State 2/20/15
"Signing of a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty Between the United States and Kazakhstan," U.S. Department of State, February 20th, 2015,
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/02/237732.htm
On February 20, 2015, Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Department of Justice Counselor
for International Affairs Bruce C.
Swartz and Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan Askhat Daulbayev signed a Treaty on Mutual
Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. The signing of this Treaty marks an important step forward by the United States and
Kazakhstan to enhance law enforcement cooperation and to protect the law-abiding citizens of both countries The
Treaty provides a formal intergovernmental mechanism for the provision of evidence and other forms of law
enforcement assistance in criminal investigations, prosecutions, and related proceedings. Under the Treaty,
assistance can be provided in taking testimony of witnesses, releasing documents and records, locating and identifying persons or evidence,
serving documents, executing requests for searches and seizures, transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes, tracing and
forfeiting the proceeds of crime, and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested State.
Mutual legal
assistance treaties are an excellent means for the United States to strengthen its ability to fight
terrorism and transnational crime. The United States has negotiated such treaties since the late 1970s and currently has over 70 in
force. Following signature, this treaty will be transmitted to the U.S. Senate for advice and consent to ratification.
No risk of bioterror
Keller 13 (Rebecca, 7 March 2013, Analyst at Stratfor, “Bioterrorism and the Pandemic Potential,” Stratfor,
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/bioterrorism-and-pandemic-potential)
The risk of
an accidental release of H5N1 is similar to that of other infectious pathogens currently being
studied. Proper safety standards are key, of course, and experts in the field have had a year to determine
the best way to proceed, balancing safety and research benefits. Previous work with the virus was conducted at
biosafety level three out of four, which requires researchers wearing respirators and disposable gowns to work in pairs in a negative pressure
environment. While many of these labs are part of universities, access is controlled either through keyed entry or even palm scanners. There
are roughly 40 labs that submitted to the voluntary ban. Those wishing to resume work after the ban was lifted must comply with guidelines
requiring strict national oversight and close communication and collaboration with national authorities. The
risk of release either
through accident or theft cannot be completely eliminated, but given the established parameters the
risk is minimal. The use of the pathogen as a biological weapon requires an assessment of whether a
non-state actor would have the capabilities to isolate the virulent strain, then weaponize and distribute
it. Stratfor has long held the position that while terrorist organizations may have rudimentary capabilities regarding
biological weapons, the likelihood of a successful attack is very low. Given that the laboratory version
of H5N1 -- or any influenza virus, for that matter -- is a contagious pathogen, there would be two possible
modes that a non-state actor would have to instigate an attack. The virus could be refined and then
aerosolized and released into a populated area, or an individual could be infected with the virus and
sent to freely circulate within a population. There are severe constraints that make success using either of
these methods unlikely. The technology needed to refine and aerosolize a pathogen for a biological attack is
beyond the capability of most non-state actors. Even if they were able to develop a weapon, other
factors such as wind patterns and humidity can render an attack ineffective. Using a human carrier is a
less expensive method, but it requires that the biological agent be a contagion. Additionally, in order to infect
the large number of people necessary to start an outbreak, the infected carrier must be mobile while
contagious, something that is doubtful with a serious disease like small pox. The carrier also cannot be visibly
ill because that would limit the necessary human contact.
MLATs CP
Conditionality bad
- Time skew
- Strat skew
- Dispo solves their offense
- Voter
No neg fiat – No negative counter-resolution, fiat power stems from “should”,
counterplans are infinite, unpredictable and distract from education on core topic
controversies – voter
Perm – do both
-
No solvency – 1ac internal links and solvency ev all proves LEADS act is key –
it doesn’t matter how much funding there is, other countries won’t
cooperate with US if we are VIOLATING THEIR LAWS and doing surveillance
OUTSIDE THE MLAT PROCESS
Plan is key to re-assert US leadership on MLATs – otherwise, global law enforcement
cooperation is at risk
Evans and Anderson 15 (Karen S. Evans is national director of the U.S. Cyber Challenge, a
nationwide talent search and skills development program focused specifically on the cyber workforce,
Julie M. Anderson is a principal at AG Strategy Group, “Much-needed bipartisan privacy reform: Support
LEADS,” March 23, http://www.federaltimes.com/story/government/it/blog/2015/03/23/electroniccommunications-privacy-act-reform/70330234/, CMR)
The LEADS Act relies on existing international treaties to regulate the request and access to emails
across borders. The procedures employed by these treaties are not perfect, and that is where LEADS is beneficial in setting
forth significant process improvements, specifying that U.S. warrants apply to data stored abroad tied to
U.S. citizens or residents only when execution of the warrants does not violate foreign laws. Only when
the U.S. reasserts its leadership on these issues will it be able to fully benefit from its international
relationships. Any U.S. government action absent of overall ECPA reform could hamper future
cooperation from law enforcement agencies in foreign countries. Numerous groups – including technology companies,
leading media, and privacy organizations – have aligned their efforts to support clarifying legal access to personal communications. Members of
both parties have signed on to the bill introduced in both chambers of Congress. The
LEADS Act is an important first step in clarifying and
strengthening ECPA. It will enhance the mutual trust and reciprocity that U.S. has built over time with our
foreign partners. And this, in turn, will help our country continue to benefit from international relationships
aimed at improving law enforcement cooperation. In a time of gridlock and increasing partisanship, LEADS is one
place where Washington could work to improve security and privacy for its people.
