1AC
Plan
The United States federal government should cease its surveillance of
foreign diplomats in the United States and at United States embassies.
EU Relations Advantage
The Advantage is US-EU Relations –
Snowden’s leak exposed secret US surveillance of foreign ambassadors at
US embassies – this caused massive backlash to US surveillance policy
MacAskill and Borger 13 (Ewen is the Guardians defense and intelligence correspondent,
previously the DC bureau chief and diplomatic editor and Julian is the Guardians diplomatic editor and
author of The Butchers Trail, 6/30, “New NSA leaks show how US is bugging its European allies”,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/30/nsa-leaks-us-bugging-european-allies)//cc
US intelligence services are spying on the European Union mission in New York and its
embassy in Washington, according to the latest top secret US National Security Agency
documents leaked by the whistleblower Edward Snowden. One document lists 38 embassies and
missions, describing them as "targets". It details an extraordinary range of spying
methods used against each target, from bugs implanted in electronic communications
gear to taps into cables to the collection of transmissions with specialised antennae.
Along with traditional ideological adversaries and sensitive Middle Eastern countries,
the list of targets includes the EU missions and the French, Italian and Greek embassies,
as well as a number of other American allies, including Japan, Mexico, South Korea, India and Turkey.
The list in the September 2010 document does not mention the UK, Germany or other western European states. One of the
bugging methods mentioned is codenamed Dropmire, which, according to a 2007 document, is "implanted on
the Cryptofax at the EU embassy, DC" – an apparent reference to a bug placed in a commercially available
encrypted fax machine used at the mission. The NSA documents note the machine is used to send cables back
to foreign affairs ministries in European capitals. The documents suggest the aim of the bugging
exercise against the EU embassy in central Washington is to gather inside knowledge of
policy disagreements on global issues and other rifts between member states. The new
revelations come at a time when there is already considerable anger across the EU over earlier
evidence provided by Snowden of NSA eavesdropping on America's European allies. Germany's justice minister,
Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, demanded an explanation from Washington, saying that if confirmed, US behaviour
"was reminiscent of the actions of enemies during the cold war" The German magazine Der Spiegel
reported at the weekend that some of the bugging operations in Brussels targeting the EU's Justus Lipsius building – a venue for
summit and ministerial meetings in the Belgian capital – were directed from within Nato headquarters nearby. The US intelligence
service codename for the bugging operation targeting the EU mission at the United Nations is "Perdido". Among the documents
leaked by Snowden is a floor plan of the mission in midtown Manhattan. The methods used against the mission include the
collection of data transmitted by implants, or bugs, placed inside electronic devices, and another covert operation that appears to
provide a copy of everything on a targeted computer's hard drive. The
eavesdropping on the EU delegation to
the US, on K Street in Washington, involved three different operations targeted on the
embassy's 90 staff. Two were electronic implants and one involved the use of antennas
to collect transmissions. Although the latest documents are part of an NSA haul leaked by Snowden, it is not clear in
each case whether the surveillance was being exclusively done by the NSA – which is most probable as the embassies and missions
are technically overseas – or by the FBI or the CIA, or a combination of them. The
2010 document describes the
operation as "close access domestic collection".
This surveillance serves no national security purpose – it’s being done
exclusively to eavesdrop
Council of Europe 15 (Council of Europe Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. “Mass
Surveillance”. 26 January 2015. https://ccdcoe.org/sites/default/files/documents/CoE-150126MassSurveillance.pdf)//JuneC//
The New York Times revealed that the NSA monitored an American law firm representing a foreign government in trade disputes
against the United States53 as well as other countries’ preparations for the Copenhagen Climate Summit, including those by the host
country, Denmark.54 The NSA also engaged in targeted surveillance of the United Nations, the European
Union, and other international organizations in a variety of ways, including bugging embassy phones and
faxes, copying hard disks, and tapping into the internal computer cable network used by collaborators. 55
To cite a few examples out of the many that were revealed, the NSA used operation Blackfoot to gather
data from French diplomats’ offices at the New York UN headquarters.56 Operation Perdido targeted the
EU’s offices in New York and Washington, while Powell was a codename for the NSA’s scheme to
eavesdrop on the Greek UN offices in New York. The NSA’s internal document indicated that its spying
had a key influence on “American negotiating tactics at the UN” in connection with the Iraq War. Thanks to
the intercepted conversations, the NSA was allegedly able to inform the US State Department and the American Ambassador to the
UN with a high degree of certainty that the required majority had been secured before the vote was held on the corresponding UN
resolution.57 While the inclusion of traditional ideological adversaries and sensitive Middle Eastern
countries were “expected” and more easily explained in light of US anti-terrorism efforts, the inclusion of
traditional allies discredits the contention that the purpose of surveillance is the protection of national
security.
The largest impact has been in Europe – US surveillance of personnel at our
embassies undermines US-EU cooperation on a host of issues – even when
cooperation happens, a chilling effect makes it ineffective
EUCE 14 (European Union Center of North Carolina “The NSA Leaks and Transatlantic Relations”.
EUCE. 4 July 2014. http://europe.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Brief_1407.pdf)//JuneC//
The diplomatic fallout has been limited, but Snowden's revelations have impacted relations on a deeper
level: the bonds of trust between Europe and America have been undermined. The loss of trust has been
caused not so much by the mass collection of citizens’ data as by the spying on diplomats and heads of
government. In fact, while mass data collections has somewhat soured public perceptions of the US, the fact that European
agencies were complicit in the data’s collection has somewhat curbed the fallout. Arguably, mass collection of data has undermined
citizens’ trust towards political elites in general: polling carried out by the German Marshall Policy Area: Snowden, the NSA and
Europe European Union Center of North Carolina EU Briefings The European Union Center of the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill is funded by the European Union to advance knowledge and understanding of the EU and its member countries. Fund of
the United States suggests that Europeans are opposed to surveillance carried out by the US and by their own governments alike.16
bugging of embassies, diplomats and heads of
government has significantly undermined the 'special' nature of the transatlantic
relationship in the eyes of the political elite, harming US-German relations in particular. The revelation
On the other hand, it may be argued that the
that the US was carrying out monitoring from its Embassy in the heart of Berlin served almost as a visual metaphor for the loss of
trust. In her state visit to the US in May 2014, Merkel sought to lessen the tension, but also stated that there were still difficulties to
overcome, and that ‘there will have to be more than just business as usual’.17 The fact that initial plans for a no-spy agreement
between Germany and the US were shelved is further testimony to the simmering tension. Germans, once enthusiastic of Obama,
have now become disillusioned with his foreign policy: the failure to close down Guantanamo, the proliferation of drone strikes and
the different attitudes towards intervention in Libya and Syria have all contributed to this perception. The fallout between the US
and Germany may not yet have reached its endpoint: on June 4th 2014, the German Federal prosecutor launched an official
investigation in the hacking of Merkel's phone, a sign that anger over the spying has prevailed over considerations of the potential
damages to the relationship with the US. Throughout Western Europe, with the possible exception of Britain, the
NSA revelations have been a significant blow to transatlantic unity. Compared to one year ago, the
transatlantic relationship is not markedly weaker, but it now looks self-interested and pragmatic rather
than idealistic and selfless. PART III: Future prospects While extensive co-operation between the US and
Europe is set to continue, the leaks and the loss of trust they entail are likely to have a series of
concrete
consequences in the medium term. First of all, it is possible that public concerns over mass data
collection will lead to increased pressure on European intelligence agencies to weaken their cooperation with US agencies , potentially undermining collective security: more likely however is that
governments will weather this storm and it will be business as usual to a great degree. As far
as the TTIP is concerned,
negotiations are still ongoing, but it seems increasingly likely that fears over data protection will make it
harder to adopt common standards , while fears of backdoor access may lead to resistance to
the opening up of European government procurement to US companies. Ultimately, the European
Parliament will have to approve the final deal, a potentially difficult hurdle to overcome. To keep
abreast with the pace of technical change revealed by the NSA’s techniques, the EU and European
governments are set to launch a set of initiatives designed to update the EU's digital infrastructure so that
it is better protected from external probing, and to create a stronger regulatory framework for data
protection. In this regard, in October the Commission developed proposals for the reform of data protection, ensuring that nonEuropean companies respect EU data protection law and only transfer data outside of the Union in specific circumstances. These
combined efforts are likely to result in a strengthened European data protection system and in stronger
regulations, which could end up restricting not only American spying
but also the operations of US
companies in Europe if they fail to comply with European standards. This may actually serve as a
stimulus for the US to adopt similar standards . In diplomatic terms, there is likely to be a symbolic push for a
formal or informal agreement over spying, and a push to review existing EU-US data transfer agreements. Official limitations on
actual spying seems unlikely after the failure of the US-German 'no spy' agreement. Instead of a formal understanding it is likely that
the US will refrain from indiscriminate spying in the future, recognizing the potential for diplomatic fallout. In terms of datatransfer agreements, the EU is seeking to strengthen the existing 'Safe Harbor' data transfer framework, ensuring that the US does
not abuse the clause allowing extensive transfers for national security reasons. Moreover negotiations are ongoing for an 'Umbrella
Agreement' for data transfer in the context of counterterrorism and judicial cooperation: the key point will be securing the right of
European citizens to seek redress in American courts in case of improper data transfer. The US is likely to be receptive to these
initiatives, realizing that these are conciliatory steps and that indiscriminate spying has the potential to cause serious damage. If
current negotiations concerning future co-operation in data sharing succeed, it is possible that Snowden's
revelations will eventually come to be seen as having had some positive side-benefits within a wider
narrative of treachery: spurring co-operation and playing a role in restoring trust and renewing the
transatlantic partnership in the digital age. It will be possible for the US to weather this storm of adverse
publicity and diplomatic fallout but if this is the path chosen it will cast a shadow over transatlantic
relations:
it will be better to offer symbolic reforms to curb the NSA’s perceived excesses.
Failure to reverse status quo embassy spying spills over by generating
friction on the overall transatlantic relationship
Young 14 – Senior VP and Chief Strategy Officer of National Security Parnters, LLC, served as the
Executive Director for the Directorate of Plans and Policya t the United States Cyber Command, and as a
senior leader at the NSA (Mark Young, Summer 2014, “National Insecurity: The Impacts of Illegal
Disclosures of Classified Information,” 10 ISJLP 367, Lexis)//twemchen
B. European Union. Traditionally,
strong diplomatic and intelligence sharing relationships with members of the
European Union have also been strained by revelations of programs allegedly collecting the personal
[*390] communication of thirty-five heads of state . 92 These reports of U.S. surveillance in Europe are
"eating away at the fabric of trust that is part of the alliance ." 93 According to the Council on
Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Charles A. Kupchan, there is a direct relationship between the political discomfort with alleged U.S.
intelligence collection and European disappointment about the President's inability to better balance security and civil liberties. 94
Kupchan has noted that many Europeans feel that Obama "has failed to deliver on his pledge to clean up some of the excesses left
behind by the George W. Bush administration." 95 German Chancellor Angela Merkel originally defended the apparent intelligence
cooperation disclosed by Snowden. She pointed out that Germany had "avoided terrorist attacks thanks to information from allies."
96 But, in the face of new disclosures, she is now discussing limits on privacy intrusions. Merkel has alluded repeatedly to "Cold
War" tactics and has said spying on friends is unacceptable. 97 Her spokesman has said a mutually-beneficial transatlantic
trade deal requires a level of "mutual trust." 98 Chancellor Merkel has been criticized for her apparently
feigned indignation about alleged cooperation with the U.S. Intelligence Community. "Germany has demanded
explanations for Snowden's allegations of large-scale spying by the NSA, and by Britain via a programme
codenamed 'Tempora,' on their allies including [*391] Germany and other European Union states, as well as EU
institutions and embassies ." 99 The Head of German domestic intelligence has said he knew nothing about the
reported NSA surveillance. 100 Opposition parties believe otherwise. They claimed that, because German intelligence activities are
coordinated within the Office of the Chancellor, highlevel officials must have known about speculative NSA activities. 101 Der
Spiegel has reported that the NSA monitored about twenty million German phone connections and ten million Internet sessions on
an average day and sixty million phone connections on above average days. 102 Thus, unconfirmed U.S. intelligence
activities are now an issue that will affect German political leadership and the diplomatic and
intelligence relationships between Germany and the U.S. The impact on European Union allies is
already seen in the talks being held between European Union member states and the United States about
American surveillance tactics that may have included spying on European allies. 103 President Obama assured Germany
that the U.S. "takes seriously the concerns of our European allies and partners." 104 The initiation of a dialogue between the
United States and European Union Members about intelligence collection and appropriate oversight 105 will also
complicate the transatlantic relationship . Restrictions or legislation that shifts standards of privacy
and data protection will diminish American and European Union security.
It’s reverse causal – curtailing embassy spying would restore mutual
confidence – ushering in a new era in transatlantic cooperation
Economic Times 13 – (7/8/13, “EU, US set for FTA talks in shadow of spying storm,”
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-07-08/news/40443507_1_eu-offices-ftanegotiations-transatlantic-trade)//twemchen
The European Union and US are set to kick off long-awaited negotiations on a free trade agreement (FTA) in Washington today
despite growing demands to delay the talks until allegations of American spying on EU officials and sweeping surveillance of citizens
are cleared. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has made a fresh appeal to stick to the road map agreed when the trade talks were
formally launched at the G-8 summit in Dublin last month and also to hold parallel discussions to investigate
America's
unprecedented espionage operations, exposed by intelligence whistleblower Edward Snowden. The transAtlantic negotiations to create the world's largest free trade zone should not be dropped in the wake of the US espionage scandal and
they must be carried out "well-targeted and without putting the other issues under the table" she told an election campaign rally of
her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) at the weekend in the state of North Rhine Westphalia. Snowden's
revelations in
the past weeks that the US National Security Agency (NSA) had bugged the EU embassies in
Washington and at the U nited N ations as well as its headquarters in Brussels and systematically
collected vast amounts of internet and telephone data of EU citizens had threatened to derail the EU-US FTA
negotiations. Merkel criticised the NSA's blanket cyber surveillance and bugging of EU offices and said they
cannot be justified with the argument that they are in the interest of protecting Europe and its
citizens against possible terrorist attacks. "Eavesdropping among friends cannot be tolerated. The era of cold
war is over ," she said. However, a "proper balance" must be maintained between protecting citizens against terrorism and
safeguarding their personal data, she said. The European Commission confirmed at the weekend that an agreement was
reached among the EU member-nations to start the negotiations with the US on the T ransatlantic T rade
and I nvestment P artnership as planned tomorrow and to take up parallel joint investigations into the alleged
US bugging of EU offices and snooping into the internet and telephone data. However, the discussions on the
espionage scandal will be held only in one joint working group and will be restricted to data privacy and the NSA's surveillance
programmes codenamed PRISM. EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso expressed the hope that the joint EU-US
investigations will provide "sufficient clarifications" on the spying allegations, which are
necessary to
restore mutual confidence as the two sides prepared to usher in a new era in transatlantic
cooperation . An FTA "is not just in the interest of the EU, but it is also clearly in the interest of the US," Barroso said.
German Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser Schnarrenberger has demanded a detailed clarification from the US on the alleged NSA
espionage activities before FTA negotiations can get under way. Peer Steinbrueck, chancellor Merkel's main opponent in the
parliamentary election in September, has said that the FTA
allegations are sufficiently clarified.
negotiations should be delayed until the espionage
Scenario 1: Russia
Renewed US-EU relations is vital to project a unified front in the face of
Russian aggression
Cohen 6/25 (Ariel, a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council's Global Energy Center and
the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center, He is also Director of the Center for Energy, Natural Resources and
Geopolitics at the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security and Principal of International Market
Analysis Ltd, 2015, “Hey, Remember Me? It’s Europe. The Transatlantic Alliance is in Trouble”
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/hey-remember-me-it-s-europe)//cc
"We lived next to Russia for 500 years—listen to what we have to say," Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski said at the Bratislava
Global Security Forum on June 20. He's right. The
West needs to pay attention and achieve strategic
clarity in Europe and beyond before it's too late. There are no shortage of crises and
challenges—ISIS, the refugee crisis involving state failure in North Africa, Syria and
Iraq, the rise of China, and Greece's potential exit from the European Union to name a
few—facing the United States and its allies, but Ukraine and Russia are among the key
tests to the transatlantic relationship. Russia is becoming more authoritarian,
nationalist, militarist, and expansionist. Ukraine is inching closer to an economic
meltdown which is likely to translate into a greater social crisis. Eighteen months after Russia
annexed Crimea, transatlantic unity has held. But Europeans are increasingly looking inward and are in
a bad mood. Pew's recent opinion poll confirms that large majorities of Europeans are unwilling to
defend NATO allies, while 85 percent expect the United States to come to their rescue if
attacked. NATO, the European Union, and national governments need to convince
young people that their world and values are worth defending. It's true that Europe needs
economic growth to pay for its defense. Not all members are willing to spend two percent of GDP on defense as
recommended by the Wales NATO summit. In fact, only five countries do: Estonia, Greece, Poland, the United States, and the
United Kingdom. Greece's potential exit from the Eurozone may heighten turmoil in the financial markets and slow growth, further
diminishing commitments to robust military spending. Europe
is also internally conflicted and distracted
with other pressing issues. During the Bratislava Global Security Forum, the far right in Slovakia demonstrated against
accepting refugees from North Africa. Taking into account the high unemployment rate among the young across Europe, the
potential for social destabilization is high and the momentum for Euro-Atlantic values is
low. There's also concern about divisions in Central and Eastern Europe. Austria and
Hungary want a reliable supply of oil and gas, and Russian cash. Others, like Czech
Republic and Slovakia, buy into Putin's tough image and pseudo-conservative narrative and some believe that
residual pan-Slavic solidarity still applies to Russia, but not to Ukraine. Estonian President
Toomas Henrik Ilves and the former Czech Foreign Minister Alexander Vondra have warned that the European consensus on social
values, including overstressing individual liberties, while neglecting one's duties to the society and the country, went over the top.
Ilves cautioned in Bratislava that we should not stress the differences between old and new Europe, but find ways to unite Central
and Eastern Europe with Western Europe. After all, they were a part of a whole for over 1,000 years. The United States found a
competent partner in German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and those favoring a softer approach to Putin's Russia in the German
business community have been restrained. But a
vocal anti-atlanticist minority in Europe, on the far
right and far left, takes the Kremlin's cash and buys Moscow's message. Its message is an antiAmerican narrative, draped in a pseudo-traditionalist, anti-democratic values that
claims to defend Christianity, while promoting homophobia and racism. Berlin, Moscow, and
Washington have prevented the conflict in Ukraine from getting out of control, but Moscow's strategic goals are far
from clear. It appears that Moscow has abandoned its plans for Novorossiya—the eight provinces in east and south Ukraine.
Even though Moscow’s endgame is opaque, the West needs to be prepared for a Russian offensive in
Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic States. Massive military exercises suggest
that Putin isn’t messing around. He just added forty new missiles to his strategic nuclear arsenal, while Russia's
short-range Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad may have received nuclear warheads. By extending the Iskanders’ range, the Kremlin
may have violated the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. Russia's
incessant prodding of Western air
defenses and in Finnish and Swedish waters may hint at how far the Kremlin's ambitions stretch. But it
could also be mere posturing. The answers to these questions require more human intelligence gathering and strategic planning that
we frankly don't do well. One hopes that the sanctions and lower oil prices will change Russia's behavior in Ukraine and in Europe,
but oil
is already inching higher, and hope is not a strategy. If the conflict in Ukraine
escalates, millions of refugees will stream into Europe, and there will be no sea to stop them. NATO is
rightly focused on Russia as never before. Yet it needs to put its money and muscle where its mouth is; it should preposition military equipment in Central and Eastern Europe, as the United States plans to do, and
expand military assistance to Ukraine, including defensive weapons and training. But that's
not enough. I just returned five weeks abroad and spoke with foreign leaders and policy experts in China, Israel, Kazakhstan,
Montenegro, Russia, and Slovakia. There
is not enough clarity. Frustratingly, we're still discussing strategic
information aspects of Russia's belligerence in the Ukraine conflict. To state the obvious, policy prescriptions often get
foggy without a clear strategy.
The threat is real – Russia’s spoiling for a fight – a credible and unified
deterrent is key
Morris 6/27 – staff writer at the Valuewalk (Christopher Morris, 6/27/15, “Russia And NATO Prepare
For Possible War,” http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/06/russia-and-nato-prepare-for-possiblewar/)//twemchen
Tensions continues to ramp up between Russia and the United States, as geopolitical
manoeuvers unfold. The uneasy peace between the Eastern and Western superpowers seems to be
deteriorating further, with both sides taking action which has resulted in distrust increasing
further . Russia Nuclear Weapons Iskander missile launcher Putin increases nuclear warhead haul
Just last week, the Russian supremo Vladimir Putin announced that Russia intended to expand its existing nuclear arsenal. This
move would see the nation establishing forty new intercontinental ballistic missiles to add to its existing quota. Considering
that Russia and the United States collectively have in the region of 15,000 nuclear warheads, one might not unreasonably wonder
what is the point of Russia acquiring another forty. There is no doubt that should the
United States or Russia ever fire a
nuclear weapon at one another, the ultimate result would be unprecedented and unimaginable
global devastation . Unfortunately, both Russia and the United States have engaged in actions in
recent months which have resulted in the diplomatic situation between the two nations deteriorating. The
latest increase in nuclear weapons announced by Russia seems to have led to a new phase of posturing
and military manoeuvres , which is the latest in a phase of rising tensions that
began with the Ukraine conflict back in 2013. Geopolitical conflict As has been reported previously by ValueWalk, the
existing situation must be seen in the slightly geopolitical context. Russia and the US are historical rivals
anyway, but the pairing of Russia with China in the new BRICS power bloc places pressure on the
traditional US-led hierarchy. The old world order of the Anglo-American and EU / NATOdriven institutions is being challenged by the BRICS, and the powerful organization has already made it
a stated goal to play a greater role in existing economic institutions, or if this is not achievable to set up a
central bank of its own. ValueWalk reported sometime ago that the BRICS nations have been scheming to create their own central
bank, as the major political and business figures from the Eastern world continue to be frozen out of the existing global economic
infrastructure. Whether this is a serious intention, or rather a bargaining chip in an ongoing debate and struggle, remains to be seen.
But what is certain is that the
existing tension between the United States and Russia should be seen as a
symptom of this situation. Russia’s replacement strategy According to Adam Mount, a Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow
at the Council on Foreign Relations, the announcement which has recently been made by Putin does not actually signifying a
significant change in Russian nuclear policy. Mount suggests that Russia is fully compliant with the New START treaty, which limits
strategic launches such as ICBMs. Russia’s existing nuclear capability is indeed dating owing to its Soviet-Europe vintage. Russia
must continue to take delivery of forty new weapons every year simply to replicate the existing capability. This is essentially the
explanation for the extra warheads which have been ordered by the Russian president, and doesn't really represent an increase in
the nation's nuclear capabilities. Regardless of the realities of this
announcement, it still presents an
opportunity for NATO to ramp up the rhetoric against the nation. Indeed, NATO officials have already
expressed concern over the announcement made by Putin, with The Guardian newspaper reporting concern within the military
organization of the extent to which such weapons are being utilized in Russian military exercises. US Building Defense System
Against Russia Cruise Missile Image Source: Defense One NATO responds in kind NATO has also taken explicitly aggressive steps of
its own, by beefing up its Response Force. There
are already thousands of soldiers and advanced
military technology and weaponry stationed near Russia's borders in response to the
Ukrainian situation, and this fighting force has recently been further increased . It already
consists of 13,000 troops, but according to reports that emerged this week, NATO may now increase this to as much as 40,000.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has specifically stated that the move isn't intended to increase tensions, and NATO’s
official policy is to seek neither confrontation nor a new arms race. Naturally, Russia has been criticized for its policy in the Ukraine,
but it is also notable that the United States and its allies have destabilized this relationship and region by directly supporting the
overthrow of the Ukrainian government. The
subsequent encircling of the nation with a large quotient
of military force was only likely to ramp up tensions further. And despite what has been stated about
NATO's intentions by the organization itself, it seems that the military alliance that it represents is absolutely
prepared to implement a more aggressive nuclear weapons strategy. NATO considers
this to be a response to Russian aggression rather than a pre-emptive policy, but this will only serve to
diminish the diplomatic relations between the Western and Eastern superpowers. Nuclear response reported
It was reported again by The World Socialist Website that NATO is even planning to respond to any attempt
by Russia to counter the United States with an even more aggressive military strategy. This could even include
nuclear weapons . While this is an extremely alarming prospect, and the continuing tensions between Russia and the
United States are worrying, it is also important to understand the historical context of this conflict. While no-one wants to believe
that either side is capable of utilizing nuclear
weapons, as ValueWalk as reported previously, this in fact came
incredibly close to occurring during the Cuban Missile Crisis. As the two big beasts in world
geopolitics continue to saber rattle, one can only hope that ultimately a peaceful solution is sort to these inevitable tensions. In the
iconic 1997 publication “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”, Zbigniew Brzezinski outlined
a shifting in the world order and power base which is unfolding before our very eyes now. Although Brzezinski is, not unreasonably,
a reviled figure to many, it is notable that he didn't predict that it would end with armed conflict between Russia, China, the United
States and the Western world. With both power blocs continuing to behave with intransigence, one can only hope that this verdict
turns out to be accurate.
The impact is extinction
Farmer and Bradshaw 2/20 – Defense Correspondent at The Daily Telegraph, citing General
Sir Adrian Bradshaw, Deputy Commander of NATO Forces in Europe, and former Director of British
Special Forces, and Michael Fallon, British Secretary of State for Defence (“NATO general: Russia
tensions could escalate into all-out war,” Business Insider, 2-20-2015,
http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-general-russia-tensions-could-escalate-to-war-20152)//twemchen
Tensions with Russia could blow up into all-out conflict, posing “an existential
threat to our whole being”, Britain’s top general in Nato has warned. Gen Sir Adrian Bradshaw,
deputy commander of Nato forces in Europe, said there was a danger Vladimir Putin could try to use
his armies to invade and seize Nato territory, after calculating the alliance would be too
afraid of escalating violence to respond. His comments follow a clash between London and Moscow after the
Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, said there was a "real and present danger" Mr Putin
could try to destabilize the Baltic states with a campaign of subversion and irregular
warfare. The Kremlin called those comments “absolutely unacceptable". Sir Adrian told the Royal United Services’ Institute there was a danger
such a campaign of undercover attacks could paralyze Nato decision making, as members disagreed over
how much Russia was responsible, and how to respond. Nato commanders fear a campaign of skilfully
disguised, irregular military action by Russia, which is carefully designed not to trigger the
alliance's mutual defence pact. He said the "resulting ambiguity" would make "collective
decisions relating to the appropriate responses more difficult". But Sir Adrian, one of the
most senior generals in the British Army and a former director of special forces, went further
and said there was also danger that Russia could use conventional forces and Soviet-era
brinkmanship to seize Nato territory. He said Russia had shown last year it could generate
large conventional forces at short notice for snap exercises along its borders. There was
a danger these could be used “not only for intimidation and coercion but potentially to
seize Nato territory, after which the threat of escalation might be used to prevent reestablishment of territorial integrity. This use of so called escalation dominance was of
course a classic Soviet technique.” He went on to say that “the threat from Russia, together with the
risk it brings of a miscalculation resulting in a strategic conflict, however unlikely
we see it as being right now, represents an existential threat to our whole being.” Nato has
agreed to set up a rapid reaction force of around 5,000 troops ready to move at 48 hours notice, in case of
Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. Supplies, equipment and ammunition will be stockpiled in bases in the region.
Alliance leaders hope the force will deter any incursion. David Cameron warned Vladimir Putin there will be
more sanctions and "more consequences" for Russia if the ceasefire in Ukraine does not hold. The Prime Minister vowed that the West would be
"staunch" in its response to Russia and was prepared to maintain pressure on Moscow "for the long term". He rejected the findings of a scathing
parliamentary committee report that the UK found itself "sleep-walking" into the crisis over Ukraine. The EU Committee of the House of Lords found
Mr Fallon said
the Russian president might try to test Nato’s resolve with the same Kremlin-backed
subversion used in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. A murky campaign of infiltration,
propaganda, undercover forces and cyber attack such as that used in the early stages of
the Ukraine conflict could be used to inflame ethnic tensions in Estonia, Lithuania or
Latvia, he said. The military alliance must be prepared to repel Russian aggression
“whatever form it takes”, Mr Fallon said, as he warned that tensions between the two were “warming up”. His comments were
there had been a "catastrophic misreading" of mood by European diplomats in the run-up to the crisis. Earlier this week,
dismissed in Moscow. Russia's Foreign Ministry spokesman said the country does not pose a threat to Baltic countries and accused Mr Fallon of going
beyond “diplomatic ethics” . Alexander Lukashevich said: "His absolutely unacceptable characteristics of the Russian Federation remind me of last
year's speech of US president Barack Obama before the UN general assembly, in which he mentioned Russia among the three most serious challenges
his country was facing.” "I believe we will find a way to react to Mr Secretary's statements."
Scenario 2: TTIP
The recent passage of TPA makes domestic passage of a transatlantic trade
agreement likely – resolving international differences is key
Heath and Palmer 8/6 – staff writers @ Politico (Ryan Heath and Doug Palmer, 8/6/15, “Merkel
optimistic on TTIP deal,” http://www.politico.eu/article/merkel-optimistic-on-tpa-approval-ttipdeal/)//twemchen
ELMAU, GERMANY — German Chancellor Angela Merkel
expressed optimism Monday that Congress
would soon approve trade promotion authority, which she said would set the stage
for the conclusion of transatlantic trade talks by the end of the year. “We were pleased the
president will get the fast-track,” Merkel said at the Group of Seven leading economies meeting in Germany. “The
good news is that after just a few weeks it will be time to focus completely on the EU
agreement with the United States.” House Republican leaders are pushing for a vote this week on
the “fast track” trade promotion authority bill, which would allow Obama to submit the proposed Trans-Pacific
Partnership and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreements to Congress for straight
up-or-down votes without amendment. Merkel’s comment seemed to reflect White House confidence
they would win the vote, despite the opposition of most House Democrats. The German
leader said both sides acknowledged there were difficult issues left in the TTIP talks, but also “said that by
the end of the year we want to come to a successful agreement ,” she said.
The sticking point in TTIP negotiations is US embassy tapping – resolving
that issue is key to getting Europe to return to the bargaining table
Llana 13 – Monitor's European Bureau Chief based in Paris, masters in journalism from Columbia
University, BA in history from the University of Michigan (Sara Miller, “Has NSA spying put US-EU trade
deal on the rocks? Revelations of broad US surveillance of EU offices, particularly in Germany, have
angered Europe,” Christian Science Monitor, 7/01/13, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorismsecurity/2013/0701/Has-NSA-spying-put-US-EU-trade-deal-on-the-rocks) //AD
Revelations that the United States has systematically spied on Europe are threatening
what is being billed as a pivotal moment for the transatlantic relationship: the start of negotiations next week
for a major trade deal. The latest disclosures from Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (NSA)
contractor, came in a report over the weekend in the German daily Der Spiegel, alleging that the NSA bugged
European Union offices and that half a billion phone calls, e-mails, and text messages from Germany alone are tapped by
the US in an average month – far surpassing the average attention given to other European allies. In fact, Germany is spied
on just as often as China or Iraq, the paper claims. If the extent of US surveillance in the world is not
surprising to some, it’s still controversial in Europe, especially in countries like Germany that
place a high priority on data privacy. But the timing of the revelations, as negotiations
for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are set to begin July 8, has created a
firestorm, says Johannes Thimm, an expert on US foreign policy at the German Institute
for International and Security Affairs in Berlin. “There are economic interests involved on both sides, and
while the [TTIP] is generally in the spirit of cooperation, there are some trade-offs and
really hard negotiations ahead,” Dr. Thimm says. American ability to access that communication as it is playing out,
he says, gives the US “a huge strategic advantage." The Spanish daily El Pais quoted a slew of EU officials voicing their outrage. The
European commissioner for justice and fundamental rights, Viviane Reding, said
plainly: "Partners do not spy on each other," she said. "We cannot negotiate over a big transatlantic
market if
there is the slightest doubt that our partners are carrying out spying activities on
the offices of our negotiators.” The European Parliament's foreign affairs committee head, Elmar
Brok, reiterated that view. "The spying has taken on dimensions that I would never have thought possible from a
democratic state," he told Der Spiegel. "How should we still negotiate if we must fear that our
negotiating position is being listened to beforehand?" The anger has generated not only
threats that the TTIP is at risk, but that a cloud looms over the entire transatlantic
relationship. Germany Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said the fact that “our friends in the US see
Europeans as enemies exceeds the imaginable.” The president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, said that “if this is
true, it’s an immense scandal that could have a severe impact on relations between the
EU and the US.”
TTIP is key to NATO cohesion
Poe 15 – Chairman of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee (Chairman Poe,
3/17/15, “House Foreign Affairs, Trade Subcommittee Hearing on National Security Benefits of Trade
Agreements with Asia & Europe; Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee hearing on
National Security Benefits of Trade Agreements with Asia and Europe,” Academic OneFile)//twemchen
And yet, there
are questions of trust and commitment across the Atlantic these days. NATO is
perceived in some quarters to be a bit wobbly. TTIP would be the other side of the coin
of our commitment to Europe through our -- our military alliance. And I think, particularly,
given the issues facing European security these days, this is a vital reassurance of U.S.
commitment to Europe. It also would reassure Americans who wonder about the European Union and whether
it's inward or outward looking that the E.U. would be a very strong outward looking partner, because TTIP would essentially
make that case . The second area is how both of us together relate to rising powers. And Dr. Green mentioned a few of
those elements. But I think one has to think about this. Those rising powers are each having debates of how they relate to the
international system. Do they challenge it? Do they accommodate themselves to it? And the message we have to those countries as
they have those debates is actually quite important. In recent years, we've had different messages, or muddled messages. European
message, American message -- we don't have a message. So, TTIP
is a single strong message about a
robust revitalized West, not defensive, but also not aggressive. About upholding standards, not
eroding them. And it has an impact on each of the countries that we could discuss.
Extinction
Brzezinski 9 (Zbigniew, former US National Security Adviser, “An Agenda for NATO”, Foreign Affairs,
October 2009, ebsco)//twemchen
NATO's potential is not primarily military. Although NATO is a collective-security alliance, its actual military
power comes
that reality is not likely to change anytime soon. NATO's real
power derives from the fact that it combines the United States' military capabilities and economic power with
Europe's collective political and economic weight (and occasionally some limited European military forces). Together, that
combination makes NATO globally significant. It must therefore remain sensitive to the importance of
safeguarding the geopolitical bond between the United States and Europe as it addresses new tasks. The basic
challenge that NATO now confronts is that there are historically unprecedented risks to global
security . Today's world is threatened neither by the militant fanaticism of a territorially rapacious nationalist state nor by the
coercive aspiration of a globally pretentious ideology embraced by an expansive imperial power. The paradox of our time is that the
world, increasingly connected and economically interdependent for the first time in its entire history, is experiencing
intensifying popular unrest made all the more menacing by the growing accessibility of weapons of mass
destruction --not just to states but also, potentially, to extremist religious and political movements. Yet there is no effective
global security mechanism for coping with the growing threat of violent political chaos stemming from
predominantly from the United States, and
humanity's recent political awakening. The three great political contests of the twentieth century (the two world wars and the Cold
War) accelerated the political awakening of mankind, which was initially unleashed in Europe by the French Revolution. Within a
century of that revolution, spontaneous populist political activism had spread from Europe to East Asia. On their return home after
World Wars I and II, the South Asians and the North Africans who had been conscripted by the British and French imperial armies
propagated a new awareness of anticolonial nationalist and religious political identity among hitherto passive and pliant
populations. The spread of literacy during the twentieth century and the wide-ranging impact of radio, television, and the Internet
accelerated and intensified this mass global political awakening. In its early stages, such new political awareness tends to be
expressed as a fanatical embrace of the most extreme ethnic or fundamentalist religious passions, with beliefs and resentments
universalized in Manichaean categories. Unfortunately, in significant parts of the developing world, bitter memories of
European colonialism and of more recent U.S. intrusion have given such newly aroused passions a
distinctively anti-Western cast. Today, the most acute example of this phenomenon is found in an area that stretches from
Egypt to India. This area, inhabited by more than 500 million politically and religiously aroused peoples, is where NATO is
becoming more deeply embroiled. Additionally complicating is the fact that the dramatic rise of China and India and the quick
recovery of Japan within the last 50 years have signaled that the global center of political and economic gravity is shifting away from
the North Atlantic toward Asia and the Pacific. And of the currently leading global powers--the United States, the EU,
China, Japan, Russia, and India--at least two, or perhaps even three, are revisionist in their orientation. Whether they are "rising
peacefully" (a self-confident China), truculently (an imperially nostalgic Russia) or boastfully (an assertive India, despite its internal
multiethnic and religious vulnerabilities), they all desire a change in the global pecking order. The future conduct of and relationship
among these three still relatively cautious revisionist powers will further intensify the strategic uncertainty. Visible on the
horizon but not as powerful are the emerging regional rebels , with some of them defiantly reaching for nuclear
weapons. North Korea has openly flouted the international community by producing (apparently successfully) its own
nuclear weapons--and also by profiting from their dissemination. At some point, its unpredictability could precipitate
the first use of nuclear weapons in anger since 1945. Iran, in contrast, has proclaimed that its nuclear program is
entirely for peaceful purposes but so far has been unwilling to consider consensual arrangements with the international community
that would provide credible assurances regarding these intentions. In nuclear-armed Pakistan, an extremist anti-Western religious
movement is threatening the country's political stability. These changes together reflect the waning of the post-World War II global
hierarchy and the simultaneous dispersal of global power. Unfortunately, U.S. leadership in recent years unintentionally, but
most unwisely, contributed
to the currently threatening state of affairs. The combination of Washington's arrogant
unilateralism in Iraq and its demagogic Islamophobic sloganeering weakened the unity of NATO and focused
aroused Muslim resentments on the United States and the West more generally.
Scenario 3: France
Spying scandals revealed less than a week ago have dealt persistent and
lasting damage to US-France relations
Rose 6/24 (Michael is a correspondent at Reuters Paris,“France's Hollande says U.S. spying
unacceptable”, 2015, http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/24/france-wikileaksidUSL8N0ZA11T20150624)//cc
French President Francois Hollande on Wednesday
branded as "unacceptable" reported spying by the
United States on French senior officials and warned Paris would not tolerate actions
that threaten its security. Hollande released the statement after an emergency meeting
of ministers and army commanders on Wednesday, following WikiLeaks revelations that the United States
National Security Agency (NSA) had spied on the last three French presidents. "France will not tolerate actions
that threaten its security and the protection of its interests," the president's office said, adding the
spying allegations on French interests had been revealed in the past. "Commitments were made by the U.S.
authorities. They need to be recalled and strictly respected." The French Foreign
Ministry summoned the U.S. ambassador to discuss the matter, a French diplomatic source said. The
revelations were first reported in French daily Liberation and on news website Mediapart, which said the NSA spied on presidents
Jacques Chirac, Nicolas Sarkozy and Francois Hollande during the period of at least 2006 until May 2012. Hollande is due to meet
members of parliament at his Elysee Palace offices later on Wednesday. "We
find it hard to understand or
imagine what motivates an ally to spy on allies who are often on the same strategic
positions in world affairs," French government spokesman Stephane Le Foll told i>TELE television. U.S. media cited a
statement from the U.S. National Security Council saying it was not targeting and will not target Hollande's communications. The
statement did not deny spying had taken place in the past. Claude Gueant, Sarkozy's former chief of staff and one of the reported
targets of the NSA, told RTL radio: "Considering
the very close relationship we have with the United
States, considering the fact we are extremely loyal allies, I feel like trust has been
broken." "These are scary revelations which require explanations from the United States
and guarantees that it won't happen again," Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo said on France 2 television Angry
and embarrassed, France summoned the U.S. ambassador Wednesday to respond to the
revelations by WikiLeaks that the U.S. National Security Agency eavesdropped on three
successive French presidents and other top officials.
This has resulted in an atmosphere of distrust – even if it doesn’t inflict
lasting damage, this chills cooperation over the Middle East
China Daily 6/25 – China Daily European Edition (China Daily European Edition, 6/25/15, “What’s
after WikiLeaks revelations of NSA spying on Paris?” Lexis)//twemchen
Facing the National Assembly, French
Prime Minister Manuel Valls asked the United States to repair the
damage that the tapping has caused. "The US must recognize not only the dangers such actions
pose to our liberties, but also do everything, and quickly , to repair the damage it causes to the
relations between allied countries and between France and the United States ," Valls said Wednesday.
"The reported spying creates a discomfort, because there is a breach of trust . But, it is
absolutely important and vital for both countries to maintain their partnership, given that there are many
sensitive issues such as Ukraine, [and] operations in Iraq which remained unsolved," Ulysse
Gosset, journalist specialized in foreign politics told news channel BFMTV. To Edwy Plenel, French political journalist and editor-inchief of news website Mediapart, which reported WikiLeaks revelations, it is
"a real problem of loyalty in
international relations between allies". French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius summoned US ambassador Jane
Hartley for an explanation on "Espionage Elysee" of WikiLeaks. Urging
a strong answer to United States' spying on
Paris, critics from the right and left wing parties called for retaliation . But, according to the ruling
Socialists, a diplomatic spat is not in the air. "In the face of threats that we face and given the historic ties linking us, we have
to keep a perspective . We're not going to break diplomatic ties," said Stephane Le Foll, the government's spokesman
after a weekly cabinet meeting.
US-France cooperation is critical to prevent a complete Iraq collapse
Wright and Richburg 5 – staff writers at Washington Post (Robin Wright and Keith Richburg, 2/9/5,
“Rice Reaches Out to Europe; Paris Speech Urges 'New Chapter' in U.S. Alliance,” Wash Post,
Lexis)//twemchen
The spokesman, who under French rules speaks anonymously, said Chirac "confirmed that France
shares the resolve
to support the political process that got underway with the elections" in Iraq "and to promote that
country's integrity and stability ." Some students in the audience cast doubt on whether Rice would change
attitudes among a French public that still largely distrusts U.S. foreign policy aims. "There was nothing new in it for me," said Marie
Reynard, 21, an international relations student. "Going to impose democracy overseas is not something we are for. I'm afraid
America is going to go into Iran -- and that's not something France is going to accept." Rice's words suggested that the United States
was abandoning Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's idea of an "old" and "new" Europe -- countries with long-standing ties that
opposed the Iraq war, such as France and Germany, and other countries, including former communist nations to the east, that
supported it. As Bush's national security adviser, Rice reportedly called for a policy in early 2003 to "forgive Russia, ignore Germany
and punish France" after those three countries blocked a U.N. resolution allowing the use of force against Iraq. Without mentioning
Iraq specifically, Rice acknowledged that the United States and unnamed European countries have had serious disagreements. But
she said a
new spirit of cooperation is particularly crucial now because the "fair wind of freedom
is at our back." She made no mention of other issues that continue to divide the two sides, such as the Kyoto Protocol on global
warming, a strategy for dealing with Iran's nuclear program and use of the International Criminal Court, a world body aimed at
bringing war criminals to justice. Reflecting Bush's inaugural speech, the theme of Rice's address was freedom, the common history
of Europe and America in creating modern democracy, and their goal of fostering freedom -- a word she used more than two dozen
times in her half-hour speech and several more times in answers to questions from the audience. Some people in the audience said
they heard only generalities, without specifics for how to overcome continuing differences. "It was strange because the basic line,
apart from freedom and liberty, was let's let bygones be bygones," said Francois Heisbourg, a military and defense expert who had
been invited to meet Rice at a small gathering Wednesday morning. "Being against freedom and liberty is like being against
motherhood and apple pie." Heisbourg added: "I was rather disappointed. I wasn't getting what I was led to expect." Official
France, however, had only praise. At the news conference, Barnier made repeated references to U.S.-French
cooperation. He noted that France is the second-largest foreign investor in the United States and cited recent cooperation
between the two governments on Haiti, the Balkans and the war on terrorism, despite their differences on Iraq. Barnier said the
United States and France now need to "talk to each other, and listen to each other
more" to deal with current challenges. "The world works better when America
and Europe work together ," he said.
Iraq collapse risks nuclear war
Corsi 7 (Jerome, Ph.D. in Political Science – Harvard University, Staff Reporter – World Net Daily, “War
with Iran is imminent”, 1-8,
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53669)//twemchen
If a broader war breaks out in Iraq, Olmert will certainly face pressure to send the Israel military into the Gaza after Hamas
and into Lebanon after Hezbollah. If that happens, it will only be a matter of time before Israel and the U.S. have no
choice but to invade Syria . The Iraq war could quickly spin into a regional war, with Israel waiting on the
sidelines ready to launch an air and missile strike on Iran that could include tactical nuclear weapons . With Russia
ready to deliver the $1 billion TOR M-1 surface-to-air missile defense system to Iran, military leaders are unwilling to wait too long
to attack Iran. Now that Russia and China have invited Iran to join their Shanghai Cooperation Pact, will Russia and China sit
by idly should the U.S. look like we are winning a wider regional war in the Middle East? If we get more deeply involved in
Iraq, China may have their moment to go
after Taiwan once and for all. A broader regional war could easily
lead into a third world war , much as World Wars I and II began.
More broadly, a Middle East collapse would risk extinction
Primakov 9 (Yevgeny, President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry – Russian Federation,
Member – Russian Academy of Science, “The Middle East Problem in the Context of International
Relations”, Russia in Global Affairs, 3, July/September,
http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/number/n_13593)//twemchen
The Middle East conflict is unparalleled in terms of its potential for spreading globally . During the Cold War, amid
which the Arab-Israeli conflict evolved, the two opposing superpowers directly supported the conflicting parties: the Soviet Union supported Arab countries, while the United
States supported Israel. On the one hand, the bipolar world order which existed at that time objectively played in favor of the escalation of the Middle East conflict into a global
confrontation. On the other hand, the Soviet Union and the United States were not interested in such developments and they managed to keep the situation under control. The
behavior of both superpowers in the course of all the wars in the Middle East proves that. In 1956, during the Anglo-French-Israeli military invasion of Egypt (which followed
Cairo’s decision to nationalize the Suez Canal Company) the United States – contrary to the widespread belief in various countries, including Russia – not only refrained from
supporting its allies but insistently pressed – along with the Soviet Union – for the cessation of the armed action. Washington feared that the tripartite aggression would
undermine the positions of the West in the Arab world and would result in a direct clash with the Soviet Union. Fears that hostilities in the Middle East might acquire a global
dimension could materialize also during the Six-Day War of 1967. On its eve, Moscow and Washington urged each other to cool down their “clients.” When the war began, both
superpowers assured each other that they did not intend to get involved in the crisis militarily and that that they would make efforts at the United Nations to negotiate terms for
a ceasefire. On July 5, the Chairman of the Soviet Government, Alexei Kosygin, who was authorized by the Politburo to conduct negotiations on behalf of the Soviet leadership,
for the first time ever used a hot line for this purpose. After the USS Liberty was attacked by Israeli forces, which later claimed the attack was a case of mistaken identity, U.S.
President Lyndon Johnson immediately notified Kosygin that the movement of the U.S. Navy in the Mediterranean Sea was only intended to help the crew of the attacked ship
and to investigate the incident. The situation repeated itself during the hostilities of October 1973. Russian publications of those years argued that it was the Soviet Union that
prevented U.S. military involvement in those events. In contrast, many U.S. authors claimed that a U.S. reaction thwarted Soviet plans to send troops to the Middle East. Neither
statement is true. The atmosphere was really quite tense. Sentiments both in Washington and Moscow were in favor of interference, yet both capitals were far from taking real
action. When U.S. troops were put on high alert, Henry Kissinger assured Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin that this was done largely for domestic considerations and
should not be seen by Moscow as a hostile act. In a private conversation with Dobrynin, President Richard Nixon said the same, adding that he might have overreacted but that
this had been done amidst a hostile campaign against him over Watergate. Meanwhile, Kosygin and Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko at a Politburo meeting in Moscow
strongly rejected a proposal by Defense Minister Marshal Andrei Grechko to “demonstrate” Soviet military presence in Egypt in response to Israel’s refusal to comply with a UN
Security Council resolution. Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev took the side of Kosygin and Gromyko, saying that he was against any Soviet involvement in the conflict. The above
suggests an unequivocal conclusion that control by the superpowers in the bipolar world did not allow the Middle East conflict to escalate into a global confrontation. After the
end of the Cold War, some scholars and political observers concluded that a real threat of the Arab-Israeli conflict going beyond regional frameworks ceased to exist. However, in
Iraq has changed the balance of forces in the
Middle East. The disappearance of the Iraqi counterbalance has brought Iran to the fore as a regional
power claiming a direct role in various Middle East processes. I do not belong to those who believe that
the Iranian leadership has already made a political decision to create nuclear weapons of its own. Yet
Tehran seems to have set itself the goal of achieving a technological level that would let it make such a
decision (the “Japanese model”) under unfavorable circumstances. Israel already possesses nuclear
weapons and delivery vehicles. In such circumstances, the absence of a Middle East settlement opens a
dangerous prospect of a nuclear collision in the region, which would have catastrophic consequences for
the whole world. The transition to a multipolar world has objectively strengthened the role of states and
organizations that are directly involved in regional conflicts, which increases the latter’s danger and
reduces the possibility of controlling them. This refers, above all, to the Middle East conflict . The coming of
the 21st century this conclusion no longer conforms to the reality. The U.S. military operation in
Barack Obama to the presidency has allayed fears that the United States could deliver a preventive strike against Iran (under George
W. Bush, it was one of the most discussed topics in the United States). However, fears have increased that such a strike can be
launched by Israel, which would have unpredictable consequences for the region and beyond. It seems that President Obama’s
position does not completely rule out such a possibility.
Inherency
surveillance now
NSA surveillance of 38 embassies and mission triggers international
backlash
MacAskill and Borger 13 (Ewen is the Guardians defense and intelligence correspondent,
previously the DC bureau chief and diplomatic editor and Julian is the Guardians diplomatic editor and
author of The Butchers Trail, 6/30, “New NSA leaks show how US is bugging its European allies”,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/30/nsa-leaks-us-bugging-european-allies)//cc
US intelligence services are spying on the European Union mission in New York and its
embassy in Washington, according to the latest top secret US National Security Agency
documents leaked by the whistleblower Edward Snowden. One document lists 38 embassies and
missions, describing them as "targets". It details an extraordinary range of spying
methods used against each target, from bugs implanted in electronic communications
gear to taps into cables to the collection of transmissions with specialised antennae.
Along with traditional ideological adversaries and sensitive Middle Eastern countries,
the list of targets includes the EU missions and the French, Italian and Greek embassies,
as well as a number of other American allies, including Japan, Mexico, South Korea, India and Turkey.
The list in the September 2010 document does not mention the UK, Germany or other western European states. One of the
bugging methods mentioned is codenamed Dropmire, which, according to a 2007 document, is "implanted on
the Cryptofax at the EU embassy, DC" – an apparent reference to a bug placed in a commercially available
encrypted fax machine used at the mission. The NSA documents note the machine is used to send cables back
to foreign affairs ministries in European capitals. The documents suggest the aim of the bugging
exercise against the EU embassy in central Washington is to gather inside knowledge of
policy disagreements on global issues and other rifts between member states. The new
revelations come at a time when there is already considerable anger across the EU over earlier
evidence provided by Snowden of NSA eavesdropping on America's European allies. Germany's justice minister,
Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, demanded an explanation from Washington, saying that if confirmed, US behaviour
"was reminiscent of the actions of enemies during the cold war" The German magazine Der Spiegel
reported at the weekend that some of the bugging operations in Brussels targeting the EU's Justus Lipsius building – a venue for
summit and ministerial meetings in the Belgian capital – were directed from within Nato headquarters nearby. The US intelligence
service codename for the bugging operation targeting the EU mission at the United Nations is "Perdido". Among the documents
leaked by Snowden is a floor plan of the mission in midtown Manhattan. The methods used against the mission include the
collection of data transmitted by implants, or bugs, placed inside electronic devices, and another covert operation that appears to
provide a copy of everything on a targeted computer's hard drive. The
eavesdropping on the EU delegation to
the US, on K Street in Washington, involved three different operations targeted on the
embassy's 90 staff. Two were electronic implants and one involved the use of antennas
to collect transmissions. Although the latest documents are part of an NSA haul leaked by Snowden, it is not clear in
each case whether the surveillance was being exclusively done by the NSA – which is most probable as the embassies and missions
are technically overseas – or by the FBI or the CIA, or a combination of them. The
operation as "close access domestic collection".
2010 document describes the
Solvency
***“foreign intel info” mechanism
solvency advocates
Solvency advocate
Nojeim 14 – Director, Project on Freedom, Security & Technology at the Center for Democracy &
Technology (Greg, “COMMENTS TO THE PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OVERSIGHT BOARD
REGARDING REFORMS TO SURVEILLANCE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 702 OF FISA”
4/11)//twemchen
Another way to limit to national security the purposes for collection pursuant to Section 702 would
be to remove “the conduct of foreign affairs” as a basis for collection. If adopted, this
reform would permit collection under Section 702 for the purpose of obtaining (1) information that relates
to the ability of the U.S. to protect against a hostile attack, espionage, sabotage or international terrorism or proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, or (2) information with respect to a foreign territory or foreign power (a foreign government,
political party, or entity controlled by a foreign government, or a foreign terrorist organization) that relates to the security of the U.S.
