Neg – TPP
1NC - Top Shelf
1NC
TPP will pass – but not without a fight. Only swift action and lobbying by Obama can
ensure its passage.
Sam Cho 7-14, Works in Washington DC, Journalist for Global Risk Insights, 7-14-15, “TPP Series: Obama wins
trade battle, but the war is not over”, http://globalriskinsights.com/2015/07/tpp-series-obama-wins-trade-battle-butthe-war-is-not-over/
While Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) allows Ambassador Michael Froman and his team of negotiators to enter into the final
stages of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, there is no absolute certainty of the final passage of the TPP
when it comes to the floor of Congress.¶ Trade deal won’t pass without a fight¶ In a “Dear Colleague” letter sent out by House
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat switched her focus from the TPA debate to the actual contents of the TPP. In it, she wrote, “We all
recognize that the next debate will be over the Trans-Pacific Partnership itself.Ӧ This proves the Democrats and liberal
groups are already preparing for a new fight when the actual trade deal comes to a vote. Going forward, only the most
contentious issues are left to negotiate, and it remains to be seen how the Administration can effectively reach a deal
on issues such as intellectual property, labor, environmental protection, and investor-state arbitration.¶ Swift action by Obama may
prevent deadlock¶ Given how long it took to pass the TPA, the administration will have to move quickly in finalizing the
trade agreement with its 11 counterparts in order to accommodate the three-month review period mandated by the TPA bill, and then
proceed to get final ratification of the trade deal itself.¶ The longer the final passage is drawn out and the closer it gets to
the 2016 elections, the more burdensome a “yes” vote will be for the pro-trade Democrats. Meanwhile, it’s safe to assume
that Democrats on the left will likely continue to work with Big Labor groups such as the AFL-CIO to persuade
members to change their votes once final TPP legislation is brought to the floor .¶ On the other hand, business interest
groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable will continue to the push the trade
agreement, which accounts for 60% of the global GDP and 50% of international trade.¶ The stakes are high for the President, as the
TPP serves as the linchpin to his “pivot to Asia” and the cornerstone of his administration’s foreign policy. The
President has gone as far as to mobilize his own cabinet members, from Secretary of Labor Tom Perez, to even the Chair of the
Federal Reserve Janet Yellen, in lobbying on behalf of the Administration’s trade deal .¶ Anti-TPP groups have already pledged to
double their efforts to prevent the ratification of the TPP, having already initiated a slew of nasty ad campaigns against moderate-Democrats who
supported TPA.¶ While many uncertainties remain with the final version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, what remains certain is that the deal
won’t pass without a fight.
[Insert Link]
TPP will determine the US’ rebalancing to Asia.
Mireya Solís 15, Philip Knight Chair in Japan Studies and senior fellow at the Brookings Center for East Asia
Policy Studies, 3-13-15, “The geopolitical importance of the Trans-Pacific Partnership: At stake, a liberal economic
order”, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/03/13-geopolitical-importance-transpacificpartnership
The rebalance to Asia will stall. TPP is the second leg (after a reorientation of military resources) of the policy of rebalancing to
Asia. As such, its fate will determine whether this strategy advances or just limps along. If TPP fails, doubts about the
staying power of the United States will once again rear their ugly head. The signature U.S. policy to remain vitally
connected to the world’s most dynamic economic region will come to naught. Let’s not forget that prior to the advent of
TPP, the United States appeared poised to be marginalized from the process of regionalism in Asia.¶ The U.S.-Japan
alliance will lose a critical pillar. Trade has in the past been a divisive issue for the two allies. If TPP fails, it will
demonstrate that the United States and Japan cannot move past frictions over market access in agriculture and
automobiles to work in areas such as internationalization of financial services, protection of intellectual property, and governance of the
internet economy that are central to the 21st century economy.
Pivot prevents nuclear war
Colby 11 – Elbridge Colby, research analyst at the Center for Naval Analyses, served as policy advisor to the
Secretary of Defense’s Representative to the New START talks, expert advisor to the Congressional Strategic
Posture Commission, August 10, 2011, “Why the U.S. Needs its Liberal Empire,” The Diplomat, online: http://thediplomat.com/2011/08/10/why-us-needs-its-liberal-empire/2/?print=yes
But the pendulum shouldn’t be allowed to swing too far toward an incautious retrenchment. For our problem hasn’t been overseas commitments
and interventions as such, but the kinds of interventions. The US alliance and partnership structure, what the late William Odom called the
United States’ ‘liberal empire’ that includes a substantial military presence and a willingness to use it in the defence of US and
allied interests, remains a vital component of US security and global stability and prosperity. This system of voluntary and
consensual cooperation under US leadership, particularly in the security realm, constitutes a formidable bloc defending the
liberal international order.¶ But, in part due to poor decision-making in Washington, this system is under strain, particularly in East
Asia, where the security situation has become tenser even as the region continues to become the centre of the global economy.¶ A nuclear North
Korea’s violent behaviour threatens South Korea and Japan, as well as US forces on the peninsula; Pyongyang’s development of a road mobile
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, moreover, brings into sight the day when North Korea could threaten the United States itself with
nuclear attack, a prospect that will further imperil stability in the region.¶ More broadly, the rise of China – and especially its rapid
and opaque military build-up – combined with its increasing assertiveness in regional disputes is troubling to the United States and
its allies and partners across the region. Particularly relevant to the US military presence in the western Pacific is the development of
Beijing’s anti-access and area denial capabilities, including the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, more capable anti-ship cruise missiles, attack
submarines, attack aircraft, smart mines, torpedoes, and other assets.¶ While Beijing remains a constructive contributor on a range of matters,
these capabilities will give China the growing power to deny the United States the ability to operate effectively in the western Pacific, and thus
the potential to undermine the US-guaranteed security substructure that has defined littoral East Asia since World War II. Even if
China says today it won’t exploit this growing capability, who can tell what tomorrow or the next day will bring?¶ Naturally, US efforts to build
up forces in the western Pacific in response to future Chinese force improvements must be coupled with efforts to engage Beijing as a responsible
stakeholder; indeed, a strengthened but appropriately restrained military posture will enable rather than detract from such engagement. ¶ In short,
the United States must increase its involvement in East Asia rather than decrease it. Simply maintaining the military
balance in the western Pacific will, however, involve substantial investments to improve US capabilities. It will also require
augmented contributions to the common defence by US allies that have long enjoyed low defence budgets under the US security umbrella. This
won’t be cheap , for these requirements can’t be met simply by incremental additions to the existing posture, but will have to include advances
in air, naval, space, cyber, and other expensive high-tech capabilities.¶ Yet such efforts are vital, for East Asia represents the economic
future, and its strategic developments will determine which country or countries set the international rules that shape
that economic future. Conversely, US interventions in the Middle East and, to a lesser degree, in south-eastern Europe have been
driven by far more ambitious and aspirational conceptions of the national interest, encompassing the proposition that failing or
illiberally governed peripheral states can contribute to an instability that nurtures terrorism and impedes economic growth.
Regardless of whether this proposition is true, the effort is rightly seen by the new political tide not to be worth the benefits gained .
Moreover, the United States can scale (and has scaled) back nation-building plans in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Balkans without undermining its
vital interests in ensuring the free flow of oil and in preventing terrorism.¶ The lesson to be drawn from recent years is not, then, that the United
States should scale back or shun overseas commitments as such, but rather that we must be more discriminating in making and acting upon them.
A total US unwillingness to intervene would pull the rug out from under the US-led structure, leaving the international system prey to disorder at
the least, and at worst to chaos or dominance by others who could not be counted on to look out for US interests. ¶ We need to focus on
making the right interventions, not forswearing them completely. In practice, this means a more substantial focus on East Asia
and the serious security challenges there, and less emphasis on the Middle East. ¶ This isn’t to say that the United States should be
unwilling to intervene in the Middle East. Rather, it is to say that our interventions there should be more tightly connected to concrete objectives
such as protecting the free flow of oil from the region, preventing terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies, and
forestalling or, if necessary, containing nuclear proliferation as opposed to the more idealistic aspirations to transform the region’s
societies. ¶ These more concrete objectives can be better met by the more judicious and economical use of our military power .
More broadly, however, it means a shift in US emphasis away from the greater Middle East toward the Asia-Pacific region,
which dwarfs the former in economic and military potential and in the dynamism of its societies. The Asia-Pacific region, with
its hard-charging economies and growing presence on the global stage, is where the future of the international security and
economic system will be set, and it is there that Washington needs to focus its attention, especially in light of rising regional security
challenges. ¶ In light of US budgetary pressures , including the hundreds of billions in ‘security’ related money to be cut as part of the
debt ceiling deal, it’s doubly important that US security dollars be allocated to the most pressing tasks – shoring up the US
position in the most important region of the world, the Asia-Pacific. It will also require restraint in expenditure on those
challenges and regions that don’t touch so directly on the future of US security and prosperity. ¶ As Americans debate the
proper US global role in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and Iraq and Afghanistan, they would do well to direct their ire not at overseas
commitments and intervention as such, but rather at those not tied to core US interests and the sustainment and adaptation of the ‘liberal empire’
that we have constructed and maintained since World War II.¶ Defenders of our important overseas links and activities should clearly distinguish
their cause from the hyperactive and barely restrained approach represented by those who, unsatisfied with seeing the United States tied down in
three Middle Eastern countries, seek intervention in yet more, such as Syria. Indeed, those who refuse to scale back US interventions
in the Middle East or call for still more are directly contributing to the weakening of US commitments in East Asia ,
given strategic developments in the region and a sharply constrained budgetary environment in Washington.¶ We
can no longer afford, either strategically or financially, to squander our power in unnecessary and ill-advised interventions and
nation-building efforts. The ability and will to intervene is too important to be so wasted.
UQ
Will pass
TPA passage provides momentum for the TPP, but renewed opposition from democrats
and republicans will make it close
George Zornick 6-23, Journalist for The Nation, 6-23-15, “The Fast-Track Fight Is Effectively Over: It’s
Happening”, http://www.thenation.com/article/the-fast-track-fight-is-effectively-over-its-happening/
Once fast track passes tomorrow (there is only a 50-vote requirement post-cloture, which this bill will easily achieve) and Obama signs fast
track, the fight turns to the highly controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership.¶ Sometime in the late summer or early fall, the Obama
administration will finally release the full TPP text, after the president signs it. After 90 days, Congress can vote on it. ¶ Without question, fast
track makes the TPP much more likely to pass. No amendments can gum up the process or chase off support, and we already can
easily see there are 50 votes in the Senate based on the fast-track votes. But the House remains no sure thing for the
TPP. Fast track twice passed by only two votes.¶ When the TPP actually comes out, there will be some really ugly details
that are likely to enrage liberals and solidify opposition among Democrats. For months the White House has been dodging
some criticisms of the TPP by stressing that the text isn’t final, but that will no longer be an option.¶ The unknown details of the TPP,
incidentally, are what Hillary Clinton cites for not yet having an official position on the trade deal. If the Democrat base gets truly riled up
when the details do come out, she may end up opposing the deal. This would give cover for every congressional Democrat
to do the same.¶ Members of the House will also be in the thick of their reelection campaign this fall, and increased progressive activism and
actual primary challengers will no doubt make a TPP vote even harder. ¶ On the Republican side, Boehner will almost surely have a
more difficult time gathering Republican votes for the TPP than he did for fast track. One argument frequently made
by Republicans during the congressional fast-track debate was that it benefited the GOP, too—that it was also a vote to
give a theoretical Republican president in 2017 immense power to shape trade deals without congressional meddling. That has no
application to the TPP debate.¶ And 2016 will no doubt have the same effect on the Republican side, as incumbents face challenges from
opponents to their right who may decide to blast them for supporting Obama’s trade agenda. The presidential race provides more pressure, and
we’re already seeing it: Only weeks ago, Ted Cruz voted to move fast track. Tuesday, he released an op-ed on Breitbart.com bashing
“Obamatrade” and voted against cloture.¶ So while progressives lost the fast-track battle, the trade debate isn’t quite over yet.
“What [today’s vote] doesn’t mean is that Congress must pass [the TPP],” said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen. “When the
inexcusable and anti-democratic veil of secrecy surrounding the TPP is finally lifted, and the American people see what is actually in the
agreement, they are going to force their representatives in Washington to vote that deal down.”
Even with republican support – skeptical democrats and unions will make TPP a tough
fight
Roberta Rampton and Lindsay Dunsmuir 6-29, both journalists for Reuters, 6-29-15, “Obama signs trade
bills into law, says tough battle still ahead”, http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/29/us-usa-trade-obamaidUSKCN0P92GP20150629
U.S. President Barack Obama on Monday signed into law legislation that gives him "fast-track" power to push ahead on a Pacific
Rim trade deal that has been the subject of intense debate in Congress and across the nation. ¶ Flanked by some of the lawmakers who
supported the bill through a six-week congressional battle, Obama acknowledged that his fight to secure the 12-nation TransPacific Partnership was far from over.¶ "We still have some tough negotiations that are going to be taking place ,"
Obama said at a signing ceremony. He noted that lawmakers and the public will be able to scrutinize the trade deal before it is
finalized. "The debate will not end with this bill signing," he said.¶ The package also included aid for workers who lose their jobs
as a result of trade, and an Africa trade preferences bill.¶ Obama wants the trade deal to be a central part of his administration's foreign policy
pivot to Asia and to help serve as a counterweight to the economic might of China. He also hopes to complete an ambitious trade deal with the
European Union.¶ Republicans, who traditionally support free trade deals, backed Obama and helped get the legislation through
Congress. But they faced obstacles from skeptical Democrats, who worry the trade deal will hurt American jobs, and were
pressured by unions to vote against the bills.
TPP will pass, but it will be close- narrow TPA passing and democratic disapproval shows.
Jonathan Weisman 6/23, writer for the New York Times, 6/23/15, “Trade Accord, Once
Blocked, Nears Passage” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/us/politics/senate-vote-ontrade-bill.html
The Senate on Tuesday narrowly voted to end debate on legislation granting Mr. Obama enhanced negotiating
powers to complete a major Pacific trade accord, virtually assuring final passage Wednesday of Mr. Obama’s top
legislative priority in his final years in office.¶ The procedural vote of 60 to 37 just reached the minimum needed, but
final Senate passage will require only 51 votes. The
House approved trade promotion authority last week.¶ With congressional
support for “fast track” authority, the president can press for final agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a
legacy-defining accord linking 40 percent of the world’s economy — from Canada and Chile to Japan and Australia
— in a web of rules governing Pacific commerce. His administration can also bear down on a second agreement with Europe —
known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership — knowing that lawmakers will be able to vote for or against those agreements but
will not be able to amend or filibuster them.¶ The
Atlantic agreement is not expected to be completed until the next
administration is in office, but the trade negotiating powers would stretch for six years — well into the next
presidency. Together those two accords would put much of the globe under the same trade rules, not only lowering
tariffs and other import barriers but also creating new standards for Internet access, intellectual property and
investor protections.¶ “This is a very important day for our country,” said Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of
Kentucky and the majority leader, whose procedural maneuvering was largely responsible for the outcome.
“America is back in the trade business.”¶ Most Democrats — along with labor unions, environmental groups and
liberal activists — disagreed, saying that such trade agreements had resulted in lost manufacturing jobs and lower
wages for American workers.¶ “It is a great day for the big money interests, not a great day for working families,” said Senator Bernie
Sanders, independent of Vermont, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. ¶ But 13 Democrats sided with Republicans
to end the debate and get to a final vote on trade promotion authority. ¶ Tuesday’s vote was the second time the Senate had
blocked a filibuster of fast-track authority, but this time the bill was shorn of a separate measure to offer enhanced retraining and educational
assistance to workers displaced by international trade accords. That measure also faces a crucial vote on Wednesday. ¶ Passage
of a standalone trade promotion bill will put pressure on House Democrats, who just over a week ago brought down the
worker aid provision, known as trade adjustment assistance, when it was linked to the fast-track legislation, in a
strategic move they hoped would defeat the entire trade package.
Top of Docket
Obama Pushing For TPP hard despite disapproval by own party.
Steven Greenhouse 5/11, former New York Times Reporter and now a reporter at The
Guardian, 5/11/15, “Obama intensifies TPP push as critics worry trade deal will threaten
US jobs”, http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/11/obama-trans-pacificpartnership-trade-push-critics-senate-vote
To Barack Obama, the Trans-Pacific pact will increase trade, strengthen protections for Asian workers and aid
international relations.¶ But opponents of the most important trade deal in a generation - including unions, but also
left-leaning Democrats such as Elizabeth Warren – are worried about the impact it will have on US jobs.¶ And on the
right, Republican presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina and others have attacked Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP’s)
“secrecy” and the lack of transparency in a deal involving 12 nations accounting for 40% of the world economy. ¶ As a
¶
vote to speed adoption of the deal looms on Tuesday, Obama almost seems to be channeling rightwing anti-union firebrands such as Republican governor Scott Walker as he attacks critics of the Trans-Pacific trade pact that he so
Obama chided
He has
called union leaders and other critics of the deal “dishonest” for saying the Pacific pact was “secret”. He also
suggested union leaders were frozen in the past for likening the deal to the two-decade-old North American Free
badly wants.¶ Irked by Warren’s criticisms of the deal
his long-time ally for being a “politician” who was making “arguments” that “don’t stand the test of fact and scrutiny”.¶
Trade Agreement (Nafta), which labor insists was a disaster, costing hundreds of thousands of US manufacturing
jobs.¶ Obama has adopted unusually sharp rhetoric as the Senate prepares to vote Tuesday on whether to approve
trade promotion authority or “fast track”, which would speed up the president’s power to complete the pact by
giving trade deals an up or down vote and ban amendments or filibusters. Such fast track authority would last six
years and would also cover the trade deal - the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or TTIP - that Obama
is seeking to negotiate with the European Union. ¶ Obama has never before attacked his labor allies so vigorously,
and some union leaders ask why is he fighting so hard for a deal they say will be a boon to corporate America while
doing little to help US workers. Unions have gone all-out to block the deal, warning that they might withhold
endorsements from any lawmaker who votes for fast track. And some political analysts say whether Obama wins on
fast track, a pivotal fight for him, is too close to call.¶ In his speech
last Friday at Nike’s headquarters
in
On trade, I actually think some of my dearest
friends are wrong. They’re just wrong.”¶ Later the president added: “If I didn’t think this was the right thing to do for
Oregon, Obama said unions have been “fellow travelers” with him on increasing the minimum wage and job training, but he added: “
working families, I would not be fighting for it.”¶ To labor, Obama’s choice of Nike
on trade was dismaying.
headquarters for a major address
Nike is often seen as a poster child for all that’s wrong on trade. Not only was Nike a leader in sending production overseas – making more than 90% of its footwear
in Asia – but for years, its overseas factories faced revelations about low wages, long hours, dangerous chemicals and bullying bosses. Its factory conditions have improved, but some critics say not nearly enough. (In response to
Obama admitted that Nafta had led to an exodus
of manufacturing jobs and “real displacement and real pain”. But he sought to assure labor – and all Americans –
that the Pacific deal would be better, that it would make Nafta’s largely unenforceable labor and environmental
provisions “actually enforceable”. Defeating the Pacific pact, he said, would leave Nafta’s weaker, largely
unenforceable provisions in place.¶ Obama warned against torpedoing this trade agreement, saying that protectionism would undercut economies worldwide: “The lesson is not that we pull up the
drawbridge and build a moat around ourselves.Ӧ Obama argued TPP would not cost manufacturing jobs because the low-wage jobs that
would go to Asia already have gone there. Indeed, Nike says that if a trade deal is reached, that would increase its
sales and production, and as a result it would hire thousands more workers in the US for high-wage design and
engineering jobs.