Plan is a necessary condition – only LEADS ACT sends clear signal vital to trust and
mutual confidence – MLAT coop is doomed without it
Evans 15 (Karen S, has spent 28 years in the federal government and most recently was a presidential
appointee as the administrator for E-Government and Information Technology at the Office of
Management and Budget, national director for the US Cyber Challenge, “LEADS Act is logical path
toward much-needed ECPA reform,” March 13, http://thehill.com/blogs/congressblog/technology/235582-leads-act-is-logical-path-toward-much-needed-ecpa-reform, CMR)
The necessity of reforming the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) has long been talked about in Congress, and it is time to take
action. A sensible and bipartisan bill has been introduced that gives us a realistic path to reform. That bill is the Law Enforcement Access to Data
Stored Abroad (LEADS) Act – we should examine it seriously. In today’s Digital Age, we store incalculable quantities of personal information on
cloud servers which may be located anywhere in the world, something 1980s-era ECPA never anticipated. It’s time to modernize the way we
conduct digital trade and the legal framework that controls how law enforcement agencies interact with this data. With little fanfare, this
bipartisan bill was recently reintroduced by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dean Heller (R-Nev.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) last month (a companion
bill was also introduced in the House). The bill will help achieve several important outcomes. LEADS will improve data privacy protections for
U.S. citizens and residents while strengthening law enforcement cooperation with other nations. The
bill also preserves the essential
balance between security and privacy. At the same time, it will signal to our foreign partners that we are
serious about improving law enforcement cooperation with them. In these times, such improvements
are vital to ensuring effective functioning of our law enforcement agencies while maintaining the privacy
rights of our citizens. We have all come to expect a certain level of privacy in our personal communications. Our law enforcement
agencies must follow procedures established by Congress and the courts to gain access to personal
correspondence and data files. These rules also govern access to information held overseas and controlled
by long-standing mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs). But these clear principles have been partly
obscured by the digital nature of today’s communications. Today many data centers operated by American companies are
located in foreign countries and their electronic footprints cross numerous jurisdictions. In these changing conditions, U.S. courts are
now serving warrants to American technology companies demanding access to customer data stored
overseas. We must bring greater clarity to these procedures by updating our laws to reflect today’s
circumstances. The LEADS Act is an ideal opportunity to do this. It removes the gaps in ECPA by
specifying that U.S. warrants apply to data stored abroad only when the owners are U.S. persons (citizens
or residents) and only when execution of the warrants does not violate foreign laws. The bill also requires that the
U.S. improve its MLAT procedures, which are the primary alternative mechanism to warrants in these situations. These clarifications to
ECPA can only enhance U.S. cooperation with other governments. Strong relationships of mutual confidence
with these governments are vital to the ability of our law enforcement agencies and courts to carry out
their missions effectively. There are many examples from my service in government that illustrate the
importance of U.S. cooperation with other countries as it relates to effective policy implementation, and
I’d like to highlight two of them. Established in 2002 by Congress, transportation worker identification cards (TWIC) are intended to minimize
the risk of bad actors accessing key aspects of the maritime transportation system. Effective policy implementation meant the U.S., Canada and
Mexico had to work together to make technical requirements interoperable. Treaties governed the intergovernmental work. Policy guidelines
set the technical implementations in motion in each participating country. In addition,
a consortium of countries composed of
Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the U.K. and the U.S. met regularly to share best practices for
expanding e-government to improve services to the citizen, which included information sharing across law enforcement
agencies. Each country used this information and implemented new approaches to bolster law enforcement cooperation without harming
constituent services. Without trust, reciprocity and shared information, these efforts will be futile. Only by respecting
the Golden Rule when cooperating with other countries can we hope to produce real results. The LEADS
Act will strengthen our ability to maintain these productive relationships with international partners to
the real benefit of American citizens. It is legislation like LEADS that will help the U.S. achieve broader, muchneeded ECPA reform. The goal is clear – the laws should ensure that data stored in the cloud receives the
same legal protections as data stored in our homes and at work. Senators and representatives have the opportunity to
act on the legislation to ensure we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. It’s time to provide better data privacy
protections for our citizens while preserving U.S. relationships abroad. I encourage Congress to take up
The LEADS Act this session and strengthen America’s leadership in preserving the balance between security and
privacy.