Such a change would be consistent with the stated counterterrorism purpose of Section 702.
Refining the purpose for which surveillance under Section 702 may be conducted
would not prevent the Intelligence Community from gathering information related to
the conduct of foreign affairs, but rather would merely remove the highly invasive
practice of compelled company disclosure of communications content absent judicial
review as a means of doing so.
Foreign intel solves
Nojeim 14 - Director, Project on Freedom, Security & Technology at the Center for Democracy &
Technology (Greg, “COMMENTS TO THE PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OVERSIGHT BOARD
REGARDING REFORMS TO SURVEILLANCE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 702 OF FISA”
4/11)//twemchen
The FISA
provisions that govern intelligence surveillance of targets in the U.S. permit the government
to engage in electronic surveillance to collect “foreign intelligence information.” For purposes of surveillance that
targets a non-U.S. person, it is defined broadly as: (1) information that relates to the ability of the U.S.
to protect against a hostile attack, espionage, sabotage or international terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction; or (2) information with respect to a foreign territory or foreign power (a foreign government,
political party, or entity controlled by a foreign government, or a foreign terrorist organization) that relates to the security
of the U.S . or to the conduct of U.S. foreign affairs .4 When the government applies to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for permission to conduct surveillance of targets in the U.S., it must certify that a significant
purpose of the surveillance it will conduct is to collect foreign intelligence information.5 Because “foreign intelligence information”
is defined
so broadly, and because the FISC never actually rules on whether the significant
purpose test is met , the purpose limitation that governs FISA surveillance of targets in the U.S. is easily met. FISA
surveillance in the U.S. is instead effectively constrained by an additional requirement:
the requirement that the government prove to the FISC that there is probable cause to
believe the target of surveillance is a terrorist, spy, or other agent of a foreign power. Thus,
Congress effectively constrained FISA surveillance of targets in the U.S. by permitting that surveillance to target only a narrow class
outside the U.S., Section 702
adopts the broad purpose requirement, but couples it with a broad class of
surveillance targets. Section 702 is not constrained by the requirement that the
target be an agent of a foreign power. Instead, the target need only be a non-U.S. person
of persons and entities. For surveillance of people reasonably believed to be
reasonably believed to be abroad. Effectively, Congress borrowed the broad purpose for FISA intelligence
surveillance (collect “foreign intelligence information”) and applied it to surveillance abroad without limiting the class of potential
targets to “agents of a foreign power.” This
has prompted concern globally that surveillance under
Section 702 is broadly directed at individuals not suspected of wrongdoing , and
could include targeting based at least in part on political activities . A peaceful protest at a U.S. base in
Germany or a demonstration against rising food prices in India “relate to” U.S. foreign policy; non-U.S. persons involved in those
protests could be monitored under Section 702. A 2012 cloud computing report to the European Parliament included a finding that
under Section 702, it
is lawful in the U.S. to conduct purely political surveillance on non-U.S.
persons’ data stored by U.S. cloud companies.6 Such actions raise serious human
rights concerns. Further, fear of the mere possibly that this overbroad
surveillance is occurring has significantly damaged the U.S. tech industry abroad.
Solves perception
Kehl 14 – Policy Analyst at New America’s Open Technology Institute (Danielle, “Surveillance Costs: The
NSA’s Impact on the Economy, Internet Freedom & Cybersecurity” July,
https://www.newamerica.org/oti/surveillance-costs-the-nsas-impact-on-the-economy-internet-freedomcybersecurity/)//twemchen
In addition to recommending a variety new protections for U.S. persons, the
Review Group urged in its
surveillance of non-U.S. persons under Section 702 or “any other authority”—a
reference intended to include Executive Order 12333325 — should be strictly limited to the purpose of
protecting national security , should not be used for economic espionage, should not be targeted based solely
on a person’s political or religious views , and should be subject to careful oversight and the highest degree of
transparency possible.326 Fully implementing this recommendation—and particularly restricting
Section 702 and Executive Order 12333 surveillance to specific national security purposes rather
than foreign intelligence collection generally —would indicate significant progress
Recommendation 13 that
toward addressing the concerns raised in the recent Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights on “The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age.”
hurts relations – laundry list
Embassy surveillance is perceived as giving the U.S. an unfair advantage
RT 14 (Autonomous Nonprofit Organization “TV-Novosti”. “NSA spying on foreign embassies helped US
'develop' strategy”. 13 May 2014. http://rt.com/usa/158608-nsa-greenwald-un-snowden)//JuneC//
The National Security Agency in 2010 provided the US ambassador to the United Nations with background information on several
governments and their embassies that were undecided on the question of Iranian sanctions. In May 2010, as the UN
Security Council was attempting to win support for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear-energy
program, which some say is a front for a nuclear weapons program, several members were undecided as
to how they would vote. At this point, the US ambassador to the world body, Susan Rice, asked the NSA
for assistance in her efforts to “develop a strategy,” leaked NSA documents reveal. The NSA swung into
action, aiming their powerful surveillance apparatus at the personal communications of diplomats from
four non-permanent Security Council members — Bosnia, Gabon, Nigeria and Uganda. This gave Rice an
apparent upper-hand in the course of the negotiations. In June, 12 of the 15-member Security Council voted in favor of
new sanctions. Later, Rice extended her gratitude to the US spy agency, saying its surveillance had helped
her to know when diplomats from the other permanent representatives — China, England, France and
Russia — “were telling the truth ... revealed their real position on sanctions ... gave us an upper hand in
negotiations ... and provided information on various countries’ ‘red lines’.” The information comes from a new
book by journalist Glenn Greenwald, ‘No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the US Surveillance State’, the New York
Times reported. Rice’s request for assistance was discovered in an internal report by the security agency’s Special Source Operations
division, which cooperates with US telecommunications companies in the event a request for information is deemed necessary.
Greenwald’s book goes on sale Tuesday. The book also provides a list of embassies around the world that had been infiltrated by the
US spy agency, including those of Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, the European Union, France, Georgia, Greece, India, Italy, Japan,
Mexico, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Venezuela and Vietnam. United States Vice President Joe Biden (R) sits with
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (L) as U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice stands (C) before the start of the United Nations
Security Council High-Level Meeting on Iraq at U.N. headquarters in New York, December 15, 2010 (Reuters)United States Vice
President Joe Biden (R) sits with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (L) as U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice stands (C)
before the start of the United Nations Security Council High-Level Meeting on Iraq at U.N. headquarters in New York, December 15,
2010 (Reuters) News of the NSA’s vast surveillance network, which targets friends and enemies of the United States with
equanimity, were revealed in June when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden provided Greenwald with thousands of files on
the program. Despite promises by President Obama for greater safeguards on the invasive system, which has infuriated people
around the world, the NSA seems determined not to let international public opinion block its spying efforts. “While our intelligence
agencies will continue to gather information about the intentions of governments — as opposed to ordinary citizens — around the
world, in the same way that the intelligence services of every other nation do, we will not apologize because our services may be more
effective,” according to a White House statement. The latest revelations detailing how the NSA gives American
diplomats an unfair advantage raises the question as to how such orders passed legal muster in the first
place. According to the documents, a legal team went to work on May 22 building the case to electronically eavesdrop on diplomats
and envoys from Bosnia, Gabon, Nigeria and Uganda whose embassies were apparently not yet covered by the NSA. A judge from
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved the request on May 26. The Obama administration has faced fierce
criticism following revelations of the global surveillance program, which was used not simply to identify
potential terrorists, but to eavesdrop on the communications of world leaders. Following revelations that
German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s private cell phone communications were being hacked by the NSA, Germany pushed for a ‘nospy’ agreement with the United States to restore the trust. The Obama administration, however, rejected the offer. Now Europe
has announced plans to construct a new Internet network that bypasses the United States and the NSA, a
move the US Trade Representative labeled “draconian.”
Undercuts legitimacy – embassy surveillance is perceived as distinct from
national security
Council of Europe 15 (Council of Europe Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. “Mass
Surveillance”. 26 January 2015. https://ccdcoe.org/sites/default/files/documents/CoE-150126MassSurveillance.pdf)//JuneC//
The New York Times revealed that the NSA monitored an American law firm representing a foreign government in trade disputes
against the United States53 as well as other countries’ preparations for the Copenhagen Climate Summit, including those by the host
country, Denmark.54 The NSA also engaged in targeted surveillance of the United Nations, the European
Union, and other international organizations in a variety of ways, including bugging embassy phones and
faxes, copying hard disks, and tapping into the internal computer cable network used by collaborators. 55
To cite a few examples out of the many that were revealed, the NSA used operation Blackfoot to gather
data from French diplomats’ offices at the New York UN headquarters.56 Operation Perdido targeted the
EU’s offices in New York and Washington, while Powell was a codename for the NSA’s scheme to
eavesdrop on the Greek UN offices in New York. The NSA’s internal document indicated that its spying
had a key influence on “American negotiating tactics at the UN” in connection with the Iraq War. Thanks to
the intercepted conversations, the NSA was allegedly able to inform the US State Department and the American Ambassador to the
UN with a high degree of certainty that the required majority had been secured before the vote was held on the corresponding UN
resolution.57 While the inclusion of traditional ideological adversaries and sensitive Middle Eastern
countries were “expected” and more easily explained in light of US anti-terrorism efforts, the inclusion of
traditional allies discredits the contention that the purpose of surveillance is the protection of national
security.
***safe harbor stuff
2015 key/data localization impact
2015 is key
Inside U.S. Trade 15 – (IUST, 1/9/15, “EU COURT OF JUSTICE CASE COULD SUBJECT 'SAFE
HARBOR' TO GREATER SCRUTINY,” Inside US Trade 33.1, ProQuest)//twemchen
Amid lagging U.S.-European Union talks to strengthen privacy protections under the "Safe Harbor"
agreement, the highest court in the EU is expected to take up a case next year that could open
the door for member state authorities to determine for themselves whether the framework really
does enough to guard EU citizens' data. The case now pending before the European Court of Justice raises the question of whether
member state data protection authorities should be able to "look behind" the European Commission's 2000 decision with regard to
Safe Harbor, which found that the framework provides adequate protections. Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court of Justice is
bound to take up every admissible case brought before it. The court does not follow a fixed timetable, but gauging by how long such
cases generally take, a
judgment will probably come at the end of 2015 or perhaps not until the beginning of
2016. If the court determines that EU member states do have the authority to more thoroughly scrutinize
Safe Harbor, that could result in a scenario where certain states recognize it and others do not,
exactly the kind of Internet balkanization that business proponents fear . "This view
would put additional pressure on both the European Commission and the Department of Commerce to show that Safe Harbor
provides the right safeguards for personal information," Eduardo Ustaran said, a partner at Hogan Lovells International's privacy
practice in London. The
two sides are now stalled over EU demands that the U.S. limit the extent
to which the framework's national security exception can be invoked (Inside U.S. Trade, June
13, 2014). The case stems from a suit against the Irish data protection commissioner by Austrian post-graduate law student
Maximilian Schrems for allowing Facebook Ireland to transfer EU citizens' data back to United States, despite what Schrems
considered clear evidence -- attributed mainly to the revelations by U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward
Snowden -- that there was no adequate data protection there as required by EU law. The Irish High Court, which heard the case,
ruled that the Irish data protection commissioner had acted correctly under the law when he threw out Schrems' complaints because
Facebook was a Safe Harbor participant. Because the European Commission -- which had jurisdiction -- had determined that Safe
Harbor does provide adequate data protection, the Irish commissioner concluded that it was not within his power to re-evaluate that
decision. He also noted that Schrems could not prove that any of his information was actually accessed by U.S. authorities. But while
acknowledging the legal reasoning behind the data protection commissioner's conclusion, the High Court Justice indicated doubts
that this was really the right approach. "The Snowden revelations demonstrate -- almost beyond peradventure -- that the U.S.
security services can routinely access the personal data of European citizens which has been so transferred to the United States and,
in these circumstances, one may fairly question whether U.S. law and practice in relation to data protection and State security
provides for meaningful or effective judicial or legal control," Justice Gerard Hogan wrote. "It is true that Mr. Schrems cannot show
any evidence that his data has been accessed in this fashion, but this is not really the gist of the objection," he added. Specifically,
Schrems contended the Snowden's revelations about NSA's
PRISM program gathering vast amounts of
personal data from companies like Facebook, Google and Apple for use by intelligence agencies "demonstrated
there was no meaningful protection in U.S. law or practice in respect of data so transferred so
far as State surveillance was concerned," according to the High Court decision. Under the EU's 1995 Data Protection Directive, EU
citizens' personal data is only permitted to be transferred to another jurisdiction if that third country
jurisdiction provides an "adequate" level of privacy protection. Due to numerous
factors -- including the fact that the U.S. does not have a comprehensive data
protection law or central enforcement authority -- the U.S. is not seen as
adequate by the EU. The exception to that is Safe Harbor, which the EU adopted in 2000 following years of negotiations with
the Department of Commerce. The decision determined that by complying with Safe Harbor, voluntary compliance of U.S. firms
with EU data protection laws could provide adequate data privacy protection. More than 3,000 firms use the framework across a
variety of sectors, although only those under the oversight of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) can participate. Financial
services firms, for example, cannot use Safe Harbor and must use other legal arrangements if they want to transfer EU citizens' data
abroad. The
court case adds a new wrinkle to a complicated situation in the EU, where the
new European Commission seems hardly any closer to tackling the core criticism by privacy advocates and EU lawmakers that the
framework is a leaky sieve for EU citizens' personal data more than a year and a half after the Snowden revelations. This is partly due
to Brussels having little clear leverage by which to demand better from the U.S. when it comes to national security matters.
Undoubtedly, the commission will try to tout whatever it achieves in the negotiations with the U.S. as progress toward securing EU
citizens' privacy. But it also knows that walking
away from the table would be potentially disastrous for the
trans-Atlantic digital economy . "The European Commission is under pressure from particularly the European
Parliament and [member state] Data Protection Authorities to be seen as making some progress," Ustaran said. "And at the same
time, I think the European Commission is conscious of the fact that they
need to save Safe Harbor ." Another big
reason for the lack of meaningful progress has to do with the approach taken toward the issue by the previous European
Commission. It issued 13 recommendations for improving Safe Harbor in November 2013, but only two of them
focused on data protection. One of the recommendations asked that Safe Harbor companies disclose the extent to which they may
be required to divulge EU citizens' data. The other asked the U.S. government to ensure that demands from
government agencies for companies to hand over data to them under the Safe Harbor's national
security exception be necessary and proportionate . But the commission's other 11
recommendations had nothing to do with data gathering by U.S. government agencies. Instead, they focused on peripheral
commercial issues, such as consistent enforcement of Safe Harbor's rules by the FTC and ensuring that consumers can pursue
affordable arbitration against firms when they have a complaint. The Obama administration has shown flexibility toward those
demands broadly, and President Obama and EU leaders agreed during a summit in Brussels in March to complete negotiations to
update Safe Harbor by the end of summer 2014. But when it comes down to the real grist of the commission's demands -- and the
political uproar in the EU -- the
U.S. has shown little willingness to move. Commerce officials have also
hinted publicly that the U.S. is unwilling to make major concessions on the national security issue, and
noted that spying and surveillance are areas far out of Commerce's purview. The new U.S. ambassador to the EU in September made
it clear that the only thing Brussels will carry away from the talks on that issue is a "detailed description of how U.S. laws and
policies restrict the application of such an exemption in order to provide comfort that it is narrowly construed" (Inside U.S. Trade,
Sept. 19, 2014). At this point, the negotiations have not concluded. The apparent lack of willingness from the U.S. to commit to a real
change in behavior has roiled the prominent critics of Safe Harbor in the European Parliament. Jan Phillip Albrecht, a German
member of the Greens group who has shepherded legislation to update EU privacy rules, told Inside U.S. Trade earlier this year that
the U.S. needs to lay down definitive boundaries about when the exception can be invoked,
and when it cannot (Inside U.S. Trade, Nov. 7, 2014). With a lack of progress to date, Albrecht said some in the
parliament have also begun to mull the idea of again calling on the commission through a non-binding
resolution to suspend Safe Harbor , as the legislature did in March 2014. The effectiveness of Safe Harbor is
also being challenged in the U.S. An August filing by the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), a Washington-based Internet rights
group, charged that 30 U.S. firms that have been certified under Safe Harbor have failed to uphold the framework's substantive
obligations. The complaint, which was the most sweeping to be filed in the 15-year history of Safe Harbor, alleged, for example, that
the firms have not provided EU citizens with a way to effectively opt out of data collection or informed them when their data is
transferred onward to third parties (Inside U.S. Trade, Aug. 18, 2014). A spokesman for the FTC, which is in charge of enforcing Safe
Harbor, in December declined to say whether the agency was pursuing the allegations, citing confidentiality rules. But Jeff Chester,
executive director for CDD, said the organization held a follow-up meeting with the FTC and Commerce to discuss the complaint and
that both recognized they needed to put more resources behind reviewing Safe Harbor candidates and vetting their compliance. "So
while we don't have any information if the FTC is investigating or plans to bring cases based on our complaint, it clearly also placed
both agencies under pressure," Chester said in an email. He added that the complaint "was well-received in the EU," and is being
cited by critics as evidence the U.S. is failing to adequately reform the system.
Current US failure to demonstrate safe harbor adequacy status threatens to
derail TTIP negotiations – the plan is a unique reversal that puts the
agreement back on track
Wolf 13 – director of the global Privacy and Information Management practice at Hogan Lovells US LLP,
founder and co-chair of the Future of Privacy Forum think tank, lead organizer of the Coalition for Privacy
and Free Trade (Christopher Wolf, 2013, “Delusions of Adequacy? Examining the Case for Finding the
United States Adequate for Cross-Border EU-U.S. Data Transfers,” 43 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 227,
Lexis)//twemchen
Along with attempting to reshape their individual privacy frameworks, the
United States and EU are working to
establish a new trade agreement. In his 2013 State of the Union, President Obama announced the United States and
EU would begin talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). 37 A first round of TTIP
negotiations took place in Washington D.C. on July 8-12. The second round of TTIP negotiations were set to take place in Brussels,
Belgium, in October [*235] 2013. 38 Because modern trade invariably involves the transfer
of personal data, the
privacy protections and U.S. adequacy as determined by EU law likely will be a focus of
the negotiations, as the parties attempt to develop a durable trade discipline facilitating the free flow of data while protecting
level of U.S.
privacy. 39 Against this backdrop of evolving frameworks and trade negotiations, now is the time for earnest discussion about how
U.S. privacy law compares to EU standards. This discussion should take into account the inherent cultural, political, and
constitutional differences between the two legal systems. The United States and EU have the opportunity to work towards
interoperability and mutual respect by recognizing how both of their approaches to privacy satisfy the core privacy protections
embodied in international standards. I. How the Adequacy Mechanism Works The
EU Data Protection Directive
generally prohibits transfers of personal data to a third country unless that third country "ensures an
adequate level of protection
." 40 Article 26(1) lists six exceptions to the general requirement that a third country ensure an adequate level of protection. 41 Article 26(2) allows EU Member States to authorize [*236] transfers where "appropriate contractual clauses" are in place to provide "appropriate safeguards with respect to the protection of the privacy and fundamental rights and
freedoms of individuals and as regards the exercise of the corresponding rights." 42 The Directive, under Article 29, establishes a "Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data" (the "Article 29 Working Party" or the "Working Party"). 43 The Article 29 Working Party is responsible for, among other things, giving the European Commission its opinion on the level of protection in third countries. 44 Additionally, the European Commission may issue a decision that a third country
ensures an adequate level of protection, which is binding on all EU Member States. 45 The Directive provides very broad guidance on how to assess whether a third country ensures an adequate level of protection: The adequacy of the level of protection afforded by a third country shall be assessed in the light of all the circumstances surrounding a data transfer operation or set of data transfer operations; particular consideration shall be given to the nature of the data, the purpose and duration of the proposed processing
operation or operations, the country of origin and country of final destination, the rules of law, both general and sectoral, in force in the third country in question, and the [*237] professional rules and security measures which are complied with in that country. 46 The Article 29 Working Party has issued two documents further discussing how adequacy of third countries should be assessed. 47 The Working Party states that Article 25 reflects a "case by case approach whereby the assessment of adequacy is in relation to individual
transfers or individual categories of transfers." 48 Thus, the Working Party takes the position that even where a third country is generally deemed adequate, any given data transfer could still be prohibited. 49 Furthermore, there is nothing to stop the European Commission or an EU Member State from revoking an adequacy determination at any time. The Article 29 Working Party has provided additional guidance for making adequacy determinations. The Working Party's broad conclusion is that "any meaningful analysis of
adequate protection must comprise the two basic elements: the content of the rules applicable and the means for ensuring their effective application." 50 The Working Party identified six core data protection content principles 51 and three core procedural/enforcement requirements, 52 "compliance with which could be seen as a minimum requirement for [*238] protection to be considered adequate." 53 No other guidance has been issued since 1998, so any further observations about what constitutes an adequate level of
protection must be adduced from the small number of adequacy determinations issued by the Article 29 Working Party and European Commission. 54 As of this Article's writing, the European Commission has issued thirteen favorable adequacy determinations. 55 The Commission has recognized Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Faeroe Islands, Guernsey, Israel, Isle of Man, Jersey, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Uruguay as ensuring adequate protection for all personal data transfers from the EU to those countries. 56
Additionally, the Commission has recognized adequate protection for some types of transfers to Canada 57 and the United States. 58 It is worth noting, however, that nineteen European countries that are not part of the EU appear to enjoy a de facto adequacy determination. These countries have acceded to both Convention 108 59 and the Additional Protocol, 60 which together require signatories to have laws that meet all the key requirements of the EU Directive. 61 Thus, as one scholar notes, "no such country has bothered to
apply for an adequacy finding, even though they are the [*239] most likely countries to be successful," because "there is, in practice, simply no need for an adequacy declaration." 62 And "the EU has in most cases awaited requests from third countries to initiate the process" of adequacy determinations. 63 Other factors have further contributed to the low number of published adequacy determinations. Several commentators have noted that the EU could be "more pro-active and more transparent about its processes." 64 For
example, the EU does not generally publish negative or unfavorable adequacy determinations. 65 The Article 29 Working Party has never made a negative adequacy opinion public, and the only published negative opinions come from external consultants. 66 The pool of adequacy opinions providing guidance therefore is quite limited. A review of some of the published adequacy determinations reveals some trends and potential inconsistencies in how the adequacy mechanism has been employed in practice. For example, New
Zealand is the most recent country to be deemed to ensure an adequate level of protection. 67 Professor Greenleaf notes, however, that the Article 29 Working Party opinion on New Zealand's adequacy "found seven instances of where New Zealand's content principles were not fully "adequate.'" 68 Most noteworthy among these is that the Article 29 Working Party had concerns with New Zealand's restrictions on onward transfers to other countries (i.e., New Zealand's adequacy mechanism) and concluded that New Zealand law
did not comply fully with the EU Directive on this point. 69 Yet the Article 29 Working Party seemed to downplay this concern due to New Zealand's "geographical isolation," "the size and [*240] the nature of its economy," and the low probability that "significant volumes of EU-sourced data" would be transferred to third countries. 70 In effect, the Article 29 Working Party's opinion on New Zealand's adequacy might highlight a tale of two standards. The decision reflects an underlying rationale that "it will be relatively rare that
personal data on EU citizens ends up in New Zealand, so a good deal of tolerance of variation from the core principles previously set out by the Working Party is permitted by them in delivering an adequacy opinion." 71 Meanwhile, "in a country like India, where outsourcing of the processing of European data is of large scale, as are other forms of business and travel involving personal data, different considerations are likely to apply." 72 Professor Greenleaf concludes that the Article 29 Working Party's opinion reflects
"significant pragmatic preparedness on the part of the Working Party." 73 But the opinion might also illustrate a different standard for large-versus small-scale data processing countries when seeking adequacy determinations. Argentina's favorable adequacy determination illustrates other nuances in the EU's approach to adequacy. Argentina passed its comprehensive privacy law in October 2000, issued an implementing/clarifying regulation in December 2001, and then requested an adequacy determination from the EU in
January 2002. 74 In October 2002, the Article 29 Working Party released its favorable adequacy opinion, 75 and in June 2003, the European Commission decided Argentina ensured an adequate level of protection. 76 The Article 29 Working Party gave a favorable opinion on Argentina's adequacy despite substantial concerns with its procedural [*241] and enforcement mechanisms. 77 For instance, the Working Party expressed concern that the Data Protection Authority (DPA) was not guaranteed to be independent and lacked
jurisdiction over all data controllers and processors. 78 Moreover, the Working Party noted that it relied heavily on the Argentinean government's assurances with respect to how the law was being implemented. 79 Thus, the Working Party concluded by stressing that its opinion was "drafted on the basis of these assumptions and explanations and in the absence of any substantial experience with the practical application of the legislation." 80 This conclusion stands in stark contrast to more recent adequacy opinions
commissioned by the European Commission. For example, Burkina Faso was among four African countries that recently sought adequacy determinations from the EU. 81 The advisory opinion on Burkina Faso's adequacy "refrained from giving its conclusion whether Burkina Faso provides an "adequate level of protection of personal data.'" 82 It based this decision in part on the opinion that "the existence of actual enforcement mechanisms is an important part of the criteria to meet before being possibly considered as a country
offering an adequate protection in the sense of article 25." 83 Yet the Article 29 Working Party offered a favorable opinion for Argentina at a time when Argentina's DPA had issued no significant guidance and pursued no enforcement. Indeed, Argentina's low number of enforcement actions to date, coupled with insight gleaned from discussions with Argentinian practitioners, suggest that Argentina may still lack effective enforcement mechanisms in practice - even if effective mechanisms exist on paper. Another issue with the
adequacy mechanism is the potential for the process to become politicized. The Article 29 Working Party itself recognized the potential for political tensions surrounding adequacy determinations, noting that "some third countries might [*242] come to see the absence of a finding that they provided adequate protection as politically provocative or at least discriminatory, in that the absence of a finding is as likely to be the result of their case not having been examined as of a judgment on their data protection system." 84
According to Mukalilo, this is why the EU generally avoids releasing negative adequacy opinions. 85 More troubling, although ultimately of no effect, was Ireland's objection in 2010 to the adequacy determination for Israel. After Israel received a favorable adequacy opinion from the Article 29 Working Party, Ireland officially objected and delayed the European Commission's decision. 86 Ireland raised its objection ostensibly based on minor concerns with the Israeli protections for manual data processing and the DPA's
independence. 87 But Ireland admitted to making an objection for reasons wholly unrelated to privacy, as it was outraged by the use of fake Irish passports by alleged Israeli agents in a targeted killing. 88 Use of the adequacy mechanism to achieve unrelated political ends could threaten the legitimacy of the system and undermine third countries' confidence that their privacy regimes are being evaluated purely on the merits. We are in the early days of modern international data privacy law - privacy law that addresses the use of
technology - and it is understandable why the form of a nation's privacy law regime has been used as a convenient surrogate for adequacy. However, now that multiple national regimes have had the chance to mature, and regulators in Europe have had a decade or more to observe them, it's reasonable and desirable for the Article 29 Working Party to apply the full-factors approach that EU law allows them to use in recommending adequacy. 89 [*243] II. The Case for U.S. Adequacy It has been said that the United States and
England are two countries separated by a common language. Something similar can be said with respect to the United States and EU when it comes to privacy: both the United States and Europe fundamentally agree on the need for privacy protections and the core tenets of what those protections look like. 90 The differences are largely in form, not substance. Privacy law worldwide has evolved from a set of core principles. As discussed earlier, the 1980 OECD privacy guidelines identified eight FIPPs to guide all data collection,
use, and disclosure. 91 The OECD guidelines were formally ratified by twenty-four OECD member countries, including the United States and many European nations. 92 These eight FIPPs have been highly influential in the development of privacy laws and regulations worldwide. 93 The FIPPs form the foundation of almost every nation's information privacy protections, including both the U.S. and the European Union privacy regimes. 94 Historically, however, the EU and the United States have taken divergent approaches to
implementing the FIPPs. In the United States, the legal framework for information privacy has focused on providing protections tailored to specific areas of concern, such as health records and children's personal information. 95 This sectoral approach, with its focus on sensitive personal information, has deep roots in American law. In large part, it reflects [*244] that privacy interests are balanced with competing interests, such as the right to free speech and respect for free-market solutions. The United States passed one of the
very first privacy laws back in 1970, ten years before the OECD privacy guidelines, when Congress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). 96 At the time, there was widespread concern over how credit reporting agencies would use the vast troves of information becoming available through automated processing of credit transactions. 97 (Remember that computing was still in its infancy, and thus the ability to computerize record-keeping was just starting to revolutionize society.) As a result, Congress passed the FCRA to
ensure the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of personal information assembled by the credit reporting agencies. The next major U.S. privacy law came as a result of the Nixon administration's privacy abuses. Mere months after Nixon's resignation, Congress enacted the Privacy Act of 1974 to apply the FIPPs to U.S. federal agencies' collection, storage, use, and disclosure of the personal information of U.S. citizens. 98 Starting in the 1980s, Congress enacted a series of privacy laws targeting specific sectors. These laws often passed
in response to publicized incidents demonstrating a lack of privacy protections in a certain sector. For example, Congress enacted the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 99 in response to concerns with electronic surveillance technologies. Then, in 1988, Congress enacted the Video Privacy Protection Act 100 after a reporter published the video rental records of Robert Bork, at the time a Supreme Court nominee. 101 The 1990s saw the passage of several blockbuster privacy laws in the United States. Congress enacted
laws addressing health privacy, [*245] financial privacy, and children's privacy. 102 In each area, Congress enacted legislation that also called for the appropriate federal agencies to enact accompanying regulations fleshing out the details of the law. For example, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) with minimal detail regarding health privacy protections. But the law called on the HHS to enact a detailed Privacy Rule. 103 This hybrid law-and-regulation approach has allowed
Congress to pass high-level privacy guidance for a specific sector, and to give the federal agency with sector-specific subject matter expertise the authority to elaborate the nuances and address the low-level implementation details. Perhaps the most significant legislative action on privacy in the United States, however, has come through state data breach notification statutes. California passed the first such law 104 in the early 2000s, and now almost every state, commonwealth, and territory in the United States has a similar
statute. 105 Generally speaking, these laws require entities to notify affected individuals and/or regulators whenever entities experience a data breach. A data breach can include losing a computer or flash drive containing personal information, having an employee steal personal information to commit identity theft, or experiencing an attack that results in hackers gaining access to company databases. The effect of these laws cannot be overstated. According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, since 2005, over 3,700 breaches
involving over 600 million compromised records have been reported under these state laws. 106 Breach notification laws have resulted in greater transparency into entities' privacy and security practices, as well as raising consumer interest in privacy protections. There are [*246] obvious costs associated with a data breach, such as the money spent investigating and reporting the incident, and the costs associated with providing affected individuals with credit monitoring services. 107 Companies suffering a data breach also pay a
reputational penalty, as consumers are less likely to trust the company with their business in the future. 108 The result has been an incredible increase in attention paid to preventing data breaches, with a resulting increase in privacy protections across the board. United States privacy protections, however, are not limited to specific laws and regulations. The FTC has played an increasingly active role in shaping what privacy protections are expected for all U.S. businesses. The FTC Act gives the FTC authority to regulate all "unfair
or deceptive practices or acts in or affecting commerce." 109 Starting in the 2000s, the FTC began to invoke this authority to govern companies' privacy practices. Commissioner Brill has stated that "privacy protection is "mission critical'" at the FTC. 110 The FTC has acted through two mechanisms. First, the FTC has brought scores of enforcement actions concerning privacy. 111 The earliest actions focused on holding companies to the promises included in their online privacy policies; violation of a privacy promise constituted a
deceptive practice under the FTC Act. 112 Increasingly, however, the FTC has invoked its authority to affirmatively state what privacy practices are reasonably expected for all companies. Recent FTC enforcement actions have resulted in [*247] settlements whereby the company agrees to implement a comprehensive and auditable privacy program. 113 Second, and complementary to its enforcement efforts, the FTC has increasingly sought to provide companies guidance on privacy best practices. To that end, the FTC has
published a series of reports, most recently on issues regarding privacy in mobile apps. 114 In March 2012, the FTC also published a fairly comprehensive guide to privacy best practices. 115 Moreover, the FTC has convened workshops to promote broad discussions regarding privacy issues. 116 These workshops bring together the regulators, company and industry representatives, and privacy advocates to debate the appropriate privacy safeguards that should be considered best practices. These workshops often result in
publication of reports or guidelines summarizing the FTC's advice - which then become the baseline by which the FTC brings future enforcement actions. The net impact of the FTC's two mechanisms has been to raise the privacy floor. Companies doing business in the United States are now expected to have published privacy policies and privacy programs - even though no federal law imposes these requirements on the vast majority of businesses (with the exception of companies operating in highly regulated sectors, such as
healthcare). And the thousands of companies that have self-certified to the Safe Harbor Framework 117 (which allows personal data to be transferred from the EU to the U.S., as discussed below) 118 have both imposed these [*248] requirements on themselves and subjected themselves to FTC enforcement. There are also significant extra-legal forces operating in the United States that contribute to providing broad privacy protections. For example, the past fifteen years has seen an explosion in companies hiring Chief Privacy
Officers (CPOs). In 2000, the few companies that had created CPO positions actually issued press releases announcing their actions. 119 Now there are thousands of CPO positions at companies across the United States. The existence of a C-level position focused on privacy elevated corporate America's focus on privacy and resulted in substantial increases in time and resources devoted to privacy protections. The privacy profession has been further enhanced through professional associations. A professional organization known
as the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) was formed in 2000 to provide a venue for CPOs to discuss privacy issues and share best practices. 120 In early years, the IAPP had conferences where numerous CPOs would gather to share knowledge. For the 2013 Global Privacy Summit, 121 over 2,000 people were in attendance. The organization now boasts more than 10,000 members in the United States alone, and provides numerous certifications for individuals seeking to establish their credentials as privacy
professionals in the marketplace. There are also numerous privacy lawyers - working with policymakers, engineers, and others - engaged in privacy compliance advice, representation, advocacy, and scholarship. Privacy law articles have influenced privacy professionals and policymakers alike. The field of privacy law itself originated with the seminal law review article by Warren and Brandeis on The Right to Privacy. 122 Additionally, privacy advocacy groups have increased [*249] their watchdog role to play a significant role in
prompting enforcement. Many FTC enforcement actions start with complaints filed by these very advocacy groups. 123 Finally, litigation has served as a backstop to keep pressure on companies to implement and maintain robust privacy programs. These days, a company announcement of a data breach or media reports on a privacy slip-up frequently result in the filing of class action lawsuits within days of the news. While these class action suits on the whole have not been generally successful in establishing liability and
damages, 124 they have provoked numerous settlements from companies averse to public litigation with customers. The cases increase the bottom line costs that companies weigh in deciding how they allocate their resources, and that weighing means increased attention to privacy programs. Berkeley professors Ken Bamberger and Deirdre Mulligan have extensively researched the role that extra-legal forces play in protecting privacy. In their landmark study of privacy "on the ground," they interviewed several CPOs to assess the
state of privacy protections in the United States. 125 Their findings suggest that the extra-legal forces described above, coupled with the various laws and regulations on the books, have resulted in privacy becoming more embedded into U.S. corporate culture and business operations. 126 More importantly, their research suggests that [*250] formalistic reviews of privacy "on the books" might substantially underestimate the strength of a third country's privacy protections overall. III. So
Why
Isn't the U nited S tates Considered Adequate ? Despite the various layers contributing to robust privacy
protections in the United States, the EU continues to view the U.S. privacy framework as inadequate under EU law - although the
issue has never been squarely addressed, as the United States has never applied for a finding of adequacy, and the EU has never
stated that it has denied or would deny any U.S. application. When the Directive entered into force in 1998, however, it was widely
accepted that the
United States lacked adequate privacy protections to qualify as adequate under EU
law. 127 Thus, the United States and EU promptly began negotiating a way for U.S. businesses to be able to engage in certain
international data transfers involving EU personal data. The U.S. goal was to create a "safe harbor" under which some U.S.
businesses could receive EU personal data. 128 The challenge, however, was to bridge the gap between two very different approaches
to privacy protections. It took two years of negotiating, but eventually both sides reached an agreement that was acceptable to all.
The result was the Safe Harbor Framework. 129 The Framework requires eligible companies to certify their compliance with seven
broad principles: (1) notice, (2) choice, (3) restrictions on third-party transfers, (4) security for personal data, (5) data integrity, (6)
individual access rights, and [*251] (7) submission to the FTC's jurisdiction for enforcement purposes. 130 In 2000, the European
Commission recognized the Safe Harbor Framework ensured an adequate level of protection under the EU Directive, 131 and the
Safe Harbor Framework has facilitated cross-border data transfers for thousands of companies in the intervening years. Only
companies subject to the jurisdiction of the FTC are eligible for participation in the Safe Harbor (as the FTC is the agency charged
broad swaths of U.S. commerce, including transportation
companies, communication common carriers, certain regulated financial services firms, and non-profits, are not eligible
to participate in the Safe Harbor. After the 9/11 attacks, the United States and EU entered into a separate arrangement
with enforcing Safe Harbor principles). 132 Thus,
providing for the sharing of airline passenger information involving EU personal data. 133 This second agreement allowed for the
transfer of Passenger Name Records to U.S. government authorities for anti-terrorism purposes. 134 These are the two primary
agreements existing between the United States and EU regarding international data transfers. 135 As previously noted, the United
States has never formally sought a full adequacy determination, but it is no secret the
EU sees major
shortcomings in the U.S. regime. The principal perceived shortcomings are that the EU generally disfavors a
sector-by-sector approach, instead viewing comprehensive legislation as the superior
method to ensure privacy protections. 136 Additionally, the EU [*252] considers the lack of an independent data protection authority in the United States to be a serious
shortcoming. 137 Some in the EU also criticize the effectiveness of the Safe Harbor. 138 These criticisms arise despite the European Commission's continuing support for the
Safe Harbor Framework's adequacy, which was reaffirmed even after the release of the Proposed Regulation. 139 And evidence suggests the Safe Harbor Framework has played a
key role "in raising privacy awareness and acceptance of privacy protection in the United States." 140 The sectoral approach that has garnered European criticism has some
advantages that might be underappreciated in Europe. For example, U.S. privacy law has been tailored across sectors to provide varying levels of protection appropriate for the
sensitivity and use of personal information. This flexibility also permits quicker changes in response to new threats to privacy, without having to establish rigid protections that
prevent flexibility. As to health privacy in the United States, for example, a detailed and robust framework exists under HIPAA. [*253] The EU believes the United States affords
too much governmental access to personal data, and that also affects its view of the U.S. privacy framework. 141 These concerns are rooted in the powers authorized by the U.S.
Patriot Act, which was passed after the 9/11 attacks. 142 It is true the Patriot Act provides the U.S. government with authority to access personal data in certain situations. 143
But the EU is wrong to paint the U.S. government's access as exceptional. A legal review of ten different countries across the globe assessed their governments' level of access to
information stored in the cloud. 144 The survey included the United States, several European countries, Canada, Australia, and Japan. 145 The results were clear: all ten
countries permitted their governments similar levels of access to data stored in the cloud in the interests of national security and law enforcement. 146 And several countries
actually enabled entities voluntarily to share such information with the government, without legal protections; the United States was not one of them. 147 Finally, the EU
criticism of the lack of a centralized enforcement authority for privacy in the United States should not be dispositive. The FTC has broad but not unlimited jurisdiction to police
privacy violations in the United States. Influential scholars have made the case that enforcement efforts in the United States are very strong. 148 [*254] This is especially so
when one considers the robust and increasing enforcement activity at the state level. 149 Complicating matters, however, is the potential for greater separation between the U.S.
and EU privacy regimes once the EU adopts the Proposed Regulation. The Proposed Regulation includes several elements not reflected in current or proposed U.S. law. For
example, the Proposed Regulation would give individuals a "right to be forgotten," which would allow individuals to compel deletion of their personal data. 150 In the United
States, such a right would likely run afoul of the First Amendment. Additionally, the Proposed Regulation would provide a "right to data portability." 151 Finally, the Proposed
Regulation would expand the privacy rules' jurisdictional reach directly to companies processing EU personal data outside the EU. 152
however, remains restricted to
U.S. privacy law,
governing companies located within the U nited S tates, and instead makes the
companies that transfer personal information outside the United States accountable for the actions of their third parties operating
abroad. The day after President Obama announced the new trade negotiations with the EU, the U.S. Trade Representative
highlighted "the issue of cross-border data flows as one of those next-generational issues that
should be addressed" during the negotiations . 153 That same day, an EU data protection official noted that the
trade negotiations would present an opportune time to [*255] "broaden the insufficient level of data protection in the [United
States]." 154 The EU critique of the U.S. approach to privacy overlooks fundamental structural differences between the two legal
regimes. For example, the United States has had to balance its robust privacy protections against strong constitutional protection for
free expression. At times, the constitutional protections of the First Amendment may trump otherwise strong privacy interests. 155
In the EU, by contrast, the balance between the rights to privacy and free expression is less clear - but wherever the exact line falls,
the protections for free expression in the EU do not rise to the level of First Amendment protections. 156 While many EU Member
States employ a civil law system, the United States has a rich history of relying on the common law. Indeed, the FTC's "enforcement
efforts have established what some scholars call "the common law of privacy' in the United States." 157 Conclusion Despite their
similar origins in the FIPPs, the
U.S. and EU privacy regimes have evolved in different ways over the past forty
years. But their differences do not necessarily suggest a lack of equivalence or [*256] in teroper ability to
satisfy common goals . As Commissioner Brill notes, "Although the U.S. may for historic reasons approach privacy through our different legal tradition - one that uses a framework
approach, backed up by strong enforcement - I believe this approach achieves many of the same goals as those embraced by EU data protection authorities." 158 Why, then, has the U.S. approach been consistently
viewed as providing an inadequate level of protection by EU officials? The reason seems to be the EU's emphasis on the form of a third country's privacy framework, rather than its substance. This trend is
evidenced in the Article 29 Working Party's published adequacy opinions, as well as several statements by EU data protection officials, in emphasizing the differences in the U.S. approach. As noted previously,
however, there is substantial common ground between the two approaches, and many differences can be attributed to fundamental characteristics of the respective regimes. As Commissioner Brill observes, "We
will not erase the differences in our privacy regimes. And ... we need not erase them, because we have plenty of common ground for mutual recognition of our different, but equally effective, privacy frameworks."
159 In many other contexts, legal interoperability is achieved by recognizing these fundamental differences and embracing a flexible approach to managing cross-border issues. Furthermore, the Article 29
Working Party's reliance to date on form as a surrogate for effectiveness of a nation's privacy regime overlooks the robust privacy protections currently available in the United States, as well as the different
constitutional and legal structures in place. The Safe Harbor Framework has demonstrated one possible approach to mutual recognition and interoperability, and indeed the United States and EU have continued
to reaffirm their commitment to that approach even as both sides consider revisions to their respective privacy frameworks. 160 The United States and EU [*257] jointly referred to the Safe Harbor Framework in
The TTIP presents a golden opportunity to embrace
interoperability outright and recognize solutions that give credit to the different ways the two systems achieve
substantially similar aims. Perhaps foreshadowing the TTIP negotiations, the EU-U.S. joint statement in March 2012 included the
March 2012 as "a useful starting point for further interoperability." 161
following proclamation: As the EU and the United States continue to work on significant revisions to their respective privacy
frameworks over the next several years, the two sides will endeavor to find mechanisms that will foster the free flow of data across
the Atlantic. Both parties are committed to work towards solutions based on non-discrimination and mutual recognition when it
comes to personal data protection issues which could serve as frameworks for global interoperability that can promote innovation,
the free flow of goods and services, and privacy protection around the world. 162 Part
of that effort to find solutions rooted
in mutual recognition should be a
fresh look at the overall adequacy of the U.S. framework. More flexible
approaches to cross-border data transfers could provide robust privacy protections while facilitating free
trade and the free flow of information. As Commissioner Brill noted, "Given the complexity of international data flows and
different legal regimes around the globe, I think that providing more flexibility for cross-border data transfers could enhance privacy
protection, spur innovation and trade, and help us achieve interoperability between our two systems." 163 Whether that flexibility
arises within the framework of the EU adequacy approach, the
TTIP trade agreement, or alternative measures, the end
result should be the same: it is time for the United States and EU to reach a workable long-term solution to facilitating cross-border
data transfers that both protects privacy and promotes international economic growth.
at: economy turn
Doesn’t hurt the economy or competitiveness
Ciriani 15 – Researcher in the field of Responsible Economic Studies at ORANGE Research Division
studying Regulatory and European Affairs (Stephane Ciriani, First Quarter 2015, “The Economic Impact
of the European Reform of Data Protection,” Communications & Strategies 97 (First Quarter 2015): 41-58,
153, ProQuest)//twemchen
Abstract: The economic value of personal data is mainly extracted through online intermediation services and big data analytics. The
largest providers of these services are US OTTs. These are global market players with a leading position in the European market. As
a result, the personal data of European users are widely processed by these providers. The EU and the US have different approaches
to personal data protection and data privacy. In the US, privacy is a property right whereas in the EU, it is a fundamental right,
which must be provided by the government. The European Commission has proposed a reform
of personal data
protection, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), aiming to ensure that European consumers are protected
according to European law whenever their data are processed outside the EU by foreign companies. According to the European
Commission, the
reform will bring economy-wide benefits to the EU. However, several studies
on the economic impact of the reform have led to opposing conclusions. They claim that the
extraterritorial application of the European law will impose a regulatory cost burden on US
providers. This burden would hurt transatlantic trade in services, and would be detrimental to the European economy. Our analysis
shows that the
GDPR is not a protectionist policy . The extraterritorial application of the European law
will neither hinder competition nor disrupt cross-border data flows. On the contrary, the
extension of European law to the US OTTs that target European consumers will contribute to establishing a level
playing field between European providers and their US competitors in the European market. Both EU and US
providers would obey European laws when processing European consumers' personal data.
EU Advantage
***uk coop
internal link – chilling effect
The perception of embassy spying absolutely wrecks US-UK data sharing
and precludes ambassadorial cooperation
Anderson 13 – Professor of Security Engineering (Ross Anderson, 12/2/13, “In the line of duty:
Whatever your profession, the British and American governments' monitoring of private communication
could have a profound effect on your working life. Here are some of the possibilities,” The Guardian,
Lexis)//twemchen
Now everyone knows why GCHQ has long refused to store information classified at restricted or above in US cloud computing
services. A recent University of Pennsylvania study confirmed that the secrecy bureaucracy often stops even the intelligence
community getting anything useful done. And thanks to Snowden's revelations it's about to get worse. The
threat of enemy (or
ally) spying has led Whitehall to build a byzantine structure of security clearances , with
information classified as protect, restricted, confidential, secret or top secret. But Snowden revealed it gets even more
complicated, with "strap" levels . He was cleared to strap 1, although his files have strap 2 and strap 3 content.
The UK recently announced a new classification scheme but it will be incompatible with the US
system so will cause chaos when information goes back and forth. Meanwhile, the director of
the NSA has vowed to fire most of his system administrators, because that's what Snowden was, so there
will be nobody able to deal with the fallout . The diplomat With the dust not yet settled
after the leak of 250,000 rather undiplomatic US embassy cables by Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning, Snowden
revealed that the US is also spying on a number of its traditional allies , including the EU missions in New
York, the French, Italian and Greek embassies, and countries such as Spain, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, India and Turkey. So
diplomats can be under no illusions that any of their communications are safe - prompting a novel
reaction from the Indian high commissioner in London, who ordered his staff to use typewriters to prepare sensitive documents
and to be careful what they say because of bugs.
American spying chills British cooperation with the US – regardless of the
formal status of relations
Spiegel 14 – German news thing (7/14/14, “Germany Prepares Further Spying Clampdown,”
Lexis)//twemchen
But the
scope of the damage the Americans have inflicted so far is still only vaguely
recognizable . Their initial response to the revelations by whistleblower Edward Snowden in the summer of 2013 was that
the Germans should get over themselves -- after all, they insisted, everything the NSA does takes place in the interest of freedom and
strictly in accordance with law and order. But then came the revelations of the tapping of Merkel's mobile phone. It was an
embarrassing incident for US President Barack Obama, who quickly gave Merkel his personal assurance that US intelligence would
refrain from tapping her phone in the future. The inference was that it would be less likely to do so in other cases. The case of the
CIA informant at the BND shows that Washington apparently still doesn't consider the massive technical efforts it undertakes to spy
on the entire globe to be sufficient. It helps to explain why the numerous US
intelligence agencies still manage
human sources , just as they did in the bad old days, even in the nerve centers of Washington's
close allies. The Federal Prosecutor's Office in Karlsruhe, Germany's top investigative agency, is now pursuing three cases of
suspected espionage relating to the United States, supposedly Germany's closest ally. Even the biggest appeasers in Berlin must
realize by now that the Americans
are dead serious when it comes to their desire to know
"everything," to quote an NSA document. There is a palpable sense of insecurity in Berlin's
government district these days. Even
lawmakers with many years of experience have become suspicious
of the US Embassy, as well as the embassies of France, Great Britain and Russia. They are all merely a stone's throw
from the offices and conference rooms where German politicians sometimes meet. Some now view the highly secured foreign
embassies as little more than surveillance antennas surrounded by buildings. Many lawmakers involved with the intelligence
services and their supervision have
stopped discussing sensitive information on the phone or
sending unencrypted emails, and they have taken to meeting in person, in public places, for
confidential conversations. If they even take their mobile phones along, they sometimes use them to
play loud lounge music, hoping to confuse unwelcome listeners.
impact – soft power
UK relations are key to US soft power
Mix 14 – analyst in European Affairs at the CRS (Derek B. Mix, 5/4/14, “The United Kingdom and U.S.UK Relations,” https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33105.pdf)//twemchen
The UK’s “special relationship” with the United States has been a cornerstone of British foreign
policy, to varying degrees and with some ups and downs, since the 1940s. The UK is often perceived to be the
leading allied voice in shaping U.S. foreign policy debates, and observers assert that the UK’s
status as a close ally of the United States has often served to enhance its global influence.
British support, in turn, has often helped add international credibility and weight to U.S.
policies and initiatives, and the close U.S.-UK partnership has benefitted the pursuit of common
interests in bodies such as the UN, NATO, and other multilateral institutions .
impact – terrorism
UK relations solve terrorism
Mix 14 – analyst in European Affairs at the CRS (Derek B. Mix, 5/4/14, “The United Kingdom and U.S.UK Relations,” https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33105.pdf)//twemchen
Most analysts and officials agree that U.S.-UK
intelligence and counterterrorism cooperation is
close, well-established, and mutually beneficial . UK agencies routinely cooperate
with their U.S. counterparts in the sharing of information, and U.S. and British law enforcement
and intelligence agencies regularly serve as investigative partners. Although many of the details and
achievements remain secret, U.S.-UK intelligence and counterterrorism cooperation has reportedly disrupted
multiple terrorist operations against both countries in recent years, including a plot against the New
York Stock Exchange and World Bank in 2004, a major plot against transatlantic aviation in 2006, and a cargo airplane bomb plot in
2010.35 In addition to efforts seeking to disrupt terrorist attacks against U.S. and European targets, U.S. and UK officials work
together with regard to developments in countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. Although the
overall
intelligence and counterterrorism relationship is overwhelmingly positive , there have been some
occasional tensions. The relationship was damaged by public accusations of British complicity in U.S.-led renditions and the alleged
torture of terrorist suspects between 2002 and 2008. Related court cases sought the release of intelligence documents and raised
concerns in the intelligence community about the risk of confidential information entering the public domain through the British
legal system. In part to preserve the integrity of UK intelligence-sharing with the United States, the British government introduced a
new Justice and Security bill to permit evidence to be heard in secret on national security grounds in all civil courts; this bill became
law in April 2013. There have also been some tensions about extradition arrangements. Although the UK
extradited radical Islamist cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri to the United States in October 2012 to face trial on terrorism-related charges,
U.S. officials were frustrated that the process took eight years after the original U.S. request. British officials have rejected other U.S.
extradition requests on human rights grounds and UK courts have blocked some U.S. extradition requests for terrorist suspects
because of insufficient or inadmissible evidence. Nevertheless, some UK legal experts and human rights activists criticize the terms
of the current U.S.-UK extradition treaty as being more favorable to the United States. U.S. officials counter that an independent
review commissioned by the UK government concluded in 2011 that the treaty is fair and balanced, with U.S. and UK evidentiary
standards being the same in practice.36
***eu relations
uniqueness
Surveillance of EU embassies now
RT 13 – (6/29/13, “NSA spied on EU diplomats in Washington NY and Brussels – report,”
http://rt.com/news/nsa-spy-eu-diplomats-429/)//twemchen
Not only European citizens, but also employees
of the EU diplomatic missions in Washington and the UN were
under electronic surveillance from the NSA, Der Spiegel magazine reports citing a document obtained by
whistleblower Edward Snowden. The German magazine claims to have taken a glance at parts of a “top secret” document, which
reveals that US National
Security Agency has placed bugs in EU offices in Washington and at the
New York‘s United Nations headquarters in order to listen to conversations and phone calls. The
internal computer networks in the buildings were also under surveillance, which granted NSA access to documents and emails of the
European officials. The document, which categorically labels the European Union as a “target”, was dated September 2010, Der
Spiegel says. The magazine reports that the NSA also targeted communications at the European Council headquarters at the Justus
Lipsius building in Brussels, Belgium by calling a remote maintenance unit. According to Der Spiegel, more than five years ago EU
security officers had noticed and traced several missed calls to an area of the NATO facility in Brussels, which was used by NSA
experts. The US previously acknowledged that they were collecting data on European citizens under the PRISM program, but not on
large scale, only in cases of strong suspicion of individual or group being involved in terrorism, cybercrime or nuclear proliferation.