Obama’s Nike speech, labor launched a Twitter campaign against fast track, with the hashtag #JustDontDoIt.)¶ In his Nike address,
Obama’s Lobbying For TPP Has Been One Of His Most Aggressive-shows the importance
of the bill to him.
JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS 5/10, NY Times Reporter, and JONATHAN WEISMAN
5/10, 5/10/15, “Obama’s Pacific Trade Push Faces a Senate Vote This Week”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/us/politics/obama-pushing-skeptical-legislators-hardon-pacific-trade-deal.html
President Obama’s most aggressive and sustained legislative push since the Affordable Care Act faces a crucial
first test this week when a divided Senate considers a bill that would grant him accelerated power to complete a
massive trade accord with 11 nations across the Pacific Rim.¶ But after lobbying members of Congress in a campaign that has
included rides on Air
Force One, meetings in the West Wing, private vows of political support and public attacks on critics in his own
party, Mr. Obama’s top legislative priority remains at risk.¶ A vote scheduled for Tuesday on legislation that would grant him trade promotion
authority, also known as “fast track,” has become mired in a procedural thicket, with Democrats — many of them loyal to labor unions bent on
killing the bill — vowing to oppose it.¶ Once Congress grants a president trade promotion authority, lawmakers have the ability to vote up or
down on a final trade agreement, but they forfeit the right to amend the deal or filibuster it. The bill before the Senate adds a new twist: If
lawmakers decide a final trade accord falls short of their standards, Congress can vote to revoke the president’s authority and then try to amend
the deal.¶ It
will get only more difficult for the president as the debate moves from the Senate to the House.
Republicans on whom Mr. Obama is relying to provide the bulk of the votes for the trade measure are finding their
colleagues — many aligned with the Tea Party — reluctant to hand the president a victory. Leaders have warned the
White House that they may not be able to supply enough votes to compensate for balky members of the president’s
own party.¶ The accord, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, would reduce tariffs on a vast array of goods and services,
reaching 40 percent of the global economy and affecting about 40 percent of America’s exports and imports.
Mr. Obama has seized on it as “the most progressive trade agreement in history,” with labor and environmental
standards written into its text and the potential to right the wrongs of past trade deals.¶ But even senior members of the
administration seem astonished at the difficulty the president is having in selling the deal. ¶ “I’ve never participated in something like this,” said
Penny Pritzker, the secretary of commerce, who has helped lead the lobbying campaign with other cabinet members and White House officials.
“It’s an all-hands-on-deck approach,” she said, “and sometimes it’s in the hallway.”¶ Michael B. Froman, the trade representative, is known to
prowl the tunnels underneath the Capitol to buttonhole skeptical Democrats. He has also lobbied them at dinner parties, at the airport and even on
a crowded bus in India during a presidential visit there. ¶ Mr.
Obama, who normally eschews legislative schmoozing, has made
his case in dozens of telephone calls and one-on-one or group meetings with lawmakers. ¶ He has also become
increasingly aggressive in taking on critics in his own party, including Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a
popular figure among the liberal base who has denounced the trade deal as a sellout to corporate interests. Mr.
Obama has suggested that they are either intentionally misrepresenting the issue or being duped by misinformation
about it. That has put the president in the uncomfortable position of feuding openly with activists who have usually revered him.¶ “He’s been
very active making the case that this is a different-in-kind trade agreement, the most progressive trade agreement,”
said Jeffrey D. Zients, the director of Mr. Obama’s National Economic Council.
AT: Thumper – General
Hold all of their link UQ to a very high threshold---issues don’t cost PC until they’re at the
finish line
Kevin Drum 10 is a political blogger for MOTHER JONES magazine. Prior to that he was a contributing writer
for the WASHINGTON MONTHLY, “Immigration Coming Off the Back Burner?,” 3/10
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/03/immigration-coming-back-burner
Not to pick on Ezra or anything, but this attitude betrays a surprisingly common misconception about political
issues in general. The fact is that political dogs never bark until an issue becomes an active one. Opposition to
Social Security privatization was pretty mild until 2005, when George Bush turned it into an active issue.
Opposition to healthcare reform was mild until 2009, when Barack Obama turned it into an active issue. Etc. I only bring this up
because we often take a look at polls and think they tell us what the public thinks about something. But for the
most part, they don't.1 That is, they don't until the issue in question is squarely on the table and both sides
have spent a couple of months filling the airwaves with their best agitprop. Polling data about gays in the
military, for example, hasn't changed a lot over the past year or two, but once Congress takes up the issue in
earnest and the Focus on the Family newsletters go out, the push polling starts, Rush Limbaugh picks it up,
and Fox News creates an incendiary graphic to go with its saturation coverage — well, that's when the polling will
tell you something. And it will probably tell you something different from what it tells you now. Immigration was bubbling
along as sort of a background issue during the Bush administration too until 2007, when he tried to move
an actual bill. Then all hell broke loose. The same thing will happen this time, and without even a John McCain to act as a
conservative point man for a moderate solution. The political environment is worse now than it was in 2007, and I'll be very surprised if
it's possible to make any serious progress on immigration reform. "Love 'em or hate 'em," says Ezra, illegal immigrants "aren't at the
forefront of people's minds." Maybe not. But they will be soon
AT: South Carolina Thumper
Obama’s speech on South Carolina doesn’t implicate our DA --- the thesis of political
capital only applies to pushing legislation
Matthew N. Beckmann and Vimal Kumar 11, Profs Department of Political Science, @ University of
California Irvine "How Presidents Push, When Presidents Win" Journal of Theoretical Politics 2011 23: 3 SAGE
Specifi- cally, we define presidents’ political capital as the class of tactics White House officials employ to
induce changes in lawmakers’ behavior. Importantly, this conception of presidents’ positive power as persuasive bargaining
not only meshes with previous scholarship on lobbying (see, e.g., Austen-Smith and Wright (1994), Groseclose and Snyder
(1996), Krehbiel (1998: ch. 7), and Snyder (1991)), but also presidential practice. For example, Goodwin recounts how President
Lyndon Johnson routinely allocated ‘rewards’ to ‘cooperative’ members: The rewards themselves (and the withholding of rewards) . . .
might be something as unobtrusive as receiving an invitation to join the President in a walk around the White House grounds, knowing that
pictures of the event would be sent to hometown newspapers . . . [or something as pointed as] public works projects, military bases,
educational research grants, poverty projects, appointments of local men to national commissions, the granting of pardons, and more.
(Goodwin, 1991: 237) Of course, presidential political capital is a scarce commodity with a floating value. Even a
favorably situated president enjoys only a finite supply of political capital; he can only promise or pressure
so much. What is more, this capital ebbs and flows as realities and/or perceptions change. So, similarly to Edwards (1989),
we believe presidents’ bargaining resources cannot fundamentally alter legislators’ predispositions, but rather
operate ‘at the margins’ of US lawmaking, however important those margins may be (see also Bond and Fleisher
(1990), Peterson (1990), Kingdon (1989), Jones (1994), and Rudalevige (2002)). Indeed, our aim is to explicate those margins and show how
presidents may systematically influence them.
It’s only controversial on social media --- no evidence Congress cares
David Jackson 6/23, writer @ USA Today, Obama uses 'n word' to make point about race relations,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/22/obama-n-word-podcast-marc-maron/29115569/
WASHINGTON — President Obama used a racial slur to underscore his point that, while the United States has made great
progress on race relations, more work needs to be done, his spokesman said Monday.¶ During a podcast taped last week, just days
after the mass killings at an African-American church in Charleston, S.C., Obama said the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow too often remain in the nation's DNA.¶
"Racism — we are not cured of it," he said at one point. "And it's not just a matter of it not being polite to say 'n-----r' in public."¶ He added: "That's not the measure of
whether racism still exists or not," he said. "It's not just a matter of overt discrimination. Societies don't, overnight, completely erase everything that happened 200 to
300 years prior."¶ The
use of the so-called "n word" generated intense debate on social media.¶ White House spokesman
Josh Earnest said Obama does not regret use of the word, and said "the reason that he used the word could not be more apparent from the
context of his discussion on the podcast."¶ Earnest said Obama did not plan in advance to use the word, saying it resulted from the "free-flowing" nature of interview
podcast conducted by Marc Maron. The spokesman also cited the "informal setting" of the interview (Maron's garage). ¶ While Obama has not used the term publicly
young lawyer and community did use it in his 1995 memoir Dreams From My Father — noting
he was often the target of the term.
during his presidency, the
AT: Budget Thumper
Doesn’t thump our DA --- budget negotiations are between Pelosi and Boehner --- doesn’t
involve Obama
Budget negotiations still haven’t begun yet --- TPA first
Lauren French 6/23, Politico, Dem leaders demand budget negotiations with GOP,
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/government-shutdown-budget-negotiations-democrats-republicans119327.html
¶ House Democratic leaders warned Republicans on Tuesday that Congress is heading toward another government
shutdown unless GOP leaders start negotiating now to avoid it.¶ In a letter to Speaker John Boehner, the five top
Democratic leaders in the House asked the Ohio Republican to “immediately schedule” budget negotiations to avoid
a government shutdown, which would happen if all 12 appropriations bills aren’t passed by Oct. 1.
AT: Iran Thumper
Iran doesn’t thump the DA – congress doesn’t vote until September.
Fox News 7-17-15, News group covering a broad span of issues, 7/17/15, “Republicans fuming over UN voting
on Iran deal before Congress”, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/17/republicans-fuming-over-un-votingon-iran-deal-before-congress/
Under legislation agreed to earlier this year, Congress has a 60-day window to review the deal, which curbs Iran's nuclear program in
exchange for billions of dollars' worth of sanctions relief. ¶ The White House is lobbying Congress hard, and faces an uphill battle trying to
convince members of both parties to support the agreement. ¶ Congress would have a direct say over the status of U.S. sanctions on Iran, not
necessarily the rest of the deal. But Republicans claimed Capitol Hill was being sidelined by the U.N. Security Council
plans, considering they probably won't vote until September. ¶ "The full 60 day review period and parliamentary
procedures prescribed by the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act should be allowed to play out before action at the
Security Council," House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., and House Homeland Security Committee Chairman
Michael McCaul, R-Texas, wrote in a letter to Obama. "... while we understand that you intend to veto any joint resolution of disapproval that
Congress may send to your desk, it would be entirely inappropriate and divisive for your Administration to vote to lift UN-backed sanctions
should Congress reject the final agreement and override a presidential veto to that effect." ¶ The White House says the U.N. Security Council
action, though, doesn't have an impact on U.S. sanctions that Congress has jurisdiction over. Further, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest
said Friday the process does "reflect significant deference to the United States Congress," as the U.N. as a whole would not adopt the deal for 90
days. ¶ "And that means that Congress will have ample opportunity to [consider the agreement] within their 60-day
window before this agreement is sort of formally adopted after the U.N. Security Council vote," Earnest said.
Link
A lot of specific links are in the Iran file or in the AFF files themselves.
Obama push
Drains PC --- can’t pass without Obama push
Feaver 14 (peter, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy @ Duke, Director, Triangle Institute for Security Studies and Director,
Program in American Grand Strategy Foreign Policy,
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/01/17/obama_finally_joins_the_debate_he_called_for
Today President Barack Obama finally joins the national debate he called for a long time ago but then abandoned: the debate about
how best to balance national security and civil liberty. As I outlined in NPR's scene-setter this morning, this debate is a tricky
one for a president who wants to lead from behind . The public's view shifts markedly in response to perceptions of the threat, so a
political leader who is only following the public mood will crisscross himself repeatedly. Changing one's mind and shifting the policy is not
inherently a bad thing to do. There is no absolute and timeless right answer, because this is about trading off different risks. The risk profile itself
shifts in response to our actions. When security is improving and the terrorist threat is receding, one set of trade-offs is appropriate. When
security is worsening and the terrorist threat is worsening, another might be. It is likely, however, that the optimal answer is not the
one advocated by the most fringe position. A National Security Agency (NSA) hobbled to the point that some on the far
left (and, it must be conceded, the libertarian right) are demanding would be a mistake that the country would regret every bit
as much as we would regret an NSA without any checks or balances or constraints. Getting this right will require
inspired and active political leadership. To date, Obama has preferred to stay far removed from the debate swirling around the
Snowden leaks. This president relishes opportunities to spend political capital on behalf of policies that disturb
Republicans, but, as former Defense Secretary Robert Gates's memoir details, Obama has been very reluctant to expend political capital on
behalf of national security policies that disturb his base. Today Obama is finally engaging. It will be interesting to see how he
threads the political needle and, just as importantly, how much political capital he is willing to spend in the months
ahead to defend his policies.
Generic Lnk
Curtailing domestic surveillance costs political capital --- powerful interests oppose
Bob Burnett 14, Berkeley writer, retired Silicon Valley executive, “Why Hasn't Obama Reined in NSA?”
Huffington Post Politics, 1/10, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/obama-nsa_b_4574910.html
After the 2008 election, Barack Obama supporters had high expectations for his national-security policy. We thought he'd end U.S.
involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and open talks with Iran. We expected he would close down Guantanamo and end the National
Security Agency's (NSA) domestic surveillance program that collects Americans' phone and email data. He's
accomplished some of these objectives but he hasn't reined in the NSA. Why not?¶ Writing in The New Yorker, Ryan Lizza observed
that before becoming president, Obama was inconsistent on national security policy and the NSA. "In 2003, as a Senate candidate, he called the
Patriot Act 'shoddy and dangerous.' And at the 2004 Democratic Convention... he took aim at the 'library records' provision of the law."
Nonetheless, in in 2006 Obama voted for a renewal of the Patriot Act. ¶ As a presidential candidate, Obama's attitude appeared to shift. In 2007
Obama criticized Bush, "This administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance civil liberties. It is not. There are no shortcuts
to protecting America." In an August 2007, campaign speech Obama criticized, "unchecked presidential power" and vowed a change in national
security policy: "that means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens, no more national-security letters to spy on citizens who are not
suspected of a crime... [and] no more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient."¶ Nonetheless, Obama's presidential record has been
disappointing. Lizza noted:¶ It is evident from the Snowden leaks that Obama inherited [from George Bush] a regime of dragnet surveillance that
often operated outside the law and raised serious constitutional questions. Instead of shutting down or scaling back the programs, Obama has
worked to bring them into narrow compliance with rules--set forth by a court that operates in secret--that often contradict the views on
surveillance that he strongly expressed when he was a senator and a Presidential candidate.¶ A recent New York Times editorial noted:¶ ■ The
N.S.A. broke federal privacy laws, or exceeded its authority, thousands of times per year, according to the agency's own internal auditor.¶ ■ The
agency broke into the communications links of major data centers around the world, allowing it to spy on hundreds of millions of user accounts
and infuriating the Internet companies that own the centers. ¶ ■ The N.S.A. systematically undermined the basic encryption systems of the
Internet, making it impossible to know if sensitive banking or medical data is truly private, damaging businesses that depended on this trust. ¶
There are three explanations for the president's weak NSA policy. ¶ 1. Obama decided not to expend political capital changing
it. Given the economic problems he inherited from George Bush, plus the difficulty of working with a divided Congress,
Obama may have decided it was not worth the effort to rein in the NSA. That's been true of national security in
general. Obama had increased defense spending, expanded the national-security state, and maintained the
hundreds of US military bases that dot the globe. Obama tried to shut down Guantanamo but was thwarted by
Congress.¶ 2. Since becoming President, Obama has been in a national security bubble. Writing in the New York Times, Peter Baker reported
that "the evening before he was sworn into office, Barack Obama [was informed] of a major terrorist plot to attack his inauguration." (This turned
out to be a false alarm.) In December of 2009, the President was shaken by the failed attack of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab who tried to detonate
an underwear bomb as his plane landed in Detroit.¶ Over the past five years, the intelligence community has alerted Obama to dozens of potential
attacks. That's affected him. This past June Obama defended NSA surveillance, saying, "We know of at least 50 threats that have been averted
because of this information." (Pro Publica reports that the NSA has provided specifics on only four of these cases and there is little support for the
president's contention that NSA surveillance actually "averted" these threats.)¶ 3. The National Security State is too powerful to
change. The president may have decided that it was impossible to make major changes to NSA, and the gargantuan
national-security state, so he opted to "bring them into narrow compliance with rules." Obama inherited a pit bull
and decided to handle it with extreme care.
Freedom Act passage means that any additional limitations are politically infeasible
Gross 6/5 – Grant, Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for the IDG News Service, and is based in
Washington, D.C., IDG News Service, PC World, 6/5/15, http://www.pcworld.com/article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-to-nsasurveillance-from-congress.html
Don't expect major changes to NSA surveillance from Congress After the U.S. Congress approved what critics have
called modest limits on the National Security Agency’s collection of domestic telephone records, many lawmakers may be
reluctant to further change the government’s surveillance programs. The Senate this week passed the USA Freedom
Act, which aims to end the NSA’s mass collection of domestic phone records, and President Barack Obama signed the bill hours later. After
that action, expect Republican leaders in both the Senate and the House of Representatives to resist further calls for
surveillance reform. That resistance is at odds with many rank-and-file lawmakers, including many House Republicans, who
want to further limit NSA programs brought to light by former agency contractor Edward Snowden. Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates
also promise to push for more changes. It may be difficult to get “broad, sweeping reform” through Congress, but many
lawmakers seem ready to push for more changes, said Adam Eisgrau, managing director of the office of government relations for the American
Library Association. The ALA has charged the NSA surveillance programs violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which
prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. “Congress is not allowed to be tired of surveillance reform unless it’s prepared to say it’s tired of
the Fourth Amendment,” Eisgrau said. “The American public will not accept that.” Other activists are less optimistic about more
congressional action. “It will a long slog getting more restraints,” J. Kirk Wiebe, a former NSA analyst and whistleblower said
by email. ”The length of that journey will depend on public outcry—that is the one thing that is hard to gauge.” With the USA Freedom
Act, “elected officials have opted to reach for low-hanging fruit,” said Bill Blunden, a cybersecurity researcher and
surveillance critic. “The theater we’ve just witnessed allows decision makers to boast to their constituents about
reforming mass surveillance while spies understand that what’s actually transpired is hardly major change .” The
“actual physical mechanisms” of surveillance programs remain largely intact. Blunden added by email. “Politicians may
dither around the periphery but they are unlikely to institute fundamental changes.”