Solvency
T.S. Circumvention
- LEADS act sufficient – prefer specificity of our 1ac ev – their ev only says IF obama ignored Leads act it
wouldn’t solve, not that he would – the other card is generic and doesn’t assume leads
- we still solve perception – plans sufficient – 1ac ev
- even if US circumvented and leaks occurred – that wouldn’t happen for years or decades – it took over
10 years for bulk meta data program to leak
- The NSA and FBI will now have to abide by Congressional mandate — the era of
looking the other way on surveillance has ended.
Buttar 15 — Shahid Buttar, constitutional lawyer and executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense
Committee, 2015 (“Senate Moves to Check Executive Spying Power,” The Progressive, May 27th,
Available Online at http://progressive.org/news/2015/05/188151/senate-moves-check-executivespying-power, Accessed 06-07-2015)
The political shift indicates a direction for future reform.
Who Wins and Who Loses?
The most obvious losers are the NSA and FBI. After 15 years of breaking already permissive laws, yet not
congressional blank checks, the agencies must finally start complying with constitutional limits.
Within the agencies, senior leaders of the intelligence establishment also emerge looking like clowns.
Section 215 survived this long only because agency officials—including Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper and former NSA Director Michael Hayden—lied under oath to evade oversight. The
Senate's decision to end a program that senators learned about from whistleblowers, instead of those
officials, further discredits their legacies.
Even if they remain above the law by evading the prosecution for perjury sought by multiple members
of Congress, their careers will be defined by congressional and judicial rejection of illegal programs they
built in secret.
To the extent intelligence officials are clowns, the many congressional leaders from both parties who
supported them are stooges. Establishment Democrats and Republicans alike uncritically accepted lies,
deferred to them and went along with the Beltway consensus - in sharp contrast to their populist
colleagues who proved willing to uphold their oath of office to "defend the Constitution against all
enemies, foreign and domestic."
Several winners also emerged from this drama.
Congressional rejection of mass spying vindicates several principles at once, including transparency,
oversight, checks and balances, the separation of powers and constitutional rights enshrined in the First
and Fourth Amendments. Each of those values is cherished across the political continuum, making them
especially powerful during a presidential election year.
Senator Paul is another clear winner. He demonstrated leadership, surged among the crowded GOP field
of 2016 presidential hopefuls and effectively seized control of the Senate from the majority leader. With
its senators leading both the surveillance/secrecy/corruption caucus, as well as the competing
constitutional/privacy/accountability caucus, Kentucky could also claim victory.
The US Constitution may be the most important winner. By proxy, "We the People of the United States"
actually scored two victories at once.
Narrowly, the expiration of Patriot Act Section 215 advances Fourth Amendment privacy interests. Even
though mass surveillance will continue for now under other legal authorities, one program through
which our government monitors phone calls and tracks everyone's behavior, regardless of wrongdoing,
will end.
More broadly, this vote begins a long-overdue process of limiting executive powers, expanded during a
period of seeming emergency, which grew entrenched despite proving ineffective as well as
constitutionally offensive. In this sense, congressional assertiveness supports democracy in a longrunning battle to avoid the erosion from within foreseen by both Alexis de Tocqueville and President
and Supreme Allied Commander Dwight Eisenhower.
What Comes Next?
With reformers having triumphed in Congress, the debate over surveillance reform must expand.
Further reforms are necessary to enable an adversarial process and greater transparency at the secret
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and also to limit other legal authorities - like Executive Order
12333 and FISA Section 702 - used to justify unconstitutional domestic surveillance.
It's a good thing that a bipartisan measure, the Surveillance State Repeal Act (HR 1466), is poised to do
exactly that. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisconsin) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) introduced the SSRA
to force the agencies to justify the expansion of any powers from a constitutional baseline, rather than
one contrived by a decade of executive lies.