Former NSA contractor and CIA employee, Snowden, is believed to be currently staying in the transit zone of Moscow’s
Sheremetyevo airport where he arrived from Hong Kong on June 23. The 30-year-old, who leaked details of top-secret American
government mass surveillance programs to the media, is waiting for Ecuador to decide on giving him political asylum as he’s being
charged with espionage in the US.
internal link
NSA surveillance seriously impacts EU relations
Traynor 13 (Ian, the Guardian’s European editor, 6/30, “Berlin accuses Washington of cold war
tactics over snooping”, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/30/berlin-washington-coldwar)//cc
Transatlantic relations plunged at the weekend as Berlin, Brussels and Paris all
demanded that Washington account promptly and fully for new disclosures on the scale of the US
National Security Agency's spying on its European allies. As further details emerged of the huge reach of US
electronic snooping on Europe, Berlin accused Washington of treating it like the Soviet Union,
"like a cold war enemy". The European commission called on the US to clarify allegations that the NSA, operating from
Nato headquarters a few miles away in Brussels, had infiltrated secure telephone and computer networks at the venue for EU
summits in the Belgian capital. The fresh revelations in the Guardian and allegations in the German publication Der
Spiegel triggered outrage in Germany and in the European parliament and threatened to
overshadow negotiations on an ambitious transatlantic free-trade pact worth hundreds of billions due to open next
week. The reports of NSA snooping on Europe – and on Germany in particular – went well
beyond previous revelations of electronic spying said to be focused on identifying
suspected terrorists, extremists and organised criminals. Der Spiegel reported that it had seen
documents and slides from the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden indicating that US agencies bugged the offices
of the EU in Washington and at the UN in New York. They are also accused of directing an operation from
Nato headquarters in Brussels to infiltrate the telephone and email networks at the EU's Justus Lipsius building in the Belgian
capital, the venue for EU summits and home of the European council. Citing documents it said it had "partly seen", the magazine
reported that more than five years ago security officers at the EU had noticed several missed calls apparently targeting the remote
maintenance system in the building that were traced to NSA offices within the Nato compound in Brussels. Less than three months
Germany which, it emerged, is
by far the biggest target in Europe for the NSA's Prism programme scanning phone and internet
before a German general election, the impact of the fresh disclosures is likely to be strongest in
traffic and capturing and storing the metadata. The documents reviewed by Der Spiegel showed that Germany was treated in the
same US spying category as China, Iraq or Saudi Arabia, while the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were deemed to be allies
not subject to remotely the same level of surveillance. Germany's
justice minister, Sabine Leutheussercalled for an explanation from the US authorities. "If the media reports are true, it is reminiscent of
the actions of enemies during the cold war," she was quoted as saying in the German newspaper Bild. "It is beyond
imagination that our friends in the US view Europeans as the enemy." France later also
asked the US for an explanation. The foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, said: "These acts, if
confirmed, would be completely unacceptable. "We expect the American authorities to answer the legitimate
Schnarrenberger,
concerns raised by these press revelations as quickly as possible." Washington and Brussels are scheduled to open ambitious freetrade talks next week after years of arduous preparation. Senior officials in Brussels are worried that the talks will be setback by the
NSA scandal. "Obviously we will need to see what is the impact on the trade talks," said a senior official in Brussels. A
second
senior official said the allegations would cause a furore in the European parliament and
could then hamper relations with the US. However, Robert Madelin, one of Britain's most senior officials in the
European commission, tweeted that EU trade negotiators always operated on the assumption that their communications were
listened to. A spokesman for the European commission said: "We have immediately been in contact with the US authorities in
Washington and in Brussels and have confronted them with the press reports. They have told us they are checking on the accuracy of
the information released yesterday and will come back to us." There were calls from MEPs for Herman Van Rompuy, president of
the European council – who has his office in the building allegedly targeted by the US – and José Manuel Barroso, president of the
European commission, to urgently appear before the chamber to explain what steps they were taking in response to the growing
body of evidence of US and British electronic surveillance of Europe through the Prism and Tempora operations. Guy Verhofstadt,
the former Belgian prime minister and leader of the liberals in the European parliament,
said: "This is absolutely unacceptable and must be stopped immediately. The American data-
collection mania has achieved another quality by spying on EU officials and their meetings. Our
trust is at stake."
Luxembourg's foreign minister, Jean Asselborn, told Der Spiegel: "If these reports are true,
it's disgusting." Asselborn called for guarantees from the highest level of the US government
that the snooping and spying be halted immediately. Martin Schulz, the head of the
European parliament, said: "I am deeply worried and shocked about the allegations of
US authorities spying on EU offices. If the allegations prove to be true, it would be an extremely
serious matter which will have a severe impact on EU-US relations. "On behalf of the European
parliament, I demand full clarification and require further information speedily from the US authorities with regard to these
allegations." There were also calls for John Kerry, the US secretary of state on his way back from the Middle East, to make a detour
to Brussels to explain US activities. "We need to get clarifications and transparency at the highest level," said Marietje Schaake, a
Dutch liberal MEP. "Kerry should come to Brussels on his way back from the Middle East. This is essential for the transatlantic
alliance." The documents suggesting the clandestine bugging operations were from September 2010, Der Spiegel said. Der Spiegel
quoted the Snowden documents as revealing that the US taps half a billion phone calls, emails and text messages in Germany a
month. "We can attack the signals of most foreign third-class partners, and we do," Der
Spiegel quoted a passage in
the NSA document as saying. It quoted the document from 2010 as stating that "the European Union is
an attack target". On an average day, the NSA monitored about 15m German phone connections and 10m internet datasets,
rising to 60m phone connections on busy days, the report said. Officials in Brussels said this reflected Germany's weight in the EU
and probably also entailed elements of industrial and trade espionage. "The Americans are more interested in what governments
think than the European commission. And they make take the view that Germany determines European policy," said one of the
senior officials. Jan Philipp Albrecht, a German Green party MEP and a specialist in data protection, told the Guardian the
revelations were outrageous. "It's
not about political answers now, but rule of law, fundamental
constitutional principles and rights of European citizens," he said.
Domestic bugging threatens to disrupt EU relations – European official
statements
RT 13 (“New Snowden leak: US bugged dozens of foreign embassies,” RT, 7-1-13,
http://rt.com/news/snowden-leak-us-bugged-embassies-480/) //AD
The US has been spying on dozens of foreign embassies and missions belonging to its
rivals and allies in America to keep tabs on disagreements between them, new documents leaked by
Edward Snowden revealed. Elaborate means were used to install bugs and gather intelligence. One document
mentioned in the Guardian report on the leaks lists 38 foreign embassies and mission in
US and describes them as “targets” under surveillance. Targets in the September 2010
document included not only US rivals, but also American allies, such as EU mission in
New York and its embassy in Washington, along with the French, Italian and Greek
embassies, as well as Japan, Mexico, South Korea, India, Turkey and Middle Eastern
countries. But the UK and Germany, along with some other European states were not mentioned. US intelligence used a
number of creative spying techniques, including bugging electronic communications equipment
and tapping into cables to collect transmissions with specialized antennae. One of the eavesdropping
methods was codenamed “Dropmire” and involved putting a bug in an encrypted fax machine used at the EU embassy in
Washington, DC, the Guardian quoted a 2007 document as saying. The fax machine was used to send
cables
to foreign affairs ministries in EU. The US spied in order to gain insight into policy disagreements on global issues and
other splits between member states, the leaked document revealed. Codenames: ‘Perdido’, ‘Blackfoot’, ‘Wabash’
and ‘Powell’ US spy operations on dozens of foreign embassies and mission in US had a range of creative
codenames. An operation carried out in the EU mission at the UN and was called
‘Perdido’. It collected intelligence through implants or bugs that were placed inside
electronic devices, along with targeted computers inside the mission copying everything saved on its
hard drives. The EU delegation on K Street in Washington was hit with three spy
operations that targeted the embassy's 90 staff. Two of them used electronic implants and the
third used antennas to collect transmissions. Codename ‘Blackfoot’ was used in an operation
against the French mission to the UN and the name ‘Wabash’ referred to bugging the
French embassy in Washington. The Italian embassy in Washington was also targeted and
codenamed as both ‘Bruneau’ and ‘Hemlock’. Spying on the Greek UN mission was named
‘Powell’ and the operation against its embassy was known as ‘Klondyke’, documents
revealed. The operations are described as "close access domestic collection" and it
remains unclear whether NSA solely carried its operations or in combination with FBI
or CIA. The new leak comes as European nations are already angry by what Snowden has
revealed. France and Germany have demanded the US account for leaked reports of massive-scale US
spying on the EU. French President Francois Hollande called for an end to surveillance,
while Germany said such “Cold War-style behavior” was “unacceptable.” German
publication Der Spiegel reported on Sunday that the US National Security Agency (NSA)
had bugged EU offices in Brussels, New York and Washington. Following the release of the
report, the president of the EU parliament demanded an explanation from Washington,
stressing that if the allegations were true there would be a significant backlash on USEU relations.
Leaked info reveals clandestine surveillance on foreign officials – key to
security intelligence
Savage 14 - Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2007, American Bar Association’s
Silver Gavel Award and the Gerald R. Ford Prize for Distinguished Reporting on the
Presidency, New York Public Library’s Helen Bernstein Book Award for Excellence in
Journalism, degree in English and American Literature and Language from Harvard
College in 1998, master’s degree from Yale Law School, where he was a Knight
Journalism Fellow (Charlie, “Book Reveals Wider Net of U.S. Spying on Envoys,” New
York Times, 5-12-14, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/world/middleeast/book-reveals-widernet-of-us-spying-on-envoys.html?_r=0) //AD
WASHINGTON — In May 2010, when the United Nations Security Council was weighing
sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, several members were undecided about
how they would vote. The American ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice, asked
the National Security Agency for help “so that she could develop a strategy,” a leaked
agency document shows. The N.S.A. swiftly went to work, developing the paperwork to
obtain legal approval for spying on diplomats from four Security Council members —
Bosnia, Gabon, Nigeria and Uganda — whose embassies and missions were not already under
surveillance. The following month, 12 members of the 15-seat Security Council voted to
approve new sanctions, with Lebanon abstaining and only Brazil and Turkey voting
against. Later that summer, Ms. Rice thanked the agency, saying its intelligence had helped her to
know when diplomats from the other permanent representatives — China, England,
France and Russia — “were telling the truth ... revealed their real position on sanctions
... gave us an upper hand in negotiations ... and provided information on various
countries ‘red lines.’ ” The two documents laying out that episode, both leaked by the former N.S.A.
contractor Edward J. Snowden, are reproduced in a new book by Glenn Greenwald, “No Place to Hide:
Edward Snowden, the N.S.A., and the U.S. Surveillance State.” The book is being published Tuesday.
Elements of the N.S.A.’s role in helping aid American diplomatic negotiations leading up to the Iran
sanctions vote had been previously reported, including in an October 2013 article in the French
newspaper Le Monde that focused on the agency’s spying on French diplomats. Mr. Greenwald’s book
also reproduces a document listing embassies and missions that had been penetrated by
the N.S.A., including those of Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, the European Union, France,
Georgia, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea,
Taiwan, Venezuela and Vietnam. Aspects of that document were reported in June by The Guardian.
Revelations about N.S.A. spying abroad, including on officials of American allies, has
fueled anger at the United States. But Caitlin Hayden, an N.S.A. spokeswoman, noted that
President Obama sought to address those issues in January when he promised greater limits on spying
aimed at allies and partners. “While our intelligence agencies will continue to gather
information about the intentions of governments — as opposed to ordinary citizens — around
the world, in the same way that the intelligence services of every other nation do, we will not
apologize because our services may be more effective,” she said. Ms. Rice’s request for help in
May 2010 was recounted in an internal report by the security agency’s Special Source Operations division,
which works with telecommunications companies on the American network. A legal team was called in on
May 22 to begin drawing up the paperwork for the four court orders, one for each of the four countries on
the Security Council whose embassies and missions were apparently not yet under surveillance. A judge
signed them on May 26. The internal report showing that the N.S.A. obtains country-specific
orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to eavesdrop on their diplomatic
facilities may shed light on a murky document published in March by Der Spiegel. It showed that the
court had issued an order authorizing spying on “Germany” on March 7, 2013, and listed
several other countries whose orders were about to expire. The Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act does not authorize the court to issue orders for broad monitoring of
specific countries. It does authorize orders for specific “foreign powers” operating on
American soil, which expire after a year.
The plan solves critical issues that spill over to broader EU relations
Young 14 – Senior VP and Chief Strategy Officer of National Security Parnters, LLC, served as the
Executive Director for the Directorate of Plans and Policya t the United States Cyber Command, and as a
senior leader at the NSA (Mark Young, Summer 2014, “National Insecurity: The Impacts of Illegal
Disclosures of Classified Information,” 10 ISJLP 367, Lexis)//twemchen
B. European Union. Traditionally,
strong diplomatic and intelligence sharing relationships with members of the
European Union have also been strained by revelations of programs allegedly collecting the personal
[*390] communication of thirty-five heads of state . 92 These reports of U.S. surveillance in Europe are
"eating away at the fabric of trust that is part of the alliance ." 93 According to the Council on
Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Charles A. Kupchan, there is a direct relationship between the political discomfort with alleged U.S.
intelligence collection and European disappointment about the President's inability to better balance security and civil liberties. 94
Kupchan has noted that many Europeans feel that Obama "has failed to deliver on his pledge to clean up some of the excesses left
behind by the George W. Bush administration." 95 German Chancellor Angela Merkel originally defended the apparent intelligence
cooperation disclosed by Snowden. She pointed out that Germany had "avoided terrorist attacks thanks to information from allies."
96 But, in the face of new disclosures, she is now discussing limits on privacy intrusions. Merkel has alluded repeatedly to "Cold
War" tactics and has said spying on friends is unacceptable. 97 Her spokesman has said a mutually-beneficial transatlantic
trade deal requires a level of "mutual trust." 98 Chancellor Merkel has been criticized for her apparently
feigned indignation about alleged cooperation with the U.S. Intelligence Community. "Germany has demanded
explanations for Snowden's allegations of large-scale spying by the NSA, and by Britain via a programme
codenamed 'Tempora,' on their allies including [*391] Germany and other European Union states, as well as EU
institutions and embassies ." 99 The Head of German domestic intelligence has said he knew nothing about the
reported NSA surveillance. 100 Opposition parties believe otherwise. They claimed that, because German intelligence activities are
coordinated within the Office of the Chancellor, highlevel officials must have known about speculative NSA activities. 101 Der
Spiegel has reported that the NSA monitored about twenty million German phone connections and ten million Internet sessions on
an average day and sixty million phone connections on above average days. 102 Thus, unconfirmed U.S. intelligence
activities are now an issue that will affect German political leadership and the diplomatic and
intelligence relationships between Germany and the U.S. The impact on European Union allies is
already seen in the talks being held between European Union member states and the United States about
American surveillance tactics that may have included spying on European allies. 103 President Obama assured Germany
that the U.S. "takes seriously the concerns of our European allies and partners." 104 The initiation of a dialogue between the
United States and European Union Members about intelligence collection and appropriate oversight 105 will also
complicate the transatlantic relationship . Restrictions or legislation that shifts standards of privacy
and data protection will diminish American and European Union security.
Clarification over embassy bugging is critical to usher in a new era of
transatlantic cooperation
Economic Times 13 – (7/8/13, “EU, US set for FTA talks in shadow of spying storm,”
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-07-08/news/40443507_1_eu-offices-ftanegotiations-transatlantic-trade)//twemchen
The European Union and US are set to kick off long-awaited negotiations on a free trade agreement (FTA) in Washington today
despite growing demands to delay the talks until allegations of American spying on EU officials and sweeping surveillance of citizens
are cleared. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has made a fresh appeal to stick to the road map agreed when the trade talks were
formally launched at the G-8 summit in Dublin last month and also to hold parallel discussions to investigate
America's
unprecedented espionage operations, exposed by intelligence whistleblower Edward Snowden. The transAtlantic negotiations to create the world's largest free trade zone should not be dropped in the wake of the US espionage scandal and
they must be carried out "well-targeted and without putting the other issues under the table" she told an election campaign rally of
her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) at the weekend in the state of North Rhine Westphalia. Snowden's
revelations in
the past weeks that the US National Security Agency (NSA) had bugged the EU embassies in
Washington and at the U nited N ations as well as its headquarters in Brussels and systematically
collected vast amounts of internet and telephone data of EU citizens had threatened to derail the EU-US FTA
negotiations. Merkel criticised the NSA's blanket cyber surveillance and bugging of EU offices and said they
cannot be justified with the argument that they are in the interest of protecting Europe and its
citizens against possible terrorist attacks. "Eavesdropping among friends cannot be tolerated. The era of cold
war is over ," she said. However, a "proper balance" must be maintained between protecting citizens against terrorism and
safeguarding their personal data, she said. The European Commission confirmed at the weekend that an agreement was
reached among the EU member-nations to start the negotiations with the US on the T ransatlantic T rade
and I nvestment P artnership as planned tomorrow and to take up parallel joint investigations into the alleged
US bugging of EU offices and snooping into the internet and telephone data. However, the discussions on the
espionage scandal will be held only in one joint working group and will be restricted to data privacy and the NSA's surveillance
programmes codenamed PRISM. EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso expressed the hope that the joint EU-US
investigations will provide "sufficient clarifications" on the spying allegations, which are
necessary to
restore mutual confidence as the two sides prepared to usher in a new era in transatlantic
cooperation . An FTA "is not just in the interest of the EU, but it is also clearly in the interest of the US," Barroso said.
German Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser Schnarrenberger has demanded a detailed clarification from the US on the alleged NSA
espionage activities before FTA negotiations can get under way. Peer Steinbrueck, chancellor Merkel's main opponent in the
parliamentary election in September, has said that the FTA
negotiations should be delayed until the espionage
allegations are sufficiently clarified.
Key to relations
Asia News Monitor 13 – (Asia News Monitor, 7/3/13, “European Union: EU Furious Over Reported
NSA Surveillance,” ProQuest) //twemchen
Senior European Union officials have
angrily demanded answers from the United States after a German
magazine alleged the U.S. National Security Agency bugged EU offices and gained access to its internal
computer networks as part of its spying activities. The president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, said Sunday
that if the reports are true "it would have a severe impact on EU-U.S. relations." He called for "full
clarification" from U.S. authorities. Germany's justice minister, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, accused Washington of using
"Cold War" methods against its allies, saying it is "beyond comprehension that our friends in the U.S. see Europeans as enemies."
Some have called
for a suspension of talks on the trans-Atlantic f ree t rade a greement. On
NSA placed listening devices in European Union offices
in Washington, Brussels and at the United Nations in New York, and infiltrated EU
computers to monitor telephone conversations, e-mails and other documents. It quoted secret U.S. documents obtained
Saturday, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported that the
from fugitive whistleblower and former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Snowden fled the U.S. to Hong Kong in May and then
disclosed key documents about the surveillance programs being conducted by the National Security Agency to thwart terrorism.
Earlier this month, he flew to Moscow and is believed to be staying in a transit zone at the airport while seeking asylum in Ecuador.
Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa said Sunday that Snowden's fate is in the hands of Russian authorities because he cannot leave
the airport without a valid U.S. passport. He said his government cannot begin considering asylum for Snowden until he reaches
Ecuador or an Ecuadorian Embassy. Russia has repeatedly stated that Snowden is not on Russian territory in the airport's transit
area and he is free to depart whenever he wants. Russian authorities repeated that position Sunday in response to Correa's
comments. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden asked Correa in a telephone call Friday to reject Snowden's asylum request. According to
an NSA document dated September 2010, only a few countries labeled as close friends by the U.S. are explicitly exempted from
monitoring - Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Der Spiegel reported that on an average day, the NSA monitored about 20
million German phone connections and 10 million Internet data sets, with the rate rising to 60 million phone connections on busy
days.
internal link – diplomats key
U.S. surveillance of foreign embassies is especially devastating –
undermines US-EU cooperation on security issues and restricts trade
EUCE 14 (European Union Center of North Carolina “The NSA Leaks and Transatlantic Relations”.
EUCE. 4 July 2014. http://europe.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Brief_1407.pdf)//JuneC//
The diplomatic fallout has been limited, but Snowden's revelations have impacted relations on a deeper
level: the bonds of trust between Europe and America have been undermined. The loss of trust has been
caused not so much by the mass collection of citizens’ data as by the spying on diplomats and heads of
government. In fact, while mass data collections has somewhat soured public perceptions of the US, the fact that European
agencies were complicit in the data’s collection has somewhat curbed the fallout. Arguably, mass collection of data has undermined
citizens’ trust towards political elites in general: polling carried out by the German Marshall Policy Area: Snowden, the NSA and
Europe European Union Center of North Carolina EU Briefings The European Union Center of the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill is funded by the European Union to advance knowledge and understanding of the EU and its member countries. Fund of
the United States suggests that Europeans are opposed to surveillance carried out by the US and by their own governments alike.16
bugging of embassies, diplomats and heads of
government has significantly undermined the 'special' nature of the transatlantic
relationship in the eyes of the political elite, harming US-German relations in particular. The revelation
On the other hand, it may be argued that the
that the US was carrying out monitoring from its Embassy in the heart of Berlin served almost as a visual metaphor for the loss of
trust. In her state visit to the US in May 2014, Merkel sought to lessen the tension, but also stated that there were still difficulties to
overcome, and that ‘there will have to be more than just business as usual’.17 The fact that initial plans for a no-spy agreement
between Germany and the US were shelved is further testimony to the simmering tension. Germans, once enthusiastic of Obama,
have now become disillusioned with his foreign policy: the failure to close down Guantanamo, the proliferation of drone strikes and
the different attitudes towards intervention in Libya and Syria have all contributed to this perception. The fallout between the US
and Germany may not yet have reached its endpoint: on June 4th 2014, the German Federal prosecutor launched an official
investigation in the hacking of Merkel's phone, a sign that anger over the spying has prevailed over considerations of the potential
damages to the relationship with the US. Throughout Western Europe, with the possible exception of Britain, the
NSA revelations have been a significant blow to transatlantic unity. Compared to one year ago, the
transatlantic relationship is not markedly weaker, but it now looks self-interested and pragmatic rather
than idealistic and selfless. PART III: Future prospects While extensive co-operation between the US and
Europe is set to continue, the leaks and the loss of trust they entail are likely to have a series of
concrete
consequences in the medium term. First of all, it is possible that public concerns over mass data
collection will lead to increased pressure on European intelligence agencies to weaken their cooperation with US agencies , potentially undermining collective security: more likely however is that
governments will weather this storm and it will be business as usual to a great degree. As far
as the TTIP is concerned,
negotiations are still ongoing, but it seems increasingly likely that fears over data protection will make it
harder to adopt common standards , while fears of backdoor access may lead to resistance to
the opening up of European government procurement to US companies. Ultimately, the European
Parliament will have to approve the final deal, a potentially difficult hurdle to overcome. To keep
abreast with the pace of technical change revealed by the NSA’s techniques, the EU and European
governments are set to launch a set of initiatives designed to update the EU's digital infrastructure so that
it is better protected from external probing, and to create a stronger regulatory framework for data
protection. In this regard, in October the Commission developed proposals for the reform of data protection, ensuring that nonEuropean companies respect EU data protection law and only transfer data outside of the Union in specific circumstances. These
combined efforts are likely to result in a strengthened European data protection system and in stronger
regulations, which could end up restricting not only American spying
but also the operations of US
companies in Europe if they fail to comply with European standards. This may actually serve as a
stimulus for the US to adopt similar standards . In diplomatic terms, there is likely to be a symbolic push for a
formal or informal agreement over spying, and a push to review existing EU-US data transfer agreements. Official limitations on
actual spying seems unlikely after the failure of the US-German 'no spy' agreement. Instead of a formal understanding it is likely that
the US will refrain from indiscriminate spying in the future, recognizing the potential for diplomatic fallout. In terms of datatransfer agreements, the EU is seeking to strengthen the existing 'Safe Harbor' data transfer framework, ensuring that the US does
not abuse the clause allowing extensive transfers for national security reasons. Moreover negotiations are ongoing for an 'Umbrella
Agreement' for data transfer in the context of counterterrorism and judicial cooperation: the key point will be securing the right of
European citizens to seek redress in American courts in case of improper data transfer. The US is likely to be receptive to these
initiatives, realizing that these are conciliatory steps and that indiscriminate spying has the potential to cause serious damage. If
current negotiations concerning future co-operation in data sharing succeed, it is possible that Snowden's
revelations will eventually come to be seen as having had some positive side-benefits within a wider
narrative of treachery: spurring co-operation and playing a role in restoring trust and renewing the
transatlantic partnership in the digital age. It will be possible for the US to weather this storm of adverse
publicity and diplomatic fallout but if this is the path chosen it will cast a shadow over transatlantic
relations:
it will be better to offer symbolic reforms to curb the NSA’s perceived excesses.
impact – TFTP
Surveillance scandals destroy terrorism cooperation – the EU’s already
threatening TFTP suspension
Young 14 – Senior VP and Chief Strategy Officer of National Security Parnters, LLC, served as the
Executive Director for the Directorate of Plans and Policya t the United States Cyber Command, and as a
senior leader at the NSA (Mark Young, Summer 2014, “National Insecurity: The Impacts of Illegal
Disclosures of Classified Information,” 10 ISJLP 367, Lexis)//twemchen
Because terror
financing became a priority well before September 11, 2001, the E uropean U nion and the U nited
S tates began to permit U.S. agencies "limited access to bank data transferred through the
SWIFT network." 73 The agreement supported the U.S. Terrorist Finance Tracking Program
established after the September 11 attacks. 74 Recent disclosures have focused attention on the data reportedly
accessed by the NSA. In response to this arrangement being made public, the European Union has threatened to
"suspend or even terminate the crucial EU-U.S. Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme ." 75 The national
security impact of this disclosure is the potential loss of an apparently valued source of financial
intelligence. 76 The importance of terrorist financing is self-evident. If, pursuant to an international agreement, the NSA had
access to international money transfers, it is reasonable to believe [*386] that U.S. Intelligence Community was well positioned to
interdict the planning and execution of violent actions against the United States or her allies. If financial transfer
information becomes unavailable as a result of the illicit disclosures of collection of networks such as SWIFT, then
U.S. understanding and ability to prevent terrorist actions is significantly degraded .
Bugging foreign embassies fracture free trade negotiations
Siuberski 13 (Philippe. Université libre de Bruxelles. “EU warns trade deal under threat over US
bugging claims”. 1 July 2013. AFP. https://sg.news.yahoo.com/eu-warns-trade-deal-under-threat-overus-040306686.html)//JuneC//
A long-awaited trade deal between the European Union and the United States could be in jeopardy over allegations that Washington
bugged EU offices, European Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding warned. It is the latest spying claim attributed to fugitive
intelligence analyst Edward Snowden. Revelations in Monday's Guardian that the US also targeted the Washington embassies of
France, Italy and Greece look set to further strain relations. Brussels, Paris and Berlin reacted angrily to a report in German weekly
Der Spiegel on Sunday which detailed covert surveillance by the US National Security Agency (NSA) on EU diplomatic missions. The
report was based on confidential documents, some of which it had been able to consult via Snowden. Reding warned that talks
to create what would be the world's biggest free trade area, formally launched earlier this month, could be
jeopardised if the bugging allegations proved true. "We can't negotiate a large transatlantic market if there
is any doubt that our partners are bugging the offices of European negotiators," Reding said at a meeting
in Luxembourg, her spokesperson told AFP. "We have immediately been in contact with the US authorities in
Washington DC and in Brussels and have confronted them with the press reports," the European Commission said in a statement.
The US said Sunday it would respond to the EU via diplomatic channels over the bugging allegations. "While we are not going to
comment publicly on specific alleged intelligence activities, as a matter of policy we have made clear that the United States gathers
foreign intelligence of the type gathered by all nations," said a statement from the office of the Director of National Intelligence in
Washington. One document, dated September 2010 and classed as "strictly confidential", describes how the NSA kept tabs on the
European Union's mission in Washington, Der Spiegel said. According to documents seen by the Guardian, bugs were
implanted on the encrypted fax machine at the embassy as part of operation 'Perdido', set up to learn
about rifts between member nations. The EU delegation at the United Nations was subject to similar surveillance, Der
Spiegel said, adding that the spying also extended to the 27-member bloc's Brussels headquarters. The files also revealed that,
in addition to the EU, the US embassies of France, Greece and Italy were among 38 "targets" of NSA
spying operations, Monday's Guardian reported. In the only US reaction to the Spiegel claims so far, Deputy National
Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, while refusing to be drawn into commenting directly on the allegations, said Saturday it was "worth
noting" the US was "very close" to EU security services. The reports are the latest in a series of allegations about US spying activity
revealed by Snowden, a former NSA contractor. He is now stranded at a Moscow airport transit zone looking for a country to accept
his asylum request after the United States issued a warrant for his arrest and revoked his passport. EU powerhouse Germany said
the United States must quickly say whether the spying allegations were true or not. "It's beyond our imagination that our friends in
the US consider the Europeans as enemies," Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said in a statement. "If the
media reports are accurate, it is reminiscent of actions among enemies during the Cold War." French Foreign
Minister Laurent Fabius said Paris had also demanded an explanation from US authorities. Such spying activities, if confirmed,
would be "totally unacceptable", he said. European Parliament president Martin Schulz said in a statement he was "deeply worried
and shocked" by the reports. "If the allegations prove to be true, it would be an extremely serious matter which will have a severe
impact on EU-US relations." In its latest report on Sunday, Der Spiegel said leaked documents showed that the US secret services
had targeted Germany more than any other EU country. Citing figures from NSA documents, the magazine said that half a billion
forms of communication -- phone calls, emails, text messages and Internet chat entries -- were monitored in Germany every month.
The US authorities issued an arrest warrant this month for Snowden after he revealed details of the NSA's so-called PRISM
programme which collects and analyses information from Internet and phone users around the world, with access to data from
Google, Yahoo! and other Internet firms. US officials say the information gathered is vital in the fight against
global terrorism, but the scale of the programme raised deep concerns around the world. Snowden himself
remains in political limbo at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport after flying in from Hong Kong last week, unable to fly on without legal
travel documents or exit the airport without a Russian visa. Ecuador's President Rafael Correa said US Vice President Joe Biden had
asked Quito to reject any asylum request from the 30-year-old. Washington wants to put him on trial on charges including
espionage. Correa said Snowden's fate was in Russia's hands as Quito could not process his asylum request until he was on
Ecuadoran soil.
eu rels good – russia aggression
Strong EU relations curb Russian aggression
Cohen 6/25 (Ariel, a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council's Global Energy Center and
the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center, He is also Director of the Center for Energy, Natural Resources and
Geopolitics at the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security and Principal of International Market
Analysis Ltd, 2015, “Hey, Remember Me? It’s Europe. The Transatlantic Alliance is in Trouble”
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/hey-remember-me-it-s-europe)//cc
"We lived next to Russia for 500 years—listen to what we have to say," Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski said at the Bratislava
Global Security Forum on June 20. He's right. The
West needs to pay attention and achieve strategic
clarity in Europe and beyond before it's too late. There are no shortage of crises and
challenges—ISIS, the refugee crisis involving state failure in North Africa, Syria and
Iraq, the rise of China, and Greece's potential exit from the European Union to name a
few—facing the United States and its allies, but Ukraine and Russia are among the key
tests to the transatlantic relationship. Russia is becoming more authoritarian,
nationalist, militarist, and expansionist. Ukraine is inching closer to an economic
meltdown which is likely to translate into a greater social crisis. Eighteen months after Russia
annexed Crimea, transatlantic unity has held. But Europeans are increasingly looking inward and are in
a bad mood. Pew's recent opinion poll confirms that large majorities of Europeans are unwilling to
defend NATO allies, while 85 percent expect the United States to come to their rescue if
attacked. NATO, the European Union, and national governments need to convince
young people that their world and values are worth defending. It's true that Europe needs
economic growth to pay for its defense. Not all members are willing to spend two percent of GDP on defense as
recommended by the Wales NATO summit. In fact, only five countries do: Estonia, Greece, Poland, the United States, and the
United Kingdom. Greece's potential exit from the Eurozone may heighten turmoil in the financial markets and slow growth, further
diminishing commitments to robust military spending. Europe
is also internally conflicted and distracted
with other pressing issues. During the Bratislava Global Security Forum, the far right in Slovakia demonstrated against
accepting refugees from North Africa. Taking into account the high unemployment rate among the young across Europe, the
potential for social destabilization is high and the momentum for Euro-Atlantic values is
low. There's also concern about divisions in Central and Eastern Europe. Austria and
Hungary want a reliable supply of oil and gas, and Russian cash. Others, like Czech
Republic and Slovakia, buy into Putin's tough image and pseudo-conservative narrative and some believe that
residual pan-Slavic solidarity still applies to Russia, but not to Ukraine. Estonian President
Toomas Henrik Ilves and the former Czech Foreign Minister Alexander Vondra have warned that the European consensus on social
values, including overstressing individual liberties, while neglecting one's duties to the society and the country, went over the top.
Ilves cautioned in Bratislava that we should not stress the differences between old and new Europe, but find ways to unite Central
and Eastern Europe with Western Europe. After all, they were a part of a whole for over 1,000 years. The United States found a
competent partner in German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and those favoring a softer approach to Putin's Russia in the German
business community have been restrained. But a
vocal anti-atlanticist minority in Europe, on the far
right and far left, takes the Kremlin's cash and buys Moscow's message. Its message is an antiAmerican narrative, draped in a pseudo-traditionalist, anti-democratic values that
claims to defend Christianity, while promoting homophobia and racism. Berlin, Moscow, and
Washington have prevented the conflict in Ukraine from getting out of control, but Moscow's strategic goals are far
from clear. It appears that Moscow has abandoned its plans for Novorossiya—the eight provinces in east and south Ukraine.
Even though Moscow’s endgame is opaque, the West needs to be prepared for a Russian offensive in
Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic States. Massive military exercises suggest
that Putin isn’t messing around. He just added forty new missiles to his strategic nuclear arsenal, while Russia's
short-range Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad may have received nuclear warheads. By extending the Iskanders’ range, the Kremlin
may have violated the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. Russia's
incessant prodding of Western air
defenses and in Finnish and Swedish waters may hint at how far the Kremlin's ambitions stretch. But it
could also be mere posturing. The answers to these questions require more human intelligence gathering and strategic planning that
we frankly don't do well. One hopes that the sanctions and lower oil prices will change Russia's behavior in Ukraine and in Europe,
but oil
is already inching higher, and hope is not a strategy. If the conflict in Ukraine
escalates, millions of refugees will stream into Europe, and there will be no sea to stop them. NATO is
rightly focused on Russia as never before. Yet it needs to put its money and muscle where its mouth is; it should preposition military equipment in Central and Eastern Europe, as the United States plans to do, and
expand military assistance to Ukraine, including defensive weapons and training. But that's
not enough. I just returned five weeks abroad and spoke with foreign leaders and policy experts in China, Israel, Kazakhstan,
Montenegro, Russia, and Slovakia. There
is not enough clarity. Frustratingly, we're still discussing strategic
information aspects of Russia's belligerence in the Ukraine conflict. To state the obvious, policy prescriptions often get
foggy without a clear strategy.
eu rels good – asia war
EU relations solve Asian conflicts- but reduced surveillance on Germany is
key
Timmermann 14 (Martina, DAAD/AICGS Research Fellow, “Setting the Stage for a U.S.-German
Partnership Befitting the Twenty-First Century”, http://www.aicgs.org/publication/setting-the-stage-fora-u-s-german-partnership-befitting-the-twenty-first-century/)//cc
Critical challenges facing the German-American relationship—in Ukraine and Russia,
Iraq, Syria, Israel and Palestine, Afghanistan, and several countries in Africa—urgently
need solutions. Overcoming them would be easier and mutually beneficial if Germany, the
European Union, and the U.S. walked more closely side by side. Such closer cooperation
would be beneficial not only to conflicts in and around Europe, but also to a set of
conflicts in East Asia that have the potential to exert a major global impact: the conflict
between China, Taiwan, Brunei, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia over the Spratly
Islands in the South China Sea and the conflict between China and Japan on the
Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea. The United States has been prodded by its allies
in Asia-Pacific to serve as a mediator. Several American observers (like Jonathan Pollack[1] or Daniel Sneider[2])
have also argued for U.S. high-level shuttle diplomacy. Giving this a second thought, however, it is obvious that the
United States as a direct stakeholder in the region, with its hands tied by its bilateral
security treaties with both Japan and the Republic of Korea, could not really fill the role
of an independent broker on this matter. China, moreover, has already made clear that it
will not accept any American role as a mediator in these conflicts. The U.S. would
therefore benefit from involving a trusted and reliable partner, such as the EU, whose
reputation for credibility and integrity in peaceful multilateral conflict resolution is well
known. Still, although European economic interests would also be affected by conflicts in Asia, and especially when militaries are
involved, these conflicts have not advanced to a center stage debate between the U.S. and Europe. Instead, there seems to be
a shared perception that conflicts occurring beyond Europe’s doorstep do not require
European attention or, from an American perspective, do not require European
involvement. This, however, would be a waste of precious political opportunity. Particularly in East Asia, all
stakeholders would benefit from stronger U.S.-European cooperation resulting in a
more constructive complementing of their experiences and soft and hard policy
instruments. For example, the unsolved history issue between Japan, China, and Korea is
widely found to be one of the root causes for the stalling of other vital negotiations on
climate change, nuclear disarmament, food, and energy security. Here, Germany (under the EU
flag) could take the lead and come in as a mediator on World War II history reconciliation. Germany, with
its internationally recognized and respected war history reconciliation efforts, would certainly qualify for this job. Still,
suggesting Germany as a trusted and reliable partner seems almost audacious given the
most recent German-U.S. conflict on intelligence gathering and the roles of trust (as seen
from the German side) and reliability (as perceived from the American side) in their partnership. The
conflict on “spying on friends” is therefore not as silly, emotional, or over-the-top as
several American observers seem to think. On the contrary, it has brought to light a lingering German
discontent with the perspective, current structure, and running of this partnership. How deep German frustration
goes is highlighted by the fact that the original debate on “spying on friends” has started
to impact other highly relevant policy areas, most prominently the negotiations on the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Any new joint U.S.German/EU initiative may equally be overshadowed. Going back to business as usual is
therefore not an option. What is needed instead is the joint design of a remodeled
strategic U.S.-German partnership with an enhanced quality of a “trusted partnership.”
Such a partnership needs to address TTIP as well as determine a mutually acceptable agreement on intelligence sharing and a
convincing vision of the future role of NATO and European defense policy. To
set the stage for this partnership
and its sustainable success, it is important to understand how the other side “ticks.” And
this, again, requires a closer look at current U.S. and German mindsets and mutual perceptions.
eu rels good – isis
EU and US cooperation deters ISIS
Katulis et al 14 (Brian, 9/10, senior fellow at the center for American progress, “Defeating ISIS: An
Integrated Strategy to Advance Middle East Stability”,
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/report/2014/09/10/96739/defeating-isis-anintegrated-strategy-to-advance-middle-east-stability/)//cc
The September 2014 NATO summit took several steps to energize the transatlantic
community to confront ISIS. Nine countries pledged to join U.S. efforts to counter ISIS,
but no specific commitments were made. And as evidenced over the past few years in Afghanistan and Libya, follow through on
commitments is essential. Further, the
United States and its Western partners need to proactively
manage the dangers posed by European and American citizens now fighting alongside
ISIS. The United States should work with its transatlantic partners and traditional allies
to: Enable reliable and capable partners in the region to take the fight directly to ISIS.
The United States is providing the greatest support to forces fighting ISIS. NATO and
other U.S. allies should together develop a strategy to help the region counter ISIS with
technical support and military assistance. This should include specific commitments to provide support to the
Iraqi government, Kurdish forces, and third-way opposition alternatives to the Assad regime and ISIS in Syria. Enhance law
enforcement and intelligence fusion efforts to identify and counter ISIS and other
terrorist fighters holding Western passports. This should build on existing U.S.European efforts in coordination with the International Criminal Police Organization, or INTERPOL.
More than 12,000 foreign fighters are estimated to have flocked to Iraq and Syria.
According to intelligence agencies and outside experts, one-quarter of these fighters come from Western countries. With an
estimated 3,000 individuals, including perhaps 500 each from Britain and France, the dangers of extremists coming home to
continue the fight with acts of terrorism cannot be ignored. Western
countries should partner with allies in
the Middle East and local communities on counter-radicalization efforts.
eu rels good – protectionism
Decline in US-EU relations causes protectionism
Bergsten 99 - Director, Institute for International Economics (C. Fred, “America and Europe: Clash
of the Titans?” FOREIGN AFFAIRS, v. 78 n. 2, March/April 1999, p. 20) //AD
Both sides now run the risk of drift and even paralysis in transatlantic trade policy -- with
potentially severe repercussions for the rest of the world. A slide into protectionism or even a
failure to continue opening new markets would have a major impact on the global trading system. Could
we then expect Asian economies, who depend on expanded exports to emerge from their deep recessions, to keep their own markets
open? Would the transition economies in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and Asia stick to their liberalization strategies?
With the backlash against globalization already evident everywhere, the ominous inward-looking
protectionist and nationalistic policies that the world has rejected so decisively could
reemerge once again. A failure of transatlantic leadership would make such policy
reversals particularly likely. The United States and the EU are the only economic
superpowers and the only two regions enjoying reasonable economic growth. They created the
GATT system and, more recently, the WTO. Despite their own occasional transgressions, they have
nurtured and defended the system throughout its evolution over the past 50 years. While
Japan has been important on a few issues and the developing countries played an encouraging role in the Uruguay Round, the
Atlantic powers built and sustained the world trade order. Their failure to maintain that
commitment would devastate the entire regime.
eu rels good – iran prolif
US-EU relations key to negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program
Kerr 5 – foreign proliferation research analyst, analyst for the Center for Strategic and International
Studies' International Security Program, managed the defense program at the Lexington Institute, writer
for the Anteon Corporation's Center for Security Strategies and Operations, M.A. in International
Relations from the University of South Carolina, and B.A. in History from the University of Vermont(Paul,
"Iran-EU Nuclear Negotiations Begin", Arms Control Today, February,
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_01-02/Iran_EU) //AD
Washington has repeatedly pushed for resolutions that take a harder line on Iran at past board
meetings but has failed to persuade the other board members to agree. The United States also continues to express
concern that Iran is pursuing covert nuclear activities. U.S. Ambassador Jackie Sanders
told the IAEA board Nov. 29 that Washington wants Iran “immediately” to provide
access to Iran’s Parchin military complex, which U.S. officials believe might have facilities
that could be used to test conventional high explosives for use in an implosion-type nuclear
weapon. The IAEA has not yet received permission to visit, the State Department official said Dec. 16. (See ACT, October 2004.)
Washington failed to persuade the board to adopt language giving the IAEA expanded authority to inspect Iranian facilities. Instead,
the November resolution requests that Iran “provide any access deemed necessary by the Agency” in accordance with Iran’s
Safeguards agreements require states-parties to the
nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to allow the IAEA to monitor their declared civilian
nuclear activities to ensure that they are not diverted to military use. Additional
protocols augment the agency’s authority to detect clandestine nuclear activities, but
there are limits to the agency’s ability to inspect military facilities. Tehran has signed an additional
additional protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement.
protocol and has agreed to abide by its provisions until Iran’s parliament ratifies the agreement. On the trade front,
Washington’s lack of enthusiasm for engagement with Iran could also complicate the
negotiations. The suspension agreement states that the Europeans “will actively support
the opening of Iranian accession negotiations” at the World Trade Organization (WTO).
A State Department official told Arms Control Today Dec. 20 that the Europeans wanted a WTO General Council meeting
earlier in the month to call for negotiations to begin, but the U.S. delegation said that
Washington is not ready to move forward on the matter. U.S. support is necessary because
the WTO makes decisions by consensus.
eu rels good – warming
US-EU cooperation critical to address climate change – joint national
approaches
Sivaram and Livingston 6/23 - B.S. in Engineering Physics, B.A. in International
Relations, Honors from the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC)
at Stanford University, Rhodes Scholar and Ph.D. in Physics from Oxford University,
Fellow at Greenberg Center on Geoeconomics and Council on Foreign Relations, Senior
Advisor on Water and Energy Policy, Fellow at Global Agenda Council on Urbanization
in World Economic Forum;*associate in Carnegie’s Energy and Climate Program,
member at World Trade Organization in Geneva and at the United Nations Industrial
Development Organization, selected as a Future Energy Leader for the 2014-2017 term
of the World Energy Council, adjunct lecturer at the University of Southern California
(Varun, David, “How California and Germany Can Fix the Climate Agenda,” Foreign
Affairs, 6-23-15, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-06-23/leading-between) //AD
For the last two decades, climate talks, and their top-down multinational approaches,
have largely failed to curb rising temperatures. Since then, a number of subnational actors
(provinces, cities, businesses, and civil society organizations, among others) have sought to tackle
climate change from the bottom up. For example, at a summit in New York last year, various
subnational associations pledged to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Around 75
mayors from around the world, recognizing that cities account for some 70 percent of all
greenhouse gas emissions, signed a Mayors Compact to accelerate ongoing efforts to shrink
their carbon footprint. And major civil society organizations and businesses also signed
various pledges on a range of initiatives, from expanding energy efficiency to halting
deforestation. These initiatives are promising, but they will not do enough. According to at
least one study, the subnational initiatives agreed to at last year’s summit have the
potential to reduce emissions by only a fifth of the required reduction needed to keep
global warming under two degrees Celsius—a threshold that if exceeded, may trigger
fiercer storms and increased droughts. Subnational progress is limited because ground-up
climate diplomacy has largely operated on an independent track from international
diplomacy. The risk with these parallel approaches is that ground-up goals will not be
incorporated into top-down ones, which risks marginalizing their efficacy. Unlocking the
potential of subnational climate action will require integration of subnational and
international initiatives. And the two entities that can bridge that gap are California and
Germany—two of the world’s pioneers when it comes to climate policies. Both are on track to
reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year
2050, the level of reduction that the world must achieve in order to stop temperatures from rising
another two degrees Celsius. California Governor Jerry Brown recently pledged to reach 50
percent renewable power in the state by 2030, from just over 20 percent today; German
Chancellor Angela Merkel recently reaffirmed her vision for Germany to meet all of its
power needs with renewable energy by 2050 (the country is around the 30 percent mark today).
By contrast, OECD nations on average use only 10 percent renewable energy. (All examples exclude large
hydropower.) Because California and Germany have both subnational and national
characteristics, they enjoy broad respect from cities, provinces, and nations alike. In this way,
they can “lead from between” and bridge the two levels of diplomacy. Both exert a high
level of influence within much larger political contexts—the United States and the European Union,
respectively—and exemplify how subnational action can elevate national ambition. Both are also among
the top ten global economies, able to move markets with policy. Already, California’s aggressive
vehicle fuel economy standards have been adopted at the national level, and it singlehandedly pushed automakers to produce electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles through its zero
emission vehicle regulations. For its part, Germany pushed the European Union to pledge to
emission reductions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. It can also claim most of the credit
for kickstarting the global solar panel industry through its Feed-in Tariff incentive program. Governments
that once criticized California and Germany for far-fetched policies now look to them for tactical guidance.
The place to push for this approach and merge local and international efforts is at the
December UN Climate Conference in Paris. This conference is already poised to make
progress, having evolved from the top-down framework of the past to a more bottom-up
model in which nations propose their own targets. California and Germany can complete the
transformation from a top-down to a bottom-up paradigm by advocating for the inclusion of local action
plans in any Paris climate agreement. Furthermore, they should push for a framework that
encourages subnational actors to work constructively with national governments to
scale up local innovations to meet and elevate national emission reduction goals. Ideally,
the Paris agreement will also set up a transparent system to monitor and verify national
progress toward climate action pledges. California and Germany should encourage the adoption of
the Paris mandates at the most local level. They can start by appealing to an already enthusiastic pilot
group: a group of 12 subnational provinces and states that California and the German state of BadenWürttemberg led, in May, to sign an agreement pledging to cut emissions by at least 80 percent below the
1990 level by 2050. The provinces and cities that seek to transform their local energy
systems can also benefit from California and Germany’s expertise. Both could offer various
consulting services to enable local policymakers and energy professionals to share best practices in, for
example, the market design and technical integration of renewable energy. Germany could share the
success and failures of its experiment with the “renewables club,” now called the
International Renewables Energy Agency, which comprises 140 nations that share data
and best practices on sustainable energy initaitives. California and Germany should
carve out a similar space for local technical cooperation. Facilitating the exchange of expertise
will be inexpensive compared with the cost of developing that expertise in the first place. And in California
and Germany, energy businesses will likely find this exchange a lucrative one since it provides an
opportunity to connect with new markets. The yawning gap between California and Germany’s
progress and the lack thereof around the world challenges the idea that climate change
must be addressed with independent multinational and subnational approaches. After
decades of pioneering action on climate change, it is time these two climate leaders bring the rest of the
world up to speed.
impact – TTIP
Surveillance scandals destroy TTIP negotiations
Gold Coast Bulletin 13 – (7/2/13, “EU fury at surveillance claims,” The Gold Coast Bulletin [Southport,
Qld] 02 July 2013: 15, ProQuest) //twemchen
BRUSSELS: A
trade deal between the European Union and the United States could be at risk over
claims Washington bugged EU offices . It is the latest spying claim attributed to fugitive intelligence analyst Edward
Snowden. Revelations that the US also targeted the Washington embassies of France, Italy and
Greece look set to further strain relations . Brussels, Paris and Berlin reacted angrily to a report of
surveillance by the US National Security Agency on EU diplomatic missions.
Spying allegations block Trans-Atlantic trade deal – mistrust over
negotiations
McGeough 13 (Paul, “US actions spook European allies,” Sydney Morning Herald, 7-1-13,
http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-actions-spook-european-allies-20130701-2p7f8.html) //AD
As Washington makes headway in its bid to narrow asylum options for the fugitive leaker Edward Snowden, more
in the
whistleblower's cluster-bomb of revelations are prompting global anger and disbelief –
the extent to which the US spies on its allies in Europe and beyond. The import of sensational
weekend reports by the German magazine Der Spiegel and The Guardian in Britain amounts to this: Washington's
industrial-scale snooping is embedded in the phone, internet and computer services of
38 foreign embassies in Washington and at the United Nations in New York; the
European Union is hacked and bugged in both cities, but even on its home turf in the
Belgian capital Brussels, US spies run an eavesdropping operation on the EU's
headquarters; and getting special attention is Germany, where the NSA hoovers up as many as 500 million communications,
by phone and internet each month. Describing various bugs and their concealment along with the use of specialised antennas, one of
the documents quoted by Der Spiegel states: “We can attack the signals of most foreign and third-class partners, and we do it too.”
American allies among the countries whose embassies are listed as "targets" include:
France, Italy, Greece, India, Japan, Mexico, South Korea and Turkey. Each embassy
seemed to be a self-contained surveillance operation with its own name, according to The
Guardian. Listening to the French at the UN was "Blackfoot" and in Washington was
"Wabash". The Italian embassy in Washington had two names – "Bruneau" and
"Hemlock". Suggesting that the former contract intelligence worker Snowden has put in place an elaborate country-by-country
plan of leaks to cause maximum diplomatic embarrassment for the US, the German magazine referred to its weekend reports as the
start of a series. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been working with Snowden, confirmed as much when he told a US TV
news report: “There's no stopping the publishing process at this stage – great care has been taken to make sure that Mr Snowden
can't be pressured by any state to stop the publication process.” The Obama administration had little to say on the reports. But
Michael Hayden, a former head of both the CIA and the NSA who often fills the void in the absence of a White House talking-head,
struck a jarring note on CBS' Face the Nation. In
what seemed to add up to an admission of sorts and a
"get real, boys" dig at Washington's allies, Hayden said: “No 1: The US does not conduct
espionage. No 2: Our Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans' privacy, is not an
international treaty. No 3: Any European who wants to go out and rend their garments
with regard to international espionage, should look first and find out what their own
governments are doing.” The first target of European anger at the revelations could be
ambitious negotiations for a trans-Atlantic trade pact worth hundreds of
billions of dollars. The first substantive talks on the deal are scheduled to get under
way in the coming weeks. EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding reportedly told a
Luxembourg meeting: “We can't negotiate over a big trans-Atlantic market if
there is the slightest doubt that our partners are carrying out spying
activities on the offices of our negotiators.” Amid angry comparisons of US spying with the work of the hated
Stasi in post-World War II East Germany and claims that Washington has reverted to the worst conduct of the Cold War, there
were calls for the talks to be postponed, pending Washington explaining itself.