Changes in surveillance policy inevitably drain political capital --- every decision triggers
backlash and fights --- Obama takes the blame
Page 13 (Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief for USA Today, 12-30-2013, "Ex-NSA chief calls for Obama to
reject recommendations", USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/12/30/gen-michaelhayden-urges-obama-reject-nsa-commission-recommendations/4249983/, DA: 5-23-2015)
Snowden's revelations have fueled objections by civil liberties advocates that the NSA goes too far in collecting
information about Americans not suspected of any wrongdoing. This month, a federal judge in Washington called the program "almost
Orwellian," although a few days later, another federal judge in New York said it was legal. Hayden's blunt warnings about the risks he
sees in accepting the commission's recommendations underscore the difficult balancing act Obama faces between
ensuring the nation's security and respecting citizens' privacy. No decision he makes is likely to avoid criticism. "Here I think
it's going to require some political courage," said Hayden, 68, a retired Air Force general whose service in the nation's top
intelligence posts gives him particular standing. "Frankly, the president is going to have to use some of his personal and political
capital to keep doing these things."
Attempts to a repeal are a political nightmare --- politicians fear being blamed for future
terrorist attacks
Givens 13 – Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/the-nsasurveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The ratchet effect can occur because elected officials do not want to risk repealing anti-terrorism laws. Here is a
political nightmare: for whatever reason, a legislator or government executive spearheads an effort to reverse an anti-terrorism
law. The anti-terrorism law is repealed. Within a week, a terrorist attack occurs. Being wrong about terrorism can carry devastating
political consequences for incumbents. But being specifically identified as the one who “turned off the alarm system” is
a political death sentence. Under this scenario, even if there is no direct causal link between the law’s repeal and the attack, the two
are easily correlated because of their temporal proximity to each other. It makes no sense for an elected official to open
herself to the possibility of this scenario without a clear, compelling reason—and, even then, scaling back an anti-
terrorism law may still be too politically risky a proposition to entertain seriously. For these reasons, antiterrorism laws can remain in effect beyond the end of the crisis that brought them into existence.
Surveillance policy is hugely divisive and always a loser for Obama --- derails the agenda
Gerstein 14 – Gerstein, Politico, 1/13/14, The limits of President Obama’s power on NSA reform,
dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=AF3F7F2A-0F6D-4EA3-BF97-39321F92AC1A
President Barack Obama on Friday will try to put the ongoing surveillance controversy behind him, laying out reforms to
U.S. intelligence-gathering activities aimed at reassuring Americans that his administration will right the balance between civil liberties and
national security. But Obama’s powers have significant limits. Many of the key reforms he’s expected to endorse — including
changes to the National Security Agency’s practice of gathering information on telephone calls made to, from or within the U.S. — will
require congressional action. Like the public — and seemingly the president himself — lawmakers on both sides of the aisle
are divided on what needs fixing and how to do it. “If he punts the ball 16 blocks, all hell’s liable to break loose on
the Hill,” said former NSA Director Michael Hayden. “There will be people who will be voting against it because Obama’s
reform plan doesn’t go far enough and people voting against it because it doesn’t defend us enough and other people
voting against it because it outsources espionage.” It’s another challenge for a White House eager to clear the decks
for issues that aides want to highlight in Obama’s State of the Union address later this month, such as income inequality and
immigration. The snooping saga has been a loser for Obama in nearly every respect. Edward Snowden, the former NSA
contractor who leaked a trove of top-secret documents detailing the surveillance, is still camping out in Russia. The activities angered the
international community. And disclosures that widespread and intrusive surveillance continued into Obama’s presidency undercut his reputation
as a reformer who would end over-the-top anti-terrorism practices and civil liberties violations many liberals — including Obama and Vice
President Joe Biden — denounced under President George W. Bush. As commander in chief, Obama could abandon certain
surveillance practices altogether. For instance, he could simply shut down the so-called 215 program to collect telephone data in the U.S. so
it can be used to trace potential contacts of terrorism suspects. But the president has said he’s considering replacing that program
with a private-sector-based arrangement that provides the government with similar information on a case-by-case basis. That would require
Congress to step in, officials said. There’s “going to probably have to be some statutory — and very likely some court —
involvement in order to set up the legal framework to achieve that,” outgoing NSA Deputy Director Chris Inglis told NPR News
last week. “But that’s not abandoning the program. That’s implementing it a different way.” Obama does have unilateral authority to impose
dramatic reforms overseas, since surveillance of foreigners abroad is essentially unconstrained by U.S. law. And the White House has signaled
that much of Friday’s address will be aimed at the international audience. Obama has personally fielded the complaints of foreign leaders like
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was livid over reports that the NSA had effectively tapped her personal mobile phone. Administration
officials say Obama is likely to embrace many of the recommendations put forward last month by an outside panel he set up to dig into the issue:
the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies. The committee urged ending the NSA’s program that has
collected information on billions, perhaps even trillions, of U.S. telephone calls. A federal judge ruled last month that the metadata program —
aimed at running down leads about potential terrorist plots — was most likely unconstitutional, but other judges have concluded that the effort is
lawful. The panel urged that much of the same data be stored at the phone companies and available to the government on a case-by-case basis
with individual court warrants, something likely to require Congress to impose new requirements on the firms. The review group
also recommended assigning a public advocate to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, so judges could hear from an attorney
advocating for privacy rights and other constitutional protections for Americans whose data is swept up in surveillance programs. And the panel
urged changing the way judges on the court are appointed, so the chief justice no longer has the sole power to make such picks. Those changes,
too, would need legislation. All five review group members are set to publicly promote their plans at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing
Tuesday. “There are a few big things you really need Congress to do . If you want to change the appointment mechanism for the
[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] or do any kind of structural reform of the FISC, you need it. If you want to continue the
metadata program in some form, but reform it in any way, you need an act of Congress,” said Ben Wittes of the
Brookings Institution.
Bipartisan opposition to surveillance reform – National Security State is too powerful
Hudson 14 – John Hudson, The Cable, Foreign Policy, 6/6/14, http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/06/hope-fadesfor-aggressive-nsa-reform-in-congress/
Hope Fades for Aggressive NSA Reform in Congress Edward Snowden's greatest fear may be coming true. Since disclosing government surveillance
programs last year, the former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor has said the worst possible outcome would be that "nothing will change." But the odds of that happening
increase daily. This week, a bipartisan chorus of senators poured cold water on the notion that America's
surveillance activities need reforming and even criticized the modest NSA reform bill the House passed late last month
that enjoys strong intelligence community support. Privacy advocates say the final version of the USA Freedom Act was
"watered down" just days before the House approved it, and they looked to the Senate for more robust legislation. Now the upper
chamber appears unlikely to deliver for privacy advocates when it considers the bill later this summer. "It seems to me
that this bill is fixing a lot of things that simply aren't broken ," Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the Senate Intelligence
Committee's top Republican, said Thursday, June 5. "It seems to me that we're doing something unnecessary," added the
committee's former chairman, West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller. "We should not play to the siren song of a political response," Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.)
chimed in at a hearing Thursday. The hearing offered the first public venue for senators to discuss the House bill together, which passed 303-121 on May 22. Broadly speaking, the bill
would limit the NSA's ability to collect Americans' communications data en masse. It also would add transparency
and oversight safeguards to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the judicial body that oversees the NSA's surveillance activities. Privacy advocates
complain that the House bill lacks clarity about the types of requests the government can make to phone companies and the "selection terms," which traditionally are discrete items such as a
fear the Senate will follow the House's lead or water
down the bill even further. "One after another, too many lawmakers said, 'Yep, this is constitutional; yep, this is
constitutional; yep, this is constitutional,'" said Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project, referring to the NSA's bulk data collection program. " I didn't leave
the hearing feeling that the bill was going to be strengthened." Julian Sanchez, a privacy expert at the libertarian Cato Institute,
agreed. "Even this now rather flaccid reform is still more than some on the Senate Intel Committee can handle," he said. "You
are still hearing a Tourette syndrome-like tick that this is a lifesaving program, when every scintilla of public evidence says otherwise."
Besides Democratic senators Ron Wyden of Oregon, Mark Udall of Colorado, and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico , few of their committee colleagues appear
eager to build in more privacy safeguards. However, privacy advocates do have a friend in Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Senate
Judiciary Committee chairman. In a statement issued after the House vote, Leahy vowed to keep pressing for a tougher final bill. "The
name or phone number, that the government can use to search huge databases of records. Now they
House took an important step last month by approving a modified version of our bill, but at this historic moment, we cannot stop there," he said. "All Senators should support real reform that
Whether Leahy can overcome the powerful, bipartisan
opposition in the Senate is unclear. And not every privacy champion is ready to concede defeat. "The Senate needs to improve the proposed law to get to real reform,"
said the American Civil Liberties Union's Gabriel Rottman. "I'd say this is going to be the fight of the summer."
bans bulk collection of data, provides greater accountability, and improves transparency."
Focus link
Looming elections coupled with a lengthy review process mean Obama will have little time
to spare – any disruption would hold back TPP passage by years.
Susan Ferrechio 7-6-15, Journalist for the Washington Examiner, 7/6/15, “Opponents could still thwart looming
trade deal”, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opponents-could-still-thwart-looming-trade-deal/article/2567302
Now that Congress has approved Trade Promotion Authority legislation giving President Obama the power to negotiate trade agreements that
can't be amended by Congress, a new pact between the United States and 11 Pacific Rim nations is expected to be completed in the coming
months.¶ But path for the Trans-Pacific Partnership to become law could be just as bumpy as passing the trade promotion bill,
thanks to a looming election year and opponents in Congress who aren't ready to abandon the fight against new trade
deals that they believe will damage the American economy.¶ House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who led her caucus in an effort to
sink the trade promotion deal, sent a signal in June that she's not done fighting and will not endorse a Pacific Rim trade pact that
doesn't include certain provisions concerning worker rights and environmental protections. ¶ "I think that the more public support we have
for our position, and the leverage we will have, we will be taking it to the public," Pelosi said when asked about the looming deal.¶
The Trans-Pacific Partnership has been in the works for half a dozen years. It's a wide-ranging agreement that would slash prohibitive tariffs and
set down a broad array of rules and regulations governing trade, including environmental standards and intellectual property enforcement. Its
completion was dependent on the TPA deal, since U.S. trading partners tend not to agree to conclude deals until it's clear that Congress only has
an up-or-down vote on these agreements.¶ Many of the details of the deal are still unknown or are being kept secret in a
Capitol room where lawmakers can read it, but can't remove copies or take notes on what is in the deal. Trade experts predict a final
deal could be months away, by Sept. 30 at the earliest and perhaps not until the end of the year.¶ At that point, the deal mandates
months of review by Congress and the International Trade Commission, which is required to issue a report on the
deal's potential economic impact. Only after the extensive review period will lawmakers be able to hold an up or down
vote on the agreement.¶ By some estimates, if the Trans-Pacific Partnership isn't finalized until the end of the year, the monthslong review could delay its arrival in Congress until just before the 2016 elections.¶ "Congress isn't going to vote for it
then," Dan Ikenson, director of Cato's Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, told the Washington Examiner, citing electionyear politics.¶ So Congress would likely wait until the so-called lame duck session that convenes in November, after
the election. And if the trade deal misses that window, Ikenson warned, "Then it goes to the next president."¶ That's no
problem if one of the leading Republican candidates wins the White House. But Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic presidential
candidate, has sided with Pelosi in her skepticism of new trade deals.¶ Clinton's trade perspective tracks her overall move to
the Left, in part because of more liberal candidates like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who calls the TPP, "a disastrous trade agreement designed to
protect the interests of the largest multinational corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment and the foundations of
American democracy."¶ "I suspect she'll be campaigning against the trade agenda," Ikenson said of Clinton.¶ So passage of the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, six years in the making, may hinge on what happens in the next few months. "There's very little
time to spare if Obama wants this done on his watch," Ikenson said.
TPP is already unlikely to be voted on in 2015, increasing the probability it will be shot
down during election season – any distraction now will permanently kill the trade pact.
Lori Wallach 7-24-15, online journalist for popular resistance on Washington issues, 7/24/15, “TPP Vote
Unlikely In 2015”, https://www.popularresistance.org/tpp-vote-unlikely-in-2015/
TPP proponents are eager for Congress to vote on a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal in late 2015. But to do so, given
Fast Track’s statutorily-required timeframe of notice periods and pre-vote reports, TPP negotiations must be
completed – and the TPP text itself – by the end of July. If notice to Congress of intent to sign the TPP were sent by August 1,
a final TPP vote could be held the last week Congress is in session in December .¶ Assuming the quickest timeline
conceivable under the Fast Track rules and that somehow a required International Trade Commission (ITC) report on TPP impacts could be
completed faster than has ever occurred for past pacts*, a TPP vote could take place about four and one half months
after Congress is given notice of intent to sign a deal. Thus, negotiations must conclude at the July 28-31 TPP ministerial and a text
must be ready for notice of intent to sign by August 1. That text must be publicly posted on August 30. This would allow for a vote the week of
December 14. After that, Congress goes on recess and a vote would roll to 2016. ¶ The political costs of an unpopular “yes” vote for
the TPP will escalate if voting rolls into the 2016 presidential election year. Already Democratic and GOP
presidential candidates have begun attacking the TPP and their public criticism is generating public attention on the
pact’s potential threats of job loss and more. A 2016 TPP vote also would increase the risk that voters could punish
those who vote “yes” on the TPP during the November 2016 congressional election.
Reform Link
The link only goes one away --- the ratchet effect makes reforming surveillance structurally
impossible --- surveillance debates are particularly heated
Givens 13 – Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/the-nsasurveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/the-nsa-surveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The NSA Surveillance Controversy: How the Ratchet Effect Can Impact Anti-Terrorism Laws On June 5, 2013, the world
learned that the National Security Agency (NSA), America’s largest intelligence-gathering organization, had been gathering the metadata
of all the phone calls made by Verizon customers since early April 2013. The next day, two prominent newspapers reported that PRISM, a top
secret NSA program, had been vacuuming up customer data from some of the world’s largest and best known information technology
(IT) firms—including Google, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft—directly from their servers. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
later clarified that specific requests for customer data from these IT firms were subject to tight legal controls and only targeted non-US citizens.
But Clapper’s comments did little to calm frayed nerves. A public outcry ensued, with some loudly opposing the NSA’s
surveillance programs and others forcefully defending them. The New York Times condemned the NSA surveillance in an
editorial and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the NSA, challenging the constitutionality of the NSA telephone
call metadata collection program. Former Vice President Al Gore called the surveillance “obscenely outrageous” on Twitter. But others came out
in support of the NSA’s efforts. Senator Lindsay Graham said “I am a Verizon customer…it doesn’t bother me one bit for the NSA to have my
phone number.” Max Boot, a senior fellow with the think tank Council on Foreign Relations, credited the NSA surveillance with
helping to reduce the number of terrorist incidents on US soil since the attacks of September 11, 2001. A Pew Research Center
poll suggested that there was significant support among the American public for the NSA’s surveillance efforts.
Despite the heated rhetoric on both sides of the surveillance debate, the NSA’s collection of telephone call metadata appears
to be legal based upon the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s (FISC) interpretation of section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Perhaps the
most interesting remarks about the NSA controversy thus far came from Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, one of the original authors of the
USA PATRIOT Act. He wrote that when the Act was first drafted, one of the most controversial provisions concerned the process by which
government agencies obtain business records for intelligence or law enforcement purposes. Sensenbrenner stated that particular provision of the
Act requires government lawyers to prove to the FISC that a request for specific business records is linked to an “authorized investigation” and
further stated that “targeting US citizens is prohibited” as part of the request. Sensenbrenner argued that the NSA telephone metadata collection is
a bridge too far and falls well outside the original intended scope of the Act: “[t]he administration claims authority to sift through details of our
private lives because the Patriot Act says that it can. I disagree. I authored the Patriot Act, and this [NSA surveillance] is an abuse of that law.”
Acknowledging that Sensenbrenner’s statements may have been motivated in part by political interests, the perceived creeping expansion of the
USA PATRIOT Act—the “abuse” that Sensenbrenner describes in the context of the NSA surveillance controversy—is consistent
with what is known as the “ratchet effect” in legal scholarship. The ratchet effect is a unidirectional change in some legal
variable that can become entrenched over time, setting in motion a process that can then repeat itself indefinitely.[1]
For example, some scholars argued that anti-terrorism laws tend to erode civil liberties and establish a new baseline of legal
“normalcy” from which further extraordinary measures spring in future crises.[2] This process is consistent with the ratchet effect,
for it suggests a “stickiness” in anti-terrorism laws that makes it harder to scale back or reverse their provisions.
Each new baseline of legal normalcy represents a new launching pad for additional future anti-terrorism measures.
There is not universal consensus on whether or not the ratchet effect is real, nor on how powerful it may be. Posner and Vermeule call ratchet
effect explanations “methodologically suspect.”[3] They note that accounts of the ratchet effect often ring hollow, for they “fail to supply an
explanation of such a process…and if there is such a mechanism [to cause the ratchet effect], it is not clear that the resulting ratchet process is
bad.”[4] I argue that the recent controversy surrounding the NSA’s intelligence collection efforts underscores the
relevance of the ratchet effect to scholarly discussions of anti-terrorism laws. I do not seek to prove or disprove that the recent NSA
surveillance controversy illustrates the ratchet effect at work, nor do I debate the potential strength or weakness of the ratchet effect as an
explanation for the staying power or growth of anti-terrorism laws. As Sensenbrenner’s recent comments make clear, part of the original intent of
the USA PATRIOT Act appears to have been lost in interpretation. It is reasonable to suggest that future anti-terrorism laws may suffer
a similar fate. Scholars can therefore benefit from exploring how the USA PATRIOT Act took shape and evolved, and why antiterrorism laws can be difficult to unwind.
No Link Turns
Specific details of reform ensure controversy and outweigh ideological support
Baker and Peters, 14 – cites Jane Harman, author of the last major surveillance law and now the president of
the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Peter Baker and Jeremy W. Peters, NYT congressional
political writers, 1-18-2014, "With Plan to Overhaul Spying, the Divisiveness is in the Details", New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/us/politics/with-plan-to-overhaul-spying-the-divisiveness-is-in-thedetails.html, DA: 5-30-2015)
WASHINGTON — The roiling debate over security and liberty did not end with President Obama’s newly announced
overhaul of surveillance practices. Rather, it now enters a volatile next phase as intelligence agencies and a divided
Congress try to turn principles into policy. In responding to months of uproar about government spying, Mr. Obama left to be
decided the details that would determine just how meaningful the change he promised would be. He asked security officials to
develop ways to protect the privacy of foreigners. He asked Congress to help figure out how to store bulk telephone data. He invited other
proposals to restructure a secret intelligence court. All of which means that the future shape of a surveillance apparatus whose secrets
have been uncomfortably exposed remains far from certain. The assurances Mr. Obama offered his critics may be made more
nebulous by exceptions written into any new policies. The question of what to do with a vast trove of data on everyday Americans
may elude policy makers who cannot agree on much. And yet legislators may find their usual politics scrambled by an issue that
crosses party lines. “It’s the beginning of a long process, and the end on some of this is still unclear,” said former
Representative Jane Harman, an author of the last major surveillance law and now the president of the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars. “But the good news is now there’s a full debate in the Congress and in the country about our values and how
to address security and liberty at the same time.”