Congress has long abandoned its role of checking and balancing runaway executive power, but the
Senate's recent vote suggests an overdue awakening. Members should heed the political wind, and
embrace bipartisan calls for aggressive limits as the starting point for comprehensive surveillance
reform.
T.S. SQ solves
- US violating foreign laws now, more violations are coming, status quo protections are insufficient, and
only plan creates CONFIDENCE and TRUST by resolving FEARS of future violations, which is key – that’s
all our 1ac internal links and 2ac ev on the CP
Competitiveness
TS Freedom act solves
-
2ac ev on CP proves only plan solves
Freedom act does NOTHING to prevent surveillance search warrants that violates FOREIGN
LAWS – that’s our entire arg and the internal link to all our advantages
TS Competitiveness resilient
-
Nope – 1ac Pociask says cascading shocks are coming that will DEVASTATE the tech sector
and doom sustainability of US competitive edge
TS Stem Alt cause
-
Their ev is terrible, it just says it presents“challenges”, doesn’t get to collapse - this is super
long term anyway, plan gives massive boost to US tech companies in short term
TS No impact
-
Group
Extend Colby – its key to heg, econ and relative power differential – which is vital
Goldstien says that causes US Lashout – which is an internal link to global great power war
they conceded
MLATs
TS Organized Crime Resilient
-
This ev is awful, we post date by 6 years, it doesn’t assume our internal link AT ALL, and it
just says organized crime NEEDS to be resilient in order to adopt to changing environments,
not that they ARE RESILIENT or can’t be weakened
TS doesn’t cause violence
-
This card sucks too – its nearly a decade old, its about the mafia, not TRANSNATIONAL
organized crime, and our internal link to conflicts is that it undermines GOOD GOVERNANCE
by causing CORRUPTION – doesn’t matter whether the crime itself is non-violent or not
TS no disease impact
-
Doesn’t assume disease mutation, antibiotic resistance and human population expansion
into new areas – that’s 1ac Keating
TS BioD Resilient
Prefer 1ac Rockstrom – most qualified – their ev is from a philosopher, not an environmental expert –
even if past environmental damage hasn’t caused it – we’re approaching a unique tipping point that will
cause cascading effects, system collapse and extinction
US EU Relations
T.S. No Impact
Prefer stivatchis – key to solve every major global problem – combined influence, power and
transnational scope make deep coop key
TS resilient
-
Surveillance in violation of EU laws creates UNIQUE damage – that’s 1ac Gould
Not resilient – only sustainable if we work together to rebuild trust – that’s Cunningham
TS Alt Causes
Energy differences don’t affect security cooperation—empirics, it spurs tech
cooperation and economic benefits
Berzina 14 (Kristine, transatlantic fellow for energy & society at GMF, where she is responsible for
shaping energy programming in Europe and contributing to GMF's work in the United States, “Bridging
Energy Gaps for Greater Transatlantic Cooperation”, July 2014, MC)
Although gaps between North American and European energy policies remain, they are not a stress test
for transatlantic security cooperation. The gaps in approaches provide opportunities for complementarity
and a formal cooperation. Acting as a harmonious bloc will be important as both regions address their waning
importance over the coming decades. Already, China and India dominate conversations about growing energy demand
and non-OECD countries consume the majority of the worlds oil supplies.3 The United States and Europe will need to band together on
research and trade to stay at the forefront of energy innovation. Europe and the United States have
a common goal of
improving the security of their energy supplies! but the two regions have approached this goal differently. The United States has
been blessed with geology and technological innovation that has allowed U.S. companies to develop new tight oil and shale gas resources. In
Europe, geology* and political priorities have not led to a shale boom. Instead, European energy transformations have focused large!)' on
increasing renewable energy* saturation to meet energy self-sufficiency* and climate change goals. The United States and Europe started out
as both energy producing and energy importing countries. As recently as ten year: ago, the United States planned to increase natural gas
imports, and many companies built liquefied natural gas import terminals along the U.S. eastern seaboard. But the shale gas boom changed this
trajectory. Since 2009, the United States has been the world's top natural gas producer, putting more than six times more natural gas on the
market than Saudi Arabia. In the European Union, the United Kingdom (UK.) had been the major natural gas producer. But production has
steadily decreased over the last decade. In 2013, the U.K. produced just 35 percent of the volume of natural gas that it produced ten years
earlier* Households and industry in the United Stales have benefited from the fossil fuel boom and low prices for natural gas. In 2013, the
price of natural gas in the United States had fallen to one-third the price of European gas. Not only has this kept
household heating bills low, cheap natural gas has rejuvenated energy intensive manufacturing in the United States.