Spying scandal decks EU relations- resolving it is a prerequisite to TTIP
negotiations
Krause 13- secretary general of the Anglo-American Press Association in Paris (Axel,
“The U.S. Spying Saga: Europe’s Anger, Washington’s Cool and Compromise,”
transAtlantic Magazine, 7/07/13, http://transatlantic-magazine.com/the-u-s-spying-saga-europesanger-washingtons-cool-and-compromise/) //AD
Last weekend’s bombshell report by Germany’s Der Spiegel – stating it had seen documents showing that the
National Security Agency was spying on European Union and diplomatic offices primarily in
Washington, Brussels and New York – touched off not only angry protests throughout Europe. But a
threat by France’s president, among others, to block the planned start Monday of
negotiations for the new trans-Atlantic trade agreement until Washington agreed to credible dataprotection guarantees. During the past few days, European sources have been telling us that, in varying degrees, we were
witnessing the emergence of one of the most potentially-damaging episodes in the
postwar history of trans-Atlantic relations, fueled in part by widespread disappointment
with President Barack Obama over the administration’s, guarded, defensive-offensive response to
the saga, which is continuing. “The Iraq (war) crisis (2003) was the worst, with the possible exception of Suez (1956) and this crisis
could get worse, but indirectly as a result of the potential crippling of the trade pact,” known as the TTIP, commented Francois
Heisbourg, one of France’s leading analysts of trans-Atlantic strategic issues. Indeed,
there were signs earlier this
week that the pact negotiatons in Washington were heading for postponement. In firm,
menacing terms, President Francois Hollande said “we cannot accept this kind of
behavior between partners and allies,,” and that American spying should “immediately
stop.” Referring to the TTIP talks, he added we can only have negotiations, transactions,
in all areas once we have obtained these guarantees (from Washington) for France, but that goes
for the whole European Union…” Therefore, Mr. Hollande and his advisers urged, the
start of talks should be delayed for several weeks in order to give the administration time to
provide the EU detailed information on its spying program; a similar plea was made by outspoken
E.U. Justice Minister Viviane Reding. In Berlin, Chancellor Angela Merkel in somewhat milder terms, said
through her spokesman that “the monitoring of friends – this is unacceptable. It cannot be
tolerated. We are no longer in the Cold War…trust has to be re-established.” And while
Germany’s influential Suddeutsche Zeitung also urged that the TTIP talks be delayed “until the matter is
resolved,” it cautioned that a postponement “would also be to the detrement of Europe,” given that huge stakes for expanding
U.S.-EU trade in the next few years.
Bugging incident threatens TTIP negotiations- officials question US-EU
relations
Llana 13- Monitor's European Bureau Chief based in Paris, masters in journalism from
Columbia University, BA in history from the University of Michigan (Sara Miller, “Has
NSA spying put US-EU trade deal on the rocks? Revelations of broad US surveillance of
EU offices, particularly in Germany, have angered Europe,” Christian Science Monitor,
7/01/13, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2013/0701/Has-NSA-spying-put-USEU-trade-deal-on-the-rocks) //AD
Revelations that the United States has systematically spied on Europe are threatening
what is being billed as a pivotal moment for the transatlantic relationship: the start of negotiations next week
for a major trade deal. The latest disclosures from Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (NSA)
contractor, came in a report over the weekend in the German daily Der Spiegel, alleging that the NSA bugged
European Union offices and that half a billion phone calls, e-mails, and text messages from Germany alone are tapped by
the US in an average month – far surpassing the average attention given to other European allies. In fact, Germany is spied
on just as often as China or Iraq, the paper claims. If the extent of US surveillance in the world is not
surprising to some, it’s still controversial in Europe, especially in countries like Germany that
place a high priority on data privacy. But the timing of the revelations, as negotiations
for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are set to begin July 8, has created a
firestorm, says Johannes Thimm, an expert on US foreign policy at the German Institute
for International and Security Affairs in Berlin. “There are economic interests involved on both sides, and
while the [TTIP] is generally in the spirit of cooperation, there are some trade-offs and
really hard negotiations ahead,” Dr. Thimm says. American ability to access that communication as it is playing out,
he says, gives the US “a huge strategic advantage." The Spanish daily El Pais quoted a slew of EU officials voicing their outrage. The
European commissioner for justice and fundamental rights, Viviane Reding, said
plainly: "Partners do not spy on each other," she said. "We cannot negotiate over a big transatlantic
market if there is the slightest doubt that our partners are carrying out spying activities on
the offices of our negotiators.” The European Parliament's foreign affairs committee head, Elmar
Brok, reiterated that view. "The spying has taken on dimensions that I would never have thought possible from a
democratic state," he told Der Spiegel. "How should we still negotiate if we must fear that our
negotiating position is being listened to beforehand?" The anger has generated not only
threats that the TTIP is at risk, but that a cloud looms over the entire transatlantic
relationship. Germany Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said the fact that “our friends in the US see
Europeans as enemies exceeds the imaginable.” The president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, said that “if this is
true, it’s an immense scandal that could have a severe impact on relations between the
EU and the US.”
Spying crisis casts shadow on relations- trust issues displace trade
negotiations
Huffington Post 13 (Ned Simons, “Prism And Bugging Allegations 'Throw A Shadow'
Over EU-US Relations,” Huffington Post UK, 7/03/13,
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/03/european-america-spying-prismbugging_n_3541253.html) //AD
Allegations that American intelligence agencies spied on its missions in Washington and
New York "throws a shadow" over relations between the European Union and the
United States, the European Commission has said. Addressing MEP's in the European Parliament on
Wednesday afternoon, justice commission Viviane Reding suggested the allegations could put
the potential trade deal between Brussels and Washington at risk. "It throws a shadow
on the mutual trust which is indispensable in the relations between partners and allies,"
she said. "There needs to be confidence, there needs to be clarity among the negotiating partners."
"The message is clear - the fact that the programmes are said to be related to national security does not mean that anything goes."
The French and German governments
have also reacted with fury to a report in Germany's Der Spiegel
which alleged the American National Security Agency (NSA) had been spying on EU offices. The
information is believed to have been supplied by whistleblower Edward Snowden who leaked a series of documents to The Guardian
and The Washington Post detailing the NSA's surveillance programme. Reding told MEP's that she had also written to William
Hague to protest about allegations Britain's GCHQ spy agency has been running an extensive internet survellience programme
codenamed Tempora. "Privacy is a fundamental right and it as such not negotiable," she said. "The
debate on Prism only reinforced the fact many expect Europe to set a gold standard for data protection." Speaking during a debate in
the parliament, MEPs expressed outrage at the accusations that the US has been spying on the EU's diplomatic buildings in America.
Manfred Weber, a German member
of the parliament's justice committee, said European "trust
has been shaken" by the claims. "What our American friends have been up to is
unacceptable, you don't spy on your friends, you don't spy en masse on citizens of friendly states," he said.
Dimitrios Droutsas, a former Greek foreign minister, said the White House needed to provide explanations to the European
population on Prism. "If this information is proved true the
US must immediately put an end to these
practices," he said. Addressing the planned free trade agreement, he said: "EU investments and trade
agreements require respect of rights. As long as these are not being respected it's really
very difficult to see the opening of discussions and negotiations towards these kind of
agreements
Bugging risks severe damage to relations- “reminiscent of the Cold War”
CNN 13 (Josh Levs and Catherine E. Shoichet, “Europe furious, 'shocked' by report of
U.S. spying,” CNN, 7/01/13, http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/30/world/europe/eu-nsa) //AD
European officials reacted with fury Sunday to a report that the U.S. National Security
Agency spied on EU offices. The European Union warned that if the report is accurate, it will have
tremendous repercussions. "I am deeply worried and shocked about the allegations,"
European Parliament President Martin Schulz said in a statement. "If the allegations prove to be
true, it would be an extremely serious matter which will have a severe impact on EU-US
relations. On behalf of the European Parliament, I demand full clarification and require further information speedily from the
U.S. authorities with regard to these allegations." German Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger "said
if the accusations were true, it was reminiscent of the Cold War," ministry spokesman Anders
Mertzlufft said, adding that the minister "has asked for an immediate explanation from the United States." French Foreign Minister
Laurent Fabius called for a swift explanation from American authorities. "These
acts, if they are confirmed,
would be absolutely unacceptable," he said in a statement. The outrage from European officials
over the weekend was the latest fallout since Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency
computer contractor, started spilling details of U.S. surveillance programs to reporters earlier this month. Citing information from
secret documents obtained by Snowden, the
German news magazine Der Spiegel reported Sunday that
several U.S. spying operations targeted European Union leaders. Der Spiegel said it had "in part
seen" documents from Snowden that describe how the National Security Agency bugged EU officials'
Washington and New York offices and conducted
an "electronic eavesdropping operation" that
tapped into a EU building in Brussels, Belgium. The magazine's report also says that NSA spying has targeted telephone
and Internet connection data in Germany more than any other European nation. An average of up to 20 million phone connections
and 10 million Internet data connections are surveyed daily, Der Spiegel said, noting that the intensity of surveillance puts the U.S.
ally on par with China, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Another report Sunday claimed that surveillance extended beyond European offices.
The Guardian newspaper reported that one NSA document leaked by Snowden describes 38 embassies and missions as "targets" and
details surveillance methods that include planting bugs in communications equipment and collecting transmissions with specialized
antennae. Targets
included France, Italy, Greece, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, India and
Turkey, according to The Guardian.
Surveillance allegations hamper all negotiations- officials call for answers
Guardian 13 (Ian Traynor, Louise Osborne, Jamie Doward, “Key US-EU trade pact
under threat after more NSA spying allegations,” theguardian, 6/30/13,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/30/nsa-spying-europe-claims-us-eu-trade) //AD
The prospects for a new trade pact between the US and the European Union worth
hundreds of billions have suffered a severe setback following allegations that
Washington bugged key EU offices and intercepted phonecalls and emails from top officials. The
latest reports of NSA snooping on Europe – and on Germany in particular – went well beyond previous
revelations of electronic spying said to be focused on identifying suspected terrorists,
extremists and organised criminals. The German publication Der Spiegel reported that it had seen documents and
slides from the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden indicating that US agencies bugged the offices of the EU
in Washington and at the United Nations in New York. They are also accused of directing an
operation from Nato headquarters in Brussels to infiltrate the telephone and email networks at the
EU's Justus Lipsius building in the Belgian capital, the venue for EU summits and home of the European council. Without
citing sources, the magazine reported that more than five years ago security officers at the EU had noticed several missed calls
apparently targeting the remote maintenance system in the building that were traced to NSA offices within the Nato compound in
Brussels. The impact of the Der Spiegel allegations may be felt more keenly in Germany than in Brussels. The magazine said
Germany was the foremost target for the US surveillance programmes, categorising Washington's key European ally alongside
China, Iraq or Saudi Arabia in the intensity of the electronic snooping. Germany's
justice minister, Sabine LeutheusserSchnarrenberger, called for an explanation from the US authorities. "If the media reports are true, it is
reminiscent of the actions of enemies during the cold war," she was quoted as saying in the German
newspaper Bild. "It is beyond imagination that our friends in the US view Europeans as the
enemy." France later also asked the US authorities for an explanation. France's foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, said: " These
acts, if confirmed, would be completely unacceptable. "We expect the American authorities to answer the
legitimate concerns raised by these press revelations as quickly as possible.". Washington and Brussels are scheduled to open
ambitious free trade talks next week following years of arduous preparation. Senior
officials in Brussels are
worried that the talks would be overshadowed by the latest disclosures of US spying on
its closest allies. "Obviously we will need to see what is the impact on the trade talks," said a senior official in Brussels. A
second senior official said the allegations would cause a furore in the European parliament
and could then hamper relations with the US. Robert Madelin, one of Britain's most senior officials in the
European commission, tweeted that EU trade negotiators always operated on the assumption that their communications were
listened to. A spokesman for the European commission said: "We have immediately been in contact with the US authorities in
Washington and in Brussels and have confronted them with the press reports. They have told us they are checking on the accuracy of
the information released yesterday and will come back to us." There were calls from MEPs for Herman Van Rompuy, the president
of the European council – who has his office in the building allegedly targeted by the US – and José Manuel Barroso, the president
of the European commission, to urgently appear before the chamber to explain what steps they were taking in response to the
growing body of evidence of US and British electronic surveillance of Europe through the Prism and Tempora operations. Guy
Verhofstadt, the
former Belgian prime minister and leader of the liberals in the European
parliament, said: "This is absolutely unacceptable and must be stopped immediately. The
American data collection mania has achieved another quality by spying on EU officials and their meetings. Our trust is at
stake." Luxembourg's foreign minister, Jean Asselborn, told Der Spiegel: "If these reports are
true, it's disgusting." Asselborn called for guarantees from the very highest level of the US
government that the snooping and spying is immediately halted. Martin Schulz, the head of
the European parliament, said: "I am deeply worried and shocked about the allegations
of US authorities spying on EU offices. If the allegations prove to be true, it would be an extremely serious matter
which will have a severe impact on EU-US relations. "On behalf of the European parliament, I demand full
clarification and require further information speedily from the US authorities with regard to these allegations."
ttip good – econ/manufacturing
US-EU trade deal key to global economic growth and U.S. manufacturing
Needham 13 – Staff Writer, Journalism degree from Northwestern University (Vicki, “Manufacturers
Outline Priorities for a US-EU Free-Trade Deal,” The Hill, 3-27-13,
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/290617-manufacturers-press-for-us-eu-free-trade-deal-)//AD
Manufacturers want negotiators to target a reduction in tariffs and a smoothing of
regulatory policies during U.S.-European Union trade talks as part of an effort to help
create jobs and boost the economy . National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President and CEO Jay
Timmons sent a letter to President Obama on Wednesday calling for a reduction in trade barriers and costs while ensuring that any
agreement does not impose new labor, privacy, environmental or other standards that could hamstring competitiveness. In outlining
goals for the talks, which are expected to start in June, Timmons cited rules on trade facilitation, investment and intellectual
property along with duplicative and contradictory sanitary and phytosanitary rules as those that must be addressed. Timmons
suggested that any regulatory agreements must be designed to "favor markets and adhere to sound principles of science, risk
assessment and cost-benefit analysis." "More broadly, a
growth-producing U.S.-EU agreement will
enhance manufacturing competitiveness and commercial opportunities, and not
impose rules or seek to harmonize standards that would undermine the United States’
dynamic labor market, strong intellectual property protections or other policies that
promote innovation," Timmons wrote. "Proposals to adopt burdensome non-commercial
standards — from labor and privacy, to environmental and non-risk based regulations — would not only stall the negotiations,
they would undermine the ability to create the economic growth both our
economies seek ." Last week, the White House sent notice to Congress that it will officially
begin talks with the 27-nation European Union. Negotiations could last upward of two years. Timmons
also makes an argument for moving forward quickly with renewing trade promotion
authority as an avenue to getting a globally example-setting trade deal . "U.S.
export growth slowed over the past year, and the answer is access to new markets and
removing trade barriers," said David Hoover, chairman of NAM's international economic policy committee. "Trade
agreements have a proven track record of success, as exports to just our 20 free trade
agreement partners accounted for nearly half of U.S.-manufactured goods exports
last year.” The NAM backs with the High Level Working Group’s call for a comprehensive agreement that addresses a broad
range of bilateral trade and investment issues that will put the economies on both sides of the Atlantic in a stronger economic
position. "A
comprehensive trade agreement between the United States and EU would be
very beneficial to manufacturers in creating additional opportunities and further
developing the economic relationship between the world’s largest trading partners,” said
Greg Walters, chairman of NAM's U.S.-EU Task Force. “An ambitious agreement will drive economic
growth, lower existing barriers and serve as a model for the rest of the globe to
follow."
TTIP strengthens global economic relations and US-EU interdependence
European Commission 13 – (“Independent study outlines benefits of EU-US trade agreement”,
European Commission, 3-12-13, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-211_en.htm)//AD
An in-depth study by the Centre for Economic Policy Research, London, on the potential
effects of the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) has been released today. It
takes a detailed look at current transatlantic trade and investment flows and existing barriers to
these, and then uses economic modelling to estimate the potential impact of different policy
scenarios. The study highlights the huge gains to be made from liberalising EU-US
trade, not just for the two trading blocs, but also for the global economy. The study was commissioned
by the European Commission's Directorate General for Trade. This memo summarises the study's key
findings. Overall economic gains An ambitious and comprehensive trans-Atlantic trade and investment partnership
could bring significant economic gains as a whole for the EU (€119 billion a year) and the US (€95 billion a
year) once the agreement is fully implemented. This translates on average to an extra €545 in disposable income
each year for a family of four in the EU. The benefits for the EU and the US would not be at the expense
of the rest of the world. On the contrary, liberalising trade between the EU and the US would
have a positive impact on worldwide trade and income, increasing GDP in the rest of the world by almost
€100 billion. To the extent that the EU and the US can work together towards better trade rules
and less regulatory divergence in the future, some of the reductions achieved in the cost of doing trade will also
benefit other partners. The economic importance of the EU and the US will mean that their partners will also have an
incentive to move towards the new transatlantic standards. This has the
potential to spread gains across the global economy, which is increasingly
interdependent especially given the ever greater complexity of global value chains. Income gains
are a result of increased trade. EU exports to the US would go up by 28%, equivalent to an additional €187 billion
worth of exports of EU goods and services. EU and US trade with the rest of the world would also increase by over €33 billion.
Overall, the extra bilateral trade between the two blocs, together with their increased
trade with other partners, would represent a rise in total EU exports of 6% and of 8% in
US exports. This would mean an additional €220 billion and €240 billion worth of sales
of goods and services for EU and US based producers, respectively. Sectoral benefits EU exports would
increase in almost all sectors, but the boost in sales to the rest of the world would be particularly significant in metal products
(+12%), processed foods (+9%), chemicals (+9%), other manufactured goods (+6 %), and other transport equipment (+6%). But, by
far the biggest relative increase in trade would take place in the motor vehicles sector. In this sector, EU exports to the rest of the
world are expected to go up by nearly 42% and imports to expand by 43%. The growth in bilateral trade is even more impressive: EU
exports of motor vehicles to the US are expected to increase by 149%. This partly reflects the importance of two-way trade in parts
and components and the further integration of the two industries across the Atlantic. This increase in trade in motor vehicles is also
accompanied by an expansion in the sector's output (+1.5%) in the EU. The increase in exports and output that would be found (in
different degrees) in almost all sectors reflects the big liberalisation effort that the agreement would imply. Unsurprisingly, the car
sector, being characterised by an initial combination of high tariffs and high non-tariff barriers, such as different safety standards, is
one that would benefit the most. Reducing non-tariff barriers Reducing non-tariff barriers, so-called "behind-the-border" barriers,
will have to be the key part of trans-Atlantic trade liberalisation. As much as 80% of the total potential gains come from cutting costs
imposed by bureaucracy and regulations, as well as from liberalising trade in services and public procurement. Labour market The
increased level of economic activity and productivity gains created by the agreement will
benefit the EU and US labour markets, both in terms of overall wages and new job
opportunities for high- and low-skilled workers.
ttip good – trade
TTIP failure hurts US-EU trade ties and relations – plan is key
Llana 13 – CSM European Bureau Chief, Masters in journalism from Columbia University, BA in
history from the University of Michigan(Sara Miller, “Will US-EU trade talks spur growth - or show
globalization's limits,” Christian Science Monitor, 7-8-13,
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2013/0708/Will-US-EU-trade-talks-spur-growth-or-showglobalization-s-limits)//AD
if it fails – and there are plenty who think that the obstacles such as agriculture and,
most recently, data privacy are insurmountable – a failure would be pivotal, showing that
tariffs can be dropped but non-tariff barriers, which are often more cultural in nature,
remain stubborn. A failure , says Fredrik Erixon, the director of the European Center for
International Political Economy (ECIPE) in Brussels, “ could lead to a large r
standstill in efforts to address 21st century trade barriers.” Long-standing obstacles
Tariffs between the US and EU are already relatively low, but because of the sheer size of trade
between the two – representing half of global economic output – advocates say it would
be a major booster of growth and jobs, especially in debt-stricken Europe that has seen record high
unemployment at 12.2 percent. The two already invest nearly $4 trillion in each other’s economies,
according to US statistics, which translates into 7 million jobs. It’s the non-tariff barriers,
however, that most are watching in TTIP talks. Today, if a product is made in France, for example, it
goes through the various regulatory hurdles to bring it to the marketplace; it then has to
go through another set of strenuous – and often redundant – hurdles to reach the US market. Under the
TTIP, both sides could agree to mutually recognize the others’ systems. When it comes to car safety,
Yet even
reducing red tape may be an easy compromise. But other issues on the table have long vexed negotiators. That includes French subsidies for its film
industry, European resistance to genetically modified foods (GMOs), or data privacy laws – especially in the wake of the information released by former
National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden revealing the US systematically spies on its own citizens, as well as European institutions.
“One of the sleeper issues in the deal is how to deal with privacy,” says Bruce Stokes, the
director of the Global Economic Attitudes program at the Pew Research Center. Europeans,
particularly Germans, are far more sensitive than Americans when it comes to data privacy. “There is a disconnect between Europeans and Americans
about this new digital economy,” Mr. Stokes says. And even if the Snowden case is about government, not industry, it bolsters European assumptions
that Americans don’t care about privacy, he says. Supporters of the agreement know these talks will be arduous, but at a time of economic weakness,
they might have the political will to push forward. “Europe is stuck, and the US is also stuck, although not quite as bad,” says Thomas Wright, a fellow
in the Managing Global Order project at the Brookings Institution. “This offers a way that leaders can be proactive and generate growth. I think that
regulators in specific industries have more of an
incentive to find solutions now, because their refusal to compromise would influence every
other industry included in the talks. On the issue of the US using chlorine when washing chicken, for example,
compromise has been impossible because the context was always too small. “Regulators
were trying to defend their position, with no interest at all in participating in
negotiations with other countries,” he says. “If you play filibuster now, the cost is higher.” 'Cultural exceptions' – and
similarities So far TTIP has not generated widespread controversy in the US. That might be because it’s
resonates with people, particularly in Europe.” Mr. Erixon also says that
still early days. But it’s also because of the nature of the deal, says Charles Kupchan, a transatlantic expert at the Council on Foreign Relations in
Since trade is relatively free and since [the US] and the EU are at similar stages
of development, this is not a deal that is going to cause major dislocation,” he says. “This
is an easier sell politically.” Opposition might be stronger on the European side. Already the French sought to invoke the so-called
Washington. “
“cultural exception” in the talks, as a way to protect its movie industry from an incursion from Hollywood. France ultimately agreed to allow media to
be included in talks so that they could officially launch, but it will be among the most difficult issues to negotiate. “It’s not a little issue. It’s the cultural
meat of a nation,” says Josef Braml, transatlantic expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin, who has little hope that a deal is
attainable – above all, he says, because of the weakness of President Obama. But the “cultural exception” debate could be a harbinger of sentiments that
develop as the trade talks get underway. Guillaume Xavier-Bender of the German Marshall Fund of the US in Brussels says that in many ways the talks
There are more things in common between
Europeans and Americans than there are differences,” he says. But on the politically most
sensitive issues, claims that TTIP is merely an American instrument to change European
values could be made. “It is possible in Europe you see anti-globalization and anti-liberalization movements evolve into antiAmericanism,” he says. If an agreement becomes impossible to forge, it may ultimately illustrate more
than transatlantic differences. Mr. Stokes says that global economies have continuously become
more closely integrated over time. But if in the TTIP it’s possible to get rid of tariffs yet
not non-tariff barriers, he says it will be telling for the future of trade agreements globally – a
will show how similar regulations between Europe and the US are. “
sign, he says, that “we may be encountering the edges of the limits of globalization.”
ttip good – russia aggression
TTIP is critical to curtail Russia aggression
Poe 15 – Chairman of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee (Chairman Poe,
3/17/15, “House Foreign Affairs, Trade Subcommittee Hearing on National Security Benefits of Trade
Agreements with Asia & Europe; Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee hearing on
National Security Benefits of Trade Agreements with Asia and Europe,” Academic OneFile)//twemchen
TPP is a chance for the United States to show Asia that we care . Asia does not have to submit to China's
ways and that we can work together. But most importantly, TPP is created for the United States. The free trade deal the United
States is negotiating with the European Union, known TTIP, offer similar
strategic advantages . Even more
aggressive than China, Russia took over the sovereign territory of Georgia, Ukraine. I have met with the
ambassadors of other countries in the Baltics, the Bulgarians and the Romanians all feel like they could be next
for Russian aggression. One of the reasons why it has been so hard to cooperate with the EU
on these issues is that Russia uses Europeans' dependence on Russia for energy to blackmail
Europe . Countries like Latvia, Finland and Sweden get 100 percent of their natural gas from Europe. Twelve countries
in the EU get over half their natural gas from Russia. So Russia threatens Europe, you get to
then to do what Moscow wants. Right now in the United States, there is more natural gas than we
can use. But the United States Government would not allow American companies to export
natural gas. The only exceptions are for companies -- exporting to a country with whom we have a free trade agreement or
companies that get special approval from the Department of Energy. Department of Energy approval process has been
slow , so slow that drillers have stopped drilling because they know they can't sell it. The
long-term solution to this problem is to let American companies sell natural gas around the world. But in
the meantime, if we get TTIP done, that also means we can export LNG eventually to every country
in the E uropean U nion. And then no longer would be -- would Russia have a hold over Europe.
No longer would Europe be reluctant to get tougher with Russia and their aggression. This is just one
strategic advantage of TTIP. I think there are others.
It creates a signal of US-EU unity
Poe 15 – Chairman of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee (Chairman Poe,
3/17/15, “House Foreign Affairs, Trade Subcommittee Hearing on National Security Benefits of Trade
Agreements with Asia & Europe; Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee hearing on
National Security Benefits of Trade Agreements with Asia and Europe,” Academic OneFile)//twemchen
Since this agreement is between two economies that share a strong commitment to the rule of
law, transparency and free markets, it can help elevate health, safety, labor and environmental
standards worldwide. Beyond trade and investment, TTIP also has significant strategic implications. The importance
of the Trans-Atlantic Alliance has been underscored by Russia's invasion of Ukraine,
its increasing hostility toward neighboring states and the continued declined of fundamental rights and
the rule of law under the Putin regime. The strengthening ties between the United State and the UE that
would result from TTIP would only complement the united front that the U.S. and the EU
have maintained throughout the Ukraine crisis. TTIP would highlight the virtues of the Western
model and send a powerful signal to Putin and other authoritarian regimes
that the U nited S tates and Europe remain as united as they ever were. Further, our commitment to higher
standards and basic democratic principles is the basic for our prosperity and that prosperity is our best defense against governments
that seek to destabilize international order.
That signal is critical – and deters further conquest
Poe 15 – Chairman of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee (Chairman Poe,
3/17/15, “House Foreign Affairs, Trade Subcommittee Hearing on National Security Benefits of Trade
Agreements with Asia & Europe; Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee hearing on
National Security Benefits of Trade Agreements with Asia and Europe,” Academic OneFile)//twemchen
TTIP is essentially a -- a reassertion of Western values , robust international law,
predictability and commercial contracts, human rights -- all of that. That is anathema to Vladimir
Putin. And he is conducting what the KGB used to call "active measures," to subvert the TTIP, because he understands what it
means. So, it has a huge impact on Russia. It is a symbol of unity .
ttip good – nato
Key to NATO cohesion
Poe 15 – Chairman of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee (Chairman Poe,
3/17/15, “House Foreign Affairs, Trade Subcommittee Hearing on National Security Benefits of Trade
Agreements with Asia & Europe; Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee hearing on
National Security Benefits of Trade Agreements with Asia and Europe,” Academic OneFile)//twemchen
And yet, there
are questions of trust and commitment across the Atlantic these days. NATO is
perceived in some quarters to be a bit wobbly. TTIP would be the other side of the coin
of our commitment to Europe through our -- our military alliance. And I think, particularly,
given the issues facing European security these days, this is a vital reassurance of U.S.
commitment to Europe. It also would reassure Americans who wonder about the European Union and whether
it's inward or outward looking that the E.U. would be a very strong outward looking partner, because TTIP would essentially
make that case . The second area is how both of us together relate to rising powers. And Dr. Green mentioned a few of
those elements. But I think one has to think about this. Those rising powers are each having debates of how they relate to the
international system. Do they challenge it? Do they accommodate themselves to it? And the message we have to those countries as
they have those debates is actually quite important. In recent years, we've had different messages, or muddled messages. European
message, American message -- we don't have a message. So, TTIP
is a single strong message about a
robust revitalized West, not defensive, but also not aggressive. About upholding standards, not
eroding them. And it has an impact on each of the countries that we could discuss.
Extinction
Brzezinski 9 (Zbigniew, former US National Security Adviser, “An Agenda for NATO”, Foreign Affairs,
October 2009, ebsco)//twemchen
NATO's potential is not primarily military. Although NATO is a collective-security alliance, its actual military
power comes
that reality is not likely to change anytime soon. NATO's real
power derives from the fact that it combines the United States' military capabilities and economic power with
Europe's collective political and economic weight (and occasionally some limited European military forces). Together, that
combination makes NATO globally significant. It must therefore remain sensitive to the importance of
safeguarding the geopolitical bond between the United States and Europe as it addresses new tasks. The basic
challenge that NATO now confronts is that there are historically unprecedented risks to global
security . Today's world is threatened neither by the militant fanaticism of a territorially rapacious nationalist state nor by the
coercive aspiration of a globally pretentious ideology embraced by an expansive imperial power. The paradox of our time is that the
world, increasingly connected and economically interdependent for the first time in its entire history, is experiencing
intensifying popular unrest made all the more menacing by the growing accessibility of weapons of mass
destruction --not just to states but also, potentially, to extremist religious and political movements. Yet there is no effective
global security mechanism for coping with the growing threat of violent political chaos stemming from
predominantly from the United States, and
humanity's recent political awakening. The three great political contests of the twentieth century (the two world wars and the Cold
War) accelerated the political awakening of mankind, which was initially unleashed in Europe by the French Revolution. Within a
century of that revolution, spontaneous populist political activism had spread from Europe to East Asia. On their return home after
World Wars I and II, the South Asians and the North Africans who had been conscripted by the British and French imperial armies
propagated a new awareness of anticolonial nationalist and religious political identity among hitherto passive and pliant
populations. The spread of literacy during the twentieth century and the wide-ranging impact of radio, television, and the Internet
accelerated and intensified this mass global political awakening. In its early stages, such new political awareness tends to be
expressed as a fanatical embrace of the most extreme ethnic or fundamentalist religious passions, with beliefs and resentments
universalized in Manichaean categories. Unfortunately, in significant parts of the developing world, bitter memories of
European colonialism and of more recent U.S. intrusion have given such newly aroused passions a
distinctively anti-Western cast. Today, the most acute example of this phenomenon is found in an area that stretches from
Egypt to India. This area, inhabited by more than 500 million politically and religiously aroused peoples, is where NATO is
becoming more deeply embroiled. Additionally complicating is the fact that the dramatic rise of China and India and the quick
recovery of Japan within the last 50 years have signaled that the global center of political and economic gravity is shifting away from
the North Atlantic toward Asia and the Pacific. And of the currently leading global powers--the United States, the EU,
China, Japan, Russia, and India--at least two, or perhaps even three, are revisionist in their orientation. Whether they are "rising
peacefully" (a self-confident China), truculently (an imperially nostalgic Russia) or boastfully (an assertive India, despite its internal
multiethnic and religious vulnerabilities), they all desire a change in the global pecking order. The future conduct of and relationship
among these three still relatively cautious revisionist powers will further intensify the strategic uncertainty. Visible on the
horizon but not as powerful are the emerging regional rebels , with some of them defiantly reaching for nuclear
weapons. North Korea has openly flouted the international community by producing (apparently successfully) its own
nuclear weapons--and also by profiting from their dissemination. At some point, its unpredictability could precipitate
the first use of nuclear weapons in anger since 1945. Iran, in contrast, has proclaimed that its nuclear program is
entirely for peaceful purposes but so far has been unwilling to consider consensual arrangements with the international community
that would provide credible assurances regarding these intentions. In nuclear-armed Pakistan, an extremist anti-Western religious
movement is threatening the country's political stability. These changes together reflect the waning of the post-World War II global
hierarchy and the simultaneous dispersal of global power. Unfortunately, U.S. leadership in recent years unintentionally, but
most unwisely, contributed
to the currently threatening state of affairs. The combination of Washington's arrogant
unilateralism in Iraq and its demagogic Islamophobic sloganeering weakened the unity of NATO and focused
aroused Muslim resentments on the United States and the West more generally.
ttip good – at: race to the bottom
Wrong – it’s a race to the top
Poe 15 – Chairman of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee (Chairman Poe,
3/17/15, “House Foreign Affairs, Trade Subcommittee Hearing on National Security Benefits of Trade
Agreements with Asia & Europe; Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee hearing on
National Security Benefits of Trade Agreements with Asia and Europe,” Academic OneFile)//twemchen
Finally, TTIP and TPP could help
push the world toward greater liberalization (ph). Formal global trade
negotiations in DOHA are on hold, but together TTIP and TPP represent 90 percent of the world's GDP.
These pacts would help set the global standard. And countries who do not want to be left
out would have to agree to the tough standards set by these agreements in order to enjoy the
benefits. Trade agreements have a geopolitial effect far beyond trade itself.
eu trade good – europe war
Independently, EU trade alone is key to regional stability
AFP 11 - Advokatur Fischer & Partner is a law firm in Switzerland, (“EU President urges trade to halt
Asia-Pacific militarization”, November 9, 2011,
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/EU_President_urges_trade_to_halt_AsiaPacific_militarisation_999.html)//trepka
The Asia-Pacific region is showing signs of militarisation that could lead to an arms race,
EU President Herman Van Rompuy warned Wednesday, calling for closer trade ties to defuse any political tensions. "Whereas
Europe used to be the most dangerous continent in the past century... the
focus of security analysts and hard
power strategic planners has recently moved towards developments in Asia and the
Pacific," said Van Rompuy in a speech at the University of Zurich. "They do not yet observe a full-blown arms race, but in terms
of military spending and confrontational psychology, the premises of an arms race are there," he added, without naming individual
countries. "It will thus be key to continue deepening economic relationships within that region, so as to make a war as it were
'materially impossible'," added Van Rompuy. Noting that the EU
is a key trading partner to major
economies in the region, the EU Council President said Brussels "does not only have a
significant stake in regional stability, but itself is a potential major factor
contributing to this stability." This fact "should also be reflected in higher political
attention paid to and political activity shown in the region," he added.
Goes nuclear and global
Glaser 93 – professor of public policy studies (Charles, International Security, pg. 8-9, Summer
1993)//twemchen
However, although the lack of an imminent Soviet threat eliminates the most obvious danger, U.S. security has not
been
from the future of Western Europe. The ending of the Cold War has brought many benefits, but
has not eliminated the possibility of a major power war , especially since such a war could grow out of a smaller
entirely separated
conflict in the East. And, although nuclear weapons have greatly reduced the threat that a European hegemon would pose to U.S.
security, a sound case nevertheless remains that a major European war could
threaten U.S. security. The United
States could be drawn in to such a war, even if strict security considerations suggested it should stay out. A
major power war could escalate into a nuclear war that, especially if the United States joins, could include
attacks against the American homeland. Thus, the United States should not be unconcerned about Europe’s future.
russia agro bad – arms race
They’re arms racing
Kureev 6/29 – staff writer @ Russia Direct (Artem Kureev, 6/29/15, “Does Europe need a new arms
race?,” http://www.russia-direct.org/opinion/does-europe-need-new-arms-race)//twemchen
The start of the Ukraine crisis caused Russia’s Baltic neighbors to declare all previous
measures inadequate. Baltic and Polish politicians began to argue that NATO
assistance would simply not arrive in time in the event of a Russian offensive . Latvia and
Estonia, both with large Russian-speaking communities, even voiced fears that Moscow may try to incite rebellion in their eastern
territories, where Russian speakers make up the majority of the population, on the model of the “people’s republics” in eastern
Ukraine. That was one of the factors in setting up the rapid reaction force. However, the proposal for a 10,000-strong contingent was
deemed short of the mark. In February 2015, NATO defense ministers agreed that the force would number 30,000 troops, 4,000 of
whom would be on constant high alert, with command centers manned by a small staff of permanent employees based in Latvia,
Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. But even that did not suffice. On April 12 Estonian President Toomas Henrik
Ilves stated that in the present circumstances, NATO would not be able to come to the aid of the Baltic states in time, since
“everything could be over in 4 hours.” He requested Germany to deploy military units on Estonian soil. Tellingly, this past year
Tallinn has been actively demonstrating its role as the Baltic leader in NATO. This is because Estonia is an “exemplary member of
the Alliance,” spending 2 percent of GDP on defense as required, taking an active part in NATO missions, and possessing the most
combat-ready army of all three countries. That is largely why Obama chose Tallin as the venue for his meeting with the leaders of the
three Baltic countries in September of last year, as if to emphasize its leading role in the region. Recommended: "Is CFE dead? A
Western perspective" Moreover, Estonia proved its defense capabilities during “Siil 2015” [Hedgehog 2015], one of the largest
military exercises in the country’s recent history, in which 13,000 troops took part. Estonian media were quick to tell the world that
the number of service personnel involved exceeded the contingent of Russian forces on the other side of the border. At the same
time, although the mobilized reservists had been warned a year in advance, Tallinn showed that, if necessary, it was able to “call to
arms” a significant number of trained fighters in real time. Against this backdrop, the May 12 request of Latvia, Lithuania and
Estonia to send additional NATO troops seemed somewhat strange. After all, at least one of these countries had already
shown high combat capability and the ability to achieve parity with the
potential adversary in a timely manner. As already noted, the Baltic states have NATO air cover
and will soon see a new rapid reaction force , in addition to which Estonia hosts the NATO Cooperative
Cyber Defence Center of Excellence to combat Russian cyber threats. NATO’s new military units will impose a heavy burden on the
budgets of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Estonian Defense Minister Sven Mikser has stated that the cost of basing the allies will be
added to the 2 percent of GDP that Estonia is obliged to spend on defense as a NATO member. At the same time, it is still unclear
precisely how much heavy equipment will be located in which country, although it can be assumed that one of the tasks of the new
contingents will be to retrain Eastern European troops. Looking further ahead, Washington sees these countries as a market for US
armored vehicles and hopes to wean the Romanians, Bulgarians and Poles off the Soviet T-72 and T-55, which presently make up
more than half of their tank divisions. Why Europe seeks a new arms race A NEW WAVE OF ARMS PROLIFERATION IS NOT IN
THE INTERESTS OF THE SMALL BALTIC NATIONS A new wave of arms proliferation is not in the interests of the small Baltic
nations. Hosting other countries’ military forces will not come cheap, even with additional funding from NATO . However, Latvia,
Lithuania and Estonia’s logic is simple. On the surface it is about election promises. Ahead of Estonia’s parliamentary elections in
March, Prime Minister Taavi Roivas shot a campaign video at Amari airbase, where, to the roar of a fighter jet, he promised to
protect his country. Meanwhile, a few weeks ago, Latvia elected as its new president Raimonds Vejonis, who in his former capacity as
defense minister beefed up the army with second-hand British armored vehicles. The ruling political establishments of the Baltic
republics are generally exploiting the “Russian threat” to improve their ratings. Another obvious
aim of the
redeployment of heavy weaponry to the Russian border is NATO’s desire to provoke a
response from Russia. In particular, the Alliance hopes that by being forced to send troops
to its north-western borders to maintain parity with NATO, Moscow will be unable to continue
supplying hardware to the rebels in the Donbas, which the West believes is happening.
russia agro bad – nato
Russia and NATO are spoiling to fight
Morris 6/27 – staff writer at the Valuewalk (Christopher Morris, 6/27/15, “Russia And NATO Prepare
For Possible War,” http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/06/russia-and-nato-prepare-for-possiblewar/)//twemchen
Tensions continues to ramp up between Russia and the United States, as geopolitical
manoeuvers unfold. The uneasy peace between the Eastern and Western superpowers seems to be
deteriorating further, with both sides taking action which has resulted in distrust increasing
further . Russia Nuclear Weapons Iskander missile launcher Putin increases nuclear warhead haul
Just last week, the Russian supremo Vladimir Putin announced that Russia intended to expand its existing nuclear arsenal. This
move would see the nation establishing forty new intercontinental ballistic missiles to add to its existing quota. Considering
that Russia and the United States collectively have in the region of 15,000 nuclear warheads, one might not unreasonably wonder
what is the point of Russia acquiring another forty. There is no doubt that should the
United States or Russia ever fire a
nuclear weapon at one another, the ultimate result would be unprecedented and unimaginable
global devastation . Unfortunately, both Russia and the United States have engaged in actions in
recent months which have resulted in the diplomatic situation between the two nations deteriorating. The
latest increase in nuclear weapons announced by Russia seems to have led to a new phase of posturing
and military manoeuvres , which is the latest in a phase of rising tensions that
began with the Ukraine conflict back in 2013. Geopolitical conflict As has been reported previously by ValueWalk, the
existing situation must be seen in the slightly geopolitical context. Russia and the US are historical rivals
anyway, but the pairing of Russia with China in the new BRICS power bloc places pressure on the
traditional US-led hierarchy. The old world order of the Anglo-American and EU / NATOdriven institutions is being challenged by the BRICS, and the powerful organization has already made it
a stated goal to play a greater role in existing economic institutions, or if this is not achievable to set up a
central bank of its own. ValueWalk reported sometime ago that the BRICS nations have been scheming to create their own central
bank, as the major political and business figures from the Eastern world continue to be frozen out of the existing global economic
infrastructure. Whether this is a serious intention, or rather a bargaining chip in an ongoing debate and struggle, remains to be seen.
But what is certain is that the
existing tension between the United States and Russia should be seen as a
symptom of this situation. Russia’s replacement strategy According to Adam Mount, a Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow
at the Council on Foreign Relations, the announcement which has recently been made by Putin does not actually signifying a
significant change in Russian nuclear policy. Mount suggests that Russia is fully compliant with the New START treaty, which limits
strategic launches such as ICBMs. Russia’s existing nuclear capability is indeed dating owing to its Soviet-Europe vintage. Russia
must continue to take delivery of forty new weapons every year simply to replicate the existing capability. This is essentially the
explanation for the extra warheads which have been ordered by the Russian president, and doesn't really represent an increase in
the nation's nuclear capabilities. Regardless of the realities of this
announcement, it still presents an
opportunity for NATO to ramp up the rhetoric against the nation. Indeed, NATO officials have already
expressed concern over the announcement made by Putin, with The Guardian newspaper reporting concern within the military
organization of the extent to which such weapons are being utilized in Russian military exercises. US Building Defense System
Against Russia Cruise Missile Image Source: Defense One NATO responds in kind NATO has also taken explicitly aggressive steps of
its own, by beefing up its Response Force. There
are already thousands of soldiers and advanced
military technology and weaponry stationed near Russia's borders in response to the
Ukrainian situation, and this fighting force has recently been further increased . It already
consists of 13,000 troops, but according to reports that emerged this week, NATO may now increase this to as much as 40,000.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has specifically stated that the move isn't intended to increase tensions, and NATO’s
official policy is to seek neither confrontation nor a new arms race. Naturally, Russia has been criticized for its policy in the Ukraine,
but it is also notable that the United States and its allies have destabilized this relationship and region by directly supporting the
overthrow of the Ukrainian government. The
subsequent encircling of the nation with a large quotient
of military force was only likely to ramp up tensions further. And despite what has been stated about
NATO's intentions by the organization itself, it seems that the military alliance that it represents is absolutely
prepared to implement a more aggressive nuclear weapons strategy. NATO considers
this to be a response to Russian aggression rather than a pre-emptive policy, but this will only serve to
diminish the diplomatic relations between the Western and Eastern superpowers. Nuclear response reported
It was reported again by The World Socialist Website that NATO is even planning to respond to any attempt
by Russia to counter the United States with an even more aggressive military strategy. This could even include
nuclear weapons . While this is an extremely alarming prospect, and the continuing tensions between Russia and the
United States are worrying, it is also important to understand the historical context of this conflict. While no-one wants to believe
that either side is capable of utilizing nuclear
weapons, as ValueWalk as reported previously, this in fact came
incredibly close to occurring during the Cuban Missile Crisis. As the two big beasts in world
geopolitics continue to saber rattle, one can only hope that ultimately a peaceful solution is sort to these inevitable tensions. In the
iconic 1997 publication “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”, Zbigniew Brzezinski outlined
a shifting in the world order and power base which is unfolding before our very eyes now. Although Brzezinski is, not unreasonably,
a reviled figure to many, it is notable that he didn't predict that it would end with armed conflict between Russia, China, the United
States and the Western world. With both power blocs continuing to behave with intransigence, one can only hope that this verdict
turns out to be accurate.
russia agro bad – militarizing
Massive Russia militarization now
Gady 6/27 – staff writer at the Diplomat (Franz-Stefan Gady, 6/27/15, “Putin to Press on With Russia’s
Military Modernization,” http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/putin-to-press-on-with-russias-militarymodernization/)//twemchen
Despite a crippling recession, Russian President Vladimir Putin vowed to press on with his 22 trillion
ruble (more than $400 billion) military modernization plan, according to Sputnik News. Addressing a group of recent
graduates of Russian military staff colleges in the Kremlin yesterday, Putin emphasized that structural reform within
the Russian Armed Forces and new weapon acquisitions programs will continue
unhindered over the next few years. “A strong army equipped with sophisticated weapons
guarantees Russia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity . It also guarantees that millions of our fellow
citizens can live in peace. I am sure you understand it quite well,” Putin said, explaining Moscow’s rationale for the massive
rearmament program. Sputnik News summarized the rest of his speech: Touting the strengthening of Russia’s strategic nuclear
forces and space defense units, Putin also praised the increasing combat capabilities of almost all branches of the armed forces. He
mentioned the ongoing delivery of state-of-the-art aircraft, submarines and surface ships to the Russian military, which is also being
equipped with high-precision weapons, combat robots and unmanned aerial vehicles that were showcased at the recent
International Military-Technical Forum Army-2015.
***germany rels
uniqueness – at: snapshot
Future cases trigger the impact
Spiegel 14 – German news thing (7/14/14, “Germany Prepares Further Spying Clampdown,”
Lexis)//twemchen
The German government is still hesitating before putting the screws on Washington. But at this point no
one would bet that further cases will not turn up. "The Americans are furnishing their
opponents with free arguments ," says a government official.
internal link
NSA surveillance from Berlin Embassy decks German relations – insider
statements prove
Speigel 13 – European news Agency (“Embassy Espionage: The NSA's Secret Spy Hub in Berlin,”,
SPIEGEL International, 10-27-13 http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cover-story-how-nsaspied-on-merkel-cell-phone-from-berlin-embassy-a-930205.html) //AD
According to SPIEGEL research, United States intelligence agencies have not only
targeted Chancellor Angela Merkel's cellphone, but they have also used the American
Embassy in Berlin as a listening station. The revelations now pose a serious threat to
German-American relations. It's a prime site, a diplomat's dream. Is there any better location for an
embassy than Berlin's Pariser Platz? It's just a few paces from here to the Reichstag. When the American
ambassador steps out the door, he looks directly onto the Brandenburg Gate. When the United States
moved into the massive embassy building in 2008, it threw a huge party. Over 4,500 guests were invited.
Former President George H. W. Bush cut the red-white-and-blue ribbon. Chancellor Angela Merkel
offered warm words for the occasion. Since then, when the US ambassador receives high-ranking visitors,
they often take a stroll out to the roof terrace, which offers a breathtaking view of the Reichstag and
Tiergarten park. Even the Chancellery can be glimpsed. This is the political heart of the republic,
where billion-euro budgets are negotiated, laws are formulated and soldiers are sent to
war. It's an ideal location for diplomats -- and for spies. Research by SPIEGEL reporters
in Berlin and Washington, talks with intelligence officials and the evaluation of internal
documents of the US' National Security Agency and other information, most of which
comes from the archive of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, lead to the
conclusion that the US diplomatic mission in the German capital has not merely been
promoting German-American friendship. On the contrary, it is a nest of espionage. From
the roof of the embassy, a special unit of the CIA and NSA can apparently monitor a
large part of cellphone communication in the government quarter. And there is evidence
that agents based at Pariser Platz recently targeted the cellphone that Merkel uses the
most. The NSA spying scandal has thus reached a new level, becoming a serious threat to
the trans-Atlantic partnership. The mere suspicion that one of Merkel's cellphones was
being monitored by the NSA has led in the past week to serious tensions between Berlin
and Washington. Hardly anything is as sensitive a subject to Merkel as the surveillance
of her cellphone. It is her instrument of power. She uses it not only to lead her party, the center-right
Christian Democratic Union (CDU), but also to conduct a large portion of government business. Merkel
uses the device so frequently that there was even debate earlier this year over whether her text-messaging
activity should be archived as part of executive action. 'That's Just Not Done' Merkel has often said -half in earnest, half in jest -- that she operates under the assumption that her phone calls are
being monitored. But she apparently had in mind countries like China and Russia,
where data protection is not taken very seriously, and not Germany's friends in
Washington. Last Wednesday Merkel placed a strongly worded phone call to US President Barack
Obama. Sixty-two percent of Germans approve of her harsh reaction, according to a survey by polling
institute YouGov. A quarter think it was too mild. In a gesture of displeasure usually reserved for rogue
states, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle summoned the new US ambassador, John Emerson,
for a meeting at the Foreign Ministry. The NSA affair has shaken the certainties of German
politics. Even Merkel's CDU, long a loyal friend of Washington, is now openly questioning the trans-
Atlantic free trade agreement. At the Chancellery it's now being said that if the US government doesn't
take greater pains to clarify the situation, certain conclusions will be drawn and talks over the agreement
could potentially be put on hold. "Spying between friends, that's just not done," said Merkel
on Thursday at a European Union summit in Brussels. "Now trust has to be rebuilt." But
until recently it sounded as if the government had faith in its ally's intelligence agencies. In mid-August
Merkel's chief of staff, Ronald Pofalla, offhandedly described the NSA scandal as over. German authorities
offered none of their own findings -- just a dry statement from the NSA leadership saying the agency
adhered to all agreements between the countries. Now it is not just Pofalla who stands disgraced, but
Merkel as well. She looks like a head of government who only stands up to Obama when she herself is a
target of the US intelligence services. The German website Der Postillon published a satirical version last
Thursday of the statement given by Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert: " The chancellor considers
it a slap in the face that she has most likely been monitored over the years just like some
mangy resident of Germany." Merkel has nothing to fear domestically from the recent turn of
affairs. The election is over, the conservatives and the center-left Social Democrats are already in official
negotiations toward forming a new government. No one wants to poison the atmosphere with mutual
accusation. Nevertheless, Merkel must now answer the question of how much she is willing
to tolerate from her American allies. Posing as Diplomats A "top secret" classified NSA document
from the year 2010 shows that a unit known as the "Special Collection Service" (SCS) is operational in
Berlin, among other locations. It is an elite corps run in concert by the US intelligence agencies NSA and
CIA. The secret list reveals that its agents are active worldwide in around 80 locations, 19 of which are in
Europe -- cities such as Paris, Madrid, Rome, Prague and Geneva. The SCS maintains two bases in
Germany, one in Berlin and another in Frankfurt. That alone is unusual. But in addition, both German
bases are equipped at the highest level and staffed with active personnel. The SCS teams predominantly
work undercover in shielded areas of the American Embassy and Consulate, where they are officially
accredited as diplomats and as such enjoy special privileges. Under diplomatic protection, they are
able to look and listen unhindered. They just can't get caught. Wiretapping from an
embassy is illegal in nearly every country. But that is precisely the task of the SCS, as is evidenced
by another secret document. According to the document, the SCS operates its own sophisticated listening
devices with which they can intercept virtually every popular method of communication: cellular signals,
wireless networks and satellite communication. The necessary equipment is usually installed on the upper
floors of the embassy buildings or on rooftops where the technology is covered with screens or Potemkinlike structures that protect it from prying eyes. That is apparently the case in Berlin, as well. SPIEGEL
asked British investigative journalist Duncan Campbell to appraise the setup at the embassy. In 1976,
Campbell uncovered the existence of the British intelligence service GCHQ. In his so-called "Echelon
Report" in 1999, he described for the European Parliament the existence of the global surveillance
network of the same name. Campbell refers to window-like indentations on the roof of the
US Embassy. They are not glazed but rather veneered with "dielectric" material and are
painted to blend into the surrounding masonry. This material is permeable even by
weak radio signals. The interception technology is located behind these radio-transparent screens,
says Campbell. The offices of SCS agents would most likely be located in the same windowless attic.