No Public Link Turns
Public support goes neg --- they strongly support surveillance for national security reasons
Givens 13 – Austen, Prof Cybersecurity @ Utica College, Harvard National Security Journal, July, http://harvardnsj.org/2013/07/the-nsasurveillance-controversy-how-the-ratchet-effect-can-impact-anti-terrorism-laws/
The ratchet effect can occur because there is increased public deference to government during crises. Legal scholars and political
scientists have explored the effect of terrorism on public deference to democratic governments.[10] While the specific reasons for this vary, the research overwhelmingly points toward increased
Popular support can provide the political capital
necessary for legislators and executives to quickly craft and implement anti-terrorism laws. Over time, despite some
slippage, public approval of these laws can continue—particularly when the crisis that prompted the laws’ creation continues. The ratchet effect
can occur because anti-terrorism laws create a new security paradigm. An aggressive anti-terrorism law can
fundamentally alter societal approaches to terrorism. Surveillance may increase. Police powers can expand.
Intelligence efforts may grow. Public expectations of privacy can diminish. In the aggregate, these types of changes can represent a
drastic change in a government’s approach to terrorism, and effectively create a “new normal” level of security.
Because this “new normal” is linked to the law itself, reversing the law begins to dismantle the new security
paradigm. From the public’s perspective, this might be an unacceptable option because it may increase societal vulnerability to terrorism.
Government agencies also risk losing resources—personnel, money, and political support—by returning to the
status quo ante.
trust in government authorities in the immediate wake of terrorist attacks, though this can wane over time.
Public support is irrelevant – doesn’t spill over to Congress and still creates fights
Zakrzewski, 15 (Cat Zakrzewski, 5-18-2015, "Surveillance Reform Stalemate In Congress Doesn’t Reflect
Public Opinion", TechCrunch, http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/18/surveillance-reform-stalemate-in-congress-doesntreflect-public-opinion/, DA: 6-2-2015)
The ACLU on Monday released a survey that found 60 percent of American voters want to see modifications to the
PATRIOT Act, the post 9/11 law that created the nation’s modern intelligence apparatus. The polling comes as the Republican
leadership attempts to halt surveillance reform in the Senate. The debate is becoming increasingly politicized in
Congress, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell calls for clean reauthorization of a PATRIOT Act provision set to expire on
June 1, Section 215. This section provided the mandate for the controversial bulk collection of American phone records revealed by former
government contractor Edward Snowden almost two years ago. The House passed a bill that would reform parts of the Patriot Act last week, but a
spokesperson for the ACLU criticized that portion for not going far enough. From Snowden’s revelations, we know the government uses other
laws — notably Section 702 and Executive Order 1233 — to collect Americans’ communications. This reform would only affect the bulk
collection occurring under the Patriot Act. As other organizations like Pew have found, the survey shows that calls for reform are
bipartisan. Fifty-nine percent of Democrats surveyed and 58 percent of Republicans surveyed strongly agreed with
modifying the law. That percentage only rose among independents, with 71 percent supporting reform efforts. In a media call, ACLU
legislative counsel Neema Singh Guliani said these findings highlight the disconnect between lawmakers on the Hill and
the American people. “In order to be more reflective of public’s views on surveillance and the Patriot Act, members of Congress should
more fully support reforms and can fully support more aggressive reforms,” she said. The ACLU also noted that surveillance reform could
become a key issue during the primaries, especially because voters on the far right and far left are more likely than moderates to support reform
efforts. The ACLU said that with the bipartisan support for reform and even greater support among independents, surveillance reform is an issue
that could consistently help candidates appeal to voters no matter their political affiliation. As we’ve seen with past surveys, younger voters were
more likely than older voters to support modifying the Patriot Act. Sixty-five percent of 18- to 39-year-olds support reform, as compared to only
59 percent of voters over the age of 45. The overwhelming majority of respondents — 82 percent — said they were concerned
about the government collecting and storing their information. When given specific examples of government surveillance,
respondents were most likely to be concerned about the government accessing their personal records without a judge’s permission or collecting
information without a warrant for purposes other than stopping terrorist attacks. This survey of about 1,000 likely American voters comes as
the future of surveillance reform remains uncertain in Washington. Although the reform bill sailed through with a large majority
in the House, Senate Republicans seem intent on lining up with McConnell and calling for a clean reauthorization. But privacy
advocates on both sides of the aisle say they will filibuster any legislation that reauthorizes the program. With the clock ticking, lawmakers will
have to break this stalemate quickly or risk letting the PATRIOT Act provision expire, and with it the most controversial of the NSA programs.
Internal Link
TPP stops China rise
TPP allows the US to maintain economic supremacy in Asia – independently restraining
Chinese aggressiveness in the region.
Ashley J. Tellis 15, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace specializing in
international security, defense, and Asian strategic issues, 3/2/15, “The geopolitics of the TTIP and the TPP”,
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Tellis_Geopolitics_TTIP_TPP.pdf
It is in this context that the strategy of pursuing less-than universal trading agreements such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) must be considered.17 Neither agreement is intended to substitute
for the current multilateral regime. The efforts to expand the latter will continue apace, but these will be supplemented by a
superstructure of bilateral and regional trade agreements (RTAs) that are intended not to contain China – in the specific
sense defined earlier – but rather to enable the US and its partners to stay ahead of China in coming years. Achieving this
is critical for the survival of the liberal international order inaugurated by America in the post-war period. If American power
weakens irretrievably, it is likely that the current international regime, which has served many common interests beyond
unique American objectives, could either decay to the disadvantage of all or be replaced by some other Sino-centric
alternative that is less beneficial to the US specifically and to many others generally.
system.
Excluding China from the TPP is key to contain its economic and military growth while
allowing the US and its partners to be economically competitive.
Ashley J. Tellis 15, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace specializing in
international security, defense, and Asian strategic issues, 3/2/15, “The geopolitics of the TTIP and the TPP”,
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Tellis_Geopolitics_TTIP_TPP.pdf
The success of this approach, however, will hinge on keeping China out of these regional agreements for as long as
possible, or at least until the US can ‘buy back’ the relative ¶ gains it has lost as a result of China’s entry into the multilateral trading system. If
US policymakers pursue the selective deepening of globalisation as a means of elevating future American growth in
this way, they will have to reject any present Chinese overtures about joining agreements such as the TPP. To date, US
officials have equivocated. Recently, National Security Advisor Susan Rice blandly stated, ‘We welcome any nation that is willing to live up to
the high standards of this agreement to join and share in the benefits of the TPP, and that includes China.’28 While the diplomatic
necessity for appearing inclusive is understandable, the strategic necessity for excluding China is overwhelming.
China’s own position on this issue is also not yet settled. Beijing initially viewed the TPP with unambiguous anxiety, perceiving
it, in Duke University professor Bai Gao’s description, as a ‘securitisation of trade policy’ driven by the intention to contain
China.29 Since then, Chinese attitudes have devolved into schizophrenia, alternately judging the TPP as a thinly veiled
instrument of containment or as a beckoning cornucopia. Despite this ambivalence, Beijing now appears to be steadily but
quietly gravitating towards the TPP. This is hardly surprising. As one analysis demonstrated, trade diversion would cost
China more than US$100bn in lost annual income and exports if it were excluded from the TPP . Moreover, China
could be shut out of a group that could ultimately form the basis of an American containment of China. 30 The gains
China would accumulate by joining the TPP are thus obvious, but the risks to Washington of including Beijing as a negotiating partner are also
great. To begin with, the diversity of tariff and non-tariff barriers among the negotiating Asia-Pacific nations makes it extremely hard to conclude
a truly high-quality agreement. Including China as a negotiating partner, considering its substantial structural
protectionism, ¶ would likely lead to a ‘Swiss cheese’ agreement so full of holes as to deny the US the gains that
could only arise from a genuinely ambitious trade accord. Given this danger, Washington should keep China out of all
TPP negotiations until an exemplary pact is negotiated. Irrespective of what China does at that point, the US will come out ahead. If China
declines to participate on the grounds that it cannot acquiesce to an agreement that it was not involved in negotiating, Washington would still
enjoy enhanced relative gains vis-à-vis Beijing because it would continue to profit from increased commerce with its
closed set of friends. If China chooses to join a high-quality TPP that was concluded in its absence, Washington would likely obtain even
greater relative gains, given that the trade liberalisation necessary for China to join the agreement would eliminate all of Beijing’s current
asymmetrical advantages while giving the US enhanced access to a large market. In any event, the US can continue to pursue exclusive
trade policies without apology, since China has sought similar arrangements such as the China–Japan–South Korea
agreement and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).31 While there is no need for US policymakers to advertise
any reluctance to admit China into TPP negotiations, they should certainly desist from welcoming its participation until a final
agreement is reached. Most importantly, they ought to at least be clear in their own minds about why strategic logic
demands Beijing’s current exclusion from these negotiations.
All other strategies for limiting a rising China fail – only large trade agreements allow the
US to maintain hegemony and economic supremacy.
Ashley J. Tellis 15, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace specializing in
international security, defense, and Asian strategic issues, 3/2/15, “The geopolitics of the TTIP and the TPP”,
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Tellis_Geopolitics_TTIP_TPP.pdf
While China’s economic strategy of international integration is thus increasingly at odds with its geopolitical
strategy of increasing its coercive capabilities directed against its major trading partners, Washington’s own post-Cold War
strategy is also afflicted by the awkward contradiction of sustaining an international economic regime that produces
great benefits for the US and others while simultaneously fuelling the growth of what could be its most significant rival.
Three of the four possible grand strategies aimed at mitigating this dilemma – ¶ leaving China alone, making a
duopolistic deal with Beijing and constraining Chinese success – all fail to limit the dangers posed by a rising China
to the US and its friends. Only the fourth strategy, centred not on inhibiting China’s growth but on improving America’s
strategic performance, cuts the Gordian knot to enable the US to protect its global hegemony while continuing
China’s integration into the liberal international order. The policy of incorporating RTAs into the existing multilateral
trading system accordingly provides Washington with the opportunity to secure both increased absolute gains and
increased relative gains vis-à-vis China, thereby protecting its international position. The US should not shrink from pursuing
such self-interested modifications to the global trading order because, as its own history reveals, American trade policy has always been
shaped by political imperatives rather than the dogmas of neoclassical economics. In an era of rising Chinese
ascendency, protecting American strategic interests through new mega-RTAs does not constitute a geo-economic
containment of China – a losing proposition at its best. Rather, it represents an effort to leapfrog Beijing in the race to
success during yet another long cycle in world politics.
Asia pivot stops China war
The strategy of “leaving China alone” could be detrimental to American interests – states
are selfish and self-fulfilling.
Ashley J. Tellis 15, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace specializing in
international security, defense, and Asian strategic issues, 3/2/15, “The geopolitics of the TTIP and the TPP”,
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Tellis_Geopolitics_TTIP_TPP.pdf
Although this liberal vision of integrating China peacefully is undoubtedly attractive, it has limitations. The chief weakness in
this regard is that it presumes a certain pre-existing harmony of interests, such that even China’s pursuit of parochial
interests will not disturb the international equilibrium. Moreover, it assumes that China’s dependence on international
integration will always prevent it from pursuing policies that may undermine the interests of other states , given that the
mutual search for absolute gains would be at risk if it did. The history of international relations, however, does not support such
optimism and the transition period from British to American hegemony confirms this point abundantly. Even though
Great Britain and the US shared common values and even common adversaries, Washington pursued its interests in the early post-war period in a
way that fundamentally undermined British objectives.10 Similarly, China could well uphold the scaffolding of the institutional
arrangements it inherits from the US but fundamentally transform their manner of functioning, and their specific aims,
to Washington’s continuing detriment. Consequently, the policy of leaving well alone – or persistent integration simpliciter – is
unlikely to serve US interests in the manner imagined by its advocates. Given that the policy of letting China be fails to
immunise the US against the risks that Beijing could use the growing, ¶ and disproportionate, benefits of
interdependence to advance its own interests at American expense, even if only peacefully, Washington could pursue a
second strategy that might be labelled, ‘Let’s Make a Deal’. The key characteristic of this second grand strategy would be that, instead of relying
on China to uphold the inherited order mainly out of self-interest, the US would tacitly or explicitly negotiate a Chinese agreement to preserve
that order in continuing collaboration with Washington.
Impact
TPP k2 pivot
TPP is key to the Asia pivot
Scott Miller 14, Scholl Chair in International Business at CSIS, and Paul Nadeau, program manager and research
associate with the Scholl Chair at CSIS, “TPP Is More than a Trade Agreement,” Jan 31 2014,
http://csis.org/publication/tpp-more-trade-agreement
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made news this week when he said that “everyone would be well advised not to push (Trade Promotion Authority, TPA) right now.” Because
trade agreements negotiated by the United States practically require TPA to be concluded, Senator Reid’s comments were
described as “putting the brakes” on the President’s trade agenda until after the midterm elections in November.¶ Senator Reid’s comments should not have been surprising or
even troubling. When asked if he would bring TPA to the Senate floor, Reid replied with “We’ll see,” leaving the possibility on the table. That trade critics are pleased with
Senator Reid’s comments and that business groups are not isn’t news. President Obama expressed support for trade agreements during the State of the Union address, but not
much more than a name-check and not enough to provide political cover to Democrats who might consider supporting TPA. With Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and
other Republicans openly advocating TPA, the issue was probably due to get some push-back from Democrats. Tactically, this makes sense because no Democrat in a contested
seat (and Senator Reid has many to protect) for the November elections stands to gain from TPA or the deals that it would accelerate, chiefly the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP).¶ Who gains the most now from TPA and the resulting TPP agreement? The White House. This isn’t because of the immediate economic benefits to the United States, or
because it provides a template for future large-scale, comprehensive trade agreements, or because the President has advanced the most ambitious trade agenda since the early
the TPP is the “pivot to Asia.” The military realignment is important, but the repositioning is mostly relative,
The Pivot is a political and economic realignment that aims to improve
cooperation and integration among the United States and East Asia. Then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton said this explicitly in her
1990s.¶ The White House needs TPA because
driven by drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Foreign Policy article, “America’s Pacific Century,” when she wrote “[O]pen markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade,
and access to cutting-edge technology. Our economic recovery at home will depend on exports and the ability of American firms to tap into the vast and growing consumer base
the TPP is arguably the key
ingredient of three (deepening America's relationships with rising powers, including China; engaging with regional
multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment). If solving the financial crisis and passing health care reform were President Obama’s key
of Asia.” Military presence was only one out of the six courses of action that Secretary Clinton used to define the Asia Pivot, while
domestic policy victories, then the Asia Pivot is primed to be the area where he beneficially changes the course of U.S. foreign policy (the discussions with Iran are still too
there are tensions among Asia’s large powers, and the United
States is likely the single entity that can influence the situation. The United States and Asia need each other
and TPP is the vehicle that can functionally, economically, and politically help bind them together . The Members of
nascent to determine how far reaching they will become).¶ Today,
Congress and staff that have drafted the TPA bill have put admirable effort into legislation. Trade negotiators working on TPP have been equally tireless. But TPP, and Asia,
Many in Asia are already concerned that the Pivot was only superficial and that United States
is already moving on. If TPA and TPP remain framed as a trade issue, with all of the political baggage that comes with that, the Administration risks putting TPP on ice
for 2014.¶ Alternatively, the Administration can influence perceptions by framing the TPP as a strategic goal that will be the cornerstone of the Asia Pivot. This would
reassure U.S. partners in Asia and answer domestic critics who argue that the Pivot lacks substance. Moreover, it would give the President an achievable goal
cannot wait forever.
in advance of his April trip to Asia.
TPP solves multiple scenarios for conflict throughout asia and east asia – impact D and
thumpers don’t apply trumps every alt cause, thumper, and impact d - - it’s the necessary and sufficient
condition for every internal link
Economist 14. [11-15-14 --- http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21631797-america-needs-pushfree-trade-pact-pacific-more-vigorously-americas-big-bet]
In September, just days after Mr Abe reiterated in America that TPP was crucial for raising Japan’s agricultural competitiveness and
helping it adjust to an ageing society, TPP talks between the two countries abruptly broke down. Each side blamed the other, though Americans
continue to suspect that the problem is not Mr Abe’s own commitment but the weight the farmers carry with his bureaucrats. The Japanese, for
their part, realise that their
best offer may never be good enough for Congress, so without TPA there is unlikely to be
TPP. Mr Froman, the trade tsar, puts TPP into a dauntingly ambitious context. He calls it central to America’s pivot to
Asia, a chance to show the country’s commitment to creating institutions that moderate territorial disputes,
and an opportunity to show emerging economies (meaning China) what economic rules the global
economy should follow. “At a time when there is uncertainty about the direction of the global trading system,
TPP can play a central role in setting rules of the road for a critical region in flux,” he says. The flipside of this is
that failure becomes an even bigger risk, which Mr Froman acknowledges. Perhaps in an effort to prod a somnolent, introspective
Congress into action, he makes the dramatic claim that failure could mean America “would forfeit its seat at the centre of the
global economy”. Many pundits in Washington agree that American leadership in Asia is on the table. Michael Green
of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies says TPP failure would “undermine the impression of the United
States as a Pacific power and look like an abdication of leadership”. It would also take pressure off Japan
and China to reform their economies. Mireya Solís, a Japan expert at the Brookings Institution, says it would be a
“devastating blow to the United States’ credibility”. Those views are echoed in East Asia. Mr Tay in Singapore says
TPP failure would be a disaster: “If the domestic issues of these two countries cannot be resolved, there is
no sense that the US-Japan alliance can provide any kind of steerage for the region.” Deborah Elms, head of the
Singapore-based Asian Trade Centre, suggests that so far the American pivot has manifested itself mainly as an extra 1,000 marines stationed in
TPP, all the pivot amounts to is a few extra boots on the ground in Darwin,” she says. Even members
armed forces are worried. As one senior serving officer in the Pacific puts it, “the TPP unites
countries that are committed to a trade-based future, transparency and the rule of law. It is the model that
the United States and Europe have advanced versus that advanced by China. It is an opportunity to move the
arc of Chinese development, or identify it as a non-participant.” Yet when Mr Obama mentions TPP, he talks mostly about
protecting American jobs rather than safeguarding America’s place in the world. The president has never fully put his back into
forcing a congressional vote on TPA. There is still time for him and Mr Abe to rescue the trade talks. But unless Mr
Obama leads from the front, America’s own leadership in the Pacific will seem less convincing than he has
Australia. “Without
of America’s
repeatedly promised.
Trade agreements are vital to the pivot---now is key and the risk of conflict is high
Claude Barfield 10/30/14, resident scholar at AEI, a former consultant to the office of the U.S. Trade
Representative, researches international trade policy (including trade policy in China and East Asia), the World
Trade Organization (WTO), intellectual property, and science and technology policy, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership
and America’s Strategic Role in Asia,” http://www.insideronline.org/summary.cfm?id=23243
Over the past several years, even as TPP negotiations have deepened and moved toward an endpoint (whether successful or
not), the strategic and security situation in East Asia has become ever more fraught. Further, as new challenges have arisen,
there have been growing concerns among allies and trading partners regarding US steadfastness and staying power
in the region. These fears have stemmed from disparate sources. Despite the vow to “rebalance” US security forces toward the
Asia Pacific, with 60 percent of US naval assets in the Pacific by 2020, Asian leaders are fully cognizant that this is 60 percent of a
declining US defense budget. They are also aware of the political stalemate that has often produced a paralysis in domestic policymaking.