Chemicals manufacturers, including Germany's BASF, arc opening new plants in the United States to take
advantage of the more competitive environment. Meanwhile in Europe, many countries arc undergoing energy
transformations of their own. Germany introduced its Energicwende (energy transition) in 2011. pledging to phase out nuclear
power by 2022 and aiming to reach 80 percent renewable energy by 2050. The policy has been so popular that by 2013. Germany was home to
over 10 percent of the world's renewable energy capacity (not including hydroclcctricity)." This success has come at a high price to households
and to energy-intensive industry. Households finance the energy* transition through surcharges on their electricity bills, and the boom in
rcncwablcs has made Germany's average household electricity bills the highest in Europe, industry, which is largely exempt from paying the
renewable energy surcharges, argues that their exemptions from surcharges arc not enough to keep German industry competitive. Between
low fuel prices in the United States and low labor costs in Asia, Germany has been put at a disadvantage. One option that analysts suggest will
reduce Germany's costs — developing shale gas resources of their own* — has encountered strong domestic resistance. In
spite of how
different the trajectories appear, both the North American shale gas boom and Germany's Energicwende
aim to reduce dependence on fossil fuel imports and to improve economic competitiveness in the long run.
Both regions wish to share their experiences and technical innovations around the world. The United States is
moving quickly to achieve these goals. Not only is the United States meeting its own demand for cheap energy and cushioning itself against
disruptions and political conflicts in supplier states, it is preparing to share its reserves with buyers overseas. By the end of 2015. the first
shipments of liquefied natural gas from Sabine Pass, Louisiana, will be sent to buyers including Korea's Kogas, the U.K's BG Group, Spain's Gas
Natural Pcnosa, France's Total, and India's GAIL. Countries across the world arc looking for a direct line to cheaper U.S. natural gas and arc
seeking to replicate the U.S. success story by developing shale gas of their own. Germany is playing a longer-term game. The immediate effects
of the energy transformation have been increased costs and higher coal consumption. Yet the strategic goals of the transition could eventually
overcome these hurdles. By becoming more energy self-sufficient, phasing out expensive fossil fuel imports, and paying off new rcncwablcs
capacity quickly through feed in tariffs, Germany could become an example for how to create a competitive, resilient, low-carbon economy.
Much as the United Stales seeks to spread its shale story. Germany is also sharing its experiences with European neighbors and emerging
economics alike. A recent study found that whereas European energy specialists focused on ihe Encrgicwcndcs cost challenges, experts in Brazil.
China, and South Africa were favorably disposed to ihe luicrgicwcndc and its long-term strategic goals. North American and
European energy policies are growing closer in both domestic and foreign policy aspects. The climate
change versus fossil fuel argument once represented a gulf between the transatlantic partners, but today the
disagreements represent a small fissure between the two sides. European policymakers arc becoming more
open to pursuing new fossil fuel exploration. The U.K. is exploring its own shale gas and tight oil reserves, and
the European Union has developed recommendations for unconventional oil and gas exploration that
simplify the development of new resources. Rather than mandating strict impact assessments, the standards improve
transparency and predictability for operators and communities.* Similarly, the EUs decision to case the language
of its Fuel Quality Directive appears to be an olive branch to Canada and the United States. The directive, which
aimed to label oil sands and other unconventional fuck as "dirty" from an emissions perspective, has been a source of conflict
between the transatlantic partners since 2009. Meanwhile, U.S. President Barack Obama is showing leadership on
climate change issues by pressing for more serious emissions regulations for coal power plants. Thus far, US. success in
lowering emissions has been due to markets not policy. Cheap natural gas pushed out coal in electricity generation, causing a drop in U.S.
carbon emissions. But in
June, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a Clean Power Plan to regulate the
emissions of existing power plants.* In their energy* policies, the United States and Europe arc working more
closely than they have before. The situation in Ukraine has prompted cooperation not only on economic sanctions, but
also on energy policies. In May, the G7 initiated a new subgroup. The Rome G7 Energy- Initiative for Energy- Security, to
work toward common energy security objectives, including diversifying supplies. This not only opens the
door for more direct energy trade between North America and Europe, but also stimulates greater knowledge sharing
across the Atlantic. The United States and Europe can learn from each other's experiences in developing new fossil fuel and renewable energy
resources.
TS Relations high –
-
above