NSA surveillance damages US German relations
Oltermann 13 (Philip is an editor on the Guardian's comment desk, and the author of Keeping Up
With the Germans: A History of Anglo-German Encounters, 10/31,”Our man in Berlin called in over
surveillance allegations: Ambassador is called in over snooping
claim”,http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/05/germany-summons-uk-ambassador-spyclaims-berlin)//cc
The British ambassador in Berlin was yesterday called in for a meeting at the German
foreign ministry to explain allegations that Britain had been using its embassy to carry
out covert electronic surveillance on Angela Merkel's government. The meeting marked
the latest fallout from the revelations of US and British espionage that were leaked by
the former National Security Agency contractor, Edward Snowden. It followed a report in the Independent about a
covert listening post at the British embassy on Wilhelmstrasse, which the paper claimed to be based in part on the Snowden files. If the
report is confirmed, it may worsen UK-German relations, already strained by a growing
German sense that it has been marginalised by a global electronic espionage network led
by the US and UK and confined to English-speaking states. In a statement, the German foreign office said
the head of its Europe division "had asked for a statement in response to current reports in the British media and pointed out that intercepting
communication from within diplomatic buildings represented a violation of international law". A German official said: "We don't know anything
about the report in the paper so the head of our Europe department was asking the ambassador about it. It is not an accusation. It is more of a
clarification. We needed to know more." In London, the Foreign Office confirmed the ambassador, Simon McDonald, had a meeting with a
senior official at the foreign ministry in Berlin "at his invitation", but offered no further comment. The Independent reported that Britain had
established a "spy nest" in the German capital. It described what it called "a potential eavesdropping base" on the embassy roof inside "a white,
cylindrical tent-like structure" which had been there since the building was erected in 2000. The paper said it bore a resemblance to devices used
to intercept East German and Soviet communications in the cold war. The paper said that it had seen documents showing a small number of
intelligence personnel operated in the embassy under diplomatic cover, their true mission apparently unknown to other staff. Bernd Riexinger, cochairman of the leftwing Die Linke party, said that if the allegations proved true, his party would call for an EU summit to discuss possible
financial sanctions against Britain. "So far, Angela Merkel and her ministers have done their best to play down the allegations of surveillance
through the NSA and GCHQ," he said. "But we've reached the stage where diplomatic ties with those countries are being severely strained. If
industrial espionage has taken place, there need to be consequences." Last week the German
magazine, Der Spiegel revealed that the US embassy in Berlin had a structure on its roof that was used by an NSA unit to monitor mobile phone
conversations of German officials, including Merkel, in nearby buildings. The report, also based on Snowden documents, led to a stronglyworded phone call from Merkel to Barack Obama, and the summoning of the US ambassador to Berlin. British and German officials last night
stressed that the response to the British report was milder - an "invitation" rather than a summons for McDonald. German
officials
pointed out that it was illegal to use embassy premises to wiretap a host government, and
the new report has deepened Berlin's sense of exclusion from the tight eavesdropping alliance known as Five Eyes, consisting of the US, UK,
Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Snowden files make it clear that membership of the club offered some protection against being spied on
by another member. They also show that non-members are considered fair game for extensive surveillance, in the form of bulk monitoring of
mass communications, and eavesdropping on the calls and emails of top officials. Electronic
eavesdropping also triggered
controversy yesterday in New Zealand, where the government narrowly succeeded in passing legislation obliging telecoms firms to give
the country's security agencies access to their networks.
Germany enacts counter surveillance measures as relations hit all-time
lows
Paterson 14 (Tony is a British journalist broadcaster and author, 2/16, “Merkel proposes European
network to beat NSA spying”http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/angela-merkelproposes-european-network-to-beat-nsa-spying-9132388.html)//cc
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany
has announced plans to set up a European
communications network as part of a broad counter-espionage offensive designed to
curb mass surveillance conducted by the US National Security Agency and its British counterpart,
GCHQ. The move is her government's first tangible response to public and political indignation
over NSA and GCHQ spying in Europe, which was exposed last October with revelations that the US had bugged Ms
Merkel's mobile phone and that MI6 operated a listening post from the British Embassy in Berlin. Announcing the project in her
weekly podcast, Ms
Merkel said she envisaged setting up a European communications
network which would offer protection from NSA surveillance by side-stepping the
current arrangement whereby emails and other internet data automatically pass
through the United States. The NSA's German phone and internet surveillance
operation is reported to be one of the biggest in the EU. In co-operation with GCHQ it has direct access to
undersea cables carrying transatlantic communications between Europe and the US. Ms Merkel said she planned to discuss the
project with the French President, François Hollande, when she meets him in Paris on Wednesday. "Above all we'll talk about
European providers that offer security to our citizens, so that one shouldn't have to send emails and other information across the
Atlantic," she said. "Rather one could build up a communications network inside Europe." French government officials responded by
saying Paris intended to "take up" the German initiative. Ms Merkel's proposals appear to be part of a wider German counterespionage offensive, reported to be under way in several of Germany's intelligence agencies, against NSA and GCHQ surveillance.
Der Spiegel magazine said yesterday that it had obtained information about plans by Germany's main domestic intelligence agency,
the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, for a "massive" increase in counter-espionage measures. The magazine said
there were plans to subject both the American and British Embassies in Berlin to surveillance. It said the measures would include
obtaining exact details about intelligence agents who were accredited as diplomats, and information about the technology being used
within the embassies. Last year information provided by the whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed that US intelligence agents
were able to bug Ms Merkel's mobile phone from a listening post on the US Embassy roof. Investigations by The Independent
subsequently revealed that GCHQ ran a similar listening post from the roof of the British Embassy in Berlin. Intelligence experts say
it is difficult if not impossible to control spying activities conducted from foreign embassies, not least because their diplomatic status
means they are protected from the domestic legislation of the host country. Der Spiegel said Germany's military intelligence service,
(MAD)
was also considering stepping up surveillance of US and British spying activities.
It said such a move would mark a significant break with previous counter-espionage
practice which had focused on countries such as China, North Korea and Russia. Germany's counter-espionage
drive comes after months of repeated and abortive attempts by its officials to reach a
friendly "no spy" agreement with the US. Phillip Missfelder, a spokesman for Ms Merkel's
government, admitted recently that revelations about NSA spying had brought relations
with Washington to their worst level since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Der Spiegel
claimed that on a single day last year, January 7, the NSA tapped into some 60 million German phone calls. The magazine said that
Canada, Australia, Britain and New Zealand were exempt from NSA surveillance but Germany was regarded as a country open to
"spy attacks".
germany rels good – ttip
Germany rels are critical to the TTIP
Speigel 13 – European news Agency (“Embassy Espionage: The NSA's Secret Spy Hub in Berlin,”,
SPIEGEL International, 10-27-13 http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cover-story-how-nsaspied-on-merkel-cell-phone-from-berlin-embassy-a-930205.html)//twemchen
Trade Agreement at Risk? When the news of Merkel's mobile phone being tapped began making the rounds, the BND and the
BSI, the federal agency responsible for information security, took over investigation of the matter. There too, officials have been able to do nothing
German-American
relations are threatened with an ice age. Merkel's connection to Obama wasn't particularly
good before the spying scandal. The chancellor is said to consider the president overrated -- a politician who talks a lot but does little,
more than ask questions of the Americans when such sensitive issues have come up in recent months. But now
and is unreliable to boot. One example, from Berlin's perspective, was the military operation in Libya almost three years ago, which Obama initially
rejected. When then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton convinced him to change his mind, he did so without consulting his allies. Berlin saw this as
evidence of his fickleness and disregard for their concerns. The chancellor also finds Washington's regular advice on how to solve the euro crisis
irritating. She would prefer not to receive instruction from the country that caused the collapse of the global financial system in the first place.
Meanwhile, the Americans have been annoyed for years that Germany isn't willing to do more to boost the world economy. Merkel also feels as though
she was duped. The Chancellery now plans once again to review the assurances of US intelligence agencies to make sure they are abiding by the law.
The chancellor's office is also now considering the possibility that the much-desired trans-Atlantic free trade agreement could fail if the NSA affair isn't
properly cleared up. Since the latest revelations came out, some 58 percent of Germans say they support breaking off ongoing talks, while just 28
put the negotiations for a free-trade agreement with the US on ice
until the accusations against the NSA have been clarified," says Bavarian Economy Minister Ilse Aigner, a member of
percent are against it. "We should
the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party to Merkel's Christian Democrats. Outgoing Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger
has used the scandal as an excuse to appeal to the conscience of her counterpart in Washington, Attorney General Eric Holder. "The citizens rightly
expect that American institutions also adhere to German laws. Unfortunately, there are a number of indications to the contrary," she wrote in a letter to
Holder last week. EU Leaders Consider Consequences The American spying tactics weren't far from the minds of leaders at the EU summit in Brussels
last Thursday, either. French President Hollande was the first to bring it up at dinner, saying that while he didn't want to demonize the intelligence
agencies, the Americans had so blatantly broken the law on millions of counts that he couldn't imagine how things could go on this way. Hollande called
for a code of conduct among the intelligence agencies, an idea for which Merkel also showed support. But soon doubts emerged: Wouldn't Europe also
have to take a look at its own surveillance practices? What if a German or French Snowden came forward to reveal dirty spy tactics? British Prime
Minister David Cameron pointed out how many terror attacks had been prevented because of spying capabilities. Then it was asked whether it has been
proven that Obama even knows what his agencies are doing. Suddenly, mutual understanding seemed to waft through the group. That was a bit too rich
for Hollande: No, he interjected, spying to such an immense degree, allegedly on more than 70 million phone calls per month in France alone -- that
has been undertaken by only one country: the United States. The interruption was effective. After nearly three hours, the EU member states agreed on a
statement that can be read as clear disapproval of the Americans. Merkel no longer wants to rely solely on promises. This week Günter Heiss,
Chancellor Merkel's intelligence coordinator, will travel to Washington. Heiss wants the Americans finally to promise a contract excluding mutual
surveillance. The German side already announced its intention to sign on to this no-spying pact during the summer, but the US government has so far
shown little inclination to seriously engage with the topic. This is, of course, also about the chancellor's cellphone. Because despite all the anger, Merkel
still didn't want to give up using her old number as of the end of last week. She was using it to make calls and to send text messages. Only for very
delicate conversations did she switch to a secure line.
germany rels good – safe harbor
Wrecks the Safe Harbor agreement
Spiegel 14 – German news thing (7/14/14, “Germany Prepares Further Spying Clampdown,”
Lexis)//twemchen
Government representatives later called it a "sign of self-confidence," noting: "Now it's their turn." They want the Americans to
finally provide some answers, at least to the
most pressing questions surrounding the spying scandal, which
ignored in Washington . If Obama refuses to back down, the
German government could take further steps. However, Merkel already imposed narrow limits on herself
were posed a year ago and have since been
from the very beginning. She doesn't want to jeopardize intelligence cooperation, because she believes that the risk of attacks in
Germany is too great to simply dispense with US intelligence information. But in light of the most recent events, even the most proAmerican faction in the government is now increasingly willing to "realign" the intelligence services. What this means, most of all, is
that the
BFV will probably broaden its focus to include the U nited S tates in its
counterespionage efforts in the future. In addition, the government is having experts in all
government ministries search for weaknesses in communication technology, along with signs of American
spying activity. The hunt for additional moles has also begun at the BND. An investigative team will search data systems in all
departments for unauthorized access, over a period of several years. If the Americans remain obstinate, Berlin
officials are even thinking about suspending or even paring back treaties with the United
States. In this context, the so-called Safe Harbor Program could prove to be an effective tool to
apply pressure to Washington. The 2000 agreement allows US companies to store and process
billions of pieces of data on European citizens, but only if they pledge to abide by European data
privacy rules -- with US authorities monitoring compliance. More than 3,000 companies, including giants like Google,
Facebook and Microsoft, have already agreed to the rules of the program. "If we suspend this cooperative
program, it will be both an economic and political blow to the Americans," says Jan Philipp Albrecht,
a Green Party member of the European Parliament. His fellow party member Renate Künast, chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs
and Consumer Protection in the Bundestag, says: "Under the Safe
Harbor Agreement, our data are not secure when
transmitted to the United States, but instead are exposed to uncertainty." The German government
is still hesitating before putting the screws on Washington. But at this point no one would bet that further
cases will not turn up. "The Americans are furnishing their opponents with free
arguments ," says a government official.
germany rels good – warming
Rels solve warming
Sivaram and Livingston 6/23 – staff writers at Foreign Affairs (Varun Sivaram and David Livingston,
6/23/15, “Leading From Between,” https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-06-23/leadingbetween)//twemchen
For the last two decades, climate talks, and their top-down multinational approaches, have largely failed to
curb rising temperatures. Since then, a number of subnational actors (provinces, cities, businesses, and civil society
organizations, among others) have sought to tackle climate change from the bottom up. For example, at a summit in New York last
year, various subnational associations pledged to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Around 75 mayors from around
the world, recognizing that cities account for some 70 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, signed a Mayors Compact to
accelerate ongoing efforts to shrink their carbon footprint. And major civil society organizations and businesses also signed various
pledges on a range of initiatives, from expanding energy efficiency to halting deforestation. California is a leader when it comes to
electric cars. The futuristic Aptera sports an aerodynamic design and a 100 miles per gallon range, February 13, 2009. These
initiatives are promising, but they will not do enough. According to at least one study, the subnational initiatives
agreed to at last year’s summit have the potential to reduce emissions by only a fifth of the required reduction needed to keep global
warming under two degrees Celsius—a threshold that if exceeded, may trigger fiercer storms and increased droughts. Subnational
progress is limited because ground-up climate diplomacy has largely operated on an independent track from international
diplomacy. The risk with these parallel approaches is that ground-up goals will not be incorporated into top-down ones, which risks
marginalizing their efficacy. Unlocking the potential of subnational climate action will require integration of subnational and
international initiatives. And the two entities that can bridge that gap are California and Germany —two of
the world’s pioneers when it comes to climate policies. Both are on track to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent
below 1990 levels by the year 2050, the level of reduction that the world must achieve in order to stop temperatures from rising
another two degrees Celsius. California Governor Jerry Brown recently pledged to reach 50 percent renewable power in the state by
2030, from just over 20 percent today; German Chancellor Angela
Merkel recently reaffirmed her vision for
Germany to meet all of its power needs with renewable energy by 2050 (the country is around the 30
percent mark today). By contrast, OECD nations on average use only 10 percent renewable energy. (All examples exclude large
hydropower.) Because California
and Germany have both subnational and national
characteristics, they enjoy broad respect from cities, provinces, and nations alike. In this way, they
can “lead from between” and bridge the two levels of diplomacy. Both exert a high level
of influence within much larger political contexts—the United States and the European Union, respectively—and
exemplify how subnational action can elevate national ambition . Both are also among
the top ten global economies, able to move markets with policy. Already, California’s aggressive vehicle fuel economy standards have
been adopted at the national level, and it single-handedly pushed automakers to produce electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles
through its zero emission vehicle regulations. For its part, Germany pushed the European Union to pledge to emission reductions of
40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. It can also claim most of the credit for kickstarting the global solar panel industry through its
Feed-in Tariff incentive program. Governments that once criticized California and Germany for far-fetched policies now look to
them for tactical guidance. Unlocking the potential of subnational climate action will require integration of subnational and
international initiatives. And the two entities that can bridge that gap are California and Germany—two of the world’s pioneers when
it comes to climate policies. REUTERSThe Lieberose solar farm is Germany's largest solar power plant and the second largest in the
world, August 14, 2009 file photo. The place to push for this approach and merge local and international efforts is at the December
UN Climate Conference in Paris. This conference is already poised to make progress, having evolved from the top-down framework
of the past to a more bottom-up model in which nations propose their own targets. California and Germany can complete the
transformation from a top-down to a bottom-up paradigm by advocating for the inclusion of local action plans in any Paris climate
agreement. Furthermore, they should push for a framework that encourages subnational actors to work constructively with national
governments to scale up local innovations to meet and elevate national emission reduction goals. Ideally, the Paris agreement will
also set up a transparent system to monitor and verify national progress toward climate action pledges. California and Germany
should encourage the adoption of the Paris mandates at the most local level. They can start by appealing to an already enthusiastic
pilot group: a group of 12 subnational provinces and states that California and the German state of Baden-Württemberg led, in May,
to sign an agreement pledging to cut emissions by at least 80 percent below the 1990 level by 2050. The provinces and cities that
seek to transform their local energy systems can also benefit from California and Germany’s expertise. Both could offer various
consulting services to enable local policymakers and energy professionals to share best practices in, for example, the market design
and technical integration of renewable energy. Germany could share the success and failures of its experiment with the “renewables
club,” now called the International Renewables Energy Agency, which comprises 140 nations that share data and best practices on
sustainable energy initaitives. California and Germany should carve out a similar space for local technical cooperation.
Facilitating the exchange of expertise will be inexpensive compared with the cost of developing that
expertise in the first place. And in California and Germany, energy businesses will likely find this exchange a lucrative one since it
provides an opportunity to connect with new markets. The yawning gap between California and Germany’s progress and the lack
thereof around the world challenges the idea that climate change must be addressed with independent multinational and
subnational approaches. After
decades of pioneering action on climate change, it is time
these two climate leaders bring the rest of the world up to speed.
germany rels good – warming – at: co2 ag
CO2 fertilization is only true for idealized circumstances
Lewis et. al. 14 (Dr Simon Lewis, Reader in Global Change Science at University College London. Prof
Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts Research at the Met Office and Chair in Climate Impacts at the
University of Exeter. Prof Peter Cox, Professor of Climate System Dynamics at the University of Exeter. Dr
Chris Huntingford, Climate Modeller at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. “expert reaction to new
study on plants and CO2”. 13 October 2014. Science Media Center.
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-new-study-on-plants-and-co2)//JuneC//
A study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has suggested that differences in carbon dioxide
concentrations inside plants may account for errors in estimations of their capacity for carbon storage. Dr Simon Lewis, Reader in
Global Change Science at University College London, said: “Earth’s vegetation currently removes about one quarter of all human
emissions of carbon dioxide. This new analysis suggests that some modelling studies slightly underestimated the size of this major
free subsidy from nature over the past 100 years. “But what does this mean for the future? This is hard to tell from the new study as
it does not model the future. Looking forward 100 years the amount of uptake of carbon dioxide by the world’s
vegetation is uncertain. Many scientists think climate models are too optimistic about how much carbon
dioxide forests can take up. Few think trees will grow ever-bigger as they are fertilized by ever-higher
amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Something else, such as nutrients, water or extremely high
temperatures may well limit growth in the future. This study, considering only one aspect of photosynthesis shows,
correctly in my view, that photosynthesis is highly responsive to carbon dioxide, but this is far from the only factor amongst many
that will impact the forests of the 21st century and how much carbon they store. “The level and speed of greenhouse gas emissions
cuts needed to avoid dangerous levels of climate change are not altered by this new study.” Prof Richard Betts, Head of Climate
Impacts Research at the Met Office and Chair in Climate Impacts at the University of Exeter, said: “This is a very interesting paper
adding to our understanding of plant physiology. The authors remark on the potential importance of their results for global carbon
cycle modelling, and this is indeed relevant, but as a priority for improving carbon cycle modelling there are other processes which
current models treat either very simplistically or not at all. Fire disturbance, for example, is not included in some of
the models examined here – its inclusion could be more important than any improvements in modelling
CO2 fertilization, as it seems likely to be an important feedback on climate change. Changes in global soil
respiration at the global scale are also poorly understood. “So while this is an interesting and useful contribution, it
should be put into context with the bigger picture – disturbance mechanisms as well as physiological processes are important.” Prof
Peter Cox, Professor of Climate System Dynamics at the University of Exeter, said: “We are usually told that CO2-fertilization is
over-estimated in climate models, mainly because we neglect the limitations nutrients can have on plant growth. So this paper goes
against that flow by suggesting that the models might actually under-estimate the effect of CO2 on plant growth. However, results
from Free-Air CO2 Enrichment Experiments (FACE) still tend to support the prevailing view that models most likely over-estimate
CO2 fertilization on the century timescale. “In any case, the effect discussed in this paper is relatively small compared to the overall
uncertainties in the future land carbon sink. Avoiding 2 degrees of global warming is a huge challenge for
humanity even if this effect is taken into account.” Dr Chris Huntingford, Climate Modeller at the Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology, said: “Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide can be compared to how much is produced by burning fossil fuels.
Approximately 50% of the CO2 we put into the atmosphere is drawn down into the land or oceans, partly offsetting global warming.
To understand how much the planet will warm over the next decades depends on how much the earth continues to pull CO2 from
the atmosphere. This new paper suggests plants are slightly better at capturing CO2 than we thought. “This new research implies it
will be slightly easier to fulfil the target of keeping global warming below two degrees – but with a big emphasis on ‘slightly’. Overall,
the cuts in CO2 emissions over the next few decades will still have to be very large if we want to keep warming below 2 degrees.”
***france rels
uniqueness
US-French relations on the brink – now is key
Hinnant and Charlton 6/25 (Lori and Angela. Associated Press. “France summons U.S. ambassador
after reports U.S. spied on presidents”. KSL. 25 June 2015.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=35214540)//JuneC//
PARIS * Embarrassed by leaked conversations of three successive French presidents and angered by new evidence of uninhibited
American spying, France demanded answers Wednesday from the Obama administration and called for an intelligence "code of
conduct" between allies. France's foreign minister summoned the U.S. ambassador to respond to the WikiLeaks revelations, as
French eyes fixed on the top floor of the U.S. Embassy after reports that a nest of NSA surveillance equipment was concealed behind
elaborately painted windows there, just down the block from the presidential Elysee Palace. "Commitments were made by our
American allies. They must be firmly recalled and strictly respected," Prime Minister Manuel Valls said. "Being loyal doesn't mean
falling into line." President Barack Obama told French President Francois Hollande in a phone conversation Wednesday that the
U.S. wasn't targeting his communications. The White House said Obama told Hollande that the U.S. was abiding by a commitment
Obama made in 2013 not to spy on the French leader after Edward Snowden disclosed the extent of NSA surveillance powers. The
White House said Obama also pledged to continue close co-operation with France on matters of intelligence and security. If not a
surprise, the latest revelations put both countries in something of a quandary. France's counter-espionage
capabilities were called into question at the highest level. The United States, meanwhile, was shown not
only to be eavesdropping on private conversations of its closest allies but also to be unable to keep its own
secrets. "The rule in espionage - even between allies - is that everything is allowed, as long as it's not
discovered," Arnaud Danjean, a former analyst for France's spy agency and currently a lawmaker in the
European Parliament, told France-Info radio. "The Americans have been caught with their hand in the
jam jar a little too often, and this discredits them." The French aren't denying the need for good intelligence - they have
long relied on U.S. intel co-operation to fight terrorism for example, and are trying to beef up their own capabilities, too. The release
of the spying revelations appeared to be timed to coincide with a final vote Wednesday in the French Parliament on a bill allowing
broad new surveillance powers, in particular to counter threats of French extremists linked to foreign jihad. Hollande, calling the
U.S. spying an "unacceptable" security breach, convened two emergency meetings as a result of the disclosures about the NSA's
spying. The documents appear to capture top French officials in Paris between 2006 and 2012 talking candidly about Greece's
economy, relations with Germany, and American spying on allies. The top floor of the U.S. Embassy, visible from
France's Elysee Palace, reportedly was filled with spying equipment hidden behind tromp l'oeil windows,
according to the Liberation newspaper, which partnered with WikiLeaks and the website Mediapart on
the documents. U.S. Ambassador Jane Hartley was summoned to the French Foreign Ministry, where she promised to provide
quick responses to French concerns, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said. He said he understood eavesdropping for
counterterrorist reasons, "but this has nothing to do with that." Hollande was sending his top intelligence co-ordinator to the U.S. to
U.S. must
do everything it can, and quickly, to "repair the damage" to U.S.-French
relations from the revelations. "If the fact of the revelations today does not constitute a real surprise
ensure that promises made after earlier NSA spying revelations in 2013 and 2014 have been kept. Valls said the
for anyone, that in no way lessens the emotion and the anger. They are legitimate. France will not tolerate
any action threatening its security and fundamental interests," he said. Government spokesman Stephane
Le Foll told reporters, "France does not listen in on its allies." He added, "we reminded all (government)
ministers to be vigilant in their conversations." Two of the cables - dealing with then-President Nicolas Sarkozy and
Jacques Chirac, his predecessor - were marked "USA, AUS, CAN, GBR, NZL" suggesting that the material was meant to be shared
with Britain, Canada and other members of the so-called Five Eyes intelligence alliance. The disclosures, which emerged late
Tuesday, mean that France has joined Germany on the list of U.S. allies targeted by the NSA. !@COPYRIGHT=© 2015 TelegraphJournal (New Brunswick)
uniqueness – at: IMS re-accession
That’s a good first step – but it’s historical legacies ensure it’s insufficient
Grossman 10 – senior research fellow and lecturer at Sciences Po and the Centre d’etudes europeennes.
Research focuses on interest groups, financial regulation, and political institutions (Emiliano Grossman,
Jun 2010, “Introduction: US-France Relations in the Age of Sarkozy,” European Political Science: EPS9.2
(Jun 2010): 149-154., ProQuest)//twemchen
The contributions to this symposium adopt a variety of views on the recent evolution of relations
between the US and
France. Most contributions share a common interest in the historical formation of defence and foreign
policy. Keiger, Cogan or Howorth consider that at least part of the current relations can be explained through 'deep historical
forces' (Howorth). Cogan underlines the historical rivalry and 'intellectual competition' between France and the US that has led to an
ambiguous relationship. The
reintegration of the military structure of NATO will not solve all
problems; it is at best a first step . Howorth refers to events in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries to elucidate Franco-US relations. Keiger focuses on the early twentieth century and the interwar
period to explain the ambiguity of France towards the 'Anglosaxons'. The argument is that the legacy
inherited from this period has made more difficult the adaptation of French foreign policy
to 'the realities of today'.
uniqueness – wikileaks – at: hinnant and charlton
Concludes aff
Hinnant and Charlton 6/24 – staff writers at Associated Press (Lori Hinnant and Angela Sharlton,
Associated Press, 6/26/15, “Anger, no surprise as US newly accused of spying in France,”
Lexis)//twemchen
The White House said Obama also pledged
to continue close cooperation with France on matters of
intelligence and security. If not a surprise, the latest revelations put both countries in something of a quandary. France's counter-espionage capabilities were called into question at the highest
level. The United States, meanwhile, was shown not only to be eavesdropping on private conversations of its closest allies but also to be unable to keep its own secrets. "The rule in espionage - even between allies is that everything is allowed, as long as it's not discovered," Arnaud Danjean, a former analyst for France's spy agency and currently a lawmaker in the European Parliament, told France-Info radio. "The Americans
have been caught with their hand in the jam jar a little too often, and this discredits them." Still, the French weren't denying the need for good intelligence - they have long relied on U.S. intel cooperation to fight
terrorism and are trying to beef up their own capabilities. The release of the spying revelations appeared timed to coincide with a final vote Wednesday in the French Parliament on a controversial bill allowing
broad new surveillance powers, in particular to counter threats of French extremists linked to foreign jihad. The law, which would give intelligence services authority to monitor Internet use and phone calls in
France, passed in a show-of-hands vote, despite a last round of criticism from privacy advocates concerned about massive U.S.-style data sweeps. It won't take effect, however, until a high court rules on whether it
is constitutional. Hours before the vote, the Socialist-led government again denied accusations that it wants massive NSA-style powers. "I will not let it be said that this law could call into question our liberties and
that our practices will be those that we condemn today," Valls said. Hollande, calling the U.S. spying an "unacceptable" security breach, convened two emergency meetings as a result of the spying disclosures. The
top floor of the U.S. Embassy, visible from France's Elysee Palace, reportedly was filled with spying equipment hidden behind elaborately painted tromp l'oeil windows, according to the Liberation newspaper,
which partnered with WikiLeaks and the website Mediapart on the documents. U.S. Ambassador Jane Hartley was summoned to the Foreign Ministry, where she promised to provide quick responses to French
Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said. He said he understood the need for
eavesdropping for counterterrorist reasons, "but this has nothing to do with that." Hollande
concerns,
was sending his top intelligence coordinator to the U.S. to ensure that promises made after earlier NSA spying revelations in 2013
and 2014 have been kept. Valls said the
U.S. must do everything it can, and quickly, to "repair
the damage" to U.S.-French relations. "If the fact of the revelations today does not
constitute a real surprise for anyone, that in no way lessens the emotion and the anger .
They are legitimate. France will not tolerate any action threatening its security and fundamental
interests," he said. "France does not listen in on its allies," government spokesman Stephane Le Foll told reporters.
uniqueness – wikileaks – at: stopped spying on
prez
We’re still spying – that fractures relations
Willsher 6/25 – staff writer at the Guardian (Kim Willsher, 6/25/15, “Obama calls Hollande to promise
NSA is no longer spying on French president; Vague communique leaves unclear extent of US spying in
FranceFrance expresses displeasure by summoning US ambassador,” The Guardian, Lexis)//twemchen
Barack Obama has assured the French president, François Hollande,
that American intelligence services
are no longer tapping his phone. During a brief telephone call, the American leader was reported to have reiterated a
pledge made two years ago to stop spying on his French counterpart, according to Hollande's office. But a vaguely
worded statement released shortly afterwards by the White House failed to clarify whether the National
Security Agency was still bugging the conversations and emails of other French diplomats and officials.
The statement said Obama had "affirmed our unwavering commitment to the bilateral relationship including our ongoing close
cooperation in the intelligence and security fields. The president reiterated that we have abided by the commitment we made to our
French counterparts in late 2013 that we are not targeting and will not target the communications of the French president." It added
that it was "committed to our
productive and indispensable intelligence relationship with France,
which allows us to make progress against shared threats, including international
terrorism and proliferation , among others" - but left open the question of whether the US
continued to spy on others in France.
internal link
Surveillance of the US Paris embassy hurts US credibility and risks French
relations
Hinnant and Charlton 6/24 (Lori is a correspondent for the Associated Press and specializes in
international business and French news, Angela is a AP journalist and bureau chief, 2015, “Anger, no
surprises as US is accused of spying on an ally _ this time, France”,
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/06/24/french-president-calls-us-spying-revelationsunacceptable)//cc
PARIS (AP) — Embarrassed
by leaked conversations of three successive French presidents
and angered by new evidence of uninhibited American spying, France demanded
answers Wednesday and called for an intelligence "code of conduct" between allies. France's
foreign minister summoned the U.S. ambassador to respond to the WikiLeaks revelations, while President Barack Obama spoke by
phone with his French counterpart.
And all eyes were fixed on the top floor of the U.S. Embassy
after reports that a nest of NSA surveillance equipment was concealed there, just down the
block from the presidential Elysee Palace. "Commitments were made by our American allies. They
must be firmly recalled and strictly respected," Prime Minister Manuel Valls said. "Being loyal doesn't mean
falling into line." Obama told Hollande in the phone conversation Wednesday that the U.S. wasn't targeting his communications, the
White House said. Obama said the U.S. was abiding by a commitment that he made in 2013 not to spy on the French leader after
Edward Snowden disclosed the extent of NSA surveillance powers. That pledge came a year after the last of the revelations in the
new Wikileaks trove, which date from 2006 to 2012 and appear to capture top French officials talking candidly about relations with
Germany, Greece's economy and American spying on allies. The White House said Obama also pledged to continue close
cooperation with France on matters of intelligence and security. If
not a surprise, the latest revelations put
both countries in something of a quandary. France's counter-espionage capabilities were called into question at
the highest level. The United States, meanwhile, was shown not only to be eavesdropping on
private conversations of its closest allies but also to be unable to keep its own secrets.
"The rule in espionage — even between allies — is that everything is allowed, as long as it's not discovered," Arnaud Danjean, a
former analyst for France's spy agency and currently a lawmaker in the European Parliament, told France-Info radio. "The
Americans have been caught with their hand in the jam jar a little too often, and this
discredits them." Still, the French weren't denying the need for good intelligence — they have long relied on U.S. intel
cooperation to fight terrorism and are trying to beef up their own capabilities. The release of the spying revelations appeared timed
to coincide with a final vote Wednesday in the French Parliament on a controversial bill allowing broad new surveillance powers, in
particular to counter threats of French extremists linked to foreign jihad. The law, which would give intelligence services authority to
monitor Internet use and phone calls in France, passed in a show-of-hands vote, despite a last round of criticism from privacy
advocates concerned about massive U.S.-style data sweeps. It won't take effect, however, until a high court rules on whether it is
constitutional. Hours before the vote, the Socialist-led government again denied accusations that it wants massive NSA-style powers.
"I will not let it be said that this law could call into question our liberties and that our practices will be those that we condemn
today," Valls said. Hollande,
calling the U.S. spying an "unacceptable" security breach,
convened two emergency meetings as a result of the spying disclosures. The top floor of
the U.S. Embassy, visible from France's Elysee Palace, reportedly was filled with spying equipment
hidden behind elaborately painted tromp l'oeil windows, according to the Liberation newspaper, which
partnered with WikiLeaks and the website Mediapart on the documents.
French officials outraged by NSA spying allegations
Kouri 6/26 (Jim, Law Enforcement Examiner, 2015, “French complaints of U.S. spying evidence of
Obama's poor management”, http://www.examiner.com/article/french-complaints-of-u-s-spyingevidence-of-obama-s-poor-management)//cc
The French government on Wednesday called on U.S. diplomats to answer questions
about the latest allegations spying by the United States on French officials. French President
Francois Hollande had called a meeting of his ministers and army commanders after WikiLeaks announced that the National
Security Agency (NSA) have been spying on the France's president, according to news outlets overseas. Rampant electronic
eavesdropping is nothing new. Bill Clinton had one of the most expansive spy programs known as the "Echelon Program."
President Hollande told the U.S. embassy that his country won't allow actions that
threaten its security and the protection of its interests and that this is not the first time
that reports of U.S. spying on the French government and military have been received.
President Barack Obama was intensely criticized by intelligence, law enforcement and
military officers who believe his inexperience, lack of leadership qualities and his
curiosity about what others are saying about him and his administration led to
Wikileaks obtaining top secret information. "It's a known fact that people without security clearances are
walking around the place [White House] with classified documents and treat it like it was yesterday's newspapers. At best, it's a
sloppy way to run an intelligence program, at worst it's a good way to encourage theft of secrets," said former police intelligence unit
detective Arthur J. Pullington. As is usually expected in U.S. Democratic administrations, a statement by officials with the National
Security Council parsed their language when they claimed they were "not targeting and will not target" Hollande's and French
government's communications. But the NSC failed to address past incidents of covert surveillance of key officials in France.
Hollande had indicated a number of times that President Obama let him down with his
failure to strike Syrian government positions in 2013 when they did cross Obama's figurative "red line." Obama had threatened to
take action if the Syrian troops used chemical weapons against the rebels and civilians, which had happened. However, when they
did and crossed the "red line" Obama did nothing. The French have also indicated their displeasure over US officials' weak-kneed
participation in negotiations with Iranian official over Iran's nuclear weapons program. The
allegation of U.S. spying
on Western allies began with the revelation that the NSA had spied on Germany,
especially German Chancellor Angela Merkel. It also became known that Germany's own intelligence official
had worked with the NSA to conduct covert surveillance of officials and businesses in other European countries. WikiLeaks posted
information on its Twitter account saying it plans to release documents providing more evidence of U.S. espionage of France. "We
find it hard to understand or imagine what motivates an ally [the U.S.] to spy on allies who are [sic] often on the same strategic
positions in world affairs," French government spokesman Stephane Le Foll told the news media. Ever since documents leaked by
Wikileaks which it got illegally from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden showed in 2013 that the NSA had been eavesdropping
on the cellphone of German Chancellor Merkel, it
had been understood that the U.S. had been using the
signal spy agency to eavesdrop on the conversations of allied political leaders and their
militaries.
Reports of NSA spying in the United States’ Paris embassy reignite friction
and threaten trust
Irish and Pineau 6/24 (John is a correspondent at Reuters and Elizabeth is a journalist at
Reuters, the worlds’ largest multimedia news agency, 2015, “Obama reassures France after 'unacceptable'
NSA spying”, http://news.yahoo.com/france-summons-u-envoy-over-unacceptable-spying100448374.html)//cc
PARIS (Reuters) - U.S.
President Barack Obama reaffirmed in a phone call with his French counterpart
Francois Hollande on Wednesday Washington's commitment to end spying practices deemed
"unacceptable" by its allies. The presidents' conversation, announced by Hollande's office, came
after transparency lobby group WikiLeaks revealed on Tuesday that U.S. National Security Agency
(NSA) had spied on the last three French presidents. The latest revelations of espionage
among Western allies came after it emerged that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) had spied
on Germany and that Germany's own BND intelligence agency had cooperated with the
NSA to spy on officials and companies elsewhere in Europe. "President Obama reiterated
unequivocally his firm commitment ... to end the practices that may have happened in the past and that are considered unacceptable
among allies," the French president's office said. Hollande had earlier held an emergency meeting of his ministers and army
commanders and the U.S. ambassador was summoned to the foreign ministry. "France
will not tolerate actions
that threaten its security and the protection of its interests," an earlier statement from the president's
office said, adding it was not the first time allegations of U.S. spying on French interests had surfaced. A senior French intelligence
official will travel to the United States to discuss the matter and strengthen cooperation between the two countries, Hollande's office
said. "We
have to verify that this spying has finished," Stephane Le Foll, government
spokesman, told reporters, adding that ministers had been told to be careful when
speaking on their mobile phones. While Paris and Washington have good ties in general, U.N. Security Council
veto-holder France fiercely maintains its independence on foreign policy and over the last
two years there have been moments of friction and irritation on both sides. Hollande was
disappointed by Obama's last-minute decision not to strike Syrian government positions in 2013. U.S. officials have
frequently, in private, criticized France's tough stance in talks over Iran's nuclear program. The revelations
were first reported by French daily Liberation and on news website Mediapart, which said the NSA spied on presidents Jacques
Chirac, Nicolas Sarkozy and Francois Hollande during the period of at least 2006 until May 2012. According to the documents,
Sarkozy considered restarting Israeli-Palestinian peace talks without U.S. involvement and Hollande feared a Greek euro zone exit
back in 2012. Wikileaks said it would soon publish more details on the nature of U.S. spying on France. Le Foll said Paris had not
decided whether to launch legal proceedings as Germany had done but, amid calls
from some quarters for
retaliation, played down diplomatic consequences. "In the face of threats that we face and given the historic ties linking us, we
have to keep a perspective," he said. "We're not going to break diplomatic ties." Germany's top public prosecutor closed a year-long
probe earlier this month into the suspected tapping of Chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone by U.S. spies. Claude
Gueant,
Sarkozy's former chief of staff and one of the reported targets of the NSA, told RTL radio: "I feel like
trust has been broken." The documents, which included the cell phone of one of the
presidents, included summaries of conversations between French officials on the global
financial crisis, the future of the European Union, ties between Hollande's
administration and Merkel's government.
Embassy spying seen as a serious breach of security commitments – wrecks
French relations
Hinnant and Charlton 6/24 – Associated Press Correspondent, Master’s Degree in International
Relations and Affairs from Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs; AP Chief of
Bureau for France, the Benelux nations and North Africa, BA in Journalism from NYU (Lori, Angela, “US
faces new allegations of spying, this time in France,” the Boston Globe, Associated Press, 6-24-15,
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/06/24/faces-new-allegations-spying-this-timefrance/YA7wKZiW4Ti8IcWRg1GzWJ/story.html)//AD
PARIS — Embarrassed by leaked conversations of three successive French presidents and
angered by new evidence of uninhibited American spying, France demanded answers
Wednesday from the Obama administration and called for an intelligence ‘‘code of
conduct’’ between allies. France’s foreign minister summoned the U.S. ambassador to
respond to the WikiLeaks revelations, as French eyes fixed on the top floor of the U.S. Embassy
after reports that trompe l’oeil windows there concealed a nest of NSA surveillance
equipment just around the corner from the presidential Elysee palace. ‘‘Commitments
were made by our American allies. They must be firmly recalled and strictly respected,’’
Prime Minister Manuel Valls said. ‘‘Being loyal doesn’t mean falling into line.’’ French
President Francois Hollande spoke by telephone with President Barack Obama
Wednesday and Obama reiterated promises to stop spying tactics considered
‘‘unacceptable between allies,’’ Hollande said. The White House also said Obama told the
French president the US was not targeting his communications. Obama made a similar
pledge after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the extent of the agency’s surveillance
powers in 2013. If not a surprise, the revelations put both countries in something of a
quandary. France’s counter-espionage capabilities were called into question at the
highest level. The United States, meanwhile, was shown not only to be eavesdropping on
private conversations of its closest allies but also to be unable to keep its own secrets.
‘‘The rule in espionage — even between allies — is that everything is allowed, as long as it’s not
discovered,’’ Arnaud Danjean, a former analyst for France’s spy agency and currently a lawmaker in the
European Parliament, told France-Info radio. ‘‘The Americans have been caught with their hand
in the jam jar a little too often, and this discredits them.’’ The French aren’t denying the
need for good intelligence — they have long relied on U.S. intel cooperation to fight
terrorism for example, and are trying to beef up their own capabilities, too. The release of
the spying revelations appeared to be timed to coincide with a final vote Wednesday in the French
Parliament on a bill allowing broad new surveillance powers, in particular to counter threats of French
extremists linked to foreign jihad. Hollande, calling the U.S. spying an ‘‘unacceptable’’
security breach, convened two emergency meetings as a result of the disclosures about
the NSA’s spying. The first was with France’s top security officials, the second with
leading legislators — many of whom have already voted for the new surveillance measure. The
documents appear to capture top French officials in Paris between 2006 and 2012 talking candidly about
Greece’s economy, relations with Germany, and American spying on allies. The top floor of the U.S.
Embassy, visible from France’s presidential Elysee Palace, reportedly was filled with spying
equipment hidden behind carefully painted windows, according to the Liberation newspaper,
which partnered with WikiLeaks and the website Mediapart on the documents. U.S. Ambassador Jane
Hartley was summoned to the French Foreign Ministry. Hollande is also sending his top intelligence
coordinator to the U.S. shortly, to ensure that promises made after earlier NSA spying revelations in 2013
and 2014 have been kept, the spokesman said. Valls said the U.S. must do everything it can, and
quickly, to ‘‘repair the damage’’ to U.S.-French relations from the revelations, which he
called ‘‘a very serious violation of the spirit of trust’’ between the allies. ‘‘If the fact of the
revelations today does not constitute a real surprise for anyone, that in no way lessens the emotion and
the anger. They are legitimate. France will not tolerate any action threatening its security and
fundamental interests,’’ he said. Government spokesman Stephane Le Foll told reporters ‘‘France
does not listen in on its allies.’’ He added, ‘‘we reminded all (government) ministers to be vigilant in their
conversations.’’ The U.S. Embassy had no comment on the WikiLeaks revelations. U.S. National Security
Council spokesman Ned Price released a statement Tuesday evening saying the U.S. is ‘‘not targeting and
will not target the communications of President Hollande.’’ Price did not address claims that the U.S. had
previously eavesdropped on Hollande or his predecessors, Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac.
Sacre bleu! Wikileaks reveals NSA French embassy surveillance – tension
in relations
Morrissey 6/24 – Reporter of the Heritage Foundation, Political analyst (Ed, “Sacre bleu! France
summons US ambassador over NSA surveillance of past three presidents,” Hot Air News, 6-24-15,
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/24/sacre-bleu-france-summons-us-ambassador-over-nsasurveillance-of-past-three-presidents/)//AD
Edward Snowden continue to bring all sorts of damage to US intelligence and
diplomacy. First came the documents that showed US intelligence had conducted
The files of
surveillance in Germany, which led to months of strained diplomacy. Today it’s France’s
turn to act shocked, shocked that its friends listen in on its sensitive communications: The
French government reacted with anger on Wednesday to revelations about extensive
eavesdropping by the United States government on the private conversations of senior French leaders,
including three presidents and dozens of senior government figures. President François Hollande
called an emergency meeting of the Defense Council on Wednesday morning to discuss the revelations published by the French news websiteMediapart
and the left-leaning newspaper Libération about spying by the National Security Agency. In a spare but strongly worded statement released after the
the government said the behavior was “unacceptable” and that it would not
“tolerate any actions that put French security and the protection of French interests in
danger.” The new information, this time regarding French officials, appears to come
from the WikiLeaks trove of documents released by the former N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden, and is
meeting,
from the period 2006 to 2012. Julian Assange, a co-founder of WikiLeaks, is listed as one of the authors of the Mediapart and Libération articles. This is
Relations between
Washington and Berlin cooled significantly after reports in October 2013 accused the
N.S.A. of monitoring one of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cellphones, although Germany’s federal prosecutor dropped
a formal investigation this month because of a lack of evidence. They’re shocked enough to demand an explanation
from the US ambassador, using the formal mechanism of diplomatic anger — the
summons: France summoned the U.S. ambassador to the Foreign Ministry and the
French president held a high-level emergency meeting Wednesday following revelations by WikiLeaks that the
U.S. National Security Agency had eavesdropped on the past three French presidents. … U.S. Ambassador Jane Hartley was
summoned to the French Foreign Ministry, according to government spokesman Stephane Le Foll. Hollande is also
the second time that WikiLeaks revelations have upended American diplomatic ties with a close ally.
sending France’s top intelligence coordinator to the United States shortly, to ensure that promises made after earlier NSA spying revelations in 2013
and 2014 have been kept, Le Foll said. Calling the spying “incomprehensible,” Le Foll told reporters “France does not listen in on its allies.” Mon Dieu!
France has a short institutional memory. For years, France conducted high-intensity industrial espionage against its European allies, a situation also
France is
the country that conducts the most industrial espionage on other European countries,
even ahead of China and Russia, according to leaked U.S. diplomatic cables, reported in a
revealed by Wikileaks in 2011. The US at that time considered French espionage to cause more damage than either China or Russia:
translation by Agence France Presse of Norwegian daily Aftenposten’s reporting. “French espionage is so widespread that the damages (it causes) the
German economy are larger as a whole than those caused by China or Russia,” an undated note from the U.S. embassy in Berlin said. In October, 2009,
Berry Smutny, the head of German satellite company OHB Technology, is quoted in the diplomatic note as saying: “France is the Empire of Evil in
The NSA’s job is to surveil foreign communications for
intelligence. As John Kerry said at the time, this “is not unusual for lots of nations,” especially one on which nations like France and Germany
terms of technology theft, and Germany knows it.”
rely heavily for international security. The role of global policeman saves those nations from redirecting their own wealth into security rather than
these shocked, shocked nations also conduct their
own intel operations, and it would be silly and naïve beyond belief to think that they
don’t conduct intelligence gathering efforts about the US and its policy decisions, too.
The key is not getting caught and embarrassing everyone into demonstrations of anger and sanctimony. That
social welfare and bailouts of other European nations. Besides,
brings us back to Edward Snowden and the ongoing leaks from American intelligence operations. While the argument that Snowden had to abscond
with this data to expose domestic-surveillance abuses and he did a service to Americans and their privacy by doing so is strong (although still
there isn’t much of an argument for exposing the legitimate collection of foreign
intelligence for which NSA and other agencies are commissioned. These releases seem calculated to do
debatable),
unnecessary damage to the US rather than push for any specific reforms.
France summoned US ambassador amidst spying allegations – heightened
tensions risk hurting relations
Spark and Mullen 6/24 – Senior Broadcast Journalist, BA in Journalism form University of Leeds;
CNN news desk editor (Laura, Jethro, “France summons U.S. ambassador after reports U.S. spied on
presidents,” CNN, 6-24-15, http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/europe/france-wikileaks-nsa-spyingclaims/index.html) //AD
France has summoned the U.S. ambassador for a meeting Wednesday in the wake of
reports that the United States spied on French President François Hollande and his two
predecessors -- despite France being a close ally. WikiLeaks has published what it said were U.S. National
Security Agency reports about secret communications of the last three French presidents between 2006
and 2012. France won't tolerate "any action jeopardizing its security and the protection of
its interests," the country's Defense Council said in a statement Wednesday. But it suggested
it was already well aware of the spying allegations. "These unacceptable facts already resulted in
clarifications between France and the United States" in 2013 and 2014, the Defense Council said.
"Commitments were made by the American authorities," the council said. " They must be recalled
and strictly respected." Hollande had convened a meeting of the council after reports appeared in the
French press about the information released by WikiLeaks. Amid French anger over the latest
revelations, the U.S. ambassador to France, Jane Hartley, has been summoned to
appear at the French Foreign Ministry at 6 p.m. local time (noon ET). Hollande and U.S. President
Barack Obama also will speak by telephone about the spying claims at some point Wednesday, Claude
Bartolone, president of France's National Assembly, told CNN affiliate BFMTV. 'Indispensable partners'
Responding to the reports late Tuesday, the White House's National Security Council spokesman Ned
Price said: "We are not targeting and will not target the communications of President Hollande. "Indeed,
as we have said previously, we do not conduct any foreign intelligence surveillance activities
unless there is a specific and validated national security purpose. This applies to
ordinary citizens and world leaders alike. "We work closely with France on all matters of
international concern, and the French are indispensable partners." French government
spokesman and Agriculture Minister Stéphane Le Foll said France was taking three immediate steps in
response to the latest allegations. Besides summoning the U.S. ambassador, leading French lawmakers
have been invited to a debriefing session at the Élysée, or presidential palace, he said. France's
intelligence coordinator will be sent to the United States to discuss the measures already
agreed between the two nations. In addition, Prime Minister Manuel Valls will answer a question
from lawmakers Wednesday afternoon at the National Assembly, Le Foll said. Assange: 'Hostile
surveillance' French newspaper Libération and online outlet Mediapart cited five NSA reports published
by WikiLeaks on Tuesday and purportedly pulled from intercepted communications of former Presidents
Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy as well as Hollande and other French figures. According to a
WikiLeaks news release, the cache of "top secret" documents includes "intelligence
summaries of conversations between French government officials concerning some of
the most pressing issues facing France and the international community." These include
"the global financial crisis, the Greek debt crisis, the leadership and future of the European Union, the
relationship between the Hollande administration and the German government of Angela Merkel, French
efforts to determine the make-up of the executive staff of the United Nations, French involvement in the
conflict in Palestine and a dispute between the French and US governments over US spying on France."
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said the French people "have a right to know that
their elected government is subject to hostile surveillance from a supposed ally." WikiLeaks
is proud of its work with Libération and Mediapart to bring the story to light, Assange said, adding that
"French readers can expect more timely and important revelations in the near future." Responding to the
reports, the party led by Sarkozy said in a statement that France was a great country that must be
respected. Much as cooperation between allies' intelligence services is crucial against a
common enemy, it is "unacceptable" that such intelligence tools are turned against an
ally, it said. "It is unbearable that three successive presidents, their advisers, their ministers could have
been regularly spied on for a decade by at least one of the 17 American intelligence agencies," the
statement said. Sarkozy's party, formerly the UMP, was recently renamed Les Républicains. The UMP was
also the party of Chirac. 'Oldest ally' France is a longstanding ally of the United States and, as
a fellow permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and NATO, a key partner in
international diplomacy. U.S. President Barack Obama earlier this year referred to
France as "America's oldest ally." But these are not the first reports alleging U.S. espionage against
its friends. In 2013, Le Monde reported that the NSA had monitored phone calls made in France, citing
documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden to WikiLeaks. That surveillance was
conducted on French citizens and carried out on a "massive scale," as reported by Le Monde. Those
particular phone intercepts took place from December 10, 2012, to January 8, 2013, Le Monde said. An
NSA graph showed an average of 3 million data intercepts a day. Also in 2013, CNN reported on
allegations of NSA surveillance of other world leaders, including Merkel and the
presidents of Brazil and Mexico.
Spying allegations wreck relations – US surveillance is too overreaching
Dyer 6-24 - BA in history from Memorial University of Newfoundland, MA in military
history from Rice University, PhD in military and Middle Eastern history at King's
College London, employed as a senior lecturer in war studies at the Royal Military
Academy Sandhurst (Gwynne, “American spying out of control; Germany now counts
U.S. as one of the 'pariah states',” Hamilton Spectator, 6-24-15,
http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4646562-american-spying-out-of-control/) //AD
The question to bear in mind, when reading this whole sorry tale, is this; If Americans are, on
average, no stupider than Germans, then why are their intelligence services so stupid?
After the most recent revelations about American spying in Germany, there was
considerable speculation among members of the Bundestag (parliament) that Germany might
"get even" by inviting U.S. whistleblower Edward Snowden to leave his Moscow exile
and come to Berlin instead. But last weekend, Chancellor Angela Merkel rained all over that idea.