Beyond this reality, over the past year—and certainly over the past few weeks and months, distractions and crisis in other regions
of the world—the Ukraine and Russia, and at this writing direct military actions to counter ISIS in Iraq and Syria—have driven home the
fact that US worldwide obligations can overwhelm its strategic regional goals in East Asia. Meanwhile, in East Asia
itself recent, China’s challenges to the existing order have risen sharply. Seemingly unconcerned about its political
image and the contradictions to its often proclaimed “peaceful rise,” Beijing has picked or exacerbated quarrels with
a number of its East Asian neighbors. Many of these controversies, with accompanying Chinese bullying tactics, have
centered on disputed maritime borders and jurisdiction, including jousting with Japan over the Senkakyu Islands in the East
China Sea; with Vietnam over the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea; with the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia over the Spratly
Islands; and with the Philippines over the Scarborough Shoal. In recent months, China has upped the ante by sending a semi-permanent oil rig
into waters around the Paracel Islands. Throughout the period, Beijing has adamantly refused to call a halt to development of the
disputed maritime territories or to seriously enter into negotiations for a code of conduct or some form of joint
development of the disputed areas. Finally, with the unilateral declaration of an Air Defense Identification Zone in the
East China Sea, the PRC has directly thrown down the gauntlet not only to its neighbors in Asia but also to the
United States and its long-standing defense of the doctrine of the freedom of the seas. The US has refused to recognize the
Chinese ADZ and declined to notify Beijing of flights across the disputed area. The point of this brief diplomatic and security rundown is to
underscore that, with the TPP as a central and most concrete symbol of the US “pivot” to Asia, the repercussions of
failure to carry the trade agreement to a successful juncture will ripple out well beyond economic
consequences. Singapore and its leaders, going back to Lee Kuan Yew, have always exhibited the most savvy and
sophisticated understanding of the US leadership role and the symbolic and concrete importance of the TPP in the
East Asian firmament and order. This tradition was carried on several weeks ago, when Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong,
a
have promised to conclude…three years in a row, I think this is our
last chance to fulfill our promise…(or) face further delays of an indefinite nature .” He further stressed that the US
Asian pivot must have an economic as well as military component: “If you don’t finish TPP you just giving the
game away (to China)…If you don’t promote trade what are you promoting? What does it mean when you say you
are a Pacific power? That just does not make sense.”
warned of the consequences of TPP failure. He stated: “We
Asia War Impact Calculus
Asia war is most probable and population counts make it the biggest impact
Mead 14 – Walter Russell Mead, Professor of Foreign Affairs and the Humanities at Bard College, “Obama in
Asia”, The American Interest, 11-9, http://www.the-american-interest.com/2010/11/09/obama-in-asia/
The decision to go to Asia is one that all thinking Americans can and should support regardless of either party or ideological affiliation. East and South Asia
are
the places where the 21st century, for better or for worse, will most likely be shaped; economic growth, environmental
progress, the destiny of democracy and success against terror are all at stake here. American objectives in this region are clear.
While convincing China that its best interests are not served by a rash, Kaiser Wilhelm-like dash for supremacy in the region, the US does not want either to isolate or
Asian
success will make America stronger, richer and more secure. Asia’s failures will reverberate over here, threatening
our prosperity, our security and perhaps even our survival. The world’s two most mutually hostile nuclear states, India and
Pakistan, are in Asia. The two states most likely to threaten others with nukes, North Korea and aspiring rogue
nuclear power Iran, are there. The two superpowers with a billion plus people are in Asia as well. This is where the
world’s fastest growing economies are. It is where the worst environmental problems exist. It is the home of the world’s largest
contain China. We want a strong, rich, open and free China in an Asia that is also strong, rich, open and free. Our destiny is inextricably linked with Asia’s;
democracy, the world’s most populous Islamic country (Indonesia — which is also among the most democratic and pluralistic of Islamic countries), and the world’s
most rapidly rising non-democratic power as well. Asia
holds more oil resources than any other continent; the world’s most
important and most threatened trade routes lie off its shores. East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia (where American and NATO
forces are fighting the Taliban) and West Asia (home among others to Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and Iraq) are the theaters in the world today
that most directly engage America’s vital interests and where our armed forces are most directly involved. The
world’s most explosive territorial disputes are in Asia as well, with islands (and the surrounding mineral and fishery resources)
bitterly disputed between countries like Russia, the two Koreas, Japan, China (both from Beijing and Taipei), and Vietnam.
From the streets of Jerusalem to the beaches of Taiwan the world’s most intractable political problems are found on the Asian landmass and its surrounding seas.
Whether you view the world in
terms of geopolitical security, environmental sustainability, economic growth or the march of democracy, Asia is at
the center of your concerns. That is the overwhelming reality of world politics today, and that reality is what President Obama’s trip is intended to
address.
U.S. heg in Asia prevents a massive great power nuclear war
Walton 7 – C. Dale Walton, Lecturer in International Relations and Strategic Studies at the University of Reading,
2007, Geopolitics and the Great Powers in the 21st Century, p. 49
Obviously, it is of vital importance to the United States that the PRC does not become the hegemon of Eastern Eurasia .
As noted above, however, regardless of what Washington does, China's success in such an endeavor is not as easily attainable as pessimists might assume. The
PRC appears to be on track to be a very great power indeed, but geopolitical conditions are not favorable for any Chinese effort to establish sole hegemony; a
robust multipolar system should suffice to keep China in check, even with only minimal American intervention in local squabbles. The more worrisome
danger is that Beijing will cooperate with a great power partner, establishing a very muscular axis. Such an entity
would present a critical danger to the balance of power, thus both necessitating very active American intervention
in Eastern Eurasia and creating the underlying conditions for a massive, and probably nuclear, great power war. Absent
such a "super-threat," however, the demands on American leaders will be far more subtle: creating the conditions for Washington's gentle decline from playing
the role of unipolar quasi-hegemon to being "merely" the greatest of the world's powers, while aiding in the creation of a healthy multipolar system that is not
marked by close great power alliances.
Loss of Asian regional hegemony is the only existential risk---their wars pale in comparison
Layne 7 – Christopher Layne, associate professor of International Affairs at the Bush School of Government and
Public Service at Texas A&M University, Fall 2007, “Who Lost Iraq and Why It Matters: The Case for Offshore
Balancing,” online: http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/who-lost-iraq-and-why-it-matters-case-offshore-balancing
The war’s ideological supporters are wrong. The United States is not failing in Iraq because “mistakes were made.” Rather, the decision to go
to war was itself mistaken. From its inception, the invasion of Iraq was fated to be mission impossible, not mission accomplished, because
the strategy was based on faulty assumptions and its objectives exceeded America’s grasp. The U.S. failure in Iraq should be a strong
warning against provoking a military conflict with Iran, and the catalyst for a new regional strategy: offshore balancing.1 The key
assumption underlying offshore balancing is that the most vital U.S. interests are preventing the emergence of an
dominant power in Europe and East Asia—a “Eurasian hegemon”—and forestalling the emergence of a regional (“oil”)
hegemon in the Middle East. Only a Eurasian hegemon could pose an existential threat to the United States. A regional
hegemon in the Middle East could imperil the flow of oil upon which the U.S. economy and the economies of the advanced industrial states
depend. As an offshore balancer, the U.S. would rely on the dynamics of the balance of power to thwart any states
with hegemonic ambitions. An offshore balancing strategy would permit the United States to withdraw its ground
forces from Eurasia (including the Middle East) and assume an over-the-horizon military posture. If—and only if—
regional power balances crumbled would the United States re-insert its troops into Eurasia.
TPP Impact – SCS
TPP’s key to solidifying a mutually advantageous US-Sino economic relationship --- solves
SCS conflicts
Patrick Mendis 13, Senior Fellow and Affiliate Professor at the School of Public Policy, George Mason
University., March 13th, 2013, How Washington’s Asia pivot and the TPP can benefit Sino–American relations,
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/03/06/how-washingtons-asia-pivot-and-the-tpp-can-benefit-sino-americanrelations/
But Washington’s pivot strategy is better understood within a new framework of mutually assured prosperity (MAP) —
a twist on the Cold War containment practices backed by a doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD). ¶ First, at present, strong
interdependent economic relations exist as importer–exporter, debtor–creditor and consumer–producer between the United States
and China. This already forces the two countries to caution and resort to trade diplomacy within the WTO framework, rather than
retaliatory competition or military threats to resolve differences.¶ Second, Sino–American trade and commercial history suggests
that convergence between the two largest economies — intensifying indirectly and multilaterally through the TPP —
may instead solidify this existing symbiotic economic relationship. Since America’s founding, commerce has been the uniting
factor among states and with foreign nations. To achieve Thomas Jefferson’s vision of an ‘Empire of Liberty,’ Alexander Hamilton devised an
ingenious strategy that entailed a strong manufacturing base, a national banking system, the centralised federal government and an export-led
economic and trade scheme protected by the US Navy. Similarly, Deng Xiaoping’s export-led liberalisation of Chinese economic policy also
implicitly recognised the role of trade and commerce as a unifier of peoples.¶ There are three dimensions to the new MAP framework —
geopolitics, geo-economics and geo-security — intertwined to the extent that the lines of distinction between each are blurred. Geopolitically,
Washington’s re-engagement with the Asia Pacific after a decade of distraction is not so much a paradigm shift as the revival of a traditional and
historic role. Since the Cold War, the United States has underwritten the regional security architecture through bilateral ties with allies such as
Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand. In recent years as South China Sea tensions have intensified, Beijing’s
perceived use of force in its own neighborhood causes weaker states to question the necessity of its current status as a
regional hegemon, and to look for a balancer. America’s return to the Asian region reassures stakeholders that China
will not overwhelm its neighbors.¶ Economically, through trade engagement and transparency via the TPP, Washington
affords smaller countries the opportunity to collectively rebalance asymmetries in bilateral trade with China without
undermining China as a valued and vital trade partner. This simultaneously eliminates the need for naval competition,
reducing the likelihood of hostile engagement over South China Sea disputes of the so-called gunboat diplomacy sort — a
term often applied to Washington’s historically preferred method of advancing foreign trade policy objectives in Asia. ¶ Meanwhile, from a
security perspective, China will be able to continue to prosper from regional stability . The expansion of Chinese military
capabilities and the establishment of ports of call for PLA Navy ships will seem less threatening if the US Navy is engaged in the region in a
cooperative, multilateral fashion, avoiding direct confrontation but implicitly projecting the show of force without war to restrain the adversarial
behaviour. This may give China the space to ease into its role as the dominant — but not domineering — regional power in a way that will best
serve its own economic growth and national security interests. It is also the finest insurance policy for China that holds over $1 trillion worth of
American treasury securities.¶ Ultimately, a regional TPP-led free trade zone is the best ‘pacifying’ security architecture for
long-term stability between the two economic superpowers in the Pacific Ocean .The TPP will deliver benefits for
individual restraint between the two power centres, and may advance regional development, encourage the
integration of the Chinese economy, and allow surrounding nations to hedge their bets on (and therefore contribute
to) China’s ‘Peaceful Rise.’ In the Asian century, alliances are complex, and multilateralism and flexibility are the new currency. This era
of Sino–American relations will require measured diplomacy.
Extinction
Wittner 11 (Lawrence S. Wittner, Emeritus Professor of History at the State University of New York/Albany,
Wittner is the author of eight books, the editor or co-editor of another four, and the author of over 250 published
articles and book reviews. From 1984 to 1987, he edited Peace & Change, a journal of peace research., 11/28/2011,
"Is a Nuclear War With China Possible?", www.huntingtonnews.net/14446)
While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will be used . After all, for centuries national conflicts
have led to wars, with nations employing their deadliest weapons. The current deterioration of U.S. relations with
China might end up providing us with yet another example of this phenomenon. The gathering tension between the
United States and China is clear enough. Disturbed by China’s growing economic and military strength, the U.S. government
recently challenged China’s claims in the South China Sea, increased the U.S. military presence in Australia, and
deepened U.S. military ties with other nations in the Pacific region. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United
States was “asserting our own position as a Pacific power.” But need this lead to nuclear war ? Not necessarily. And yet, there are
signs that it could. After all, both the United States and China possess large numbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S.
government threatened to attack China with nuclear weapons during the Korean War and, later, during the conflict
over the future of China’s offshore islands, Quemoy and Matsu. In the midst of the latter confrontation, President Dwight
Eisenhower declared publicly, and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear weapons would “be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else.”
Of course, China didn’t have nuclear weapons then. Now that it does, perhaps the behavior of national leaders will be more temperate. But the
loose nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet government officials during the Cold War, when both nations had vast nuclear arsenals, should convince
us that, even as the military ante is raised, nuclear saber-rattling persists. Some pundits argue that nuclear weapons prevent wars
between nuclear-armed nations; and, admittedly, there haven’t been very many—at least not yet. But the Kargil War of 1999,
between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed Pakistan, should convince us that such wars can occur. Indeed, in that case,
the conflict almost slipped into a nuclear war. Pakistan’s foreign secretary threatened that, if the war escalated, his country felt free to
use “any weapon” in its arsenal. During the conflict, Pakistan did move nuclear weapons toward its border, while India, it is claimed, readied its
own nuclear missiles for an attack on Pakistan. At the least, though, don’t nuclear weapons deter a nuclear attack? Do they?
Obviously, NATO leaders didn’t feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATO’s strategy was to respond to a
Soviet conventional military attack on Western Europe by launching a Western nuclear attack on the nuclear-armed
Soviet Union. Furthermore, if U.S. government officials really believed that nuclear deterrence worked, they would not
have resorted to championing “Star Wars” and its modern variant, national missile defense. Why are these vastly expensive—
and probably unworkable—military defense systems needed if other nuclear powers are deterred from attacking by U.S.
nuclear might? Of course, the bottom line for those Americans convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a
Chinese nuclear attack might be that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart. Today, it is
estimated that the U.S. government possesses over five thousand nuclear warheads, while the Chinese government has a total inventory of
roughly three hundred. Moreover, only about forty of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the United States. Surely the United States would
“win” any nuclear war with China. But what would that “victory” entail? A nuclear attack by China would immediately slaughter
at least 10 million Americans in a great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many more dying horribly of sickness and radiation
poisoning. The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would be far higher. Both nations would be reduced to smoldering,
radioactive wastelands. Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot out the sun and bring
on a “nuclear winter” around the globe—destroying agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and generating
chaos and destruction.
TPP Impact – Japan Economy
TPP boosts Japan’s economic growth
Dr. Rajaram Panda 13, a leading expert on Japan and East Asia from India, is Visiting Faculty at the Centre for
Japanese, Korean and Northeast Asian Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi., “Japan’s Stance On The
Trans-Pacific Partnership – Analysis,” 3-26-13, http://www.eurasiareview.com/26032013-japans-stance-on-thetrans-pacific-partnership-analysis/
Abe has realized that unless Japan participate the TPP process, the country will miss a “golden opportunity” in the
integration process, necessary to lift the economy from prolonged recession. What Abe should do is to outline a single
comprehensive integration strategy. He needs to tackle the political imponderables, such as the farming lobbies’ financial and voting influence
that have led to the maintenance of high tariffs on key agricultural products such as rice and raw sugar. This factor has acted as a major
impediment to Japan’s attempts to pursue regional integration. The electorate was disillusioned with the DPJ’s style of governance, which left
much to be desired and therefore reposed faith in the LDP. During his second term, Abe is not afraid of taking hard decisions. In particular, his
decision to promote monetary easing schemes as a tool to help Japan overcome deflation, which has stalled the
Japanese economy for many years, contributed to his high degree of public support. Election to the upper house is due in July 2013 and
politicians from the rural constituencies will need Abe’s support to win elections. By announcing to participate in TPP negotiations,
Abe has seized the opportunity to resuscitate the economy from its prolonged recession and reap the economic
rent that would accrue from elimination of tariffs and many more favourable conditions .
Nuclear war
Auslin 9 (Michael, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123483257056995903.html)
If Japan's economy collapses, supply chains across the globe will be affected and numerous economies will face
severe disruptions, most notably China's. China is currently Japan's largest import provider, and the Japanese slowdown is creating
tremendous pressure on Chinese factories. Just last week, the Chinese government announced that 20 million rural migrants had lost their jobs.
Closer to home, Japan may also start running out of surplus cash, which it has used to purchase U.S. securities for years. For the first time in a
generation, Tokyo is running trade deficits -- five months in a row so far. The political and social fallout from a Japanese depression
also would be devastating. In the face of economic instability, other Asian nations may feel forced to turn to more centralized -even authoritarian -- control to try to limit the damage. Free-trade agreements may be rolled back and political freedom curtailed. Social
stability in emerging, middle-class societies will be severely tested, and newly democratized states may find it impossible to
maintain power. Progress toward a more open, integrated Asia is at risk, with the potential for increased political tension in
the world's most heavily armed region. This is the backdrop upon which the U.S. government is set to expand the national debt by a
trillion dollars or more. Without massive debt purchases by Japan and China, the U.S. may not be able to finance the cost of the stimulus package,
creating a trapdoor under the U.S. economy.
Trade Impact Module
TPA solves global trade collapse
Kati Suominen 14, Visiting Assistant Adjunct Professor at UCLA Anderson School of Management, Adjunct
Fellow at CSIS, Ph.D. Political Economy from UC San Diego, Aug 4 2014, “Coming Apart: WTO fiasco highlights
urgency for the U.S. to lead the global trading system,” katisuominen.wordpress.com/2014/08/04/coming-apart
threats are
disintegration of the trading system
the WTO is utterly dysfunctional: deals
require unanimity
making any
player
a veto.
Two
emerging. The first is
among 160 members,
. The core of the system until the mid-1990s,
cantankerous
like India
Aligning interests has been impossible, turning all action in global trade policymaking to free trade agreements (FTAs), first kicked off
by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994. By now, 400 FTAs are in place or under negotiation. FTAs have been good cholesterol for trade, but the overlapping deals and rules also complicate life for U.S. companies doing global business. One single deal among all
The U.S.-led talks for “mega-regional” agreements
TTIP) and
TPP), are the best solution yet to these problems. They
free trade and create uniform rules among
two-thirds of the world economy
both
hang in balance thanks to inaction on Capitol Hill to pass
TPA
TPA is key for the Obama administration to conclude TPP and TTIP talks Europeans and
Asians are unwilling to negotiate the thorniest topics before they know TPA is in place
countries would be much preferable to the “spaghetti bowl” of FTAs, but it is but a pie in the sky. So is deeper liberalization by protectionist countries like India.¶
with Europe and Asia-Pacific nations, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (
Trans-Pacific Partnership (
countries making up
. Incidentally, they would create a million jobs in America. Yet
the Trade Promotion Authority (
), the key piece of legislation for approving the mega-deals, now stuck in a bitter political fight as
several Democrats and Tea Party line up in opposition.
:
to constrain U.S. Congress to voting up or down on these deals, rather
than amending freshly negotiated texts. ¶ The second threat in world trade is the absence of common rules of the game for the 21st century global digital economy. As 3D printing, Internet of Things, and cross-border ecommerce, and other disruptive technologies expand trade in digital goods
and services, intellectual property will be fair game – why couldn’t a company around the world simply replicate 3D printable products and designs Made in the USA? Another problem i s
data protectionism
– rules on access and transport of data across borders.