"We learned things (from Snowden) that we didn't know before, and that's always interesting," she said,
but "granting asylum isn't an act of gratitude." Given that one of the things she learned from
Snowden was that the U.S. National Security Agency was bugging her mobile phone, this showed
admirable restraint on her part. But even Merkel's restraint only goes so far. Only a week before, her
patience with persistent American spying, even after Snowden's revelations, snapped
quite dramatically: she ordered the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's "chief of station"
at the American embassy in Berlin to leave the country. German media reports stressed
that such drastic action had only been taken previously when dealing with "pariah
states like North Korea or Iran." The United States has never formally apologized
for tapping Merkel's phone. It refused to give her access to the NSA file on her before she visited
Washington, D.C., in April. And it went on paying a spy who worked for the Bundesnachrichtendienst
(BND - Federal Intelligence Service). "One can only cry at the sight of so much stupidity," said
Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, insisting that the information given to the U.S. by the spies
was of no real value. That's probably true, yet the American controllers paid their spy in the BND almost
$40,000 in cash for 218 secret German documents downloaded to computer memory sticks. Some of
those secret documents were even about the discussions of the German parliamentary committee that was
investigating the earlier American spying efforts, including the bugging of Merkel's phone. The American
spy agencies simply don't know how to stop spying, even when they have been caught red-handed. They
only got away with such brazen behaviour for so long because the Germans naively trusted them. The spy
from the BND, for example, simply sent the U.S. embassy an email asking if they were interested in
"cooperation." The German authorities didn't pick up on it because they didn't monitor even the uncoded
communications of a "friendly" embassy. The spy was caught only when he got greedy and sent a similar
email to the Russian embassy. Russian communications are monitored as a matter of course in all
Western countries, so the German authorities put the spy under surveillance, and almost immediately
they discovered that he was already selling his information to the Americans. "We must focus more
strongly on our so-called allies," said Stephan Mayer, a security spokesperson of Merkel's
Christian Democratic Party, and one of the first consequences will be the cancellation of
Germany's "no-spy" agreement with the United States. In future, U.S. activities in
Germany will be closely monitored by the German intelligence service. What is clear from all
this is that the American intelligence agencies are completely out of control. They are so
powerful that even after the revelations of massive abuse in the past year, very few
politicians in Washington dare to support radical cuts in their budgets or the scope of
their operations. They collect preposterous amounts of irrelevant information, alienating
friends and allies, and abusing the civil rights of their own citizens in the process. The
German intelligence agency (there's only one) doesn't behave like that. It chooses its targets carefully, it
operates within the law and it doesn't spy on allies. Why the big difference? It's because the annual budget
of the Bundesnachrichtendienst is just under $1 billion, and it employs only 6,000 people. The United
States has only five times as many people as Germany, but its "intelligence community" includes
17 agencies with a total budget of $80 billion. There are 854,000 Americans with top-secret
security clearances. The American intelligence community grew fat and prospered through
four decades of Cold War and two more decades of the "War on Terror." It is now so big, so
rich, so powerful that it can do practically anything it wants. And often it does stuff just
because it can, even if it's totally counterproductive.
Surveillance has soured French relations – hidden equipment uniquely
worse
Paterson 6-7 – Chief Correspondent (Tony, “Germany to spy on US for first time
since 1945 after ‘double agent’ scandal,” Telegraph, 6-7-14,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-to-spy-on-us-for-first-time-since-1945after-double-agentscandal-9590645.html) //AD
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government is planning to scrap a no-spy agreement
Germany has held with Britain and the United States since 1945 in response to an
embarrassing US-German intelligence service scandal which has deeply soured
relations between Berlin and Washington. The unprecedented change to Berlin’s counterespionage policy was announced by Ms Merkel’s Interior Minister, Thomas de Maizière. He said that
Berlin wanted “360‑degree surveillance” of all intelligence-gathering operations in Germany. The
intelligence services of the Allied victors, the United States, Britain and France, have
hitherto been regarded as “friendly” to Germany. Their diplomatic and information-gathering
activities were exempted from surveillance by Berlin’s equivalent of M15 – the Bundesnachrichtendienst
(BND). But Mr de Maizière told Bild that he was now not ruling out permanent German
counter-espionage surveillance of US, British and French intelligence operations. His
remarks were echoed by Stephan Mayer, a domestic security spokesman for Ms Merkel’s ruling Christian
Democrats. “We must focus more strongly on our so-called allies,” he said. The plan is in
response to the scandal resulting from last week’s arrest of a 31- year-old BND “double agent” who spent
at least two years selling top-secret German intelligence documents to his US spymasters in return for
cash payments of €10,000 (£7,940) per document. Chancellor Merkel interrupted a current
trade visit to China on Monday to describe the scandal as a “very serious development”.
She added: “It is a clear contradiction of the notion of trustworthy co-operation.” German
politicians have been shocked that the Americans not only failed to report the “double agent” but
recruited him. Angela Merkel met Premier Li Keqiang in China to promote economic ties Angela Merkel
met Premier Li Keqiang in China to promote economic ties (AFP) Several German MPs on Monday
demanded the expulsion of the American agents in Germany who recruited the “double
agent”. Hans-Peter Uhl, a leading conservative, told Der Spiegel: “ It goes without saying that the [US]
intelligence official responsible should leave Germany.” The double agent is reported to have
simply emailed Berlin’s American embassy and asked whether officials were interested
in “co-operation”. He subsequently downloaded at least 300 secret documents on to USB
sticks that he handed to his American spymasters at secret location in Austria. He was caught by German
counter-espionage agents only after he was found offering similar BND documents to Berlin’s Russian
embassy. The Germans had considered it “impossible” that one of their own intelligence men could be
working as a “ double agent” for the Americans. New German counter-espionage measures
would almost certainly result in the monitoring of “listening posts”, which both the
American National Security Agency (NSA) and its British equivalent, GCHQ, run from
the roofs of their respective Berlin embassies. Their existence was revealed at the height
of the first spying scandal to dent Berlin’s relations with Washington which erupted last year
when evidence supplied by the US whistle-blower Edward Snowden revealed that NSA bugged Ms
Merkel’s mobile phone. The US bugging operation was conducted from a listening post on
the roof of the American embassy in Berlin, which is located only metres from the
government district. Britain’s GCHQ was operating an almost identical “listening post”
from the top of the UK’s embassy on Berlin’s nearby Wilhelmstrasse.
internal link – chilling effect
NSA spying creates an atmosphere of distrust – even if it doesn’t inflict
lasting damage, this chills cooperation over Ukraine and the Middle East
China Daily 6/25 – China Daily European Edition (China Daily European Edition, 6/25/15, “What’s
after WikiLeaks revelations of NSA spying on Paris?” Lexis)//twemchen
Facing the National Assembly, French
Prime Minister Manuel Valls asked the United States to repair the
damage that the tapping has caused. "The US must recognize not only the dangers such actions
pose to our liberties, but also do everything, and quickly , to repair the damage it causes to the
relations between allied countries and between France and the United States ," Valls said Wednesday.
"The reported spying creates a discomfort, because there is a breach of trust . But, it is
absolutely important and vital for both countries to maintain their partnership, given that there are many
sensitive issues such as Ukraine, [and] operations in Iraq which remained unsolved," Ulysse
Gosset, journalist specialized in foreign politics told news channel BFMTV. To Edwy Plenel, French political journalist and editor-inchief of news website Mediapart, which reported WikiLeaks revelations, it is
"a real problem of loyalty in
international relations between allies". French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius summoned US ambassador Jane
Hartley for an explanation on "Espionage Elysee" of WikiLeaks. Urging a strong answer to United States' spying on
Paris, critics from the right and left wing parties called for retaliation . But, according to the ruling
Socialists, a diplomatic spat is not in the air. "In the face of threats that we face and given the historic ties linking us, we have
to keep a perspective . We're not going to break diplomatic ties," said Stephane Le Foll, the government's spokesman
after a weekly cabinet meeting.
Recent spying allegations risk communication between France and the US
Rose 6/24 (Michael is a correspondent at Reuters Paris,“France's Hollande says U.S. spying
unacceptable”, 2015, http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/24/france-wikileaksidUSL8N0ZA11T20150624)//cc
French President Francois Hollande on Wednesday
branded as "unacceptable" reported spying by the
United States on French senior officials and warned Paris would not tolerate actions
that threaten its security. Hollande released the statement after an emergency meeting
of ministers and army commanders on Wednesday, following WikiLeaks revelations that the United States
National Security Agency (NSA) had spied on the last three French presidents. "France will not tolerate actions
that threaten its security and the protection of its interests," the president's office said, adding the
spying allegations on French interests had been revealed in the past. "Commitments were made by the U.S.
authorities. They need to be recalled and strictly respected." The French Foreign
Ministry summoned the U.S. ambassador to discuss the matter, a French diplomatic source said. The
revelations were first reported in French daily Liberation and on news website Mediapart, which said the NSA spied on presidents
Jacques Chirac, Nicolas Sarkozy and Francois Hollande during the period of at least 2006 until May 2012. Hollande is due to meet
members of parliament at his Elysee Palace offices later on Wednesday. "We
find it hard to understand or
imagine what motivates an ally to spy on allies who are often on the same strategic
positions in world affairs," French government spokesman Stephane Le Foll told i>TELE television. U.S. media cited a
statement from the U.S. National Security Council saying it was not targeting and will not target Hollande's communications. The
statement did not deny spying had taken place in the past. Claude Gueant, Sarkozy's former chief of staff and one of the reported
targets of the NSA, told RTL radio: "Considering
the very close relationship we have with the United
States, considering the fact we are extremely loyal allies, I feel like trust has been
broken." "These are scary revelations which require explanations from the United States
and guarantees that it won't happen again," Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo said on France 2 television Angry
and embarrassed, France summoned the U.S. ambassador Wednesday to respond to the
revelations by WikiLeaks that the U.S. National Security Agency eavesdropped on three
successive French presidents and other top officials.
NSA allegations have a chilling effect on French US relations
Hinnant and Charlton 6/25 (Lori and Angela are contributors at the Associated Press, 2015,
“France calls in U.S. envoy over spying, holds security”,
http://infoweb.newsbank.com.westminster.idm.oclc.org/resources/doc/nb/news/15631A5090EC8118?p
=AWNB)//cc
The release of the spying revelations appeared to be timed to coincide with a final vote Wednesday in the French Parliament on a bill
allowing broad new surveillance powers, in particular to counter terrorism threats. French President Hollande,
calling the
U.S. spying an "unacceptable security breach, convened two emergency meetings as a
result of the disclosures about the NSA's spying. The first was with France's top security officials, the second
with leading legislators, many of whom have already voted for the new surveillance measure. Hollande was to speak Wednesday with
President Barack Obama on the issue. The
documents appear to capture top French officials in Paris
between 2006 and 2012 talking candidly about Greece's economy, relations with
Germany, and American spying on allies. While there were no huge surprises, the release of the documents late Tuesday
angered and embarrassed French officialdom. The top floor of the U.S. Embassy, visible from France's
presidential Elysee Palace, reportedly was filled with spying equipment hidden behind trompe l'oeil paintings of windows, according
to the Liberation newspaper, which partnered with WikiLeaks and the website Mediapart on the documents. U.S. Ambassador Jane
Hartley was summoned to the French Foreign Ministry. Hollande is also sending France's top intelligence coordinator to the U.S.
shortly, to ensure that promises made after earlier NSA spying revelations in 2013 and 2014 have been kept, the spokesman said.
Prime Minister Manuel Valls said the U.S.
must do everything it can, and quickly, to "repair the
damage to U.S.-French relations from the revelations, which he called "a very serious
violation of the spirit of trust between the allies. "If the fact of the revelations today does not constitute a real
surprise for anyone, that in no way lessens the emotion and the anger. They are legitimate. France will not
tolerate any action threatening its security and fundamental interests, he said. Government
spokesman Stephane Le Foll told reporters "France does not listen in on its allies. He added, "we reminded all
(government) ministers to be vigilant in their conversations. The U.S. Embassy had no
comment on the WikiLeaks revelations. U.S. National Security Council spokesman Ned Price released a statement Tuesday evening
saying the U.S. is "not targeting and will not target the communications of President Hollande. Price did not address claims that the
U.S. had previously eavesdropped on Hollande or his predecessors, Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac. Two of the cables dealing
with then-President Sarkozy and Chirac, his predecessor were marked "USA, AUS, CAN, GBR, NZL suggesting that the material was
meant to be shared with Britain, Canada and other members of the so-called Five Eyes intelligence alliance. The
disclosures,
mean that France has joined Germany on the list of U.S. allies
targeted by the NSA. "This involves unacceptable acts that have already given rise to discussions between the United
States and France, Hollande said in a statement after an emergency defense council meeting. The statement said France has
reinforced protective measures, without elaborating. There was no instant confirmation on the accuracy of the
which emerged late Tuesday,
documents, which covered intercepts from 2006-12. WikiLeaks, however, has a track record of publishing intelligence and
diplomatic material. An aide to Sarkozy told The Associated Press that the former president considers these methods unacceptable.
There was no immediate comment from Chirac. France is among several U.S. allies that rely heavily on American spying powers
when trying to prevent terrorism and other threats, and the intelligence bill expected to pass Wednesday was intended to bolster
French capabilities. The French government has repeatedly denied accusations that it wants NSA-style powers. Le Foll, who was
heading Wednesday to Washington on a previously scheduled trip, said it wasn't a diplomatic rupture, riffing that France was
sending not an aircraft carrier to the U.S. but a replica of the Hermione, the ship that carried General Marquis de Lafayette from
France to America in 1780 to offer help in the Revolution. But, he added, "when
you see this between allied
countries it's unacceptable and, I would add, incomprehensible.
Hollande holding secret meeting in Paris after NSA allegations surface
AFP 6/26 (AFP is a global news agency delivering fast, in-depth coverage of the events shaping our
world from wars and conflicts to politics, sports, entertainment and the latest breakthroughs in health,
science and technology, 2015, “US seeks to reassure France on spying”,
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/929009.shtml)//cc
President Barack Obama on Wednesday moved to defuse tensions after revelations of US spying on three French presidents angered
France, while WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
called for legal action over Washington's snooping
and promised more disclosures to come. Obama spoke by phone with his French counterpart Francois Hollande
to assure him the US was no longer spying on European leaders, a day after the WikiLeaks website published documents alleging
Washington had eavesdropped on the French president and his two predecessors. "President Obama reiterated without ambiguity
his firm commitment... to stop these practices that took place in the past and which were unacceptable between allies," Hollande's
office said in a statement after the call. Hollande had earlier convened his top ministers and intelligence officials to discuss the
revelations, with his office stating that France "will not tolerate any acts that threaten its security".
France's foreign minister also summoned the US ambassador for a formal explanation. The documents -- labelled "Top Secret" and
appearing to reveal spying on Jacques Chirac, Nicolas Sarkozy and Hollande between 2006 and 2012 -- were published by
WikiLeaks along with French newspaper Liberation and the Mediapart website. WikiLeaks' anti-secrecy campaigner Assange told
French television on Wednesday evening that the time had come for legal action against Washington over its foreign surveillance
activities. Speaking on TF1, he urged France to go further than Germany by launching a "parliamentary inquiry" and referring "the
matter to the prosecutor-general for prosecution". German prosecutors had carried out a probe into alleged US tapping of
Chancellor Angela Merkel's phone, but later dropped the investigation due to a lack of hard evidence. Assange also said other
important revelations were coming. "This is the beginning of a series and I believe the most important of the material is still to
come," he said. The WikiLeaks revelations were embarrassingly timed for French lawmakers, who late on Wednesday voted in
favour of sweeping new powers to spy on citizens. The new law will allow authorities to spy on the digital and mobile
communications of anyone linked to a "terrorist" enquiry without prior authorisation from a judge, and forces internet service
providers and phone companies to give up data upon request. Addressing parliament, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said
Washington's snooping actions "constitute a very serious violation of the spirit of trust"
and France would demand a new "code of conduct" on intelligence matters. The White House
earlier responded that it was not targeting Hollande's communications and will not do so in the future, but it did not comment on
past activities. Claims that the US National Security Agency (NSA) was spying on European leaders, revealed by whistleblower
Edward Snowden in 2013, had already led to promises from Obama that the practice had stopped. The leaked documents include
five from the NSA, the most recent dated May 22, 2012, just days after Hollande took office. It claims Hollande
"approved
holding secret meetings in Paris to discuss the eurozone crisis, particularly the consequences of a Greek exit from the
eurozone".
france rels good – laundry list
US-France relations solve a bunch of stuff
Delattre 14 – French ambassador to the US (Francois Delattre, 4/15/14, “New Opportunities for the
US-France Partnership ,” Federal News Service, Lexis)//twemchen
Now, what about the
trans-Atlantic partnership? Actually, we French strongly believe that the more Asia and
the emerging world are rising -- which is a good thing -- the more the trans-Atlantic partnership is
vital for all of us, Europeans and Americans alike, as one of the backbone s of today's and tomorrow's military
(power ?) world. It's true, on the strategic and security front, the Ukrainian crisis, another example of very close
cooperation between our two countries, is a strong reminder that the trans-Atlantic partnership is today as
relevant and vital as ever . NATO remains an unmatched alliance, an anchor of stability . That is
one of the reasons why we French rejoined NATO's military command structure a few years ago, and as the Obama administration is
encouraging us to establish a stronger European pillar within NATO, I believe it's important to remember that France and Britain
together account for more than 60 percent of the total military spending of the 28 members of the European Union. Now, the critical
importance of the trans-Atlantic partnership also holds true on the economic front, where Europe and America remain the anchor of
the world economy, accounting together for nearly 50 percent of the world's GDP, a third of international
trade and
about two-thirds of the world's innovation process. Moreover, 15 million jobs on the two sides of the Atlantic are directly
linked to the trans-Atlantic trade and cross-investment -- 15 million jobs. To enhance this economic partnership between the two
sides of the Atlantic, we are committed to a very, I would say, exciting and challenging endeavor, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership, the so-called TTIP. We all know these negotiations are not easy. For instance, we know that
regulatory convergence and the lifting of nontariff barriers will be central to the negotiations that are going on and require a bold
approach. Actually, no one ever has done what we are trying to achieve together, bringing, you know, Europe and the United States
together. But as President Hollande clearly reaffirmed to President Obama during the state visit, France wants the success
and strongly support TTIP, both for the direct benefits that such an agreement will bring to us in terms of jobs, in terms of
investment, in terms of trade, but also for
the impact that such a trans-Atlantic agreement can have
globally in terms of setting new rules, new norms and new standards. So let me underline that the transAtlantic relationship is critical if we are to meet some of the key global challenges of our time, such as climate
change . This is, as you know, one of France's very top priorities, fighting against climate change. We'll host in Paris in 2015 a
major U.N. conference on this issue to help broker an agreement on further reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions after 2020, and we are working hand in hand with our American friends here and other friends around the world,
including China, India, Brazil and others, to try to get an agreement. This is one of the most important diplomatic endeavors if we
believe in what we do as diplomats and if we believe in the future of our children and grandchildren. So the message I wanted to
convey tonight is that there are many new opportunities on every front in the
Franco-American and trans- Atlantic
partnership, and that these partnerships have never been as vital as they are today for us, Americans and
Europeans alike, but also for the world .
france rels good – terrorism
Strong relations underpin the war on terror
Delattre 14 – French ambassador to the US (Francois Delattre, 4/15/14, “New Opportunities for the USFrance Partnership,” Federal News Service, Lexis)//twemchen
French-American relations have never been stronger than they are today, as exemplified by the state visit that we're referring to. If
you think about it, on the diplomatic and security front, the
U.S. and France are each other's closest
allies in the fight against terrorism, as illustrated by France military operation in Mali, the heart
of Africa, to combat al-Qaida, with much-appreciated American support by the way. Actually, Mali was a much
larger, bigger operation than reported in the American press because we had to fight there against one of the most -- one of the best
trained, best funded, best equipped al-Qaida branches in the world based on years, if not decades, of drug trafficking, weapons and
secret smuggling, and so on and so forth. Alongside our African partners, with American and European support, we restored security
in this country. We also succeeded in initiating a political process that led to free election and to a new president in this country. I
think it's important for this country and for you -- for the younger generations in particular -- to keep in mind that Mali and the
Sahel as a whole should remain a priority for the years to come. The international community has to stay committed to this region,
to Africa in general, in terms of security, but also in terms of economic development. This is true for other African countries, like the
Central Africa Republic, CAR. CAR, at the heart of Africa, is going through a humanitarian and political crisis of unprecedented
gravity, with daily atrocities and a growing hostility between the Christian majority and the Muslim minority there. Furthermore, the
implosion of this country, CAR, would destabilize this whole -- this whole region in Africa. That's why France has deployed 2,000
troops in this country -- alongside African forces and, here again, with much-appreciated American support -- to contribute, to
prevent, I would say, a potential near-genocide. And we have been working hard, literally for months to, so to speak, mobilize the
international community in CAR. The good news is that last week the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2149,
allowing the deployment of a peacekeeping operation in CAR by September the 15th. This
is a diplomatic success ,
not only for us, but for the entire international community . And here too, as I said, the United States
is truly standing by our side.
US French relations key to counter terror
Hinnant and Charlton 6/24 (Lori and Angela are reporters at the Associated Press, 2015, “NSA
spied on last three French presidents”, http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_28371468/nsaspied-last-three-french-presidents)//cc
France summoned the U.S. ambassador to the Foreign Ministry and the French
president held a high-level emergency meeting Wednesday following revelations by WikiLeaks that the U.S. National
Security Agency had eavesdropped on the past three French presidents. President Francois Hollande called the U.S. spying an "unacceptable" security
breach. The documents appear to capture top French officials in Paris between 2006 and 2012 talking candidly about Greece's economy, relations with
Germany, and American spying on allies. While there were no huge surprises, the release of the documents late Tuesday angered and embarrassed
French officialdom. U.S. Ambassador Jane Hartley was summoned to the French Foreign Ministry, according to government spokesman Stephane Le
Foll. Hollande is also sending France's top intelligence coordinator to the United States shortly, to ensure that promises made after earlier NSA spying
revelations in 2013 and 2014 have been kept, Le Foll said. Calling the spying "incomprehensible," Le Foll told reporters "
France does not
listen in on its allies." The U.S. Embassy had no immediate comment on the WikiLeaks revelations. U.S. National Security Council
spokesman Ned Price released a statement Tuesday evening saying the U.S. is "not targeting and will not target the communications of President
Hollande." Price did not address claims that the U.S. had previously eavesdropped on Hollande or his predecessors, Nicolas Sarkozy or Jacques Chirac.
At a Cabinet meeting Wednesday, Le Foll said "we reminded all the ministers to be vigilant in their conversations." Two of the cables -- dealing with
then-President Sarkozy and his predecessor, Jacques Chirac -- were marked "USA, AUS, CAN, GBR, NZL" suggesting that the material was meant to be
The disclosures, which emerged late
mean that France has joined Germany
on the list of U.S. allies targeted by the NSA. "This involves unacceptable acts that have
already given rise to discussions between the United States and France," Hollande said in a
statement after an emergency defense council meeting. The statement said France has reinforced protective measures,
without elaborating. The release appeared to be timed to coincide with a vote in the French Parliament on a bill allowing broad new
shared with Britain, Canada and other members of the so-called "Five Eyes" intelligence alliance.
Tuesday in French daily newspaper Liberation and investigative website Mediapart,
surveillance powers, in particular to counter terrorist threats. The Senate approved it Tuesday and the lower house of parliament is expected to give it
final approval Wednesday. There was no instant confirmation on the accuracy of the documents, which covered intercepts from 2006-12. WikiLeaks,
however, has a track record of publishing intelligence and diplomatic material. An aide to Sarkozy told The Associated Press that the former president
France is among several U.S.
allies that rely heavily on American spying powers when trying to prevent
terrorist and other threats.
considers these methods unacceptable. There was no immediate comment from Chirac.
france rels good – terrorism – at: us not key
France alone fails
Poirier 6/26 (Agnes is a French journalist and political analyst who contributes regularly to
newspapers, magazines and TV in the UK, U.S., France, Italy, 2015, “How will France react to yet another
terror attack?”, http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/opinions/france-isere-terror-attackagnes/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn
_latest+(RSS%3A+CNN+-+Most+Recent)//cc
When news of a terrorist beheading broke on June 26, the first reactions from residents of Saint
Quentin Fallavier, a small town of 6,000 inhabitants, sounded terribly familiar: "We never thought this could
happen here." The same words were uttered by Parisians living in the quiet 11th
arrondissement of the French capital where, on January 7, Islamist terrorists had first struck
in a series of attacks which petrified the whole country. That day they killed 12 people -- cartoonists,
journalists and two policemen at the offices of the French satirical weekly "Charlie Hebdo." The Isere region, where
today's attack occurred, is better known for its green scenery, mountainous landscape and canoeing than for the
industrial factories such as Air Products, the industrial gas plant targeted by Yassin Sahli,
the 35- year-old alleged author of the attack. The suspected terrorist had been the object
of surveillance from France's anti-terrorism special unit between 2006 and 2008, but had
no criminal record. Such details highlight the extraordinary difficulty in which French police,
and European anti-terrorism forces in general, find themselves. Social networks have been
quick to question why authorities failed to foil yet another attack in time. However, such acts
are being prevented every month without the wider public being informed until the threat has been neutralized. A majority of
French people feel both powerless and frustrated in front of a menace whose nature is
by definition to be unpredictable and to strike at the heart of society.
france rels good – iran prolif
French relations solve Iran prolif – extinction
Delattre 14 – French ambassador to the US (Francois Delattre, 4/15/14, “New Opportunities for the
US-France Partnership ,” Federal News Service, Lexis)//twemchen
The United States and France are also at
the forefront of international efforts to prevent Iran from
becoming a nuclear weapon state . With the partners of the so-called P-5 plus one, we are working hard to
try to achieve a comprehensive agreement with Iran, whose goal is to prevent this country from developing nuclear
weapons and to obtain all necessary assurances that its nuclear program remains peaceful. We have to stay -- that's France's position
that we have to stay firm on this for at least three reasons, I would say: number one, because a
nuclear-armed Iran
would be an existential threat to the security of Israel; number two, because a nuclear-armed Iran would
trigger an arms race and potentially a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, meaning in the most -- one of
the most volatile region s in the world; and number three, a nuclear-armed Iran would mean the demise
of the international nonproliferation regime that we together patiently built over the past decades.
And for these reasons and a couple of others, we simply have to negotiate, of course, with Iran in good faith but also to remain firm
on our fundamentals.
france rels good – boko haram
French support key to defeating Boko Haram
Andrews 6/8 (Jaiyeola is a reporter at This Day, Nigeria’s largest news publication, 2015, “War
Against Boko Haram: France, Germany, Canada Pledge Support”,
http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/war-against-boko-haram-france-germany-canada-pledgesupport/211456/ ) //cc
President Muhammadu Buhari on Monday received the support of French president, Francois
Hollande, to completely eradicate the menace of the Islamist terrorist group, Boko
Haram, in the shortest possible time. Similar pledges of enhanced support came from Prime Minister Stephen
Harper of Canada and Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel who Buhari also conferred with before departing from the venue of the
G-7 2015 Summit.reaffirmed his administration's total commitment Buhari
spoke at a meeting with President
Francois Hollande of France after his participation in Monday's G-7 Outreach Programme
in Elmau, Germany. According to him, Nigeria will welcome greater support and cooperation from
France and other friendly nations for its ongoing efforts to overcome Boko Haram and restore full
security and normalcy to areas affected by the group's atrocities. A statement by the Senior Special
Assistant on Media and Publicity, Garba Shehu, quoted Buhari as saying his administration was already taking concrete action to
build a more efficient and effective coalition of Nigeria and neighbouring countries against the terrorists. Nigeria, the president
added, would appreciate more intelligence on the terrorist group's links with ISIS, its movements, training and sources of arms and
ammunition to facilitate the perfection of fresh tactics and strategies being evolved to overcome terrorism and insurgency in the
country and the West African sub-region. He told his French counterpart that there was absolutely no link between religion and the
atrocities of Boko Haram. "There is clearly no religious basis for the actions of the group. Their atrocities show that members of the
group either do not know God at all or they don't believe in him," Buhari said. Remarking, Hollande
gave kudos to
Buhari for his concerted efforts to galvanise Nigeria's armed forces, security agencies
and neighbouring countries for more decisive action to eradicate Boko Haram. Hollande
equally assured Buhari that France will give Nigeria and its coalition partners greater
support against terrorism and insecurity, including military and intelligence
cooperation, to help them overcome the security challenge posed by Boko Haram and its
global terrorist allies as quickly as possible. The French leader called for greater bilateral
cooperation between Nigeria and France in other areas including trade, economic and
cultural relations. .
Boko Haram attacks are escalating
Reuters 6/25 (Reuters is the world's largest international multimedia news agency, 2015, “Dozens
killed in suspected Boko Haram attacks in Nigeria” http://www.france24.com/en/20150625-dozenskilled-suspected-boko-haram-attacks-nigeria-villages)//cc
At least 42 people were killed by suspected Boko Haram militants who shot residents
dead as they tried to flee two villages in northeast Nigeria’s Borno state, witnesses and police
said. The attackers, who arrived on motorcycles and vehicles mounted with guns, torched
houses and looted shops in the villages of Debiro Biu and Debiro Hawul late on Monday night and into Tuesday
morning, witnesses told Reuters. Local police confirmed the attacks. "We received reports of attacks by suspected
Boko Haram gunmen on the two villages in which 42 deaths were recorded," a police officer told AFP in Biu, 180 kilometres south of
Maiduguri, the state capital. Details of the attack did not emerge for several hours due to poor telecommunications networks in the
remote villages in northeast
Nigeria, a region in which Boko Haram has killed thousands in a
six-year bid to set up an Islamist “state”. “They were shooting sporadically and then they
started looting shops and setting places ablaze,” said witness Hussaini Adamu, who fled with other villagers
to hide in bushes after fleeing Debiro Biu. More than 100 people have been killed in northeast Nigeria
in the past few weeks in a spate of bombings, mostly in Maiduguri, the capital of Borno state. New president
tested Muhammadu Buhari, the new president of Africa’s most populous nation and biggest economy,
made Maiduguri the command centre for the military campaign against Boko Haram after being inaugurated last month.
Attacks cause regional draw in
Reuters 6/18 (Reuters is the world's largest international multimedia news agency, France 24 is a
international news agency, “Chad carries out retaliatory airstrikes against Boko Haram”,
http://www.france24.com/en/20150618-chad-airstrikes-boko-haram-suicide-bombing) //cc
Chad's military said Thursday it had carried out airstrikes on Boko Haram positions in
neighbouring Nigeria to avenge twin suicide bombings in Chad's capital that were
blamed on the jihadists. Citing the "cowardly and barbaric acts perpetrated by Boko
Haram terrorists", which killed 33 people in N'Djamena on Monday, the military said that it
had "carried out reprisal airstrikes on the terrorists' positions in Nigerian territory" on
Wednesday. Six Boko Haram bases were destroyed in the air raids, which caused
"considerable human and material losses", the military said in a statement. Chad would continue
its "merciless" pursuit of the insurgents "so that no drop of Chadian blood spilt goes unpunished", the statement
added. Monday's attacks on the police headquarters and a police academy in N'Djamena were the first in the capital of the West
African country, which has taken a lead role in a regional offensive against Boko Haram. The riverside city, which lies on the border
with Cameroon, has been chosen as the headquarters for the regional taskforce being launched to fight Boko Haram, supposed to
group troops from Nigeria, Chad, Niger, Cameroon and Benin. No group has claimed responsibility for the attacks but Chad and its
allies immediately blamed the Nigeria-based insurgents, who have carried out several attacks recently in border areas of countries
that share a frontier with northeast Nigeria. Chad
is a key player in the five-nation coalition put
together to destroy the insurgent group based in neighbouring Nigeria. It has also played a
central role in combating jihadist groups in northern Mali. Chad's military has lost dozens of soldiers
fighting in both countries and there have been a number of attacks near its border with
Nigeria.
Boko Haram risks African stability
Maclean's 1/26 (Weekly Canadian Newspaper, 2015, “The editorial: the attacks in Paris
overshadowed the atrocities of Boko Haram in Nigeria, which poses a larger, more organized threat to
millions”,
http://ic.galegroup.com.westminster.idm.oclc.org/ic/ovic/MagazinesDetailsPage/MagazinesDetailsWind
ow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&displayquery=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Magazines&limiter=&u=atla10186&currPage=&disableHighlig
hting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&ac
tivityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA398627963) // cc
The attack on the Parisian offices of the magazine Charlie Hebdo, the story of which fills our pages this week, was
echoed far away by an Islamic fundamentalist massacre in the Nigerian border town of Baga and its
environs. Baga is the headquarters of the Nigerian government's efforts to re-establish its authority in the state of Borno, where the
notorious terror group Boko
Haram, following its ideology of purging Western intellectual and
cultural influences, has been trying to establish Muslim sharia law and the nucleus of a
new universal caliphate. Boko Haram appears to have descended on Baga and several
other towns, massacring thousands of civilians and forcing the Nigerian army to retreat.
Many fled with canoe-like boats to nearby Lake Chad, trying to escape into the neighbouring countries of Chad and Cameroon.
Hundreds are still said to be trapped on an island in the middle of the lake, suffering from hunger and mosquitoborne illnesses as
they await rescue. The media was criticized for its coverage--or lack of coverage--of this humanitarian disaster, the argument being
less attention was paid to it than to the French attacks on fewer victims. Do Western media, some wondered, count Nigerian lives as
being of less value than those of their fellow white editors and journalists? We should admit to feeling some special personal
involvement in the Charlie Hebdo story. When you work for a magazine, it gets your attention when you wake up and learn that
another magazine has been annihilated by murderers. But there is a reason why Western media give more coverage to Islamist
horrors in France than objectively worse horrors in a Muslim-majority country. As Canadians we are in approximately the position
of France: an advanced Western state with a large Muslim minority, a minority in which a handful of members are converting to
politically extremist strains of Islam and who are seeking weapons, training and advice from terrorists. We face the same infuriating
complexities, and the same difficult responsibilities, as France. It is not just that we stand with France; we are in the same boat
already. Judging news by a simple counting of bodies is a model that nobody follows in practice--that nobody ever could. But the odd
fact that accompanies this principle is that Boko Haram's attack on Baga has significance far beyond the immediate human
consequences. Boko
Haram, like Islamic State in Mesopotamia, has precipitated a crisis of legitimacy for
beginning to establish its own authority in the place of uniformed
armies, constitutions and democratic apparatus. It is not just one government that faces this rivalry from
bandits drunk on 200-proof desert religion: over the past year Boko Haram has begun to strike at
Cameroonian targets, and other states in the region are concerned. Efforts to maintain a
multinational common front against Boko Haram have met with setbacks. The
government base in Baga was at one time occupied by a joint strike force that has fallen
into abeyance. Meanwhile, the dispersion of refugees from the Borno state has the potential
to set the legitimate governments in that part of Africa at each other's throats. It is a
phenomenon we have seen before. Refugee camps themselves have a nasty habit of creating the
conditions for religious radicalization and recruitment of suicide bombers. As its local influence
increases, Boko Haram is, by a rough Darwinian process, becoming more effective and sophisticated
as an armed force. The conflicting, sometimes elliptical information coming from the Nigerian army about the Baga
massacre suggests that underpaid professional soldiers, long suffering from low morale, did not
put up much resistance to bush fighters bent on killing. Boko Haram has already been all but wiped out
acknowledged governments. It is
once, and its leadership been exterminated. This is the high price insurgencies pay for learning to fight real armies, but once paid, it
delivers its weight in gold. Now Boko
Haram is beginning to imitate the nihilist glamour of its rival
caliphate, Islamic State. Its new use of young female suicide bombers to attack public markets sends the perverse
message that it will stop at nothing, that it cares for nothing worldly in its war on "Western"
commercial openness, freedom and reason. An enemy of this nature is the hardest of
hard problems.
france rels good – ssa
US-French cooperation on Space Situational Awareness now - Unhindered
classified data sharing is key
Gruss 4/16 (Mike. Mike Gruss covers military space issues, including the U.S. Air Force and Missile Defense Agency, for
SpaceNews. “U.S., France Expand Space Data-sharing Agreement”. 16 April 2015. Space News. http://spacenews.com/us-franceexpand-space-data-sharing-agreement)//JuneC//
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. – U.S. Strategic
Command and the French Ministry of Defense have expanded
their Space Situational Awareness (SSA) data-sharing agreement to include classified information, the
countries announced April 16 at the 31st Space Symposium here. The United States and France were
already sharing unclassified SSA data under an agreement signed in January 2014 . That
agreement allowed Stratcom to provide data from the Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California,
directly to the French military upon request. Previously, such requests had to be approved at higher levels of the U.S. government.
This new agreement will allow the countries to
share “advanced SSA” data and classified
data when appropriate. In all, the U.S. government has signed nearly 50 unclassified data-sharing agreements with other
governments and private-sector entities, Defense Department officials have said. “We are pleased to expand our space partnership
with France, one of our oldest and closest allies. These agreements are mutually beneficial, enabling greater
spaceflight safety, increasing our national security and that of our allies and enhancing our 24/7 global
operations,” U.S. Navy Adm. Cecil Haney, commander of U.S. Strategic Command said in a statement.
France is crucial – the only European country with necessary tech
Collet-Billon 9 (Laurent. heads the DGA, France’s armaments agency. “New trends in defence aerospace”. 2009.
http://www.diploweb.com/New-trends-in-defence-aerospace.html)//JuneC//
Observation The domain of
observation plays a key role in our capability of autonomous evaluation and
decision-making. Ever since the Helios programme was launched in 3 1995, its optical observation capabilities have been
demonstrated as both extremely useful and very effective. This success has led to the procurement of a second generation of
satellites : Helios IIA has been operational since 2006, and Helios IIB is scheduled for launch this year. Very high resolution
instruments working in the visible spectrum are the only means with the precision needed to identify,
characterize and evaluate the significance of sensitive infrastructure and military targets. They are used for
France is the
only European country which has industrial expertise in the domain of very
high resolution optics ; this is a considerable advantage . Nevertheless this
reconnaissance missions, which provide some 80 per cent of the intelligence needed for target selection.
technology has its limits, notably when there is cloud cover. It is therefore essential that France has access
to radar observation capabilities as well. In the short term, agreements recently signed with Germany and Italy will give us
access to their systems (SAR-Lupe and Cosmos-SkyMed). In the interest of preparing the future and renewing optical and radar
capabilities, six European countries joined forces in 2008 (2009 for Italy) in a common European programme called MUSIS, whose
first satellite is due for launch in 2015. This programme will have an optical space element developed under French leadership, a
space radar component developed by the Germans, an Italian radar module, a wideband optical module developed by Spain and a
jointly developed ground segment which controls each of the space components. This programme is without doubt one of the most
symbolic demonstrations of progress in European defence industrial cooperation. For the first time the division of work is
not just a production work-sharing agreement but a real sharing of services. This cooperation model is
based on the acceptance of a balanced mutual dependence between several countries, itself based on real
confidence between each of the partners.
SSA’s detection systems avoid inevitable space debris and Russia/China
ASAT attacks
Brown 5/2 (James. is the director of the Alliance 21 program at the US studies centre, University of Sydney. “The new Space
Race”. The Saturday Paper. 2 May 2015. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2015/05/02/the-new-spacerace/14304888001824#.VZA1gRNViko)//JuneC//
Beneath George Clooney’s steely gaze, the crisis at the heart of the 2013 movie Gravity begins when a major global power recklessly
shoots down a satellite, creating a chain reaction of rolling debris that destroys most of the space infrastructure orbiting our planet.
Amid the drama of exploding satellites and disintegrating space stations, some things are all too authentic: the first reaction of
Clooney’s astronaut character is to wryly bemoan, “Half of North America just lost their Facebook.” The reality is that much more is
at stake in space. For a start, almost no financial transaction in Australia would take place without assured access to the clocks
onboard global positioning system (GPS) satellites. Let alone the reliance our data-enabled economy has on space-based navigation
and communications services for transport, agriculture, mining, and more. But largely hidden from view, strategic competition
between major powers in space is increasing. While co-operation between the US and China across a range of issues is broadening
and improving, space remains the one area where language remains hawkish, dialogue is negligible, and co-operation is officially
banned. Australians should be concerned about the strategic developments playing out thousands of kilometres above us. Beyond
the convenience of GPS – via enabled smartphones and in-car navigation systems – so much of our economy now relies on spacebased infrastructure and space-enabled transactions. A report prepared for the Australian government concludes that space-based
precision navigation systems will deliver productivity benefits to the Australian economy worth between $7.8 billion and $13.7
billion by 2020. The importance of satellites for transport, aviation, television and communications, mapping and surveying, even
the autonomous trucks operating in Pilbara mines, is clear. What is less apparent is that nearly every time you swipe a credit card,
you are performing a space-enabled transaction. For two banks to reconcile your purchase, they need highly accurate date-time
stamps – provided in most cases from the atomic clocks onboard GPS satellites. Precision matters, so much so that a university team
in Western Australia is now engaged in an effort to develop even more precise clocks to go onboard the next generation of satellites.
If space systems are important when paying for your coffee, then they are vital to the Australian Defence Force. Global militaries
have relied on surveillance, reconnaissance and communications satellites for decades – US Defence
Support Program infra-red satellites, for example, connected to the Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap,
have provided early warning for nuclear explosions and missile launches – most notably during the time
of the first Gulf War. Since the late 1990s global militaries have also come to rely on GPS for precision
navigation and all-weather operations. Brett Biddington, an Australian space expert, sees this reliance increasing: “Nextgeneration systems, including new fighter aircraft, destroyers and future soldiers will simply not function very well without access to
space communications and space-derived data.” General John Hyten, the commander of the US Air Force’s space command, puts it
more starkly: “There is no such thing as a day without space.” Without space, he says, the US military goes back to the
Satellites being built by China and Russia can drag US satellites
down to their destruction in Earth’s atmosphere. In an unusual television interview on America’s 60
industrial age.
Minutes last month, Hyten pointed to recent developments in space that are concerning him. Chief among these: Chinese antisatellite weapons. In 2007 an unannounced Chinese anti-satellite missile launch destroyed an ageing Chinese
meteorological satellite and created more than 3000 pieces of space debris in the process – debris that
forced the International Space Station to manoeuvre at least three times last year. Hyten coyly indicated
in his interview that China has a missile that can shoot down sensitive US geo-synchronous satellites in
deep space – up to 30,000 kilometres above the earth. In his words: “Now we have to figure out how to defend those
satellites, and we’re going to. Space Command is making its new satellites more manoeuvrable to evade attack, and also more
resistant to jamming." The conversations on space are increasingly hawkish. Recent classified briefings by US Space Command to
congress have included discussions on grappler satellites. These are small “co-orbital” satellites being built by China
and Russia that can maneuver alongside US satellites, attach themselves, and drag US satellites down to
their destruction in Earth’s atmosphere. Of course the US has its space secrets, too – the new unmanned X-37B space
vehicle last October returned from a 675-day-long mission in space, purpose unknown. Across the US-China strategic
competitiveness that now forms the atmosphere for Asian geopolitics, there are many areas of collaboration and compromise. But
the growing space arms race is not one of them. On the vexing maritime issues of the South China and East China seas, the US and
China have been able to forge recent agreements to talk about collaborative confidence-building measures. On other policy issues
there are historically rich and productive exchanges between US and Chinese officials. But there is no dialogue between these two
powers on space. Congressional legislation bans any and all collaboration between US and Chinese space officials. Chinese space
experts cannot attend NASA conferences or set foot on NASA property. The last US space commander, when asked, admitted he had
never met his Chinese counterpart. An analysis published by the Royal Australian Air Force’s Air Power Development Centre last
November grimly concludes “weaponisation of the space domain is likely to take place”. Last year Australia’s Department of Defence
crafted its first defence space strategy and a newly formed whole-of-government space co-ordination committee issued an inaugural
“State of Space” report. It prominently pledged the government’s intention “to support rules-based international access to the space
environment; promoting peaceful, safe and responsible activities in space”. The United Nations and European Union
particularly are engaged across a range of collaborative efforts to maintain the rules of the road when it
comes to space. A 1967 Outer Space Treaty partially addresses issues of the weaponisation of space and a 1984 agreement
attempts to extend the UN Charter and international law to the heavens. But these efforts have to date been largely
unsuccessful in focusing collaboration when it comes to the use of space for military and intelligence
international code of conduct for space is being mooted . But on a
visit to Sydney earlier this year, the US under secretary of state for arms control and international security, Rose Gottemoeller,
explained to me that the problem with arms control treaties in space is that they are almost impossible to verify. For that reason,
purposes. A new
the US, along with its allies, is involved in a collaborative, expensive and technically gruelling effort to
develop what it calls “space situational awareness”. Effectively, systems that can catalogue
every satellite, space station and speck of debris rotating Earth – and sound a warning when something
unexpectedly moves. Australia has agreed to host a radar and telescope that will assist in this effort, and could potentially host
the second site of a US program known as Space Fence. Discussions about how all this information will be shared are ongoing –
the US and France recently signed an agreement to exchange technical data on space
and, with French help, Japan has been developing its own new national security policy on space. Tracking
space activity is becoming more complex as the space industry undergoes massive, technology-driven disruption. Thanks to
advances made in smartphone technology, today’s satellites are no longer the size of a bus but smaller and cheaper than ever. Before
it was only the mightiest military powers that could put surveillance satellites in space. Now a Silicon Valley start-up called Planet
Labs has been able to launch 71 of its own surveillance satellites into orbit in the past 18 months. Each is about the size of a bread
loaf, and built from commercially available parts. Some companies are musing on establishing a network of satellites able to deliver
low-cost broadband internet access across the planet. Outside Auckland, an innovative company called Rocket Lab is using 3D
printing, carbon composite materials, and electric motors to send 100-kilogram satellites into space for less than $US5 million.
Normal satellite launch costs can run to a quarter of a billion dollars. The Australian company Launchbox will this year help two
teams of Australian students put their own nanosatellites into space, and has been launching tiny CubeSats to the edge of space
using balloon technology. And Australia, with the space skills of scientists and engineers grown in our universities and CSIRO, is
well placed to contribute to the coming space boom. But the rapid changes in space bring risks as well as rewards, and while we
mostly focus on security problems on land and sea, the still skies above us run deep, too.
Destroys everything
UCIMUN 15 (“1st Disarmament”. 2015.
http://www.socsci.uci.edu/mun/webdocs/2015_Committees/1st%20Disarmament/1st%20Disarmament%20%20Weaponization%20of%20Space.pdf)//JuneC//
Weaponization of outer space, mainly Earth’s orbit, has been a controversial matter throughout the international community for
many years. The world relies on the usage of space for communication purposes, weather monitoring,
astronomical research, and prevention of space objects such as asteroids impacting Earth (2). However, many
countries have always been concerned about the negative usage of technology in space. So far it is reported that no weapons are
orbiting Earth, however suspicious development of such things have been in the works. Mostly, the superpower nations
such as China, Russia, and the US who have strong-established militaries and space agencies have the
potential to send such weapons in space. When the term “weapons in space” come to mind it can represent a variety of
things. Some weapons don’t necessarily have to be in orbit to cause chaos. For instance, the Kinetic Energy Interceptors are missiles
that target other incoming missiles as a defense technique. However, it is seen that the very same weapon can be sent
to space to eliminate satellites. The destruction of satellites can cause an increase in space debris, which
limits the amount of objects that can be put in Earth’s orbit for peaceful purposes. Space debris is already
a big problem for satellites since many junk items can hurl into them at high speeds and cause
destruction. Having a future war in space by terminating satellites will bring larger amounts of rubble,
risking the world’s access to communication. Before the problem worsens, the issue of space debris should be addressed,
and stricter rules on missiles or other technological advancements that can enter outside Earth’s atmosphere should be reviewed.
Another concern of offensive weapons in space is the capability of having nuclear warheads in orbit.
Nuclear weapons are one of the most feared and deadly for a nation to have and abuse. In 2001, the US left the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which allows it to create more missile defensive systems, whether it’s underwater, or even outside the
atmosphere (3).Usually when one superpower breaks the rules, the others follow to make sure their defense systems are at par.
Although, the superpowers claim to advance their weapons for defense purposes only, the end goal is not
clear and many developments are kept a secret. To ensure the safety of the planet, the plans of militarizing areas in space
must be revealed, if any, to prevent future conflicts that can cause reverse development of peaceful purposes of Earth’s orbit.
Other Advantages
***heg/wot adv
internal link
Surveillance undermines global economic competitiveness, influence, and
the War on Terror
Sacirbey 13 - Former Bosnian foreign minister and ambassador to the United Nations (Muhamed,
“Does U.S. Surveillance/Spying Undermine American Business & Influence,” Huffington Post, 10-29-13,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ambassador-muhamed-sacirbey/does-ussurveillancespyin_b_4173452.html) //AD
Does American based media and technology better serve to facilitate opportunities for U.S. surveillance/spying or to further our
American values, influence and business? In
order to gain more intelligence on friend, citizen, and foe
alike, are American values as well as business and influence suffering the consequences
in perception and tangible impact? It's not about the political hierarchy in Moscow, Teheran, or Beijing, not
trusting American influence in culture to technology in their countries. From Germany to Brazil to France,
leaders are not merely posturing outrage, (in significant part credible revelations via Edward Snowden.)
Citizens and thought leaders in those states are demanding that strings be cut to U.S.
based computer servers, media and technology firms as well as a revamp with the U.S.
Government. It is fair to ask now: Is more technological capability and unbounded appetite to
pursue surveillance undermining more than aiding America's broader interests,
ironically also diminishing the presumed rationale for such spying programs, in the fight
against terror? Outrage More than Posturing? Brazil's President Rousseff devoted her entire
opening speech before the UN General Assembly this year on the issue of overreaching
surveillance by the U.S. Government on society as well as global political leaders. EU leaders, London aside,
are preparing a European response that may undermine both U.S. influence and
operations of U.S. based companies from Apple and Microsoft to Google and Facebook. These political leaders were
touted by some U.S. commentators as merely posturing for their own voters, but perhaps they ignore the reality of the recent past of
communist totalitarian regimes that applied similar broad surveillance of their citizens. Possibly
American leaders
and citizens have taken for granted America's standing as the most free society. Proliferation
of American Values & Business: "They" Don't Hate Us! America's values and influence have most
effectively proliferated through U.S. based media and most recently technology that has
further enabled such to spread to even wider audience. Regardless of efforts of some more closed societies to block the free Internet,
younger generations could gain a glimpse of greater freedom, more open debate, our culture and values. Don't believe the rhetoric of
fear that they (whoever is defined as the "they") hate our freedom. They may dislike our politics or perhaps be envious of our
opportunities, but they also consume and frequently admire our values proliferated via American businesses, media and technology
firms. Snoops Gone Wild! Now some
of America's global friends are demanding that powerhouses
like Google and Facebook locate their servers outside of the U.S. and within their own
national borders to guard against what they perceive as unbounded U.S. Government
surveillance programs. See proposals by Brazil President Rousseff. However, this may only be the tip of the
iceberg heading toward U.S. enterprises and influence. Governments in China and
Russia are encouraging social media and overall Internet enterprises established and
managed from within their borders. As Americans fear Chinese technology from mobile phones to computers that
may provide secret doors to spying, it has been evidenced that such U.S. surveillance already exists and that
U.S. firms witting or not may have been drafted into the schemes. Of course even allies have
historically spied against each other but this is unprecedented in its scope, intrusion and particularly employment of U.S. based
businesses. Google, Facebook and others have sought to distance themselves from at least appearing as fully willing -- they have
sought to have "secret court" documentation on such surveillance programs to be made public, at least in more general terms as to
frequency and range. Nonetheless, it appears that the
damage is already inflicted and probably made worse by
Washington's focus on punishing the leaker (Edward Snowden) and the reporting media, (The Guardian) rather than address the
potential consequences of snoops gone wild! "De-Americanization" of Global Economy? EU-U.S.
trade talks may also
be deferred, and the impact could be more than temporary. While Beijing already urges
a "de-Americanization" of the global economy following the recent debt-ceiling and U.S.
government shutdown, the surveillance scandal may give EU capitals as well as
developing nations another area of common ground -- Brazil already is part of the evermore formalized
association BRICS, which also includes Russia, India, China and South Africa, and already
acts at the UN and broader diplomacy to counter U.S. influence. Rise of "Surveillance Industrial
Complex" Undermine United Fight Against Terror? Made in USA is as much about our American values
as technology. The surveillance scandal and Washington's misguided focus on hunting
down Snowden have already been hurting the U.S. on a diplomatic level and
undermining our standing as the beacon of a free society and free enterprise. Ironically, the
effect of the snooping may be to also hurt global cooperation with America's closest
partners in the fight against terror, the presented rationale for such programs and the rise of a new "surveillance
industrial complex." My old colleague, former Secretary of State, and U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright commented in
a recent interview that the Snowden
revelations had done substantial damage to U.S. interests.
Ambassador Albright is certainly correct about the damage assessment, but Washington's may be missing the point: focus on
the leak rather than the substance as cause for the damage to US business, values, free
society as well as US diplomacy and influence on a global scale.