Europeans are imposing limits on companies’ access to consumer data, complicating U.S. businesses’ customer service and marketing; emerging markets such as Brazil and Vietnam are forcing foreign IT companies to locate servers and build data centers as a condition for market access,
Digital protectionism risks
balkanizing the global virtual economy
digital
Trade
policymakers
lag far behind today’s trade, which requires sophisticated rules
The mega-regionals, especially the TTIP, are a perfect to start this .¶ Disintegration of trade
policies risk disintegrating world markets
the global trading system rests in America’s hands
¶
approval of TPA unshackles U.S. negotiators to finalize TPP and TTIP
TPP and
TTIP will be giant magnetic docking stations to outsiders; China and Brazil
are interested
the
TTIP-TPP superdeal will cover 80 percent of world’s output and approximate a multilateral agreement
measure that costs companies millions in inefficiencies. A growing number of countries claim limits on access to data on the grounds of “national security” and “public safety”, familiar code words for protectionism.¶
just as tariffs siloed national markets in the 19th century when countries set out to collect revenue and promote infant indu stries – a self-defeating approach that took well over a century to
undo, and is still alive and well in countries like India. The biggest losers of
protectionism are American small businesses and consumers leveraging their laptops, iPads and smart phones to buy and sell goods and services around the planet.
however
on IP, piracy, copyrights, patents and trademarks, ecommerce, data flows, virtual
currencies, and dispute settlement.
venue
process
. Just as after World War II,
first is the
, which
. Three things are needed. The
. Most interesting for U.S. exporters, TPP and TTIP almost de facto merge into a superdeal: the
United States and EU already have bilateral FTAs with several common partners belonging in TPP – Peru, Colombia, Chile, Australia, Singapore, Canada, and Mexico to name a few. What’s more, gatekeepers to markets with two-thirds of global spending power,
, aiming to revive sagging growth,
. Once this happens,
– and have cutting-edge common
trade rules that could never be agreed in one Big Bang at the WTO.
Causes global hotspot escalation---trade is key to solve war
Miriam Sapiro 14, Visiting Fellow in the Global Economy and Development program at Brookings, former
Deputy US Trade Representative, former Director of European Affairs at the National Security Council, “Why
Trade Matters,” September 2014,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/09/why%20trade%20matters/trade%20global%20vie
ws_final.pdf
This policy brief explores the economic rationale and strategic imperative of an ambitious domestic and global trade agenda from the perspective of the United States. International trade is often viewed through the relatively narrow
prism of trade-offs that might be made among domestic sectors or between trading partners, but it is important to consider also the impact that increased trade has on global growth, development and security.
With that context in
implications of the Asia-Pacific and European trade negotiations underway
mind, this paper assesses the
, including for countries that are not participating but
aspire to join. It outlines some of the challenges that stand in the way of completion and ways in which they can be addressed. It examines whether the focus on “mega-regional” trade agreements comes at the expense of broader
liberalization or acts as a catalyst to develop higher standards than might otherwise be possible. It concludes with policy recommendations for action by governments, legislators and stakeholders to address concerns that have been
dire developments are threatening the security
In the Middle East, significant areas of Iraq have been overrun by a toxic offshoot of AlQaeda, civil war in Syria rages with no end in sight, and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is in tatters. Nuclear negotiations with
Iran have run into trouble, while Libya and Egypt face continuing instability and domestic challenges. In Asia, historic rivalries and disputes over territory have
heightened tensions across the region, most acutely by China’s aggressive moves in the South China Sea towards Vietnam, Japan and the Philippines. Nucleararmed North Korea remains isolated, reckless and unpredictable. In Africa, countries are struggling with rising terrorism, violence and corruption. In Europe, Russia continues
to foment instability and destruction in eastern Ukraine. And within the European Union, lagging economic recovery and the surge in support for extremist parties have left people fearful of increasing
raised and create greater domestic support.¶ It is fair to ask whether we should be concerned about the future of international trade policy when
interests of the United States and its partners in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Europe.
violence against immigrants and minority groups and skeptical of further integration. ¶ It is tempting to focus solely on these pressing problems and defer less urgent issues—such as forging new disciplines for international trade—to
advancing trade
liberalization now is precisely the role that greater economic integration can play in opening up new avenues of opportunity for promoting development and increasing economic prosperity. Such initiatives can help
another day, especially when such issues pose challenges of their own. But that would be a mistake. A key motivation in building greater domestic and international consensus for
stabilize key regions and strengthen the security of the United States and its partners.¶ The last century provides a powerful example of how expanding trade
relations can help reduce global tensions and raise living standards. Following World War II, building stronger economic cooperation was a centerpiece of allied efforts to
erase battle scars and embrace former enemies. In defeat, the economies of Germany, Italy and Japan faced ruin and people were on the verge of starvation. The United States led efforts to rebuild Europe and to repair Japan’s
A key element
was to revive trade
economy.
of the Marshall Plan, which established the foundation for unprecedented growth and the level of European integration that exists today,
by reducing
tariffs.1 Russia, and the eastern part of Europe that it controlled, refused to participate or receive such assistance. Decades later, as the Cold War ended, the United States and Western Europe sought to make up for lost time by
providing significant technical and financial assistance to help integrate central and eastern European countries with the rest of Europe and the global economy. ¶ There have been subsequent calls for a “Marshall Plan” for other parts
economic
development can play in defusing tensions , and how opening markets can hasten growth. There is again a growing recognition that economic security and national security are two sides of the same
of the world,2 although the confluence of dedicated resources, coordinated support and existing capacity has been difficult to replicate. Nonetheless, important lessons have been learned about the valuable role
coin. General Carter Ham, who stepped down as head of U.S. Africa Command last year, observed the close connection between increasing prosperity and bolstering stability. During his time in Africa he had seen that “security and
stability in many ways depends a lot more on economic growth and opportunity than it does on military strength.”3 Where people have opportunities for themselves and their children, he found, the result was better governance,
increased respect for human rights and lower levels of conflict. ¶ During his confirmation hearing last year, Secretary John Kerry stressed the link between economic and national security in the context of the competitiveness of the
United States but the point also has broader application. Our nation cannot be strong abroad, he argued, if it is not strong at home, including by putting its own fiscal house in order. He asserted—rightly so—that “more than ever
Every day, he said, “that goes by where America is uncertain about engaging
unwilling to demonstrate our resolve to lead , is a day in which we weaken our nation itself.”4¶
Strengthening America’s economic security by cementing its economic alliances is not simply an option, but an imperative . A strong nation needs a
foreign policy is economic policy,” particularly in light of increasing competition for global resources and markets.
in that arena, or unwilling to put our best foot forward and win,
strong economy that can generate growth, spur innovation and create jobs. This is true, of course, not only for the United States but also for its key partners and the rest of the global trading system. Much as the United States led the
way in forging strong military alliances after World War II to discourage a resurgence of militant nationalism in Europe or Asia, now is the time to place equal emphasis on shoring up our collective economic security. A
failure
to act now could undermine international security and place stability in key regions in further jeopardy.
Turns war
We control uniqueness---conflict is declining globally---trade is the reason
Daniel T. Griswold 7, Associate director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, Trade,
Democracy and Peace: The Virtuous Cycle, Peace through Trade Conference, April 20,
http://www.freetrade.org/node/681
the number of
armed conflicts around the world has been in decline for the past half-century. Since the early 1990s, ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17, with
all of them now civil conflicts within countries. The Institute's latest report found that 2005 marked the second year in a row that no two nations were at war with one another. What a remarkable and wonderful fact. The death
toll from war has also been falling. According to the Associated Press report, "The number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a year by one
A little-noticed headline on an Associated Press story a while back reported, "War declining worldwide, studies say." In 2006, a survey by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that
measure. Peacemaking missions, meanwhile, are growing in number." Current estimates of people killed by war are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 in the 1990s, and from a peak of 700,000 in 1951
Many causes lie behind the good news--the end of the Cold War and the spread of democracy, among them--but expanding trade and globalization appear to be playing a
major role in promoting world peace. Far from stoking a "World on Fire," as one misguided American author argued in a forgettable book, growing commercial ties
between nations have had a dampening effect on armed conflict and war. I would argue that free trade and globalization have promoted peace in three main ways. First, as I argued a moment ago,
trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy, and democracies tend not to pick fights with each other. Thanks in part to globalization, almost two
during the Korean War.
thirds of the world's countries today are democracies--a record high. Some studies have cast doubt on the idea that democracies are less likely to fight wars. While it's true that democracies rarely if ever war with each other, it is not
such a rare occurrence for democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies. We can still hope that has more countries turn to democracy, there will be fewer provocations for war by non-democracies. A second and even more
by promoting more economic integration. As national economies become more intertwined with each other, those nations have
more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government, but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on
the economy. In short, globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war. The 2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report contains an insightful chapter on
"Economic Freedom and Peace" by Dr. Erik Gartzke, a professor of political science at Columbia University. Dr. Gartzke compares the propensity of countries to engage in wars and their level of
economic freedom and concludes that economic freedom, including the freedom to trade, significantly decreases the probability that a country will
experience a military dispute with another country. Through econometric analysis, he found that, "Making economies freer translates into making countries more peaceful. At the
extremes, the least free states are about 14 times as conflict prone as the most free." By the way, Dr. Gartzke's analysis found that economic freedom was a far more important variable in determining a countries propensity to
go to war than democracy. A third reason why free trade promotes peace is because it allows nations to acquire wealth through production and exchange rather
than conquest of territory and resources. As economies develop, wealth is increasingly measured in terms of intellectual property, financial assets, and human capital. Such assets cannot be easily seized by armies. In
potent way that trade has promoted peace is
contrast, hard assets such as minerals and farmland are becoming relatively less important in a high-tech, service economy. If people need resources outside their national borders, say oil or timber or farm products, they can acquire
them peacefully by trading away what they can produce best at home. In short, globalization and the development it has spurred have rendered the spoils of war less valuable.
Turns heg
Sustained economic growth and military expansion magnified by structural antagonisms
give China the ability to challenge the existing security order
Ashley J. Tellis 15, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace specializing in
international security, defense, and Asian strategic issues, 3/2/15, “The geopolitics of the TTIP and the TPP”,
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Tellis_Geopolitics_TTIP_TPP.pdf
Yet the likelihood of strategic rivalry between Beijing and Washington is high. Sustained economic growth rates have
made China the most likely competitor capable of dominating at least the Asian segment of the Eurasian space. As China’s
growing power spawns expanded interests, these are likely to scrape against the existing security order , whose
guarantees are founded upon American primacy. Beijing’s quest to recover its pre-colonial political centrality in Asia
and its determination to undo the ‘century of national humiliation’ only intensify the chances of antagonism. Whether
Beijing intends it or not, therefore, China’s
growing strength will position it as a strategic adversary of the US, a prospect
made even more consequential given the importance of the Indo-Pacific region as a motor for future global growth.1 Since
China’s continued economic expansion and military modernisation are likely to remain the most important factors
disturbing the regional and global security balance, coping with the rise of Chinese power is likely to become the single most
significant geopolitical challenge facing the US since its confrontation with the Soviet Union. Washington cannot afford
to take lightly the risks accompanying a Chinese eclipse of its status as the premier global power and the resulting
constrictions on American strategic autonomy. Since 1945, the US has used its pre-eminent power to structure a rules-based global order based
on American preferences, which has enabled a tremendous increase in the wealth and standard of living of its citizens and of individuals around
the world. Because Beijing cannot be counted on to maintain this system, much less enhance it, Washington must now adopt a
corrective strategy designed to attenuate the risks of China’s continued rise .2
Huge growth rates have allowed china to sustain a large defense budget that could strain
US forces in Asia – the Asia pivot is necessary in increasing US military power in the
region.
Ashley J. Tellis 15, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace specializing in
international security, defense, and Asian strategic issues, 3/2/15, “The geopolitics of the TTIP and the TPP”,
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Tellis_Geopolitics_TTIP_TPP.pdf
Thanks to elevated relative gains, produced by both its comparative advantages as well as its statist policies and
controversial trade practices, China has experienced meteoric growth rates that have made it the world’s second-largest economy
and positioned it to one day possibly overtake the gross national product of the US. Such performance has also enabled
China to sustain a defence budget that will rival Washington’s within another decade, while already permitting it to
levy serious threats on forward-based and forward-operating American forces in and near Asia.8 If these trends continue, ¶ even
despite the expected slowing of the Chinese economy, a peculiar power transition is possible in the future . Because this
prospect poses a serious threat to the American-led international system, Washington has little choice but to take China’s rise more
seriously than it ever has.
Turns heg
Michael Hirsh 3, editor at Newsweek, At War With Ourselves, p. 137
That's one challenge. Another is to recognize that the
industrial base that will produce this system—and keep America on top—is today fully
globalized, and to understand the implications of that. The companies that constitute this vibrant industrial base are those same transborder corporations that, to
recall Pascal Zachary's comment in the last chapter, are redefining national identity. Most of these companies, in other words, get substantial portions
of their revenues from overseas sales, and to stay ahead of their foreign rivals they must compete freely and in a stable,
expanding marketplace. Supercomputers, for example, are necessary to twenty-first-century warfare—determining everything from Hayden's success at surveillance to
In
a world defined by generally open markets and comparative advantage—the idea that every economy manufactures and sells what it is
warhead design to weather patterns in the event of an air strike—and every U.S. supercomputer company now gets at least half of its revenues from sales abroad.
best at—it is often these "dual-use" goods (high-tech products with both commercial and military uses) that America is most proficient at making and which underpin
America’s hard power depends, as never before, on a stable and open
international system. "You have to confront the fact that America's defense industrial base is now global," said John Hamre, a former deputy defense
our economic health. What that means is that maintaining
secretary under Clinton. Or as Major General Robert Scales, a key mover behind the Army's modernization program, called "Army After Next," puts it: "Like it or
not, the advantage we are going to gain in the future over a potential major competitor is going to come from the commercial sector.... We ought to just step back,
relax and be prepared to exploit it."
Turns internet freedom (fragmentation + cloud computing)
TPP is key to maintaining internet freedom.
Ron Wyden 15, Senator in congress, 4-22-15, “Senator Ron Wyden: The Free Internet is a Global Priority,”
http://www.wired.com/2015/04/senator-ron-wyden-free-internet-trade/
In recent weeks, some of my allies in the internet community have asked why I am working on the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and
Accountability Act, which they see as harmful to the internet. Many of these activists have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with me in the past as I
fought against powerful special interests. I appreciate their views and their work to keep the internet open and free. ¶ Let me explain my position
clearly.¶ In my view, the trade promotion authority bill I introduced last week, along with the Trans Pacific Partnership that is still being
negotiated, both present real opportunities to preserve and protect an open internet around the world.¶ Information Must Be
Free to Move Freely¶ Our trade promotion authority bill sets new priorities to ensure information can flow freely across
national borders. Currently, repressive regimes in Russia, China and elsewhere are conspiring to build walls around the
internet that cut off the flow of information at national borders. Even democratic regimes with a lesser history of honoring
free speech than the U.S. are proposing unacceptable restrictions on the internet. If the United States lets these countries
set the standard that the internet should be subdivided into country-sized pieces, it will devastate digital
entrepreneurs in the U.S. and squelch one of the world’s most powerful avenues for free speech. ¶ That is far from
the only digital issue at stake in upcoming trade deals. I worked with the internet community to ensure that the United States will
never ask for or accept a trade agreement that contains provisions like those in PIPA and SOPA, which would have broken the internet to enforce
copyright provisions.¶ I successfully pushed U.S. trade negotiators to seek new provisions on “limitations and exceptions” on
copyright in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiation. These new provisions are consistent with what is known as
“fair use,” and are vital for researchers, journalists, and an informed public .¶ I pushed the U.S. Trade Representative to ensure
that nothing in any trade deal the U.S. signs will undermine net neutrality, which the internet community fought so hard to secure over the past
year. These are major victories, victories that export the pillars of the open internet around the world.¶ At the same time, I fully agree with some
critics who have legitimate concerns about what they saw in draft chapters of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal with 11 Asian-Pacific
nations, and what they fear might be in the text that is not yet public. Some of the red flags that have been raised relate to concerns around current
U.S. law and how it is enforced. And some U.S. laws, like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, includes provisions that go too far to protect
copyright at the expense of free speech, digital security and the public good.¶ Part of the solution is to fix our laws here at home to set a better
balance between technology and other important values. That is why I introduced a new bill last week to rewrite the restrictive anti-circumvention
language in DMCA. This law makes us more vulnerable to cyberattacks by criminalizing research into security holes in our software and
electronics. It makes it far too difficult to create accessible versions of e-books and other materials for those with impaired vision and other
disabilities. And it simply doesn’t reflect the realities of today’s digital economy. This bill makes it clear that the US can roll back overly broad
IP laws even after they are subjects in a trade negotiation.
Turns credibility
TPP is key to strengthening US international credibility
Michael E. Brown and Chantal De Jonge Oudraat 15, Both are journalist for the Washington Post, 2-6-15,
“Trade, power and opportunity”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/06/tradepartnerships-are-an-opportunity-not-to-be-missed/
Third, TPP and TTIP pacts would strengthen Obama’s personal credibility and the United States’ international leadership
position. Obama’s failure to enforce his “red line” on the use of chemical weapons by the regime of Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad has done real damage to his credibility in the Middle East, Asia and around the world. Effective
presidential leadership in these trade negotiations would help to restore Obama’s international credibility. A TPP
agreement would also solidify the economic pillar of Obama’s “pivot” to Asia – a geostrategic priority. More generally,
effective U.S. leadership on TPP and TTIP would enhance the United States’ standing in an era when many countries
need strategic reassurance and want U.S. engagement.
TPP is key to updating trade laws to match the 21st century – its failure will signal US
incompetence throughout the world.
Mireya Solís 15, Philip Knight Chair in Japan Studies and senior fellow at the Brookings Center for East Asia
Policy Studies, 3-13-15, “The geopolitical importance of the Trans-Pacific Partnership: At stake, a liberal economic
order”, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/03/13-geopolitical-importance-transpacificpartnership
The return of geopolitics is all around us. Civil wars in the Middle East and Russian aggression in Ukraine properly
dominate the headlines. But more quietly, a potentially more consequential strategic defeat looms for the United States:
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) may fail. Why should we care that some trade pact we have barely heard of collapses into ignominy?
Quite simply: the negotiation’s failure would have devastating consequences for U.S. leadership, for the deepening of key
partnerships in strategic regions, for the promotion of market reforms in emerging economies, and for the future of the trade agenda. Consider the
following:¶ The United States would lose the ability to make the rules in international trade. The World Trade Organization
(WTO) has been unable to update the multilateral rules on trade and investment for the past 20 years . In the meantime,
global supply chains have profoundly altered patterns of international production and trade. Deep free trade
agreements (FTAs) like TPP seek to provide new rules that match the realities of 21st century trade . They focus on the
liberalization of services that are critical to the efficient management of dispersed production chains (telecommunications, transportation, etc.),
the protection of foreign investments and intellectual property rights, and avoiding predatory market behavior of
state-owned enterprises. With the stagnation of the WTO, we have moved to a system of decentralized competition
where different clusters of countries seek to define the standards for economic integration. As President Obama has
warned, if we don’t write the rules on trade, China will. Moreover, we will have no way to encourage China to move
away from its mercantilistic practices.
Turns – multilat/norms
Protectionism destroys US diplomatic influence---wrecks multilat and norm-building
Blatt, Book Reviewer for Futurecast, ‘2 (Dan, Book Review of Joseph S. Nye’s “The Paradox of American
Power”, http://www.futurecasts.com/book%20review%204-02.htm )
Coalitions against particular U.S. international interests have occurred and are made more likely by unilateralist, arrogant, and parochial
U.S. conduct. Protectionism is undoubtedly the most dangerous and divisive form of such conduct. "The United States must resist
protectionism at home and support international economic institutions" that facilitate international commerce. Trade disputes must not be permitted to
explode into disastrous trade wars (such as the trade war during the 1920s and 1930s that played a major role in the Great Depression). U.S. economic and
cultural supremacy may indeed erode as Asian and European markets prosper and grow. They may ultimately "loom larger than the American market." In several
particular areas - such as international trade, antitrust regulation, the establishment of technical standards, and protection of intellectual property - Europe already
Defining our national interest broadly to include global interests will be crucial to the longevity
effective foreign policy - and
multilateralism is essential for the development and maintenance of the attributes of soft power.
shares predominance with the U.S.
of our power and whether others see hegemony as benign or not. The various aspects of soft power must be a part of any
Turns China relations
An economic shift to Asia allows for increased cooperation and relations with China.
Li Shengjiao 15, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China, 4-20-15, “China–US economic relations no zero-sum
game”, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/04/20/china-us-economic-relations-no-zero-sum-game/
China’s economic threat to the US is exaggerated. Playing up the ‘China threat’ at this juncture is merely a political trick employed by
some smart US politicians to win domestic support for the TPP.¶ The China–US economic relationship is not a zero-sum game.
China’s prosperity does not come at the expense of the United States. Rather, the rise of a prosperous China is in
America’s and the world’s best interests, as Obama himself put it.¶ China and the United States share extensive common
interests and broad prospects for cooperation. A strengthened, cooperative economic relationship between the
world’s two largest economies will not only benefit the two highly complementary nations, but will also make
dramatic contributions to the entire globe.¶ Citizens of both countries, and beyond, should take an objective view of the China–US
economic ties, and make their own judgements.
Turns econ
The TPP would substantially benefit the US economy while also increasing US presence in
the region
Ashley J. Tellis 15, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace specializing in
international security, defense, and Asian strategic issues, 3/2/15, “The geopolitics of the TTIP and the TPP”,
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Tellis_Geopolitics_TTIP_TPP.pdf
Consequently, American policymakers today should focus as much on securing increased relative gains for the US as on
expanding absolute benefits. The best way to secure these dividends is to invest heavily in concluding bilateral or
regional trade agreements (RTAs) with America’s friends and allies, especially those states lying along China’s
immediate and extended periphery; these are ties that Washington seeks to strengthen anyway for its larger
geopolitical purposes. Such accords would be mutually beneficial in multiple ways: the regional partners would have
enhanced access to the huge American market for their products while at the same time availing themselves of US capital, high-valueadded services and high-technology goods. This would raise growth rates in both directions through arrangements that
incidentally, and at least for now, have the advantage of excluding China. RTAs, such as the TTIP and the TPP, that
incorporate this specific benefit might be even more valuable to Washington because , to the degree that they genuinely
reduce non-tariff and behindthe-border trade barriers, they offer heightened relative gains to the US and its allies. Washington,
accordingly, ought to concentrate on concluding these two agreements, along with other efforts to strengthen North American (or American
hemispheric) trading. The TTIP is clearly the most important geopolitically, because the US and the Atlantic community represent the two
biggest concentrations of economic power internationally. As Daniel Hamilton and Joseph Quinlan have summarised it: ‘There is no commercial
artery in the world as large as the one binding the US and Europe together. The transatlantic economy still accounts for over 50% of world GDP
in terms of value and 41% in terms of purchasing power, is the largest and wealthiest market in ¶ the world, is at the forefront of global R&D, and
drives global foreign direct investment and global mergers and acquisitions activity.’18 Several studies have indicated that the conclusion of a
comprehensive transatlantic trade pact would boost overall trade between the US and EU by as much as 50%, at a value of over US$200 billion
annually, and increase annual growth rates in the EU and US by roughly 0.9 and 0.8 percentage points, respectively. Such performance,
moreover, would stimulate global incomes, leading to an increase of some US$140bn annually.19 Eliminating current impediments to trade and
quickly completing the negotiations ‘on one tank of gas’, as US Trade Representative Michael Froman put it, should accordingly be an American
priority. 20 Beyond all the economic advantages of the TTIP lie the hard realities of power politics. Most of the European states involved are
among America’s strongest allies, thus making the task of ‘turning the world’s premier security alliance into the world’s premier economic pact’
particularly important.21 More robust economic integration between these states would increase absolute gains for all parties without creating
any of the corrosive problems stemming from disparities in relative gains in trade between competitors, all the while elevating relative gains for
Washington vis-à-vis China. These benefits might also consolidate the economic and technological power of the West and the US for at least
another generation, if not longer. A speedy conclusion of the TTIP would also serve as a cudgel for Washington to use in the other difficult
negotiations associated with the TPP. A successful TTIP would reduce mostly non-tariff barriers, so Asian states, unlikely to accept weaker
Pacific economic integration than their Atlantic peers, could be spurred into addressing both tariff and non-tariff obstacles. ¶ Successfully
negotiating the TPP is important because the Asia-Pacific region is already vital to the US economy, absorbing 60%
of its exported goods, 72% of its agricultural products and 39% of its private services in 2011 .22 In 2013, Pacific
Rim countries supplied almost 34% of American imports and absorbed nearly 25% of its exports.23 The complexity of negotiating
a high-quality trade agreement with 11 countries with diverse levels of development and widely variable tariff and non-tariff barriers cannot be
overestimated. However, the economic growth and strategic importance of the countries involved in the TPP make
bringing a trans-Pacific trade pact to completion a necessary proposition. Many TPP partners still possess relatively protected
economies, so the biggest gains to the US would derive from prying open their hitherto closed markets. International
economists, such as Peter Petri and Michael Plummer, have estimated that a successfully concluded TPP agreement would
raise the United States’ GDP by 0.4% by 2025.24 This improvement, while smaller than the estimated gains from a TTIP
agreement, is nothing to be scoffed at in a mature economy, especially when relatively underdeveloped competitors like China chalk
up much higher rates of economic growth. Consequently, concluding the TPP speedily is important , all difficulties notwithstanding.
In fact, given US strategic objectives in Asia and the necessity of strengthening the power of states located along China’s periphery, Washington
should aim to eventually include India in the TPP as well. Admitting New Delhi into the negotiations would benefit the states involved because of
the size of India’s domestic market and its growth strategy, which favours domestic consumption. It would also be a profitable move for New
Delhi, since such a trading arrangement would compel it to accelerate its domestic economic reforms while also increasing its national power. ¶
Unsurprisingly, Indian policymakers, amid fears of a weakening multilateral trade system, have recently expressed interest in
exploring membership of the TPP. These two mega-RTAs thus hold out the promise of increasing US gains from trade and elevating the
overall growth rate of the US and its friends. To the degree that these agreements fulfil this potential, they will help buttress American
hegemony, in effect amplifying the pay-offs from (hopefully) prudent domestic economic decisions. Most importantly,
however, because the distribution of benefits presently excludes China, they will provide Washington with improved
relative gains vis-à-vis Beijing, the sine qua non for maintaining American primacy in a competitive international
Turns competitiveness
The TPP significantly increases US competitiveness – steep regulatory and protectionist
barriers currently lock the US out of the lucrative Asian market.
Chamber of Commerce 15, representational voice of American businesses, 4-16-15, “Trans-Pacific
Partnership”, https://www.uschamber.com/issue-brief/trans-pacific-partnership
As U.S. companies scour the globe for consumers, the booming Asia-Pacific region stands out. Over the last two decades,
the region's middle class grew by 2 billion people, and their spending power is greater than ever. That number is
expected to rise by another 1.2 billion by 2020 . According to the IMF, the world economy will grow by $21.6 trillion
over the next five years, and nearly half of that growth will be in Asia . ¶ ¶ U.S. businesses and workers need better
access to those lucrative markets if they're going to share in this dramatic growth. But U.S. companies are falling
behind in the Asia-Pacific. While U.S. exports to the Asia-Pacific market steadily increased from 2000 to 2010, America's share of
the region's imports declined by about 43%, according to the think tank Third Way. In fact, excluding China, East Asia in
2014 purchased a smaller share of U.S. exports in 2014 than it did five years earlier , despite a 54% increase in total U.S.
merchandise exports in that period¶ ¶ One reason U.S. companies have lost market share in the Asia-Pacific region is that
many countries maintain steep barriers against U.S. exports. A typical Southeast Asian country imposes tariffs that are five times
higher than the U.S. average while its duties on agricultural products soar into the triple digits. In addition, a web of nontariff and
regulatory barriers block market access in many countries. ¶ ¶ Trade agreements are crafted to overcome these
barriers. However, Asia-Pacific nations are clinching trade deals among themselves that threaten to leave the United States on the outside
looking in. The number of trade accords between Asian countries surged from three in 2000 to more than 50 today.
Some 80 more are in the pipeline. Meanwhile, the United States has just three trade agreements in Asia (with Australia, Singapore and
South Korea).¶ ¶ This challenge is growing: 16 countries are launching expedited negotiations for a trade deal called the Regional Comprehensive
Economic Partnership (RCEP). It includes Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea, and New Zealand as well as the 10 ASEAN countries--but not
the United States. ¶ ¶ The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is America's best chance to ensure the United States isn't stuck on the outside--looking
in--as Asia-Pacific nations pursue new trade accords among themselves. Its objective is to achieve a comprehensive, high-standard, and
commercially meaningful trade and investment agreement with 11 other Asia-Pacific nations, including Australia, Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, New
Zealand, Singapore, and Vietnam. It also includes Canada, Mexico, Peru, and Chile, thus offering a chance to integrate existing U.S. trade
agreements in the Americas. ¶ ¶ The TPP must be a comprehensive agreement. In trade talks, whenever one party excludes a given
commodity or sector from an agreement, others follow suit, limiting its reach. For the United States to achieve the goal of a true 21st
century agreement--with state-of-the-art rules on digital trade, state-owned enterprises, investment, and other key areas--its negotiators
must hold fast to the goal of a comprehensive accord .¶ ¶ One top U.S. priority is to ensure the TPP protects intellectual
property (IP), which plays a vital role in driving economic growth, jobs and competitiveness. According to the U.S.
Department of Commerce, IP-intensive companies account for more than $5 trillion of U.S . GDP, drive 60% of U.S.
exports and support 40 million American jobs. To build on these strengths, the TPP must include robust IP protection and enforcement
provisions that build on the U.S-Korea Free Trade Agreement and provide 12 years of data protection for biologics consistent with U.S. law. ¶ ¶
The TPP also needs to reflect how goods are produced in the 21st century using global value chains. Today, the goods
we buy are usually labeled "Imported" or "Made in the USA"--with no middle ground. However, companies often rely on global value
chains that span the Pacific to hone their competitiveness. ¶ ¶ The United States is a principal beneficiary of these supply chains.
One recent study found that 70% of the final retail price of apparel assembled in Asia is created by American innovators, designers, and retailers.
Making customs and border procedures more efficient and enacting other trade facilitation reforms will remove sand
from the gears of global value chains and enhance U.S. competitiveness.¶ ¶ Completing the TPP would pay huge
dividends for the United States. The agreement would significantly improve U.S. companies' access to the Asia-Pacific
region, which is projected to import nearly $10 trillion worth of goods in 2020.A study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics
estimates the trade agreement could boost U.S. exports by $124 billion by 2025 .¶ ¶ Working closely with the Office of the U.S.
Trade Representative (USTR), the Chamber has led the business community's advocacy for the inclusion of strong disciplines in the TPP trade
agreement on intellectual property, regulatory coherence, due process in antitrust enforcement, and state-owned enterprises. ¶ ¶ The TPP has
the potential to strengthen our nation's commercial, strategic, and geopolitical ties across one of the fastest growing
and most influential parts of the world. It would be an economic shot in the arm for America. And it would send a message to the region
and to the world that the United States is not going to sit on the sidelines. We're going to be in on the action.
Turns Terror
Turns terrorism
Sungjoon Cho 7, Assistant Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology,
Doha's Development, 25 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 165, LN
It was an exigent situation - the September 11 terrorist attacks - that put the WTO negotiations back on track. Based on a strong consensus among negotiators that they
should deliver a powerful message of stability and prosperity to the international community, they managed to launch yet another historic WTO trade round in Doha,
Qatar, in November 2001. n21 Reflecting urgent calls from the international community for trade's
active role in development and reducing
poverty, the new trade negotiation agenda was named the "Doha Development Agenda" (DDA). International development organizations had emphasized that it is
in the developed countries' interest to reduce poverty and achieve economic development in developing countries because it avoids social unrest and
eventually contributes to global peace. n22 Lack of development and subsequent abject poverty are inextricably linked to current conflicts and violence in many
quarters of the world. n23 Not surprisingly, high
youth unemployment in these impoverished regions increases the likelihood of
integrating those who are marginalized into the
mainstream global economy, the world simply cannot deliver peace and stability. Critically, international trade offers a vital
vehicle for such integration. n25
illegal and radical activities, including terrorism. n24 Therefore, without
AFF – TPP
UQ
UQ overwhelms link
UQ overwhelms the link---those who passed TPA will hold their ground for TPP.
Vicky Needham 7-1, Journalist for The Hill, 7-1-15, “Trade chief: Congress could get Pacific deal by year's
end”, http://thehill.com/policy/finance/trade/246655-trade-chief-congress-could-get-pacific-trade-deal-by-years-end
U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said Wednesday he is confident Congress will approve a massive trans-Pacific
trade agreement, possibly by year’s end. ¶ Froman said the “likelihood is very high that Congress will pass” the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP), because it will be a strong agreement reflecting the “enormous input by Congress.”¶ “This process, going through the [trade
promotion authority] process, has been enormously useful from the perspective of making absolutely clear what Congress expects from us in
terms of bringing back high-standard agreements,” Froman said at a Politico Playbook breakfast.¶ With trade promotion authority (TPA), or
fast-track, in the books, Froman said the first order of business is to complete the TPP negotiations and bring that
agreement to Congress for approval.¶ Negotiators are still working out a final batch of tricky issues, Froman said, but he predicted
Congress could pass the Asia-Pacific pact by the end of the year.¶ Negotiators of the developing 12-nation agreement are aiming
to complete a deal this summer. A key meeting between the countries’ leaders could happen by the end of the month. ¶ Froman said he is taking
lessons from the fast-track fight to pave the way for passage.¶ “I think the main lesson I learned over the past couple of years of working on this is
just how proactive we need to be in addressing concerns. There’s a lot of myths, a lot of misinformation out there about trade and there are
legitimate concerns underneath some of those myths and misinformation,” he said. ¶ “We need to recognize those concerns and at the same time
make sure we get the facts out there about how we’re addressing those concerns, and that’s what we’ll be doing over the course of the next
several months with regard to the TPP.Ӧ Froman said the United States and the 11 other nations are in the final stages of negotiating the TPP
down to a reasonable number of outstanding issues but “by definition those issues tend to be the most difficult.” ¶ The outstanding issues are
centered on opening markets in Japan and Canada as well as working through concerns over intellectual property protections and state-owned
enterprises. ¶ He also hopes to complete the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal before Obama leaves office in January 2017 and
expects to make very good progress on three ongoing negotiations in Geneva — the World Trade Organization’s Information Technology
Agreement, the Environmental Goods Agreement and the 24-party Trade in International Services Agreement.¶ Even though she bucked the
White House, Froman praised House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for setting up in-depth meetings with her members and trade
officials to discuss the deal. ¶ “I think that was enormously useful in terms of giving an opportunity both for the critics and our opponents to
express their point of view, to be heard, to have input, to give us real feedback, which helped us shape our negotiating positions," he said. ¶ "But
also for those who were undecided and wanted to learn more about TPP and what we were negotiating to get a better understanding as well,” he
added. ¶ Despite overwhelming Democratic opposition to fast-track, Froman said he doesn’t believe he underestimated the strength of
Democratic opposition. ¶ “Trade issues always been very tough," he said, citing debates since the implementation of the North American Free
Trade Agreement more than 20 years ago. ¶ "Trade legislation in the past has largely passed with Republican support and a
critical mass of Democrats, and it was no different this time ," he said.¶ Froman also gave props to pro-trade Democrats who
“rolled up their sleeves" and dug into the TPP negotiations in great detail and "asked us very challenging questions" in repeated trips to Capitol
Hill.¶ In the end, 28 House Democrats and 13 in the Senate backed fast-track. ¶ And they made it clear while that they
supporting TPA they would be “holding our feet to the fire” to get their vote on the TPP, he said.
Won’t pass
TPP will never pass – 6 reasons
Sarah Anderson 6-24-15, Journalist for YesMagazine, 6/24/15, “Six Ways TPP Opponents Have Won—Even as
Fast Track Advances”, http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/six-ways-tpp-opponents-have-won-fast-track
A diverse progressive coalition showed that people power can put up a real fight against big money. ¶ The votes on fast
track could not have been closer. The House vote was a razor-thin 218 to 208, while the Senate’s vote to cutoff debate passed
without a single vote to spare.¶ The opposition included all the regulars from labor, environmental, faith, immigrant, food safety, and
consumer groups. But some newish players also stepped up, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation on Internet access, as well as global health,
civil rights, and civil liberties groups.¶ One result was more airtime for trade-related concerns that have been largely ignored in the past, including
the anti-democratic investment rules and impacts on seafood safety, access to medicines, and climate. These new relationships will pay off in
future fights. As Leo W. Gerard, international president of the United Steelworkers, put it, “Progressive forces have new energy from
this fight.”¶ 2. The battle exposed deep divisions within the U nited States, empowering allies in other countries. ¶ U.S.
Democratic congressional leaders did not roll over for this vote, so opponents in other countries can now count them
on their side. And who knows what will happen when citizens of other countries, who are likely to be hard-hit by these deals, see the final text
of the agreement?¶ Unions are a critical source of donations and boots on the ground for electoral campaigns.¶ The example of the
Free Trade Area of the Americas is instructive here. After 11 years of negotiations, those 34-country talks collapsed in 2005. President George
W. Bush had fast-track authority to pass the FTAA, but that turned out not to matter. In the end, Brazil and other South American countries
refused to give in to the U.S. corporate-driven agenda.¶ 3. The showdown drove a shift in the discourse. ¶ House Democratic Leader
Nancy Pelosi, who in 1993 voted in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement, rebuffed intense pressure from President
Obama to support fast track and called for a “new paradigm” on trade. She called for global engagement that
“enables voices from all aspects of the world's economies to be heard .”¶ Even former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers,
another NAFTA promoter, stated that “A reflexive presumption in favor of free trade should not be used to justify further agreements.” There
were also signs of growing alliances across political lines, with perhaps the most notable example being a joint op-ed by the
libertarian Cato Institute and the progressive Public Citizen.¶ 4. Labor unions made strong vows to punish pro-fast track
Democrats.¶ The AFL-CIO and other unions froze campaign contributions to members of Congress starting in March to
pressure them to vote the right way. In the aftermath of Tuesday’s Senate vote, Communications Workers of America President Chris Shelton
said, “for those who opposed the broadest coalition of Americans ever, we will find and support candidates who will stand with working families.