***asia rels
china
Embassy surveillance allegations wreck Chinese relations
GMA News 13 (11/1, “China Demands Explanation From US Over Spying Programs”,
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/333572/news/world/china-demands-us-explanation-overspying-row)/cc
China has demanded the United States provide an explanation over its spying program
amid reports that Washington's missions in the country were involved, with state media on
Friday urging the withdrawal of American agents. The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper, amplifying an
earlier report by the German magazine Der Spiegel, said on Tuesday that a top-secret map leaked by fugitive intelligence analyst
Edward Snowden showed 90 US surveillance facilities at embassies and consulates worldwide. The
facilities in East Asia
were focused on China, with centers in the US embassy in Beijing and US consulates in the
commercial hub Shanghai and Chengdu, the capital of the southwestern province of Sichuan, it said. Hua Chunying, spokeswoman
for China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said Thursday that Beijing
had "severe concerns" about the reports.
"We require the US to make a clarification and give an explanation," she told reporters at a regular
briefing. "We require friendly diplomatic missions and personnel in China to strictly abide
by international treaties... and do not engage in any activity that... may jeopardize
China's security and interests." The defense ministry said that the revelation of the US eavesdropping
program has "sounded alarm bells" in China. "We must continue to strengthen our
information security work," ministry spokesman Yang Yujun told reporters at a briefing on Thursday. The official China
Daily on Friday urged Washington to recall its spies from the country, adding that their activities were "illegal in nature and not
covered by diplomatic immunity". "To many Americans, we are at the very best a potential rival, if not an enemy, despite all the
official rhetoric about partnership," it said in an editorial. "While the American intelligence system is given overwhelming authority
to carry out surveillance operations at home under the US Patriot Act, this land is China," it said. Australian
embassies
were being secretly used to intercept phone calls and data across Asia as part of the USled global spying network, the Sydney Morning Herald said. The US-led spying network has drawn
fire from other Asian countries as the row spreads. Indonesia-Australia Row Indonesia on Friday
summoned the Australian ambassador over the "totally unacceptable" activities. Jakarta has
also protested strongly to the United States over reports Washington had been monitoring phone calls and communication networks
from its embassy in the Indonesian capital. The Asia-Pacific dispute comes as a major row rumbles between Washington and several
European countries over the scale and scope of US surveillance of its allies, which has seen accusations that German Chancellor
Angela Merkel's phone was monitored for more than a decade. The Herald said Australia's top secret Defence Signals Directorate
(DSD), which is at the forefront of cyber security intelligence, operates clandestine surveillance facilities at embassies without the
knowledge of most Australian diplomats. "DSD is the most important of Australian intelligence agencies. It is involved in high-level
technical cooperation with its American counterpart, the National Security Agency," said Richard Tanter, Senior Research Associate
at the Nautilus
laundry list
China, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia express outrage over NSA
allegations
Doksone et al 13 (Thanyarat is an Associated Press Writer, 10/31, “China, other Asians angry over
embassy spy reports”, http://news.yahoo.com/china-other-asians-angry-over-embassy-spy-reports082021315.html)/cc
SYDNEY (AP) China
and Southeast Asian governments demanded an explanation from the
U.S. and its allies on Thursday following media reports that American and Australian
embassies in the region were being used as hubs for Washington"s secret electronic data
collection program. The reports come amid an international outcry over allegations the
U.S. has spied on the telephone communications of as many as 35 foreign leaders. A
document from National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden, published this week by German magazine Der Spiegel, describes
a signals intelligence program called "Stateroom" in which U.S., British, Australian and Canadian embassies secretly house
surveillance equipment to collect electronic communications. Those countries, along with New Zealand, have an intelligence-sharing
agreement known as "Five Eyes." "China
is severely concerned about the reports, and demands a
clarification and explanation," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said.
Australia"s Fairfax media reported Thursday that the Australian embassies involved are in Jakarta, Bangkok, Hanoi, Beijing and Dili
in East Timor; and High Commissions in Kuala Lumpur and Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. The Fairfax report, based on the Der
Spiegel document and an interview with an anonymous former intelligence officer, said those embassies are being used to intercept
phone calls and internet data across Asia. In a statement,
Indonesia"s Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa
said his government "cannot accept and strongly protests the news of the existence of
wiretapping facilities at the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta." "It should be emphasized that if
confirmed, such action is not only a breach of security, but also a serious breach of
diplomatic norms and ethics, and certainly not in tune with the spirit of friendly
relations between nations," he said. The Snowden document said the surveillance equipment is concealed, including
antennas that are "sometimes hidden in false architectural features or roof maintenance sheds." Des Ball, a top Australian
intelligence expert, told The Associated Press he had personally seen covert antennas in five of the embassies named in the Fairfax
report. He declined to go into further detail or specify which embassies those were. But Ball said what Der Spiegel has revealed is
hardly surprising or uncommon. Many countries have routinely used embassies as bases to covertly listen in on phone calls, and
reports of such surveillance have been public for decades, he said. "We use embassies to pick up stuff that we can"t pick up from
ground stations here in Australia and lots of countries do that," said Ball, a professor with the Australian National University"s
Strategic and Defence Studies Centre. According to the Snowden document, the spying sites are small in size and staff. "They
are
covert, and their true mission is not known by the majority of the diplomatic staff at the
facility where they are assigned," it said. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade declined to comment on the
reports. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said only that the government had not broken any laws. "Every Australian
governmental agency, every Australian official, at home and abroad, operates in accordance with the law," Abbott told reporters.
"And that"s the assurance that I can give people." Still, there
was predictable outrage in the countries
named in the document. Malaysian Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said his government viewed
the allegations as a serious matter and would investigate whether the U.S. Embassy in
Kuala Lumpur was being used for spying. The country"s opposition party issued a
statement Thursday urging the Malaysian government to lodge a protest with both the
U.S. and Australian embassies. Thailand"s National Security Council Secretary-General,
Lt. Gen. Paradorn Pattanathabutr, said the government told the U.S. that spying was a crime under
Thai laws, and that Thailand would not cooperate if asked to help eavesdrop. Asked about the
Australian embassy allegations, he said Australians are not capable of doing such sophisticated surveillance work. " When it
comes to technology and mechanics, the U.S. is more resourceful and more advanced
than Australia," he said. "So I can say that it is not true that the Australian embassy will be used as a communications hub for
spying."
***indonesia rels
internal link
NSA embassy spying decks US-Indonesia relations
Alford 13 – Peter Alford, Jakarta Correspondent for the Australian (Peter Alford, 11/6/13, “Spying
`threat to relations across region',” Lexis)//twemchen
As partners there should be no need for surveillance, says a former ambassador A FORMER Indonesian
ambassador to Australia has called on the two countries to resolve their differences over allegations of
electronic spying, but called for Australian-US surveillance activities in his country to end before they
damaged the relationship. ``I really question that Australia should be eavesdropping on the conversations
of government and political figures in Indonesia to find out their intelligence and strategy,'' said Sabam
Siagian, who headed the Indonesians' Australian embassy from 1991-95. ``There should be no need for
surveillance. If Indonesia and Australia are strategic partners then Indonesia's strategic intention is
friendship with Australia, for the sake of Indonesia's interests.'' His comments came after Foreign
Minister Marty Natalegawa warned that intelligence exchanges with Australia would have to be
reappraised. Mr Natalegawa was responding to new allegations arising from former US National Security
Agency contractor Edward Snowden that Australian and US agencies collaborated in spying on
Indonesian officials during the 2007 UN climate change conference in Bali. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop
is due to arrive in Indonesia this evening for the Bali Democracy Forum tomorrow and Friday, during
which she is expected to meet President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Dr Natalegawa. The issue of the
allegations -- which Dr Natalegawa said the Australian and US governments had neither confirmed nor
denied to his ministry -- is expected to be raised. ``I think with wisdom on both sides they can resolve this
problem,'' said Mr Sabam, founding chief editor of The Jakarta Post and now senior editor at the
newspaper. He believed Australian surveillance activities in Indonesia were serving its defence
partnership with the US under ANZUS which Mr Sabam described as ``a Cold War agreement''. Spying
under such arrangements must be put aside before Australia harmed its strategic partnership with
Indonesia and relations with other Asian nations, he said. Mr Sabam said it was in neither country's
interest to end security information exchanges, which were very beneficial in the field of counterterrorism. He added that Indonesia's intelligence services had gained technical and analytical skills from
the Australians, who had in turn gained better intelligence material from Indonesia's counter-terrorism
efforts at home.
***brazil rels
internal link
The plan is the lynchpin of Brazil relations
IBT 13 – (“NSA Surveillance Scandal: Top Five US Allies Bugged by Washington,” International Business
Times - US ed. 24 Oct. 2013. Academic OneFile. Web. 26 June 2015,
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA346807304&v=2.1&u=lom_umichanna&it=r&p=AONE
&sw=w&asid=54aa39443e6c04f8a2f8a0fbb1cd5aae)//twemchen
A Brazilian news program, Fantastico, reported that the US NSA spied on emails, phone calls, and text
messages of President Dilma Rousseff and Mexico's President Enrique Pena Nieto. Earlier reports suggested that
Washington spied on the emails and phone calls of ordinary Brazilians. The Brazilian government summoned
US ambassador Thomas Shannon. Foreign minister Luiz Figueiredo expressed the "government's
indignation" over "an inadmissible and unacceptable violation of Brazilian
sovereignty".
***india rels
internal link
Curtailing embassy surveillance is critical to India surveillance
Burke 13 – south Asia correspondent for the Guardian (Jason Burke, 9/25/13, “NSA spied on Indian
embassy and UN mission, Edward Snowden files reveal”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/25/nsa-surveillance-indian-embassy-unmission)//twemchen
The US National Security Agency may have accessed computers within the Indian embassy in
Washington and mission at the United Nations in New York as part of a huge clandestine effort to mine
electronic data held by its south Asian ally. Documents released by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden
also reveal the extent and aggressive nature of other NSA datamining exercises targeting India as recently
as March of this year. The latest revelations – published in the Hindu newspaper – came as Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime
minister, flew to Europe on his way to the US, where he will meet President Barack Obama. The NSA operation targeting India used
two datamining tools, Boundless Informant and Prism, a system allowing the agency easy access to the personal information of nonUS nationals from the databases of some of the world's biggest tech companies, including Apple, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo. In
June, the Guardian acquired and published top-secret documents about Boundless Informant describing how in March 2013 the
NSA, alongside its effort to capture data within the US, also collected 97bn pieces of intelligence from computer networks
worldwide. The largest amount of intelligence was gathered from Iran, with more than 14bn reports in that period, followed by
13.5bn from Pakistan. Jordan, one of America's closest Arab allies, came third with 12.7bn, Egypt fourth with 7.6bn and India fifth
with 6.3bn. Though relations between India and the US were strained for many decades, they have improved considerably in recent
years. President George Bush saw India as a potential counterweight to China and backed a controversial civil nuclear agreement
with Delhi. Obama received a rapturous welcome when he visited in 2010, though concrete results of the warmer relationship have
been less obvious. According to one document obtained by the Hindu, the US agency used the Prism programme to gather
information on India's domestic politics and the country's strategic and commercial interests, specifically categories designated as
nuclear, space and politics. A further NSA document obtained by the Hindu suggests the agency selected the office of India's mission
at the UN in New York and the country's Washington embassy as "location targets" where records of Internet traffic, emails,
telephone and office conversations – and even official documents stored digitally – could potentially be accessed after programs had
been clandestinely inserted into computers. In March 2013, the
NSA collected 6.3bn pieces of
information from internet networks in India and 6.2bn pieces of information from the country's telephone networks
during the same period, the Hindu said. After the Guardian reported in June that Pm program allowed the NSA "to obtain
targeted communications without having to request them from the service providers and without having to obtain
individual court orders", both US and Indian officials claimed no content was being taken from the country's networks
and that the programs were intended to aid "counter-terrorism". Syed Akbaruddin, an external affairs ministry spokesperson, said
on Wednesday there was no further comment following the latest revelations. Siddharth Varadajaran, editor of the Hindu, said the
Indian government's "remarkably tepid and even apologetic response to the initial set of disclosures" made the
story a "priority for Indians". A home ministry official told the newspaper the government had
been "rattled" to discover the extent of the the programme's interest in India. "It's not just
violation of our sovereignty , it's a complete intrusion into our decision-making
process," the official said. Professor Gopalapuram Parthasarathy, a former senior diplomat, said no one should be surprised by the
Hindu's story. "Everybody spies on everyone else. Some just have better gadgets. If we had their facilities, I'm sure we would do it
too. The US-Indian relationship is good and stable and if they feel India merits so much attention then good for us," he told the
Guardian. Others have been less phlegmatic. Gurudas Dasgupta, a leader of the Indian Communist party, asked the government to
raise the issue with Obama. Anja Kovacs of the Delhi-based Internet Democracy Project said the articles showed that such
datamining was not about any broader "struggle to protect society as a whole through something like
fighting terrorism, but about control ". The Hindu argued that "the targeting of India's politics and space
programme by the NSA busts the myth of close strategic partnership between India
and US", pointing out that the other countries targeted in the same way as India "are generally seen as
adversarial" by Washington.
NSA leaks reveal surveillance on the Indian embassy
NDTV 13 (Leading Indian news station, 7/1,“Indian embassy was among 38 missions targeted by
American Intelligence”http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-embassy-among-38-targets-spied-uponby-us-national-security-agency-report-527010)//cc
London/Washington: The
Indian Embassy in the US is among the list of 38 diplomatic
missions that were being spied upon by American intelligence agencies, as per the latest top
secret US National Security Agency documents leaked by the whistleblower Edward Snowden. The spying methods used
included microphones installed in building, bugs implanted in electronic
communications gear and collection of transmissions with specialised antennae, the
Guardian daily in London said. The computer network was also compromised, 'giving the agency
access to emails and internal documents.' The NSA document lists the 38 embassies and missions and
describes them as 'targets'. In addition to India, nations friendly with the US were also
placed under surveillance according to the NSA documentation. These included the EU missions and
the French, Italian and Greek embassies, as well as a number of other American allies, including Japan, Mexico, South Korea, and
Turkey. "Traditional ideological adversaries and sensitive Middle Eastern countries," were also on the list of targets, the report
noted. The list in the September 2010 document, however, does not mention the UK, Germany or other western European states.
Earlier there was a report in German journal 'Der Spiegel' that the NSA had tapped EU offices in Washington, Brussels and at the
United Nations. The news that foreign embassies of allied and friendly nations were also put under surveillance has caused outrage
with a spokesman for the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, asserting that "bugging
friends is unacceptable."
Topicality Answers
W/M – US Embassies Abroad
US embassies abroad are domestic
Sneed and Skopil 83 — circuit judges at the United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit (“McKEEL v.
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN”, 722 F.2d 582, 12/30/83,
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/722/722.F2d.582.82-5417.82-5117.82-5114.825111.html)//twemchen
B. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Jurisdiction 12 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1330(a) states that district court jurisdiction over claims against
foreign state defendants is limited to cases in "which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity either under sections 1605-1607 of
... title or under any applicable international agreement." The district court examined the relevant passages of the FSIA, and found
that sovereign immunity barred suit against Iran. We affirm. 13 Under the FSIA, sovereign immunity is waived in suits "for money
damages ... against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and
U.S.C. Sec.
1603(c) defines "the United States " for purposes of the FSIA to include "all territory and waters,
continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." 14 This brings us to the heart of this case.
Appellants argue that section 1603(c) should be interpreted to embrace "all territory and
waters" with respect to which the United States exercises any form of jurisdiction. Inasmuch as United States
embassies are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for certain purposes, appellants argue that events occurring
at the embassies fall within the waiver of immunity contained in section 1605(a)(5).
caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state ...." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1605(a)(5) (emphasis added). 28
US = possession
US Code 7 (2 USCS § 1966, lexis)//twemchen
(f) Definition of United States. As used in this section, the
term "United States" means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and territories and possessions of the United
States.
It’s the US’s sovereign territory
Ballentine's 95 (Legal Dictionary and Thesaurus, p. 689)//twemchen
the territory over which this sovereign nation called the “United States” exercises sovereign power
That includes US embassies abroad – diplomatic asylum sets a sovereignty
precedent
Skiba 12 – JD, PhD Candidate, Department of History @ University of California, Berkeley (Lynsay
Skiba, Fall 2012, “2012 LATCRIT SOUTH-NORTH EXCHANGE ON THEORY, CULTURE, AND LAW:
"ASILO AMERICANO" AND THE INTERPLAY OF SOVEREIGNTY, REVOLUTION, AND LATIN
AMERICAN HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCACY: THE CASE OF 20TH-CENTURY ARGENTINA,” 3 Creighton
Int'l & Comp. L.J. 198, Lexis)//twemchen
This understudied Latin American practice
allows political dissidents to seek refuge in, and safe passage
out, of embassies and other extraterritorial sites located in the very countries that deem
them threats . 104 Frequently [*199] employed during the civil wars and revolutionary conflicts of the 19th century,
diplomatic asylum became by the middle of the 20th century both a mechanism for states to assert
their sovereignty and a method for non-governmental advocates to defend individuals from state-sponsored
persecution. By the late 20th century, while never disappearing, it had faded as a celebrated advocacy tool in the region. This paper
examines diplomatic asylum and its links to sovereignty, political dissent, and the development of Latin American human rights
activism.
For the United States, foreign missions here and American missions abroad
are both considered domestic
Locke 9 (Ryan. adjunct professor of law at Emory school of law. “are embassies considered ‘united states territory’?”. Fair Play
Substantial Justice. 23 April 2009. https://fairplaysubstantialjustice.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/are-embassies-consideredunited-states-territory)//JuneC//
Diplomatic and consular premises are NOT extraterritorial. This is the most common misconception
about “embassies, and something you see in movies and TV all the time. For example, in an episode of The Simpsons the family
travels to Australia and eventually takes refuge on the grounds of the U.S. embassy where they can’t be arrested because it’s
“technically U.S. soil.” In reality, that’s not the case. U.S. embassies are on the soil of the host country. This was made clear in
Persinger v. Iran, where a marine who was held hostage for 15 months at Embassy Tehran sued his captors, the government of Iran,
under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. 729 F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Although other countries are generally immune from
the jurisdiction of federal and state courts, the FSIA created certain exceptions. One of these exceptions is when the tortious act
occurs on U.S. soil. This makes sense–if Japan injures you in Ohio, you should be able to sue them in Ohio. But the FSIA said U.S.
soil, not “U.S. states.” So what does “U.S. soil” mean? 28 U.S.C. section 1603(c) has the answer:
“United States” means “all territory and waters, continental or insular, subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States.” The marine argued that it should be considered part of the U.S. since the Embassy
was substantially removed from the jurisdiction of the receiving state and was subject to the concurrent jurisdiction of both the
sending and receiving states, but the Court of Appeals didn’t go for it. Instead, they deferring to the language of the statute, its
legislative history, and the consequences of finding embassies part of the U.S.–in the end, he wasn’t allowed to sue Iran. Notably the
court didn’t decide if Congress could extend jurisdiction to U.S. embassies; they merely decided that Congress didn’t. For extreme
nerds, the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law and the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, agree with
this decision. The OLA opinion is at Vol. II, 1430-1432, 1440 (1994). But even though embassies are not part of the U.S.’s territory,
the U.S. still exercises substantial control over its embassies and consulates, including enforcing American law. This is done mostly
through treaties and bilateral conventions. For example, judicial assistance between the U.S. and Japan is governed by: Article 5(f)
of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 21 UST 77. Article 17 of the U.S.-Japan bilateral Consular Convention of 1963, 15
UST 768. the U.S.-Japan bilateral Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters treaty, Treaty Doc. 108-12. the multilateral Hague
Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, 20 UST 361.
Customary international law Applicable U.S. law and regulations Applicable Japanese law and regulations As you can imagine,
international law gets rather complicated as you’re flipping through nine or ten sources of law. The most important treaties can be
found here. In conclusion,
Domestic means territories under U.S. jurisdiction
U.S. Code 5 (U.S. Code. 28 U.S. Code § 1603. Legal Information Institute. 18 February 2005.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1603)//JuneC//
(a) A
“foreign state”, except as used in section 1608 of this title, includes a political
subdivision of a foreign state or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defined
in subsection (b). (b) An “agency or instrumentality of a foreign state” means any entity— (1) which is a separate legal person,
corporate or otherwise, and (2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or
other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, and (3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the
United States as defined in section 1332 (c) and (e) of this title, nor created under the laws of any third country. (c) The
“United States” includes all territory and waters, continental or insular, subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States. (d) A “commercial activity” means either a regular course of commercial conduct or
a particular commercial transaction or act. The commercial character of an activity shall be determined by reference to the nature of
the course of conduct or particular transaction or act, rather than by reference to its purpose. (e) A “commercial activity carried on in
the United States by a foreign state” means commercial activity carried on by such state and having substantial contact with the
United States.
Territorial jurisdiction of embassies concerning the U.S. was never legally
defined, but the court ruled domesticity in multiple cases
Conley 15 (JM. Department of Sociology and Anthropology. “Foreign Sovereign Immunity”. 2015.
http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1821&context=gjicl)//JuneC//
European courts which have litigated the issue of whether the receiving state or the
sending state has jurisdiction over embassies, have uniformly held that such jurisdiction
lies with the receiving state. 7 United States courts, however, had not addressed the
question directly. Two district court opinions suggested that the noncommercial tort exception applies only to acts which
occur within the geographic territory of the United States. In Matter of Sedco, Inc., Sedco, an offshore drilling corporation,
attempted to sue Pemex, a subsidiary of the Government of Mexico, for property damage arising out of an oil well drilling disaster
which had oc curred off the coast of Mexico."8 Plaintiff argued that for the noncommercial tort exception to apply, the tort could
occur in whole or in part in the United States. If the acts or omissions cause direct effects in the United States, the tort occurs in part
in the United States. 9 The District Court for the Southern District of Texas, holding that the non-commercial tort exception was
inapplicable, concluded that "although the exception does apply to all non-commercial torts committed in this country, . . . the tort,
in whole, must occur in the United States. ' 20 An even narrower interpretation of the exception was given in Hanoch Tel-Oren v.
Libyan Arab Republic. 21 Hanoch Tel-Oren concerned wrongful death and personal injury actions arising out of an attack in Israel
on a bus containing citizens of and visitors to Israel.2 2 In holding that the non-commercial tort exception
did not apply, the court stated that ti... it is undoubted that sovereign immunity is still in
effect for tort claims unless injury or death occurs within American borders. ' 23 The Sedco and
Hanoch Tel-Oren incidents, however, both occurred within the exclusive jurisdiction of other countries and did not concern any
question of concurrent United States jurisdiction or, more particularly, jurisdiction of United States embassies. In Persinger, the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that for jurisdiction under the FSIA, the phrase "in the United States" includes United
States embassies abroad.24 In reaching this conclusion, the Persinger court followed a three pronged analysis. First, because the
legislative history failed to define the scope of "territory . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," the Persinger court
relied on the language of the FSIA itself to determine the meaning of the phrase.25 According to the court, that
language does not indicate that "territory" means literally only that territory
geographically in the United States,26 but also includes any territory abroad which is
under United States jurisdiction. 7 Second, the court stated that, although under international law United States
embassies are regarded as United States territory,2 8 they are not necessarily excluded from coverage under the FSIA.29 If it can be
shown that the United States exercises some form of jurisdiction over its embassies, they fall within the "territory" contemplated by
the non-commercial tort exception.3 0 Third,
the court reasoned that United States jurisdiction
does
not have to be exclusive jurisdiction . The term also includes territory subject to concurrent jurisdiction of
the United States and another country. 1 The court determined that United States embassies fall under the broad authority of
Congress to regulate foreign affairs,32 that they are subject to the authority of the State Department to promulgate regulations
governing consular affairs,3 " and that they are subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the United States.3 4 A fortiori, the court
concluded that the United States exercises concurrent jurisdiction over its embassies abroad.35 Thus, the Persinger
court held that United States embassies abroad are territory subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States; therefore, the Iranian actions on embassy grounds occurred "in the
United States" within the FSIA exception. Thus, Iran could not claim immunity under the FSIA and the court had
jurisdiction to hear the case on its merits.
W/M – Foreign Embassies in US
Foreign embassies are domestic territory
State Department 12 (“WHAT IS A U.S. EMBASSY?”, last modified 8/11/12,
http://diplomacy.state.gov/discoverdiplomacy/diplomacy101/places/170537.htm)//twemchen
ORIGINALLY, AN EMBASSY referred to an ambassador and his staff who were sent by their country to another country’s
government to represent and advance the interests of their home country. Today, an embassy is the nerve center for U.S. affairs
inside another nation—the headquarters of the U.S. ambassador and his or her staff. An embassy is always located in the capital city
of a foreign nation. U.S.
embassies abroad, as well as foreign embassies in the United States, have
a special status. While an embassy remains the territory of the host state , under
international rules representatives of the host country may not enter an embassy without permission—even to put out a fire. Because
an embassy represents a sovereign state, any attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents. Besides the
ambassador, embassy staff is typically made up of a deputy chief of mission, Foreign Service Officers, Foreign Service Specialists,
and representatives of many other U.S. agencies, such as the Department of Defense and the Department of Agriculture. The staff of
all of these agencies reports to the ambassador. Citizens of the foreign country fill jobs at an embassy, too, and these foreign
employees are essential to the success of an embassy’s mission. They used to be known as Foreign Service Nationals, but are now
officially called Locally Employed Staff—which may include U.S. citizens who are long-time residents of the country.
Ilaw agrees
JP 3 (Jakarta Post, “Embassy land not sovereign”, 7/16/03,
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2003/07/16/embassy-land-not-sovereign.html, Deech)
I refer to the letter by Brien Doyle that appeared in The Jakarta Post on July 10, concerning the refusal of Governor Sutiyoso to
permit the construction of a protective fence on the premises of the U.S. Embassy, even after repeated requests from Ambassador
Boyce. Doyle states, ""Let us not forget that the embassy is U.S. sovereign territory"". If this statement is accurate, why would the
embassy ask anyone for permission to build a wall anyway? There
is no precedent under international law
that grants a ""sovereign territory"" status to embassies, not even for the United States. It is a
widespread misconception that a foreign embassy belongs to the territory of the
representative nation. The only status given to embassies under international law concerns
""premises of the mission, which are inviolable and agents of the receiving state may not enter them, except
with the consent of the head of the mission"" (Article 22 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations ).
DA Answers
A2: Terrorism DA
Embassy surveillance fails to provide counter terror information
Marsden 6/18 (Rachel is a columnist with Human Events Magazine, and Editor-In-Chief of
GrandCentralPolitical News Syndicate, distributing to over 3,000 newspapers nationwide, 2015“CIA
Report Reveals Alarming Flaws In US intelligence”,
http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelmarsden/2015/06/18/cia-report-reveals-alarming-flaws-in-usintelligence-n2014126)//cc
The personnel from various agencies who were gathered at the Osama bin Laden counterterrorism station
-- FBI, NSA, Federal Aviation Administration and State Department -- were "unclear about the nature of
their responsibilities." Further, the NSA and CIA really didn't like sharing intelligence. Cooperation
between agencies is still a problem. Every agency wants to do whatever gets the most publicity and
gets the biggest chunk of the budget. -- The CIA's nonofficial cover (NOC) program was "not
effectively engaged in the battle against al-Qaida," reflecting "the weakness of the
program itself." In other words, the spooks were warming ergonomic chairs inside
embassies and swanning around the diplomatic dinner circuit under official diplomatic
cover, on the premise that someone might provide them with useful intelligence in that
context. Meanwhile, CIA officers tasked with gathering intelligence out in the real world were failing at
it. This revelation ultimately gave rise to the CIA's "Global Deployment Initiative," an attempt to get more
CIA officers out of embassies and out into the arenas of business and academia, where they're more likely
to encounter assets who can provide actionable intelligence, or where CIA officers can exert influence
without raising suspicion. In 2013, a former senior CIA official told the Los Angeles Times that the
program was a "colossal flop."
No Link: statistics prove embassy surveillance has no effect on counter
terror
RT News 13 (Nonprofit, bipartisan news agency, 10/31, “Washington’s answers don’t justify NSA
spying – EU delegation”, http://rt.com/news/eu-delegation-nsa-answers-014/)//cc
EU diplomats who traveled to Washington over the NSA’s spy program have been left
with their questions unanswered. The US insisted all the intelligence gathered in Europe was
related to warzones in the Middle East and would continue. The European Union’s delegation of
politicians trusted with getting answers from Washington over the National Security Agency’s (NSA)
espionage programs in the EU left with more questions than they arrived with. The heated condemnation
of the reports the US eavesdropped on millions of calls as well as the communication of EU leaders was
dampened by spy Director Gen. Keith Alexander. “It is much more important for this country that we
defend this nation and take the beatings than it is to give up a program that would result in us being
attacked,” Alexander told House of Representatives Intelligence Committee on Wednesday. Furthermore,
he said that the reports in European media alleging the NSA recorded millions of personal phone calls
were “completely false.” Addressing allegations of EU complicity in the spying he said that some data had
been provided “to NSA by foreign partners,” but it is “not information that we collected on European
citizens.” “It represents information that we and our NATO allies have collected in defense of our
countries and in support of military operations," said Alexander. Following the meeting members of the
delegation told RT’s Gayane Chichikyan that espionage on such a scale could not be justified by
the American fight against terrorism. Spanish MEP Salvador Sedo said that Alexander gave
some statistics and an explanation neither of which “clarify the situation.” “This is not
justifiable,” said Sedo, adding that the tapping of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone was not included in
Alexander’s explanation. A group of German officials are also in Washington this week to address
allegations of the NSA eavesdropping on the Chancellor phone. RT’s correspondent, Gayane Chichikyan,
described the EU delegation’s visit as purely “symbolic.” “They came to Washington, expressed reserved
indignation and then agreed to cooperate further. This is something that we’ve seen before,” said
Chichikyan. The EU delegation left Washington on Wednesday and it remains to be seen what action will
be taken in relation to the talks with US officials. European leaders have threatened to suspend the multibillion ‘Safe Harbor’ trade pact as a measure against US spying. The deal allows American companies to
collect data on clients, something that the EU believes is being undermined by the NSA. ‘A weapon against
geopolitical competition’ Geopolitical analyst, Eric Draitser, dismissed the EU delegation’s visit to
Washington as “political posturing.” He described the word “collaboration” as not strong enough for the
intelligence cooperation between the EU and the US. “They have been an intimate part of the US
intelligence apparatus,” stressed Draitser to RT. “If you exist within the US sphere of influence then you
are part of this espionage.” Accepting NSA Director Keith Alexander’s explanation, Draitser said the
assertion the US gathered information for military purposes was technically “valid,” but Washington’s
ultimate goal was to use the intelligence as a “weapon of dominance and coercion.”
at: brics da
europe collapse inevitable
No internal link – European collapse is inevitable
EC 13– European Commission, quotes the President of the European Commission, cites the 2014
Annual Growth Survey, cites empirics of the EC’s studies, cites the 2014 Alert Mechanism Report, (,
“European Semester 2014: strengthening the recovery”, 11-13-13, http://europa.eu/rapid/pressrelease_IP-13-1064_en.htm) //AD
Fiscal consolidation: Substantial progress has been made and the average budget deficit in the EU has been reduced by around half
since a peak of almost 7% of GDP in 2009. However, debt
levels are still high and set to peak at almost
90% of GDP in 2014 before starting to decline. Early action has created room for Member States to slow the
pace of consolidation and to focus more on improving the quality of public expenditure and modernising public administration at all
levels. Countries
with more fiscal room for manoeuvre should stimulate private
investment and consumption while long-term investment in education, research and
innovation, energy and climate protection should be protected from budget cuts. Taxes
should be shifted from labour to consumption, property or pollution. Restoring lending: Some
progress has been made to repair the financial sector and market tensions have eased considerably since mid-2012. The EU’s efforts
to build a Banking Union will strengthen banks’ ability to manage risks in the future. However, more
needs to be done
in the short-term to reduce high private debt (for instance, by introducing or improving corporate and
personal insolvency regimes), prepare banks for new capital requirements and stress tests and
ease companies’ access to finance. Growth and competitiveness: A significant rebalancing is taking place across
Europe as a result of the crisis, with a shift towards more export-led growth. However, progress is insufficient when it
comes to opening up product and services markets to competition, particularly when it
comes to the energy market and regulated professions. Research systems also need to be
modernised. Unemployment and social developments: Progress has been made by Member States to modernise their labour
markets and over time this should help to integrate more people into the workforce. The focus should now be on
stepping up active support and training for the unemployed – including by improving public
employment services and introducing Youth Guarantees – as well as modernising education systems. Member States
should also monitor wages so that they support both competitiveness and domestic
demand, and should ensure that social protection systems reach the most vulnerable.
Public administration: Several Member States are looking to make their public sectors more efficient, including by improving
cooperation between different layers of government. The focus should be on shifting public services online and reducing red tape.
brics low
BRICS fails at reform - no unity
Beri 12 - Research Officer at Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, specializes on political and
security issues of specializes on political and security issues of Sub-Saharan Africa, M. Phil from the
Centre for West Asian and African Studies, School of International Studies (SIS), Jawaharlal Nehru
University (JNU), New Delhi and a Diploma on Conflict Studies from the Department of Peace and
Conflict Research, Uppsala University, Sweden, Vice President of the African Studies Association of India
(Ruchita, “BRICS: In Search of Unity?”, Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, 4-3-12,
http://idsa.in/idsacomments/BRICSInSearchofUnity_rberi_030412) //AD
The fourth BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summit held in New Delhi
saw steps towards greater financial integration and the establishment of a development
bank. On the political front, the five leaders unanimously agreed, amongst other things, that
dialogue is the way out for solving the Syrian crisis and the Iranian nuclear issue. While
the summit ended with consensus about future plans of cooperation and on crucial
issues of global concern, doubts still remain about the cohesiveness of the grouping. The
idea of BRIC was first articulated in 2001 to represent the shift of economic power from the developed countries to the developing
world. Today, BRIC is more than an acronym. It emerged as a formal grouping in 2006, at the first meeting of the foreign ministers
of Brazil, Russia, India and China on the sidelines of United Nations General assembly in New York. At the Sanya summit in 2011,
There is no
doubt that the BRICS grouping has evolved over the years as an important platform of
consultation on various issues of economic and political importance. In the wake of the recent
economic crisis, the emerging economic importance of BRICS is undeniable. Latest estimates
suggest that BRICS countries excluding South Africa collectively account for around 25
per cent of world GDP; their share is expected to increase to 40 per cent by 2030. According
to Goldman Sachs, the combined economies of the BRICS are expected to surpass those of the
G 7 by 2035. Moreover, the five BRICS countries together account for a quarter of the
world’s land mass and a little less than half of the world’s population. Intra-BRICS trade
today stands at $230 billion. Thus, it appears that BRICS is emerging as a “new growth pole in
the multi polar world order”. In its first two summits at Yekaterinburg and Brasilia, the BRICS concentrated upon the
South Africa joined the grouping as a fifth member, thus bringing representation from the African continent.
economic agenda, with the leaders using the platform to articulate the viewpoint of the emerging economies and developing
countries. In the wake of the economic crisis in the US and Europe the group insisted on reshaping the rules governing the existing
international economic order and reforming the Bretton Woods institutions. However, at the Sanya summit last year, the crisis in
The theme for
the New Delhi summit was “BRICS Partnership for Global Stability, Security and
Prosperity.” The leaders deliberated on a wide ranging agenda that included issues such
as sustainable development, food and energy security, health, poverty eradication and
global governance. They have decided to set up a joint working group to examine the
feasibility of a BRICS investment bank to mobilise resources for infrastructure
development projects in BRICS and other developing countries. At the same time, two
agreements were concluded to enhance intra-BRIC trade and economic ties: the
agreement on extending facilities in local currencies under BRICS inter-bank
cooperation mechanism, and the multilateral letter of credit confirmation between the
intra-BRICS EXIM banks. While the BRICS grouping does provide an opportunity for each member to play an
the Arab world forced the leaders to consider political issues and strive towards building common positions.
important role on the global stage, one of the challenges that it faces is cohesiveness. Take the issue of the BRICS development bank.
While it is indeed a laudable initiative, the challenge lies in aligning the differing interests of the member countries. Moreover,
other members of the grouping are wary of China’s domination over the bank given that
China holds very large foreign exchange reserves ($ 3 trillion). While the Delhi Declaration calls for
candidatures from the developing world for the position of the President of the World Bank, the BRICS have not been able to agree
upon a common candidate. This appears to be a case of history repeating itself. Last
year, the BRICS countries
failed to unite behind a common candidate for the top job at the International Monetary
Fund, thus leaving the path open for French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde to succeed Dominique Strauss-Kahn. On the
political front, in 2011, the presence of all BRICS members together at the United Nations
Security Council presented them an opportunity to coordinate their positions on issues
of global concern. But they failed to do so on issues like Libya and Syria. In the case of Libya, while South Africa voted in
favour of Resolution 1973 approving the “No fly zone” and NATO air strikes, the other BRICS countries abstained. In the case
of Syria and the latest resolution backing the Arab League plan for President’s Assad’s
removal, India, Brazil and South Africa voted in favour while China and Russia vetoed it.
While possibilities of synchronising positions do exist, the fact remains that BRICS is a heterogeneous group
composed of democracies and autocracies, energy importers and energy producers.
Further, national interests and geopolitical factors limit the possibility of BRICS
members reaching a unified and collective viewpoint. Thus, while their growing economic clout has
brought Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa together, translating the hand holding gestures at the
end of each summit into real unity is likely to remain a daunting task.
BRICS fail - internal disputes block economic reform
Yardley 12- staff writer at New York Times, (Jim, “BRICS Leaders Fail to Create Rival to World
Bank,” New York Times, 3-30-12, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/world/asia/brics-leaders-failto-create-rival-to-world-bank.html?_r=0) //AD
NEW DELHI — Leaders
of five emerging world economic powers convened on Thursday for a
one-day diplomatic meeting, pledging to expand mutual trade while urging faster
reforms of the Western-dominated global financial system. They also called for dialogue, not military
intervention, in addressing the violence in Syria and Iran’s disputed nuclear ambitions. The leaders of the five
countries, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — the so-called BRICS nations
— emphasized their mutual good will and their growing economic power, but fell short
of achieving the tangible goal most discussed before the gathering: the establishment of
a new development agency to rival the World Bank. Instead, the leaders created a high-level working
group to examine the issue and report back when they meet next year. As expected, they signed agreements to
enable the greater use of local currencies, rather than the dollar, in trade among their
countries. Such arrangements are partly intended to reduce transaction costs. “We are united in our desire to
promote sustained and balanced global economic growth,” India’s prime minister,
Manmohan Singh, said during the meeting’s plenary session. Thousands of police and paramilitary
officers were sent to New Delhi for the meeting, not only to safeguard the visiting leaders, but to prevent Tibetans
from demonstrating against the presence of the Chinese leader, Hu Jintao, and against
Beijing’s rule in Tibet. At least 316 people were being held under “preventative arrest” at the city’s Tihar Jail, according to
an administrator, who added that they did not face any charges. On Wednesday, a Tibetan monk from the Kirti
Monastery in western China died after setting himself on fire, as did a Tibetan man in
New Delhi who was protesting Mr. Hu’s visit. Tibetan activists and human rights advocates criticized New
Delhi’s crackdown as a violation of free speech. On Thursday, the police tried to thwart demonstrations near the
summit meeting by blocking surrounding roads. But around noon, two Tibetans managed to run onto a footbridge several hundred
yards from the Taj Palace Hotel, the setting of the meeting. They shouted slogans and unfurled a banner reading, “Hu Jintao Failed
Leader Free Tibet Now.” The police quickly intervened. Other minor Tibetan protests were held elsewhere in New Delhi during the
afternoon. In statements during the session, the five
leaders expressed concern about the global
economic situation and called on “advanced economies to adopt responsible
macroeconomic and financial policies,” according to their joint statement. Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff,
cautioned against low interest rates and easy lending by central banks that she said had made commodity markets volatile. The
BRICS nations held their first summit meeting in 2009 with the aspiration of reforming
the global financial system and becoming a diplomatic counterweight to the West. But
their internal divisions have stalled the group’s evolution into a potent diplomatic
alliance. On Thursday, the leaders reiterated their calls to speed up reforms to the
International Monetary Fund and create a more inclusive process for selecting the
World Bank’s president. They also endorsed the Group of 20 major economies as being the “premier forum” for
addressing financial issues. But as for reforming the United Nations Security Council, their
agendas remained divided. India, Brazil and South Africa each aspire to permanent seats on the Council. In the past,
Russia has endorsed their bids, a position repeated on Thursday by President Dmitri A. Medvedev. China has remained
noncommittal on the issue, especially regarding India, and Mr. Hu was noticeably silent on that point during his
remarks. In the joint statement, the five leaders also expressed “deep concern” about the
situation in Syria, endorsing the joint mediation efforts of the United Nations and the Arab League and calling for a dialogue
that respects “Syrian independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty.” They also expressed concern about Iran’s nuclear
program, which much of the West believes is a weapons program, but they supported Iran’s right to civilian nuclear energy. And they
warned of “disastrous consequences” if the situation escalated into conflict.
EU instability makes BRIC collapse inevitable
Ogier 11- staff writer at Emerging Markets, (Thierry, “Brics fail to agree on rescue plan”, 09/22/2011,
Emerging Markets, http://www.emergingmarkets.org/Article/2905738/Brics-fail-to-agree-on-rescue-plan.html)
//AD
Finance ministers from the Brics nations warned of mounting contagion risks at a
meeting in Washington yesterday, but failed to advance any concrete measures that could
help to resolve the crisis. “The crisis is worsening. We have to prevent it from getting to another
dimension,” Guido Mantega, Brazil’s finance minister, said “Until now the crisis was only in the
advanced countries, [...] but there is now a risk that the sovereign debt crisis of various
countries may develop into a new financial crisis. There is a risk of a crisis of large
proportions.” But although the Brics grouping – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa,
which joined the group last year – indicated a willingness to assist in measures aimed at
restoring confidence to battered markets and preventing a renewed global downturn,
yesterday’s meeting of finance ministers from the five nations failed to arrive at specific
recommendations. Earlier, South African finance minister Pravin Gordhan described
proposals to buy European bonds to limit the scope of a crisis as “an idea that my
Brazilian colleagues have raised”. “Those of us that have the ability to contribute to that
should perhaps consider that,” he told Emerging Markets. “Buying European bonds is just one
idea.” The most important thing is to “re-establish the level of co-operation and give and
take” that emerged after 2008. Gordhan also came out strongly in favour of the financial transaction tax proposed by France at
the G20. “In principle we have to start looking at alternate sources of financing . “There are
still some debates about where the tax is generated, whom does the tax go to, does it
operate on a country basis, does it operate on a global basis?” he said. But India has
expressed reservations. Duvvuri Subbarao, governor of the Reserve Bank of India, said that the country is
“able to absorb the [capital] flows that are coming in” and was taking no measures to
control them. “We are quite unlike other economies which have a problem of excess of
capital flows.” Subbarao added that Brics policymakers had to balance the merits of
assisting in the recovery of Europe and advanced nations with domestic development
needs. “There is (an) enormous amount of demand for resources at home for poverty
reduction, so there is going to be a big, big tension between giving money to a
multilateral institution for the purpose of restoring global stability and meeting our own
aspirations at home,” he said. Gordhan said a new cohesiveness was needed to meet
international challenges. “We look forward to returning to the good old days of the G20
in 2008 when there was urgency, there was passion, there was coherence and a lot of
cohesion which enabled us to avert the great depression. Now we require the great
recovery. How we get there is part of the challenge,” he said.
brics high inevitably
Status Quo Reforms solve growth
EC 13– European Commission, quotes the President of the European Commission, cites the 2014
Annual Growth Survey, cites empirics of the EC’s studies, cites the 2014 Alert Mechanism Report, (,
“European Semester 2014: strengthening the recovery”, 11-13-13, http://europa.eu/rapid/pressrelease_IP-13-1064_en.htm) //AD
President Barroso
said: “This is a turning point for the EU economy. The EU's hard work is
starting to pay off and growth is slowly coming back. The 2014 Annual Growth Survey
points out where we need to be bolder to tackle reforms that are needed to build a
lasting and job-rich recovery.” The AGS shows how Member States are adjusting to the recently
reinforced economic policy-coordination process under the European Semester, and are
working better together according to common rules. Budgetary coordination in the euro area has reached
an unprecedented level this year: for the first time, the Commission will assess euro area draft budgetary plans for
2014 before the budgets are adopted by national parliaments, and will present an overview of the fiscal stance in the euro area as a
whole. The results of this assessment will be published on 15 November. Annual Growth Survey: A progress report Member
States have made progress on each of the five priorities identified by the Commission in
2013. The same priorities are proposed for 2014, although with different areas highlighted for attention to reflect the changing EU
and international economic environment: Fiscal consolidation: Substantial progress has been made
and the average budget deficit in the EU has been reduced by around half since a peak of
almost 7% of GDP in 2009. However, debt levels are still high and set to peak at almost 90% of GDP in 2014 before
starting to decline. Early action has created room for Member States to slow the pace of consolidation and
to focus more on improving the quality of public expenditure and modernising public
administration at all levels. Countries with more fiscal room for manoeuvre should stimulate private investment and
consumption while long-term investment in education, research and innovation, energy and climate protection should be protected
from budget cuts. Taxes should be shifted from labour to consumption, property or pollution. Restoring
lending: Some
progress has been made to repair the financial sector and market tensions have eased
considerably since mid-2012. The EU’s efforts to build a Banking Union will strengthen
banks’ ability to manage risks in the future. However, more needs to be done in the short-term to reduce high
private debt (for instance, by introducing or improving corporate and personal insolvency regimes), prepare banks for new capital
requirements and stress tests and ease companies’ access to finance. Growth
and competitiveness: A significant
rebalancing is taking place across Europe as a result of the crisis, with a shift towards
more export-led growth. However, progress is insufficient when it comes to opening up product and services markets to
competition, particularly when it comes to the energy market and regulated professions. Research systems also need to be
modernised. Unemployment
and social developments: Progress has been made by Member
States to modernise their labour markets and over time this should help to integrate
more people into the workforce. The focus should now be on stepping up active support and training for the
unemployed – including by improving public employment services and introducing Youth Guarantees – as well as modernising
education systems. Member States should also monitor wages so that they support both competitiveness and domestic demand, and
should ensure that social protection systems reach the most vulnerable. Public
administration: Several Member
States are looking to make their public sectors more efficient, including by improving
cooperation between different layers of government. The focus should be on shifting public services online
and reducing red tape. The AGS also makes recommendations on how to deepen the European Semester. National ownership of EU
level country specific recommendations needs to be strengthened so Member States should involve national parliaments, social
partners and citizens more in the process to ensure key reforms are understood and accepted. Euro area Member States should
devote more time to coordinating major reforms - particularly in labour and product markets - before they are adopted at national
level. And Member States need to better implement the country-specific recommendations they receive each spring. The
Commission will provide input on these issues for the European Council in December. Alert Mechanism Report: Towards a balanced
recovery The
2014 Alert Mechanism Report (AMR), which launches the next annual cycle of the
Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure, provides an objective analysis of Member States' economies
based on a scoreboard of indicators that measure internal and external competitiveness.
This year the AMR has found that several Member States are making progress in reducing
their current account deficits and reversing losses in competitiveness. However, the AMR shows
that further progress is needed to address high debt and the net international investment position of the most indebted economies,
while high current account surpluses persist in some countries, suggesting possibly inefficient levels of saving and investment and
the need to strengthen domestic demand.
EU Economy is growing
Jolly 13 – Staff writer for the New York Times, cites the Composite Purchasing Managers Index
compiled by Markit Economics, quotes Markit’s chief economist, quotes an economist for Capital
Economics, (David, “Small, Steady Growth for Europe’s Economy”, New York Times, 10-24-13,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/business/international/europes-economy-shows-modest-signs-oflife.html?_r=0) //AD
The composite purchasing managers index compiled by Markit Economics, a data and analysis
firm, came in at 51.5 in October, above the 50.0 mark that signals expansion. While that is a
slight deceleration from September’s 52.2 showing, it was the fourth consecutive month in positive
territory. The growth trend is a “modest” one, Chris Williamson, Markit’s chief economist,
noted, but “the expansion is reassuringly broad-based across the region, reflecting signs
of economic recoveries becoming more entrenched in the periphery as well as ongoing expansion in Germany and
stabilization in France.” The report was the latest to reinforce the message that after lurching from the Lehman Brothers crisis five
years ago to its own sovereign debt problems, Europe
appears to be struggling to its feet. The euro zone
officially exited recession in the second quarter with a small upturn. On Wednesday, the
Spanish government said the country’s economy pulled out of a two-year recession in
the third quarter with a modest expansion. More positive news arrived from Spain on Thursday, as the
National Statistics Institute said in Madrid that the jobless rate dipped to 26 percent in
the third quarter from 26.3 percent in the second quarter. While joblessness in Spain remains at
depression levels, and that of the overall euro zone is elevated at 12.0 percent, both appear to have reached a plateau. Daimler,
the maker of Mercedes cars, underscored that outlook on Thursday, reporting that car demand has
“stabilized at a low level in Western Europe, and a gradual improvement of the market
situation is to be anticipated in the rest of the year.” The German automaker also
announced a third-quarter net profit of 1.9 billion euros, or $2.6 billion, up 53 percent from a year
earlier. No one is predicting a near-term economic breakout, and the purchasing manager survey revealed that growth appeared to
be slowing slightly in Germany and registering “only a negligible expansion” in France. But the other 15
members of the
euro currency area “reported modest growth of activity for the third month running,
representing the first period of growth for these countries since early 2011.” Ben May, an
economist in London with Capital Economics, wrote in a note that in spite of the small monthly decline in
the index from September’s level, it was still far higher this month than in January. He noted that in contrast to a
slightly weaker showing in the services sector, manufacturing actually improved. “On past form,
the index is now consistent with quarterly growth in euro zone G.D.P. of about 0.2
percent,” for an annualized rate of about 0.8 percent, Mr. May wrote. While that is weaker than the
second-quarter expansion of about 1.1 percent annualized, he added, it is “positive nonetheless.”
Status quo banking efforts solve
Ewing and Minder 13 – Staff writers for the New York Times, quotes the chief economist at
Berenberg Bank, cites the European Central Bank, (Jack and Raphael, New York Times, 10-23-13, “Signs
of Life in Euro Zone Could Point to Recovery”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/business/international/signs-of-life-in-euro-zone-could-point-torecovery.html) //AD
Perhaps the most striking news on Wednesday was that the
Spanish economy crawled out of a two-year
recession in the third quarter, though it grew at an estimated annual rate of about 0.4
percent. With its housing bubble and 26 percent unemployment rate, Spain has been the most striking
symbol of the euro zone debt crisis. The turnaround there comes after an end to
recession in Portugal. It offers hope to Europe’s periphery, the so-called misery belt, which also
includes Greece, Italy and Ireland. “Most of the euro zone periphery is out of recession by now,”
said Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Berenberg Bank in London, which has
calculated that even Greece is growing again. “That is absolutely good news. The rebound in
the economy is ultimately the solution to almost everything.” In Frankfurt on Wednesday, the European Central Bank
outlined plans to search for and expose all the bad loans and damaged investments
lurking in euro zone banks. That effort would be the first step in forcing banks to fix
their problems so they can start lending again. Without lending to businesses and home buyers,
there can be no sustained economic growth. Maybe more important, the review of large banks
was a sign that euro zone leaders, who sometimes appear out of touch, had made concrete progress
on policy. Their decision last week to designate the European Central Bank as top banking
cop is intended to de-Balkanize the euro zone banking system. A single currency, they argue,
should have a single banking system. Shares of European banks fell after the central bank disclosed
details of the planned bank assessment, but in a strange way that may have been a good sign. It meant investors
expected the central bank to be tough and thorough, culling the sick banks and freeing
the healthy ones from the stigma attached to euro zone lenders. Earlier efforts by a patchwork of
national regulators to conduct supposed “stress tests” on Europe’s banks proved woefully inadequate. There have been
other hopeful omens lately, like an increase in European car sales in September from
20-year lows. Ireland, once one of Europe’s most troubled countries, said recently that it expected to
emerge from its bailout program by the end of the year. On Wednesday, a closely watched
survey showed that French businesspeople were becoming slightly more optimistic
because of an uptick in exports. In Germany, the euro zone’s first among equals, the Christian
Democrats led by Chancellor Angela Merkel are edging toward an accord with the Social
Democrats to form a government. That would end a de facto freeze on euro zone policy
making while Ms. Merkel was preoccupied with domestic politics.
at: snowden asylum da
won’t publish military secrets
He hasn’t exposed military secrets
Balland 13 – staff writer @ Daily Times (Sabria Balland, 9/7/13, “Snowden and US-Russia relations: a
warm war?,” The Daily Times, Lexis)//twemchen
Granted, Snowden
was a government employee in secret service agencies bound by the rules and regulations of
conduct of such agencies. However, he in no way violated and exposed military secrets that
jeopardise the United States in any way. His actions were based on informing the general
public of illegal measures taken by their government, violating their privacy to keep intelligence tabs on them, that too knowing
full well the risks it entailed with regard to his own life.
If he has anything, he would already have given it to the Russians –
otherwise, he wouldn’t have gotten asylum
Blake 14 – staff writer @ Mail Online (matthew Blake, 5/16/14, “Edward Snowden 'being manipulated
into giving vital secrets to Russians in return for being allowed to stay there',” MailOnline,
Lexis)//twemchen
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is providing vital intelligence to Russian agents
in return for asylum in the former Soviet state, it was claimed today. The former analyst fled to Russia
after leaking hundreds of thousands of top-secret documents which showed the NSA and its UK counterpart
GCHQ's all-pervasive spying programme that allowed them to eavesdrop on the communications and internet usage of ordinary
citizens. But now western security officials believe Snowden
is being 'manipulated' into becoming a
Russian informant for fear he will be extradited to America to face espionage charges. 'We believe the Russians
have got more information from him , which is the reason why they are allowing him to stay. He
has given them something in return ,' a Western intelligence source told The Times.
france won’t do it
France won’t do it – they want him to go to the US, and are too indecisive to
send a bold signal
Xinhua 6/28 – (6/28/15, “ CoE should initiate probe following revelations of NSA spying on Paris:
parliamentary rapporteur,” Xinhua General News Service, Lexis)//twemchen
In response to the
reactions in Paris, judged lukewarm by many observers , the rapporteur told
Xinhua that "the French government does not react with one voice" and that officials "could have
reacted more firmly." Omtzigt otherwise clarified that a French parliamentarian had demanded the closure of the building
of the United States Embassy in Paris which shelters the phone tapping services. He praised the fact that the French
Minister of Justice, Christiane Taubira made "a clear appeal to grant political asylum to Mr. Snowden" and pointed out that
PACE, for its part, had only just recently called on the U.S. to allow the whistle-blower "to
return to his home country without fear of criminal proceedings in conditions which do not allow him to raise a
public interest defense."
other countries solve
Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela solve the impact
NEOnline 6/26 – (6/26/15, “France furious over NSA surveillance on three successive French
administrators,” http://www.neurope.eu/article/un-seul-geste-that-could-split-thealliance/)//twemchen
France may be joining Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela in offering Snowden
asylum in France . The Justice Minister, Christiane Taubira, said on TV on Thursday that she “wouldn’t be surprised” if
France decided to offer asylum to Edward Snowden and Julian Assange.
at: tpp trade-off da
get more defense from the aff politics file
ustr overstretch now
USTR is overstretched now – random Africa trade agreements
Leo 3/19 – Senior Fellow, Director of Rethinking US Development Policy at the Center for Global
Development (Ben Leo, 3/19/15, “The U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit Seven Months Later: Progress and
Setbacks,” Congressional Documents and Publications, Lexis)//twemchen
Going forward, Congress
should pressure the Administration to stop investing in
ineffectual Trade and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFAs) and start investing in BIT negotiations.
Over the last decade, USTR has focused almost solely on pursuing TIFAs in Sub-Saharan Africa,
which provide no binding protections for US investors and do not advance a real reform
agenda. This misplaced and non-strategic effort has distracted limited US government
attention from pursuing real negotiations with African nations. Put differently, while China, Canada, and other nations have
been signing countless legally binding treaties, the United States has been signing TIFAs that provide no tangible benefit to US
investors and companies. It
is time to stop allocating scarce resources to these
inconsequential talk shops and move toward pursuing real agreements that catalyze much needed (and wanted)
investment flows.
ustr overstretch now – xt: africa randomness
Africa randomness ensures overstretch
Leo 3/19 – Senior Fellow, Director of Rethinking US Development Policy at the Center for Global
Development (Ben Leo, 3/19/15, “The U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit Seven Months Later: Progress and
Setbacks,” Congressional Documents and Publications, Lexis)//twemchen
While Beijing and Ottawa have been busy inking new deals, USTR
has been pursuing an ineffectual nonlegally binding trade and investment framework agreements. It's time to stop allocating scarce
resources to these potshots, and start negotiating real agreements that have impact for U.S.
investors and on promoting economic growth in the region.
no trade-off
Trade indexes solve
Wein 14 – trade policy analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (Michelle
Wein, 9/22/14, “Time for a global mercantilist index: the United States must move quickly,” The
International Economy, Lexis)//twemchen
While this
report is just a start, it points to the need for the USTR to produce such an index on an
so
would give the U.S. government additional tools to "name and shame" nations that are
international trade scofflaws. In addition, it would help U.S. officials better target our
scarce trade enforcement resources on the nations that are doing the most damage to the U.S. economy. This,
however, points to the other real problem: overcoming scarce resources for trade enforcement.
annual basis that would include more nations (and ideally the United States) as well as more and better data sets. Doing
The United States invests just 0.007 percent as much on defending its economy globally as it does on defending the nation militarily.
The U.S. government can bring more balance to this by significantly increasing resources for trade enforcement. This includes
Congress requiring that USTR create a chief trade enforcement officer and a trade enforcement working group to institutionalize
within the agency the function of trade enforcement and significantly increase budget resources for the activity. Moreover, this
includes increased funding for additional U.S. trade agencies, including the International Trade Administration, the International
Trade Enforcement Center, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the functions in the State Department focused on
protecting U.S. economic interests. But we need more than funding for enforcement. It's time for the United States to conduct a
major review of the trade policy tools available and to formulate an understanding of the new tools that are needed going forward.
We see this need particularly when trying to address systemic challenges from a nation such as China, which is extremely
sophisticated in ensuring that its mercantilist policies and practices escape the scrutiny of the WTO. Indeed, this monopsonistic
power of China--an ability to institute mercantilist practices while coercing multinationals to not object--points to another key
change that is needed. The United States cannot roll back spreading mercantilism and save the soul of the global trading system
without building better alliances with like-minded partners, particularly the European Union and Commonwealth nations. We need
to do this through trade agreements such as the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, but also through more joint
enforcement actions and combined diplomatic pressure. Toward that end, the Obama administration needs to lead this effort while
Europe needs to step up to the plate and stops letting America always be the "bad cop," while it reaps the short-term benefits of
being the "good cop."
ustr fails
The USTR doesn’t know what it’s doing
Hersh 6/18 – senior economist at Roosevelt Institute and a visiting fellow at Columbia University’s
Institute for Policy Dialogue (Adam Hersh, 6/18/15, “REP. MATT SALMON HOLDS A HEARING ON
CHINA'S RISE: THE STRATEGIC IMPACT OF ITS ECONOMIC AND MILITARY GROWTH,” Political
Transcript Wire, Lexis)//twemchen
The divisions we saw on last week's historic TPA/TAA vote here in the house reveal how
much the rules matter to people . Some point to this outcome is a sign of a broken
Congress , but I submit this was Congress doing its work. Rather what's broken is the relationship between
Congress and the executive branch, particularly the USTR and how divided constitutional authorities to
make international agreements work in practice in our government. When the rules mattered as much, we should
take the time to get them right rather than trying to bulldoze through Congress
whatever rules USTR and the corporate law these -- that negotiate these agreements with them supposedly
on our behalf .
no impact
USTR resilient to resource cuts
Punke and Kind 14 – Deputy Trade Representative in Geneva AND Representative Ron Kind from
Wisconsin (Michael Punke, Ron Kind, 7/16/15, “HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE HOLDS A HEARING ON U.S. TRADE AGENDA AND THE WORLD
TRADE ORGANIZATION,” Political Transcript Wire, Lexis)//twemchen
Look, we
pride ourselves on being lean and mean at USTR. And we will always make do with
whatever resources we are given, and live off the land, or do whatever else is
necessary to make sure that we are fulfilling our mission. I think Ambassador Froman was asked this question a couple of
months ago, and noted the fact that there had been recent months, particularly during the sequester, when we were perhaps a little
bit leaner than we wanted to be. I think we're in a slightly better position as of the last couple of months.
And it's been gratifying, I think, to have the ability to field the teams in the places that we need to field them, in order to engage
robustly in all of the negotiations that you described. So we appreciate your support. We
will make the most of the
resources that we were -- are given, and we know that in the type of budget environment that
we're in, that all of us have to be very accountable in terms of how we spend scarce
resources . But we will continue the conversation with you about resources in USTR.
tpp fails
TPP failure inevitable
Parameswaran 6/24 – staff writer at The Diplomat (Prashanth Parameswaran, 6/24/15, “Finishing the
TPP: It’s Not Just About the US Congress,” http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/finishing-the-tpp-its-notjust-about-the-us-congress/)//twemchen
Much of the commentary on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in recent weeks has understandably
focused on the U.S. Congress, where the Obama administration has been working hard to get the necessary votes to
pass Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), also known as “fast-track.” But even as we wait to see whether Washington can get its act
together on TPP, a mammoth free trade agreement which represents nearly 40 percent of global GDP, it
is also important
to remember what it will take for all 12 TPP countries – not just the United States legislature – to
get the agreement past the finish line. Congress’ approval of TPA will of course be an
essential step to get things through. TPA is important because it would effectively ensure that Congress can only have an up-ordown vote on the pact, rather than opening up and amending specific provisions which could delay or kill the deal. But beyond
Washington, securing TPA is also important for the other 11 countries – Australia, Brunei,
Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore,
and Vietnam – as well. This is not just a question of American credibility , which Singapore’s
foreign minister K Shanmugam emphasized quite starkly during his visit to Washington last week. Some of these countries had
understandably been waiting to see if TPA will be approved to lock in what has been agreed to so far before buckling down for the
final stretch of negotiations. TPA now looks set to pass, although it is still not yet finalized. As The Diplomat reported earlier today,
the U.S. Senate got the necessary votes to move standalone Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) to a final debate, days after the
House passed standalone legislation on TPA on its side. Provided a final vote is cast and other outstanding issues – including Trade
Adjustment Assistance – are ideally sorted out, TPA can then be approved, granting the Obama administration the ability to
negotiate TPP without legislative amendment. But that’s
just the beginning of the end . Though the
negotiating countries have said that they have gotten through most of the tough issues, the final stage of trade negotiations
also tends to be a time to sort out lingering divergences, stubborn demands, and
knotty issues . Even though the specifics of the agreement are still secret, we do know that while technical matters have
mostly been resolved, there are still some pending issues to be negotiated between TPP members. Much attention
of late has been paid to the rather optimistic recent comment by Australian Trade Minister Andrew Robb that the parties are
“literally one week away” from completing the deal. Yet looking beyond deadlines, the bigger question is what kind of issues need to
be worked out and at what level. At a Tuesday event on the TPP at the Atlantic Council, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, Chile’s
ambassador to the United States, Juan Gabriel Valdes, said that while some
issues were simple and could be resolved
quickly, others were not so and would require high-level attention from leaders. “I have the
impression that political leaders will have to get involved in the process,” Valdes said. Last but not least, all 12 TPP
members will need to get the agreement ratified by their legislatures. This is no small
feat. In some of the negotiating countries, like Malaysia, there is strong opposition to specific
issues , as might be expected in a 29-chapter agreement that takes on sensitive issues like intellectual property and state-owned
enterprises. Others, like Peru, are also at sensitive stages in their electoral cycles as well, just like
Washington is with elections coming up next year in 2016. “Getting the actual TPP once it is finalized through our own
congresses is not going to be easy ,” Peru’s ambassador to the United States, Luis Miguel Castilla, warned at the
Atlantic Council event. In the United States, too, much work remains to be done with the elections fast approaching. Even
given the ideal scenario where every step of the process is completed at its earliest date – with TPA becoming law by
the end of June, TPP concluded by the end of July, and U.S. President Barack Obama signing the deal after November 1 following
necessary procedures – including notifying Congress and making other preparations – TPP
would only be
implemented by December 1, Daniel Ikenson of the CATO Institute opined in a recent commentary. A more realistic
scenario, which adds in time for debates in Congress and other delays, Ikenson says, is between May and July 2016. The assumption
that it will take a month to
finalize the TPP is also an optimistic one, and it could in fact take longer. If it takes too
long, that begins to bump up against the 2016 elections in November, which could affect the vote count once it gets back to Congress.
With so much still left to do by so many players, a little perspective is in order even if we do see
further advances on the TPP in Washington in the coming weeks. As Ambassador Castilla aptly put it, for all the attention on Capitol
Hill over the past few weeks on TPA, “this
is just round one ” on the TPP.
at: asia pivot
concludes aff
Their ev concludes aff
Akhtar and Jones 13 (Shayerah Ilias Akhtar Specialist in International Trade and Finance Vivian C.
Jones Specialist in International Trade and Finance “Proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP): In Brief” Congressional Research Service July 23, 2013
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43158.pdf)//twemchen
Impact on transatlantic relationship. On one hand, the TTIP’s successful conclusion could reinforce the United States’ commitment
to Europe in general and especially to the European Union’s role as a critical U.S. partner in the international community. Some
see this as key, given concerns that the Obama Administration’s “rebalancing” toward
the Asia-Pacific region may reflect a decline in the relative importance of the transatlantic relationship, though
Administration officials have rejected this view .18 On the other hand, should the negotiations
stall or produce results not seen as sufficiently ambitious, further questions could be raised about the strength of the transatlantic
relationship.
at: eu-japan da
japan growing
Japan’s growing, even without the FTA
RTT News 6/23 – (6/23/15, “BOJ Minutes: Economic Recovery on Pace To Continue,”
Lexis)//twemchen
(RTTNews) - Members of the
Bank of Japan's monetary policy board are satisfied with the rate of
the country's economic recovery, minutes from the board's meeting on May 21 and 22 showed on Wednesday - and
the recovery is expected to continue . Downside risks to the recovery include developments in emerging and
commodity-driven economies, the board added, as well as the European debt situation and the rate of recovery in the United States.
"Japan's economy is expected to continue recovering moderately," the minutes said. "The year-on-year rate of increase in the CPI is
likely to be about 0 percent for the time being, due to the effects of the decline in energy prices." At the meeting, the BoJ decided in
an 8-1 vote to hold its benchmark lending rate steady at 0.10 percent, while also maintaining its target of raising the monetary base
at an annual pace of about JPY 80 trillion. The BoJ had earlier expanded the stimulus in October, citing notable downward pressure
from a substantial decline in crude prices hindering its ability to reach the 2 percent inflation target. Policymakers now
provided a more optimistic view on the economy after it expanded an annualized 2.4 percent in the first quarter of
2015, helped by private consumption. Private consumption has been resilient , the bank said today. Previously,
it noted that private consumption recovery in some areas has been sluggish. Housing investment has bottomed out and
shown some signs of picking up . Further, the bank said public investment has entered a moderate declining
trend, although at a high level. According to the BoJ, inflation expectations appear to be rising on the whole from a somewhat
longer-term perspective. "Quantitative and qualitative monetary easing has been exerting its intended effects, and the Bank will
continue with QQE, aiming to achieve the price stability target of 2 percent, as long as it is necessary for maintaining that target in a
stable manner," the minutes said. The central bank also said on Wednesday that corporate
service prices in Japan
were up 0.6 percent on year in May - exceeding forecasts for an increase of 0.5 percent following the 0.7 percent gain in
April. On a monthly basis, prices added 0.1 percent after easing 0.1 percent in April. Among the individual components, prices were
down for advertising services but up for leasing and rental.
Abenomics and consumption spikes
Nikkei 6/4 – Nikkei Asian Review (Japan) (6/4/15, “Min Lan Tan: Pricing power boosts Japan's big
developers,” Lexis)//twemchen
A key feature of the
recovery in the Tokyo office market since mid-2013 has been how it has largely bypassed grade
A properties. Japan's economic rebound, fueled by the Abe government's fiscal expansion and the Bank
of Japan's monetary easing, has raised companies' optimism only to a limited degree. Accordingly,
corporate spending has remained cautious, and office expansions have mainly benefited more affordable premises in lower-grade
buildings with higher vacancy rates. This trend was reflected in the diverging performance of property stocks last year. Real estate
investment trusts, which manage lower-grade office properties, outperformed the overall sector. To be sure, their performance was
also helped by the Bank of Japan, which tripled its REIT purchases; the Government Pension Investment Fund, which raised its
equity allocation; and accounts under NISA, a new tax-free investment scheme that is drawn to REITs' dividend yields. In contrast,
the share prices of grade A landlords have languished. Despite relatively low vacancy rates, these landlords' ability to
raise rents was constrained by concerns that Japan's economic recovery was tentative. It did not help that sales of condominiums -another major asset type in their portfolios -- were stalled by a value-added tax hike last year. Since developers have historically paid
low dividends, they did not attract the types of investors that bought into REITs. Sustainable reversal This
situation may
be about to change in favor of property developers. First, the Japanese economy is likely to enter
a more stable recovery path as the effects of Abenomics become more entrenched
and domestic demand, driven by consumption, improves along with a rise in wages. Swiss bank UBS
forecasts growth of 0.8% in gross domestic product this year and 1.8% in 2016. As prices normalize after last year's consumption tax
hike, inflation should also stabilize at 0.8% and 0.9% over the same periods.
japan growing – at: afp
Concludes aff
AFP 6/8 – AFP (6/8/15, “Japan's revised Q1 growth blows past expectations,” Lexis)//twemchen
"Capital spending is the last piece of the puzzle, with exports and consumption showing
signs of recovery ," said Atsushi Takeda, an economist at Itochu Corp. "A sustainable economic
recovery is starting." Corporate investment rose 2.7 percent from the previous quarter, well above an
initial 0.4 percent expansion. The growth figures fell in line with the Bank of Japan's assessment that
the economy was on the upswing , and they may push back any timeline for the central bank to launch more
stimulus.
soko alt cause/uq o/w
South Korean FTA crowds out Japan and triggers the impact – or, it makes
a Japan FTA inevitable
Ozeki 10 – The Daily Yomiuri (Koya Ozeki, 10/25/10, “EU growing more open to negotiating FTA with
Japan,” The Daily Yomiuri, Lexis)//twemchen
This month, the
EU officially signed an FTA with South Korea. If South Korean products enter
the EU market without imposed tariffs, Japan will be at a disadvantage . But some trade
experts believe the settlement of the EU-South Korea agreement, which the EU had prioritized as part of its trade
strategy, paves the way for negotiations with prospective partners.
resources not key
Resources aren’t key – there’s a mutual eagerness to cooperate
JEN 10 – Japan Economic Newswire (9/21/10, “Japan, Poland to cooperate on FTA with EU, nuke
disarmament,” JEN, Lexis)//twemchen
The two ministers met on the sidelines of U.N. meetings in New York. Maehara told Sikorski that Tokyo
is eager to
agree with Brussels on the start of Japan-EU FTA talks during a regular bilateral summit slated for next year,
according to Japanese officials. The Japanese minister said Tokyo will positively consider lowering
nontariff barriers in line with a request by the 27-nation regional bloc. The Polish minister
said his country, which is to chair the European Union in the latter half of 2011, will positively work toward a
Japan-EU FTA.
The earthquake spurs cooperation
JEN 11 – (8/6/11, “U.S. conveys concerns to Japan over free trade talks with EU,” JEN,
Lexis)//twemchen
The planned Japan-EU FTA is set to focus on improvements in Japan's nontariff trade
barriers including complex import procedures and has so far remained invulnerable to opposition
from Japanese farming groups. In addition, the EU side has softened its position in
response to the disaster in Japan, making it possible for the Japanese government
to proceed with the Japan-EU FTA talks more easily than with the TPP negotiations that would seek to eliminate tariffs on all
products including farm goods.
won’t pass
Germany and Italy kill the deal
Ozeki 10 – The Daily Yomiuri (Koya Ozeki, 10/25/10, “EU growing more open to negotiating FTA with
Japan,” The Daily Yomiuri, Lexis)//twemchen
However, while
Japan has demanded that tariffs on products such as automobiles and home electric
abolished, some EU member countries--for example, Germany and Italy, rivals in
automobile production--remain cautious of a Japan-EU FTA .
appliances be
overstretch now
Negotiating capacity low now – lack of a freedom of information law
Scott et al 13 – visiting student at Boston Univ. School of Law (Spring 2013, “Europe,” 47 Int'l Law. 581,
Lexis)//twemchen
The Polish Constitutional
Tribunal struck down the amendment to Poland's Freedom of Information
Law n82 in the case of K 33/11. n83 The amendment would have exempted disclosure of any information limiting the
"negotiating capacity" of the Polish State when entering into international agreements
with the EU . The ruling has no impact on the continued enforceability of EU law.
eu-japan trade inevitable
EU-Japan trade inevitable
Business World 13 – (3/26/13, “Irish Presidency welcome EU Japan talks,” Business World,
Lexis)//twemchen
Minister Bruton commented: "I
warmly welcome the start of official negotiations on a new EU-Japan
Free Trade Agreement. Supporting growth in international trade is a priority for the Irish Presidency. This is because
international trade has massive potential to create jobs and boost economic growth. "A new EU-Japan
agreement is expected to boost Europe's economy by 0.6 to 0.8 pc of its GDP. Under the terms of a new FTA, EU exports to Japan
could increase by up to 33pc." "Trade is essential to job creation both in Ireland and in the EU: 30 million jobs or 10pc of the
European workforce depends on exports. A series of new international trade agreements promise to increase European GDP by 2pc
and create 2 million new jobs across the EU. At a time when EU unemployment stands at 26 million, I'm delighted to use the Irish
Presidency to push for real progress in this area." Japan
is the EU's second biggest trading partner in Asia,
after China. In 2011 EU exports to Japan had reached a value of E 49 billion , mainly in the sectors of
machinery and transport equipment, chemical products and agricultural products. In 2011
EU imports from Japan accounted for E 68 billion , with mostly machinery and transport equipment and
chemical products. In 2011, EU imports and exports of commercial services from and to Japan were E16 billion and E22 billion.
Japan is also a major investor in the EU. In 2011 the EU inward FDI stock had reached a value of E144 billion.
Japan's inward FDI has increased markedly since the mid-1990s, but remains very low in comparison with other OECD countries.
at: africa da
no impact
Is this even real – no impact
Kluth 11 (Michael, Associate Professor in The Department of Society and Globalisation, Roskilde
University, Denmark, February 19, 2011, “North-South Rivalry and Offshore Balancing in Sub-Saharan
Africa,” online: http://rc41.ipsa.org/public/Sao_Paulo_2011/paper-1694.pdf)//twemchen
The overarching question guiding this study is: how can we explain the lacking onshore presence of the four great powers USA,
Russia, China and India in Sub-Sahara Africa using offensive neorealism. The onshore absence of the above countries is a theoretical
puzzle since offensive neorealism predicts power maximization behaviour and it’s an empirical puzzle since Sub-Sahara Africa with
its profusion of failed and fragile states and absence of militarily strong local players seems ripe for great power expansion. Three
propositions were put forth. 1. The US, as regional hegemon, has
a status quo bias and thus little appetite for
are no aspiring hegemons. It maintains a low key presence in the hard security domain
and refrains from onshore power expansion. 2. The European Union is the only great power regularly commencing
SubSaharan Africa since there
onshore military missions and it upholds superiority over the contending suitors in its power projection capability vis-à-vis the
region. 3. China,
Russia and India lack the capability to challenge Europe by instigating onshore operations in
Sub-Saharan Africa. They seek to maximize their presence through contributions to UN missions and cautious deployments of
naval assets. In parallel they challenge the EU by acquiring conventional power projection assets. The US largely conforms to
proposition 1 by staying aloof vis-à-vis power expansion games in Sub-Sahara Africa. This is particularly evident in the decision to
locate AFRICOM outside the continent. In compliance with proposition 2, the EU has maintained European security dominance
through a coordinated and collaborative upgrading of power projection assets which are pooled in European Battle Groups and
through bilateral accords between the major member states. It augments its position through permanent military presence and
regular offshore and onshore deployments. In accordance with proposition 3, China, India and Russia lack the means to
challenge the Europeans in the Sub-Saharan theatre. They have
no permanent bases in the vicinity. Their amphibious
forces are short of vessels suitable for long range deployments. India and China are unable to provide air cover for
ground operations in quantities required to match both the most advanced local air forces and the air combat assets the
Europeans are capable of fielding. Russia has a capable air craft carrier suited for this purpose, but given the state of its remaining
surface fleet it would be vulnerable . The same applies to Russia’s 35.000 man strong air borne forces which could be deployed
by means of its vast air transport fleet. The transport planes would, however, be vulnerable en-route and the troops lack air cover
once on the ground. Moreover most of the planes would be unable to make a safe return due to the shortage of aerial refuelling
aircrafts.
Deutsch is stupid and South Africa doesn’t have nukes
Schulte 8 (Ambassador Gregory L. Schulte, U.S. Permanent Representative to the International Atomic
Energy Agency, US Fed News, 1/31/08, Lexis)//twemchen
Iran's leaders should follow the example of other countries that
admitted and terminated illicit nuclear
weapons programs: * Romania, which in 1992 opened its facilities to IAEA inspections and then destroyed equipment
associated with a Communist-era nuclear weapons program. * South Africa, which in 1993 disclosed that it had
constructed then dismantled several nuclear weapons and then opened its secret facilities to IAEA
inspectors.
africa resilient
Resilient
BMI Research 7/1 – (7/1/15, “Q3 -2015,” Lexis)
While there
is little in the shilling's fundamental story to suggest it can buck this trend of broad
dollar strength , we believe it will fare better on a relative basis than many of its SSA peers
over the coming months. In contrast to other regional currencies, notably Nigeria and South Africa, Kenya's
accelerating economy, improving external account picture and its lower
exposure to capital outflows will make it one of the more resilient SSA currencies
in 2015 . Over the remainder of the year we expect the shilling to depreciate steadily, but we do not anticipate an aggressive
sell-off. While the next significant level of support comes in at its all-time low of KES106/USD, as things stand the perfect storm of
events that led the shilling to plummet to these depths in October 2011 are unlikely to materialise.
ttip solves africa
TTIP solves Africa
IFMW 6/26 – (6/26/15, “KenInvest signs MoU with USAID's East Africa Trade and Investment Hub,”
Syndicate Media, Lexis)//twemchen
Ikiara added that, "Improving the region's
trade competitiveness, encouraging diversification of
exports, as well as attracting trade and promoting broader and more inclusive economic
growth, will lead to a more economically resilient and stronger East African
community ," Ikiara said. The signing ceremony, which took place at KenInvest's Nairobi Headquarters, was attended by
high-profile representatives keen to promote trade and investment in East Africa. 2015 Global Data Point.
ebolerz thumps
Ebolerz killed all the farmers – decks the economy
GOE 6/25 – Government of Ethiopia (6/25/14, “Meager post-Ebola harvests worsen food insecurity in
West Africa,” PMS, Lexis)//twemchen
The chaos caused by the Ebola outbreak made it much more than a public health issue in
affected West African nations. Farmers, who are central to West African economies, suffered ,
and the effects have hampered the region's efforts to recover from the disease.
FDI dropped like a stone
GNA 6/25 – Ghana News Agency (6/25/15, “FDI inflows to Africa stable in 2014,” Lexis)//twemchen
The report said FDI flows to
West Africa declined by 10 per cent to $ 12.8 billion, as the Ebola
outbreak, security issues and falling commodity prices negatively affected several
countries; while East Africa saw its FDI flows increasing by 11 per cent to $ 6.8 billion.
fdi solves
FDI is inevitable and solves the DA
GNA 6/25 – Ghana News Agency (6/25/15, “FDI inflows to Africa stable in 2014,” Lexis)//twemchen
“FDI in services is important in
supporting the participation of African economies in global value
chains, as an increasing part of value added in trade consists of services. “It is also important in the context of
financing progress towards the sustainable development goals,” it stated.
at: mthathis
Concludes corporate tax dodging decks the economy
Mthathis 6/12 – Executive Director of Oxfam South Africa (Sipho Mthathis, 6/12/15, “JOURNEY
TOWARDS AN AFRICAN TAXATION RENAISSANCE,” IPS, Lexis)//twemchen
However , millions across Africa are struggling. Economic inequality is on the rise, and public
coffers are insufficient due to an increasing demand for public services like health, education and
housing. Recently, Thomas Pogge and other distinguished academics have written about the cost of progress. Surprisingly, history
provides us with examples of countries where, if there is a balance between economic growth and public spending, it is possible to
address inequality. There
is no time to waste in looking for ways to address this widening gap across Africa. It is
urgent that, collectively, African nations look at the billions of dollars flowing out of
the continent every year , most of which can be attributed to corporate tax dodging.
britain solves
Britain cooperation solves
Woodcock 6/5 – Press Association Political Editor (Andrew Woodcock, 6/5/15, “UK 'STILL SERIOUS
GLOBAL PLAYER',” Press Association, Lexis)//twemchen
``Fresh
from the election, I was able to show that Britain is back ,'' he said. ``Our economy growing, our
deficit halved, unemployment falling and - with our efforts working for trade deals, saving lives in the Mediterranean, fighting Isil in
the skies over Iraq, fighting Ebola in
west Africa, combating climate change and poverty - we are playing
a leading role in delivering the security and prosperity that our people deserve.''
at: iran da
no link
No link – none of their evidence assumes post-exposure – Snowden
provoked international coutermeasures which make embassy spying
useless
Paterson 14 (Tony. Chisholm Institute, SOHK, Assumption College Kilmore. “Surveillance revelations:
Angela Merkel proposes European network to beat NSA and GCHQ spying”. 16 February 2014. The
Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/angela-merkel-proposes-europeannetwork-to-beat-nsa-spying-9132388.html)//JuneC//
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany has announced plans to set up a European communications
network as part of a broad counter-espionage offensive designed to curb mass surveillance conducted by
the US National Security Agency and its British counterpart, GCHQ. The move is her government’s first tangible
response to public and political indignation over NSA and GCHQ spying in Europe, which was exposed last October with revelations
that the US had bugged Ms Merkel’s mobile phone and that MI6 operated a listening post from the British Embassy in Berlin.
Announcing the project in her weekly podcast, Ms Merkel said she envisaged setting up a European communications network which
would offer protection from NSA surveillance by side-stepping the current arrangement whereby emails and other internet data
automatically pass through the United States. The NSA’s German phone and internet surveillance operation is
reported to be one of the biggest in the EU. In co-operation with GCHQ it has direct access to undersea
cables carrying transatlantic communications between Europe and the US. Ms Merkel said she planned to discuss
the project with the French President, François Hollande, when she meets him in Paris on Wednesday. “Above all we’ll talk about
European providers that offer security to our citizens, so that one shouldn’t have to send emails and other information across the
Atlantic,” she said. “Rather one could build up a communications network inside Europe.” French government officials responded by
saying Paris intended to “take up” the German initiative. Ms Merkel’s proposals appear to be part of a wider German counterespionage offensive, reported to be under way in several of Germany’s intelligence agencies, against NSA and GCHQ surveillance.
Der Spiegel magazine said on Sunday that it had obtained information about plans by Germany’s main domestic intelligence agency,
the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, for a “massive” increase in counter-espionage measures. The magazine
said there were plans to subject both the American and British Embassies in Berlin to surveillance. It said
the measures would include obtaining exact details about intelligence agents who were accredited as
diplomats, and information about the technology being used within the embassies. Last year information
provided by the whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed that US intelligence agents were able to bug Ms Merkel’s mobile phone
from a listening post on the US Embassy roof. Investigations by The Independent subsequently revealed that GCHQ ran a similar
listening post from the roof of the British Embassy in Berlin. Intelligence experts say it is difficult if not impossible to control spying
activities conducted from foreign embassies, not least because their diplomatic status means they are protected from the domestic
legislation of the host country. Der Spiegel said Germany’s military intelligence service, (MAD) was also considering stepping up
surveillance of US and British spying activities. It said such a move would mark a significant break with previous counter-espionage
practice which had focused on countries such as China, North Korea and Russia. Germany’s counter-espionage drive
comes after months of repeated and abortive attempts by its officials to reach a friendly “no spy”
agreement with the US. Phillip Missfelder, a spokesman for Ms Merkel’s government, admitted recently
that revelations about NSA spying had brought relations with Washington to their worst level since the
US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Der Spiegel claimed that on a single day last year, January 7, the NSA tapped into some 60
million German phone calls. The magazine said that Canada, Australia, Britain and New Zealand were exempt from NSA
surveillance but Germany was regarded as a country open to “spy attacks”.
“Five eyes” spying solves, and doesn’t trigger disads
Cape Times 13 – Guardian Newspapers Limited (Cape Times, 11/6/13, “UK 'has secret spy post in
Berlin',” Cape Times, Lexis)//twemchen
Berlin: Concerns have been raised that Britain
operates a top-secret listening post from its Berlin embassy to
eavesdrop on the seat of German power. Documents leaked by the US National Security Agency (NSA)
whistle-blower Edward Snowden show that the UK's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) is,
together with the US and other key partners, operating a network of electronic spy posts from
diplomatic buildings around the world, which intercept data in host nations. A US intercept "nest" on top of its embassy in Berlin less than 150m from Britain's own diplomatic mission - is believed to have been shut down last week as the US scrambled to limit
the damage from revelations that it listened to cellphone calls made by Chancellor Angela Merkel. But the NSA documents, in
conjunction with aerial photographs and information about past spying activities in Germany, suggest that Britain
is
operating its own covert listening station within a stone's throw of the Bundestag, Germany's
parliament, and Merkel's offices in the Chancellery, using hi-tech equipment housed on the embassy roof. The
potentially toxic allegation that Britain has a listening station in the capital of a close EU ally will test relations between London and
Berlin only days after the row between Germany and the US about the US's clandestine activities. Asked to respond to the concerns,
Cameron's official spokesman said: "We don't comment on intelligence questions." Infrared images taken by a German television
station, ARD, appear to show that the US embassy spying facility, housed in an anonymous rooftop building, has now been shut
down after an incendiary clash in which Merkel told President Barack Obama it was "just not done" for friendly nations to spy on
each other. The heat signature from the structure dropped dramatically last week in the immediate aftermath of the conversation,
and equipment inside has not been detected as having been turned on since. The eavesdropping base, concealed in a box-like
structure with special windows made of fibreglass which are opaque to light but allow radio signals to pass unhindered, was run
jointly by CIA and NSA agents in a top-secret unit called the Special Collection Service (SCS). Despite the row, the German
authorities appear not to have noticed - or protested about - a potential parallel and
linked surveillance unit on top of the British embassy . According to one NSA document,
Washington recently closed some of the 100 SCS locations it operates in embassies around the world and transferred some of the
work to GCHQ, which is based in Cheltenham. In 2010, the SCS was known to operate 19 facilities in Europe, including stations in
Berlin and Frankfurt. Aerial photographs of the British embassy in Berlin show a potential eavesdropping base enclosed inside a
white, cylindrical tent-like structure which cannot be easily seen from the streets. The structure has been in place since the embassy,
which was built following the reunification of Germany, opened in 2000. The
structure bears a striking
resemblance to spying equipment used in GCHQ's Cold War listening post in West Berlin at the now-abandoned
Teufelsberg or "Devil's Mountain" site, which was used to intercept East German and Soviet communications. Equipment within the
embassy unit would be capable of intercepting cellphone calls, wi-fi data and long-distance communications across the German
capital, including the adjacent government buildings such as the Reichstag and the Chancellery clustered around the Brandenburg
Gate. On Monday night GCHQ officials refused to discuss ongoing security matters. Such is the critical importance of the network of
embassy spying bases - the US version of which the NSA has codenamed "Stateroom" - that the NSA and the CIA have built a mock
embassy-style site in woodland outside Washington DC to test their technology and train operatives. Satellite images of the site in
Maryland also show a white cylindrical structure in the grounds of the facility similar to the one on the roof of Britain's Berlin
embassy. The NSA documents provided by Snowden state that Stateroom-type
operations are run by the US,
Britain, Canada and Australia. Together with New Zealand, the countries form the "Five
Eyes" at the core of an international eavesdropping coalition. The NSA document outlining Stateroom
describes it as "covert Sigint (signals intelligence) collection sites located in diplomatic facilities abroad... (including) SCS (at US
diplomatic facilities) and government communications headquarters (at British diplomatic facilities)".
link non-unique
Link non-unique – relevant countries aren’t even on the surveillance list
anymore
Landay 6/24 – staff writer @ McClatchy Washington Bureau (Jonathan Landay, 6/24/15, “Revelations
NSA spied on French presidents called more smoke than fire,” McClatchy Washington Bureau,”
Lexis)//twemchen
Yet it’s unlikely that the latest revelations of U.S. spying on foreign leaders will damage U.S.-French relations as badly as U.S.German ties were buffeted in October 2013 when documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden showed that the
agency was monitoring the cellphone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The United States and France are working closely on
numerous fronts, from the international negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program to fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist
groups, and both governments almost certainly want to avoid jeopardizing that cooperation. Moreover, Obama had already told
Hollande about the monitoring and assured him that it had stopped. “This
does not hugely impact bilateral
relations (with France),” said Heather Conley, a former State Department official who directs the Europe Program at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies, a policy institute. “After the Snowden revelations, they (NSA)
carefully updated their targeting list and Merkel and Hollande were taken off .
If we don’t leave, we’ll get kicked out anyway
Smale 14 – staff writer at the NYT (Alison Smale, 7/11/14, “Berlin expels American spy chief as strains
grow; German government says Washington hasn't cooperated with inquiry,” Lexis)//twemchen
Reacting to the latest allegations of spying by an ally, the German government demanded on Thursday
that the chief American intelligence official stationed here leave the country because, it said, Washington
had refused to cooperate with German inquiries into United States intelligence activities. ''The
representative of the U.S. intelligence services at the United States Embassy has been asked to leave
Germany,'' a government spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said in a statement, adding that the government
takes the matter ''very seriously.'' The Central Intelligence Agency's station chief in Berlin, who has not
been identified, is based in the U.S. Embassy. C.I.A. officials in Washington had no comment on the
matter. While both sides seemed eager to contain undue diplomatic spillover from the move, it was still a
highly unusual step between two close allies who cooperate on a vast range of subjects, from working on a
broad, new trans-Atlantic trade pact to dealing with the Iranian nuclear program to coordinating a
departure of combat troops from Afghanistan. Former American intelligence officials described the
German government decision as a major blow to the C.I.A., which for decades has been able to operate in
the country with relative freedom and impunity. ''It's one thing to kick lower-level officers out; it's another
thing to kick the chief of station out,'' said one former C.I.A. officer with extensive experience working on
European operations. The official said that the move could be just the first signal that the Germans might
step up harassment of C.I.A. operatives in the country - escalating surveillance activities like phone
tapping and tailing them in cars. The closest precedent may be an episode in 1995, when the C.I.A. station
chief in Paris, his deputy and two other C.I.A. officers were expelled for trying to pay French officials for
intelligence on France's negotiating position in trade talks, including on farm issues and the importation
of American movies. One officer was said to have bribed an engineer with the state-run France Telecom
for information to make it easier to bug French telecommunications. Still, one former intelligence official
said that Germany's action on Thursday was even more significant, since the C.I.A. historically has far
closer ties to German spy agencies than it does to those in France. Cooperation in the fight against
terrorism has been particularly close since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But German officials have been
deeply frustrated in their efforts to receive clarification from Washington over allegations of spying raised
last year when it was revealed that the National Security Agency had been monitoring a range of
communications in Germany - including Chancellor Angela Merkel's cellphone. Although President
Obama has offered assurances to Ms. Merkel - and the C.I.A. director, John O. Brennan, has made calls in
recent days meant to reassure officials in Berlin - two recently revealed cases of suspected espionage by
the United States have sparked fresh outrage. While some German media reports identified the American
station chief as the person who had ''run,'' or managed, the two alleged spies, German officials made clear
on Thursday that their dissatisfaction ran deeper. ''The request occurred against the backdrop of the
ongoing investigation by federal prosecutors as well as the questions that were posed months ago about
the activities of U.S. intelligence agencies in Germany,'' said Mr. Seibert, the government spokesman.
''The government takes the matter very seriously.'' He said Germany continued to seek ''close and
trusting'' cooperation with its Western partners, ''especially the United States.'' The United States
Embassy had no comment on the request for the official's departure. But in a statement, the embassy said
it was essential to maintain close cooperation with Germany ''in all areas.'' ''Our security relationship with
Germany remains very important,'' the embassy statement said. ''It keeps Germans and Americans safe.''
Despite the apparent effort to keep relations on an even keel, the development marked a low point
between two allies just as they needed strong cooperation not just to combat terrorism and strengthen
security measures in the digital age but to reach a broad trans-Atlantic trade agreement. As Ms. Merkel
put it on Thursday, the two countries have better things to do than ''waste energy spying'' on each other.
Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, a close ally of Ms. Merkel, said the Americans had simply proved to
be stupid. ''With so much stupidity, you can only weep,'' he said. ''And that is why the chancellor is 'not
amused.''' Mr. Schäuble and Thomas de Maizière, the interior minister, both suggested that the material
handed to the Americans from the midlevel intelligence employee was nothing important. Defense
Minister Ursula von der Leyen, whose office is investigating the spying accusation against its employee,
said common sense would suggest that there could not possibly be as much benefit from paying spies for
information as there was damage to a valuable alliance. Reluctant as German leaders may have been to
act, and however conscious they are that America holds most of the cards in their alliance, pressure built
so sharply this week that they apparently felt they had to do something. This leaves Ms. Merkel, and her
government, in the unusual position for Germans of not knowing clearly what the next step is. When
spying revelations emerged last year, German officials suggested that they wanted a ''no spy'' agreement
similar to the one the United States has with the English-speaking victors of World War II: Britain,
Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The way German officials tell the story, they were promised those
negotiations by Susan E. Rice, Mr. Obama's national security adviser, and other American intelligence
officials. But the American officials say there was no such promise, and that German officials blanched
when they heard what kind of responsibilities they would have, for intelligence collection and
cyberoperations around the world, if they ever joined that elite club. ''This conversation went nowhere,''
one senior administration official said in April. ''Their politics simply wouldn't allow the kind of
relationship we have with, say, the British.'' But the public collapse of those talks left bitterness behind,
especially among Ms. Merkel's top aides, who felt as if Mr. Obama had never truly made up for more than
a decade of the interceptions of Ms. Merkel's conversations. Politicians, including Ms. Merkel, began
talking about creating a ''Germany-only'' segment of the Internet, to keep German emails and web
searches from going across American-owned wires and networks, as if that would somehow deter the
N.S.A. from gaining access. ''There is a sense we have to protect our data, and ourselves,'' Patrick
Sensburg, the German lawmaker leading the inquiry, said in an interview in June. ''And there is a lack of
trust that needs to be restored.'' But the latest revelations raised the question of whether the Obama
administration had really changed its view of spying in Germany. Clemens Binninger, a member of Ms.
Merkel's center-right party, said the move was ''a political reaction of the government to the lack of
willingness of American authorities to help clear up any questions'' over American surveillance of
Germany and its leaders. Mr. Binninger spoke after a session of the parliamentary control commission
that oversees German intelligence activities, which he heads. The commission, whose proceedings are
secret, was briefed Thursday by Gerhard Schindler, the head of the Federal Intelligence Service, on the
two suspected cases of espionage. The first case, concerning a midlevel employee of Mr. Schindler's
agency who was arrested last week, is far more serious than the second, in which ''very many questions''
linger, Mr. Binninger told reporters after almost three hours of talks with Mr. Schindler. No arrest has
been made in the second case. On Wednesday, the police searched the Berlin office and apartment of the
man in the second case, federal prosecutors said. They declined to give further information, but the
German news media reported that the suspect worked for the Defense Ministry. Mr. Binninger and other
members of his commission said there was still no evidence of espionage and that initial accounts
suggested that the documents taken were relatively harmless.
at: iran economy
Sanctions can’t touch the economy
Ceren 14 – staff writer @ The Tower (Omri Ceren, 12/31/14, “Reports: Iran Breaks Out of Sanctions,
Signs European Energy Deal,” http://www.thetower.org/1468oc-reports-iran-breaks-sanctions-inkseuropean-energy-deal/)//twemchen
Tehran has successfully inked an oil and gas deal with a top Italian energy
company, bragging that the deal came despite the fact that Iran has yet to reach a final agreement with the P5+1 global powers regarding the
country’s atomic program. The story emerged just a few days after a Gulf outlet reported that that the Iranians will soon attend a week-long
energy exhibition in Oman indicated aimed at “promot[ing] trade between the Sultanate and the Islamic Republic of Iran with the
Iranian state media boasted on Tuesday that
participation of more than 100 Iranian companies.” Both announcements in turn came just days after Iranian President Hassan Rouhani declared that
the Iranian economy had officially exited a sanctions-driven recession . The developments have
deepened long-standing worries that sanctions relief provided to the Islamic republic under the interim Joint Plan of Action (JPOA) is
spiraling beyond public predictions issued months ago – and then consistently defended – by top Obama administration
officials. Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) Executive Director Mark Dubowitz conveyed the Iranian braggadocio regarding the Italian deal
alongside a pointed question about the robustness of the Western sanctions regime. Administration officials have been perceived as scrambling to keep
up with Iranian progress in eroding the sanctions regime. Treasury Department officials announced on Tuesday that they were imposing sanctions on
more than half a dozen Iranian targets that, per a Reuters description of the charges, had “supported Iran’s efforts to avoid sanctions and backed the
government’s human rights abuses, including censorship.” Lawmakers have become increasingly critical of the administration’s ability to check the
erosion of the sanctions regime, and have become concomitantly skeptical of the White House’s claim that Western negotiators have sufficient leverage
to extract meaningful concessions from the Iranians. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R – S.C.) predicted over the weekend that there will be “a very vigorous
Congress when it comes to Iran,” and that a vote regarding sanctions legislation was likely in January.
at: prolif impact
Prolif inevitable – seawater mining
Voss 12 – writer for the Harvard Belfer Center, (Susan, “Extracting Uranium from Sea Water – will it
increase the proliferation risk”, August 23, 2012, http://nucleardiner.com/2012/08/23/extractinguranium-from-sea-water-will-it-increase-the-proliferation-risk/)//twemchen
Now consider a few years down the road where the technology
to extract uranium from the ocean is well developed
separate
and the technology well known by several nations. It may be possible for a country like Iran to have a covert site to
uranium from the sea and use it as a base material for either fuel for a heavy water reactor, which would require no
enrichment, or for feed for a covert uranium enrichment plant outside of the IAEA purview. In effect, simplifying the extraction of
provide a pathway for a nation to obtain the base material for either
plutonium production or uranium enrichment for a nuclear weapons program.
uranium from the ocean could
No prolif
Kahl 12 – Associate Professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University's Edmund A.
Walsh School of Foreign Service and Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (Colin H.
Kahl, March/April, “Not Time to Attack Iran: Why War Should Be a Last Resort”, Foreign Affairs,
ProQuest)//twemchen
Bad timing Kroenig argues that there is an urgent need to attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure soon, since Tehran could "produce its
I nternational A tomic E nergy
A gency (iaea) has documented Iranian efforts to achieve the capacity to develop nuclear weapons at some point,
but there is no hard evidence that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has yet made the final decision to
develop them. In arguing for a six-month horizon, Kroenig also misleadingly conflates hypothetical timelines to produce
weaponsgrade uranium with the time actually required to construct a bomb. According to 2010 Senate testimony by James
Cartwright, then vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staa, and recent statements by the former heads of Israel's national
intelligence and defense intelligence agencies, even if Iran could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb in
six months, it would take it at least a year to produce a testable nuclear device and considerably longer
to make a deliverable weapon. And David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security (and
the source of Kroenig's six-month estimate), recently told Agence France-Presse that there is a " low probability " that
the Iranians would actually develop a bomb over the next year even if they had the capability to do so. Because
there is no evidence that Iran has built additional covert enrichment plants since the Natanz and Qom sites were
outed in 2002 and 2009, respectively, any near-term move by Tehran to produce weapons-grade uranium would have
to rely on its declared facilities. The iaea would thus detect such activity with su/cient time for the international
community to mount a forceful response . As a result, the Iranians are unlikely to commit to building
nuclear weapons until they can do so much more quickly or out of sight, which could be years oa. Kroenig is also inconsistent about the timetable for an attack. In
first nuclear weapon within six months of deciding to do so." Yet that last phrase is crucial. The
some places, he suggests that strikes should begin now, whereas in others, he argues that the United States should attack only if Iran takes certain actions-such as expelling iaea
inspectors, beginning the enrichment of weapons-grade uranium, or installing large numbers of advanced centrifuges, any one of which would signal that it had decided to build
a bomb. Kroenig is likely right that these developments-and perhaps others, such as the discovery of new covert enrichment sites-would create a decision point for the use of
Iranians have not taken these steps yet, and as Kroenig acknowledges, "Washington has a very good
chance" of detecting them if they do.
force. But the
at: ptx
link non-unique
Obama’s already committed publicly to the plan – statements prove
BGN 6/26 – Bangladesh Government News (6/26/15, “US seeks to reassure France on spying, Assange
urges action,” Lexis)//twemchen
President Barack Obama on Wednesday moved to defuse tensions after revelations of US spying on three
French presidents angered France, while WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange called for legal action over
Washington's snooping and promised more disclosures to come. Obama spoke by phone with his French
counterpart Francois Hollande to assure him the US was no longer spying on European leaders, a day
after the WikiLeaks website published documents alleging Washington had eavesdropped on the French
president and his two predecessors. "President Obama reiterated without ambiguity his firm
commitment... to stop these practices that took place in the past and which were unacceptable between
allies," Hollande's office said in a statement. Hollande had earlier convened his top ministers and
intelligence officials to discuss the revelations, with his office stating France "will not tolerate any acts that
threaten its security". France's foreign ministry also summoned the US ambassador for a formal
explanation. The documents -- labelled "Top Secret" and appearing to reveal spying on Jacques Chirac,
Nicolas Sarkozy and Hollande between 2006 and 2012 -- were published by WikiLeaks along with French
newspaper Liberation and the Mediapart website. WikiLeaks' anti-secrecy campaigner Assange told
French television late Wednesday the time had come to take legal action against Washington over its
foreign surveillance activities. Speaking on TF1, he urged France to go further than Germany by launching
a "parliamentary inquiry" and referring "the matter to the prosecutor-general for prosecution". German
prosecutors had carried out a probe into alleged US tapping of Chancellor Angela Merkel's phone, but
later dropped the investigation due to a lack of hard evidence. Assange also said other important
revelations were coming. "This is the beginning of a series and I believe the most important of the
material is still to come," he said. The WikiLeaks revelations were embarrassingly timed for French
lawmakers, who late on Wednesday voted in favour of sweeping new powers to spy on citizens. The new
law will allow authorities to spy on the digital and mobile communications of anyone linked to a
"terrorist" inquiry without prior authorisation from a judge, and forces Internet service providers and
phone companies to give up data upon request. Addressing parliament, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said
Washington's actions "constitute a very serious violation of the spirit of trust" and France would demand
a new "code of conduct" on intelligence matters. The White House earlier responded that it was not
targeting Hollande's communications and will not do so in the future, but it did not comment on past
activities. Claims that the US National Security Agency (NSA) was spying on European leaders, revealed
by whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013, had already led to promises from Obama that the practice
had stopped. - Secret meetings on Greece - The leaked documents include five from the NSA, the most
recent dated May 22, 2012, just days after Hollande took office. It claims Hollande "approved holding
secret meetings in Paris to discuss the eurozone crisis, particularly the consequences of a Greek exit from
the eurozone". It also says the French president believed after talks with Merkel that she "had given up
(on Greece) and was unwilling to budge". "This made Hollande very worried for Greece and the Greek
people, who might react by voting for an extremist party," according to the document. Another document,
dated 2008, was titled "Sarkozy sees himself as only one who can resolve the world financial crisis". It
said the former French leader "blamed many of the current economic problems on mistakes made by the
US government, but believes that Washington is now heeding some of his advice". One leak describes
Sarkozy's frustration at US espionage, saying the "main sticking point" in achieving greater intelligence
cooperation "is the US desire to continue spying on France". But US officials vowed there was no spying
going on now. "Let me just be very, very clear ... we are not targeting President Hollande, we will not
target friends like President Hollande," said US Secretary of State John Kerry. "And we don't conduct any
foreign intelligence surveillance activities unless there is some very specific and validated national
security purpose." Kerry told reporters he had "a terrific relationship" with his counterpart Foreign
Minister Laurent Fabius, adding "the French are indispensable partners in so many ways" including in the
Iran nuclear talks. "The relationship between our two countries continues to get more productive and
deeper," he added.
at: russia deterrence da
surveillance fails
Surveillance doesn’t help against Russia – no joke, they use typewriters
Mims 13 – staff writer at QUARTZ (Christopher Mims, 7/11/13, “Russia’s solution to NSA spying?
Typewriters,” http://qz.com/103159/russian-solution-to-nsa-spying-typewriters/)//twemchen
Russia’s government agencies are already big fans of typewriters , using them mostly for topsecret messages intended for the president or the minister of defense, reports The Moscow News. Now, in
response to revelations of US electronic surveillance by the National Security Agency,
Russia’s Federal Protection Service, which protects top state officials including president Vladimir Putin, has
ordered 20 typewriters, as well as 600 ink cartridges for them.