That’s how we’ll take on the corporate Democrats who oppose a working family agenda.” ¶ This battle was not just about fast track.¶
Unions are a critical source of donations and boots on the ground for electoral campaigns. A strong message that labor
support should not be taken for granted could change the dynamic of the party for years to come. ¶ 5. The strong opposition to Obama’s
trade agenda augurs well for other progressive fights. ¶ This battle was not just about fast track. It was a reflection of
increased concern about inequality and the sense that the rules have been rigged against ordinary Americans in favor of large
corporations and the wealthy. We can build on this in future efforts over taxes, budgets, labor rights, and other issues.¶ 6. The demands to
see the secret text got some results. ¶ WikiLeaks made public two draft chapters of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, giving
ammo to the opposition and making many wonder why we were having to rely on Julian Assange for this information.¶ While the fasttrack bill doesn’t do anywhere near enough to respond to secrecy concerns, it does require the executive branch to make public the
full text of new trade agreements for 60 days before they are sent to Congress. Then lawmakers need to wait at least another
30 days before voting.¶ In the TPP’s case, this could help stretch out the timeline into the heat of election season, when
Democrats will be even more sensitive to pressure from their base . As Public Citizen President Robert Weissman noted, “When
the inexcusable and anti-democratic veil of secrecy surrounding the TPP is finally lifted, and the American people see what is actually in the
agreement, they are going to force their representatives in Washington to vote that deal down.”
Won’t pass – opposition from both sides of the aisle.
Li Shengjiao 15, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China, 4-20-15, “China–US economic relations no zero-sum
game”, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/04/20/china-us-economic-relations-no-zero-sum-game/
As the TPP negotiations are nearing completion, opposition has emerged from both Tea Party Republicans and rankand-file Democrats. Tea Party lawmakers — with their long history of mistrust toward Obama — balked at the
president’s request for more power to fast-track the TPP deal through Congress. Resistance from the Democrats has proved
broad and deep.
PC fails
TPP Won’t Pass-Obama Tried To Convince HIS OWN PARTY and FAILED.
Paul Kane 6/12,Washington Post Reporter ,6/12/15, “House Democrats Rebuff Obama on
trade, delivering major defeat”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obamais-all-in-on-trade-sees-it-as-a-cornerstone-of-his-legacy/2015/06/12/32b6dce8-1073-11e5a0dc-2b6f404ff5cf_story.html
House Democrats dealt President Obama a humiliating defeat on his free-trade
initiative Friday, derailing a key priority for the president and rebuffing his rare,
personal pleas for their support. The defeat at the hands of his own party placed
Obama’s trade agenda in limbo and exposed deep party divisions on economic policy,
leaving the pro-trade Democrats marginalized by the anti-corporate wing of the party, which has been on the rise since the 2008 financial
collapse. It also exposed the weakening hand of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had worked for days to avoid a Democratic
The fate of the
trade legislation now depends on Obama’s ability, along with business-friendly
interests, to persuade dozens of Democrats to switch their votes before a planned doover vote early next week.¶ The key roll call came on a measure to grant financial aid to displaced workers, with 144
takedown of the president’s agenda, only to throw her support in with the rank-and-file rebellion at the last minute.¶
Democrats linking arms with 158 Republicans in a rout that left the overall package of trade bills stalled. Despite Obama’s entreaty to “play it
straight,” Democrats rejected a program that they had almost universally supported in the past because its failure also ensured the failure of the
centerpiece measure, the “fast-track” negotiating authority. House leaders structured the voting so that it required passage of three separate
measures for the legislation to advance.¶ “I will be voting to slow down fast-track,” Pelosi said on the floor moments before the vote. “Today we
Friday’s
setback dimmed hopes at the White House that Obama will be able to complete the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a sweeping free-trade and regulatory pact that he has
called central to his economic agenda at home and his foreign-policy strategy in Asia.
Obama’s loss came after a months-long lobbying blitz in which the president
invested significant personal credibility and political capital.
have an opportunity to slow down. Whatever the deal is with other countries, we want a better deal for American workers.” ¶
PC fails --- Obama can’t sway Dems on trade
AP 6/15, “Trade loss an ominous sign for Obama in month of challenges,” http://www.newsgazette.com/news/business/2015-06-15/trade-loss-ominous-sign-obama-month-challenges.html
WASHINGTON (AP) — The trade defeat in Congress was an ominous sign in a month of challenges that could help
determine President Barack Obama's standing for the rest of his second term. Fellow Democrats rebuffed lastminute appeals to rescue his global trade agenda, and the House seriously damaged Obama's chances of capping
his presidency with a groundbreaking economic pact involving Pacific Rim countries. Obama also is awaiting a Supreme
Court decision that could upend his health care law, and he faces a June 30 deadline to conclude an accord that aims to curb Iran's nuclear
ambitions. Friday's setback was the result of a complicated legislative strategy that linked passage of trade negotiating powers for the president
with a measure that would provide training and assistance to American workers who lost jobs because of trade. A narrow House majority voted to
give the president the right to negotiate deals that Congress can approve or reject, but not change. Then a large majority of Democrats,
eager to kill that negotiating power, joined a majority of Republicans to vote against the aid for workers.
PC low - TPA
Obama has no PC – he used all of it for TPA.
Joseph A. Palermo 6-25-15, Professor of History @ California State University Sacramento, 6/25/15, “TransPacific Partnership: Obama Sides With the Wrong People for the Wrong Reasons at the Wrong Time”,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/transpacific-partnership-obama_b_7665862.html
By siding with the Republicans and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in passing "fast-track" trade authority as a step
toward signing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), President Barack Obama triangulated against labor unions, environmentalists,
consumer activists, and the base of his party.¶ The 60-38 vote in the Senate to give the president (and the next president) more
executive power to negotiate trade agreements, which garnered the support of thirteen Democratic Senators, followed months
of bitter in-fighting among Democrats.¶ President Obama not only expended his own "political capital" by
pushing for fast-track but that of the Democratic Party too. He had a clear choice: either side with workers,
environmentalists, consumers, and progressives - or side with Wall Street, Big Pharma, Walmart, and the Koch
Brothers.¶ Republicans have been whining about Obama's "unconstitutional power grabs" for over six years. Now they turn around and give
him fast-track authority - Wow! It's creepy to see Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan praising Barack Obama.
Thumper---South Carolina
Obama’s comments on South Carolina thump the link --- ignites massive controversy
Steve Handelsman 6/22, writer @ WTHR, “President Obama draws controversy over candid remarks on race,”
http://www.wthr.com/story/29381901/president-obama-draws-controversy-over-candid-remarks-on-race
WASHINGTON - The fatal shooting of nine people in a Charleston, S.C. church has sparked a nationwide conversation on
race. President Barack Obama has gotten involved, using a controversial word during a podcast interview to make
his point. "It's time to move the flag from the Capitol grounds," South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said Monday. The Confederate flag has flown at the South
Carolina Statehouse for 54 years. But after the massacre in Charleston and the revelation that racist Dylann Roof used the flag as his symbol, it is something she says
her state cannot stand. RELATED: S.C. lawmakers call for flag's removal "That fact that it is causing pain to so many is enough to move it from the Capitol grounds.
It is, after all, a Capitol that belongs to all of us," Haley said. President
Barack Obama's statement on race was like a grenade. He used
the actual "N-word" in a podcast interview with comedian Marc Maron, to say racism still plagues America. "It's not just a matter of it not being polite to say
'n-----' in public. That's not the measure of whether racism still exists or not," Obama said. The news rippled out. Our first African-American president used the "Nword." "Sometimes you have to say things to get someone's attention," said Mary McLain of Washington, D.C.
LISTEN: WTF Podcast with Marc Maron "I don't like the word. I don't think it should be used and I really don't think we have a racism problem in the country," said
Brian Pallesen of Idaho. Many disagree. After the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, the custody death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, now the
Charleston shooting, the president is winning praise. "America only responds to 'shock and awe'," said Roland Martin, TV One anchor and radio talk show host. The
the president's
use of the word was unplanned and part of a free-flowing podcast. "I think the president was merely answering a question in a pretty informal setting,"
Confederate flag coming down in Columbia would show the church massacre was both. Monday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said
Earnest said. He said it's "undeniable" there is more work to be done to eliminate racism in the country. "The president's very clear about what his views are. The
president talked about this as long ago as, you know, six or seven years ago, where he shared his view that the Confederate flag should be taken down and placed in a
museum where it belongs," Earnest said.
Thumper---Budget
Budget debates thump --- ignite huge controversy
Melanie Batley 6/16, writer at Newsmax, “Congress, Split on Defense Spending, Again Talks of Shutdown,”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/congress-military-defense-spending/2015/06/16/id/650733/
Congress could be moving toward a government shutdown as Democrats and Republicans clash over the military
funding bill, and both sides are blaming each other for the impasse. According to The Hill, Democrats are intent on
forcing Republicans to roll back plans to increase defense spending without a commensurate increase in nondefense
programs. They are threatening to block the annual spending bills unless GOP agrees to a budget summit. Special:
Should a Political Outsider Take the Reins? Donald Trump Thinks So. Republicans insist they will not be influenced by Democrats' demands or
submit to a budget summit. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, meanwhile, has largely persuaded his party to block the $576 billion defense
funding bill, sources told Politico. Republicans warn that blocking the bills would be tantamount to "political suicide" for
the Democrats, according to Politico. "Democrats once thought it was insanely radical for Republicans to oppose too
much spending, but now think it's perfectly reasonable to shut down the government when the spending bills don't
spend enough," House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement Monday, according to The Hill. "This is a bad hostage to take,"
South Dakota Sen. John Thune told Politico. "The politics for Republicans on that, if Democrats want to play it that way, is
certainly advantageous to us." Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/congress-militarydefense-spending/2015/06/16/id/650733/#ixzz3eCKy08LO Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now! Democrats,
however, are pointing the finger at Republicans and say their opponents have the most to lose.
The fight’s going on now
Alexander Bolton 6/16, The Hill, “Congress paddles toward a shutdown,”
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/245067-congress-paddles-toward-a-shutdown
Congress is slowly paddling toward a government shutdown. The fight over government spending that has dominated much of
the decade, calmed for two years because of a bipartisan deal, is roaring back to life. Democrats are adamant that
Republicans back off their plans to increase defense spending without doing the same for nondefense programs. They
argue the GOP is using a budget gimmick to funnel more money to the Pentagon without raising spending limits on healthcare and social welfare
programs. To try to force the party’s hand, Senate Democrats say they will block every annual spending bill unless
Republicans agree to a budget summit. Republicans, for their part, say they have no intention of caving to Democratic demands. Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) say they won’t convene a budget summit and warn Democrats
could earn the wrath of voters by blocking bills to fund the military. Unless someone blinks, none of the 12 annual spending bills
will be approved by this summer — leaving Congress on the brink of a shutdown in late September. The finger-pointing
has already started. “Democrats once thought it was insanely radical for Republicans to oppose too much spending, but now think it’s perfectly
reasonable to shut down the government when the spending bills don’t spend enough,” Boehner stated in a Monday memo to reporters. “We’re
headed for another shutdown,” Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) said of Republicans last week. “They did it once, they’re going to do
it again.” Democrats appear eager to return to shutdown politics, which have benefited their party in the past. When
the government shut down for 16 days in 2013, Republicans largely got the blame. “If our Republican colleagues want to keep
quietly paddling toward a government shutdown, that’s their choice,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the top Democrat on the
House Budget Committee, said earlier this month.
Thumper---Iran
Iran thumps the DA – it’s all Washington cares about.
Deb Reichmann 7-19-15, Journalist for the Associated Press, 7/19/15, “High-Stakes Lobbying on Iran Deal;
Pressure for Congress”, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/high-stakes-lobbying-iran-deal-pressure-congress32547689
Israel's ambassador to the United States raced in and out of offices on Capitol Hill, trying to persuade lawmakers that
the nuclear deal with Iran is a historic mistake.¶ On the other side, liberal groups ramped up the pressure, warning of
political consequences for Democrats who undermine the agreement and casting opposition as a vote for war.¶ The lobbying
fight is on over the pact that the U.S. and other world powers just signed with Iran. The State Department said Sunday it had submitted
the agreement to Congress, kicking off a 60-day review period on Monday.¶ Multimillion-dollar ad campaigns are
underway by politically influential groups in each camp . Some echo the views of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a
staunch opponent of the agreement with Iran, which has threatened to annihilate his nation.¶ Vice President Joe Biden was on Capitol
Hill twice last week for arm-twisting sessions with Democrats. Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary
Ernest Moniz — key U.S. negotiators — are set to brief lawmakers this coming week, and they blanketed the
Sunday news shows. 'I hope there are enough minds still open, ready to consider this on its merits, that could be persuaded," Kerry told "Fox
News Sunday."¶ President Barack Obama used his weekend radio address to try to counter what he predicted would be "a
lot of overheated and often dishonest arguments" in the weeks ahead about the agreement, and he sent Defense Secretary Ash
Carter to talk with officials in Israel as well as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, U.S. allies whose leaders also are worried about the
deal's implications.¶ Think tanks are releasing reams of reports and analyses. Experts on nuclear weapons and foreign
policy are testifying at committee hearings. Right-wing radio hosts are using the airways to condemn Obama for
what they say was his caving in to a country that supports terrorist groups. Peace groups are shouting their support.¶
Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., ran into Ambassador Ron Dermer three times.¶ "He is a very informed and persuasive advocate for the Israeli
perspective and he is a persistent and thorough critic of the context of these negotiations and he made some very strong points," Coons said. ¶ The
White House knows that the vote to approve or disapprove the deal, expected in September, puts Democrats, especially Jewish members of
Congress, in a bind.
Congress is debating the deal right now – dozens of groups are lobbying both ways.
Jason Ditz 7-22-15, News Editor of AntiWar.com, 7/22/15, “Lots of Lobbying on Iran Deal, But Few Changing
Their Minds”, http://news.antiwar.com/2015/07/22/lots-of-lobbying-on-iran-deal-but-few-changing-their-minds/
From last Tuesday’s announcement of a P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran, the issue has become a topic of intense lobbying in the
US. Israeli officials are lobbying Congress to kill the deal, Obama is lobbying Congress to not kill the deal,
Republican Congressional leadership is lobbying the Democratic opposition to go along with killing the deal, etc.¶
Sen. John Cornyn (R – TX) is calling for the US to renege on the existing deal, impose a bunch of new sanctions on Iran, and then demand a
“better deal,” despite the likelihood that most of the lobbying to kill the deal would continue no matter what the terms are.
The deal is associated with Obama – he’s linked to all the controversy surrounding it.
Harry Enten 7-14-15, senior political writer and analyst for FiveThirtyEight, 7/14/15, “Opinions About The Iran
Deal Are More About Obama Than Iran”, http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/opinions-about-the-iran-deal-are-moreabout-obama-than-iran/
The political debate has begun on the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, and it is falling almost exactly along
partisan lines. Nearly all the Republican presidential candidates are against it (Rand Paul has not issued a statement). Jeb Bush, who is more
moderate than most of his fellow Republicans, has already called the deal “appeasement.” All the Democratic candidates are either supportive or
noncommittal.¶ In fact, the best predictor of how Americans will feel about the deal, announced Tuesday, is not their position
on Iran or nuclear disarmament, but simply their opinion about President Obama.¶ Over the past few months a number of
nonpartisan polls have been conducted on a nuclear agreement with Iran. Every single one of them found more support for a deal than opposition.
The most recent, a Fox News poll from June, said that 47 percent were in favor of “an agreement that would involve the U.S. easing economic
sanctions on Iran for ten years and in return Iran agreeing to stop its nuclear program over that period” compared with 43 percent who were
against it.¶ The groups that generally approved of the deal were the same ones that generally approved of the job
Obama has been doing as president.¶ Black, Democratic, liberal and younger voters were generally for the deal, while white, Republican,
conservative and older voters were more likely to be opposed. In fact, you can explain 82 percent of the variation in support for
the Iran deal in 18 subgroups just by knowing what Obama’s job approval rating was in each group .¶ The matchup isn’t
perfect. There are, for example, plenty of Republicans (34 percent) in favor of the deal and plenty of black people (31 percent) against it. But it
wouldn’t be surprising if those groups returned to the partisan fold as the debate reaches a climax .¶ The partisanship on
display in this issue was also apparent during the gun control debate after the Newtown school massacre in Connecticut. You probably remember
how the initial polling seemed to show that there was a lot of support for Obama’s proposals. But once Obama’s name was attached to
the legislation, support for any bill lined up almost perfectly with how people felt about members of his
administration.¶ A different question asked by Fox News gets at this polarization phenomenon. Fox News asked voters, “how confident are
you in the ability of the Obama administration to handle negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program?” Forty-eight percent of Americans said
they were at least somewhat confident in the Obama administration, similar to the 47 percent that favored the deal, but the subgroup breakdown
was much closer to how Americans felt about Obama overall.¶ Ninety-six percent of the variation in confidence in the Obama administration’s
negotiations was explained by approval of Obama’s job performance overall. Within the 18 subgroups, the average difference
between Obama’s job approval rating and confidence in the administration’s handling of negotiations was just 3
percentage points. Only 17 percent of Republicans were confident in the negotiations, and just 11 percent of black respondents were not. ¶ So
what does this mean for the deal as it heads to Congress for approval? On the face of it, it means Democratic voters are probably
not going to push for congressional Democrats to stray from the president (except possibly for strong supporters of Israel).
That’s not good for the deal’s opponents, who will need bipartisan support to overturn the Iran agreement in Congress (which requires a twothirds majority). But it also means the White House will not be able to claim a political consensus for one of its most
significant foreign policy achievements.
Internal Link
TPP no solve trade
TPP Isn’t Neccesary- TPP Participants Can Get What They Want Without TPP.
Daniel Slane 5/15, republican commissioner on U.S-China Economic and Security Review
Commission, and Michael Wessel 5/15, democratic commissioner on U.S-China Economic
and Security Review Commission, 5/15/15,“The TPP: Why It Won’t Address Security
Concerns With China”, http://blogs.cfr.org/renewing-america/2015/05/15/the-tpp-why-itwont-address-security-concerns-with-china/
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is now being touted as the answer to U.S. security
concerns with the People’s Republic of China. This is just the latest argument from TPP
proponents to advance fast track trade negotiating authority in Congress and to ease
passage for the TPP under expedited and preferential procedures. Unfortunately, this
argument just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.¶ Over the last several years China has assumed an
increasingly aggressive role in Asia. Its posture challenges the interests of many of its
neighbors; Japan, for example, has scrambled jets repeatedly as China has tested the
perimeters of its defense and confronted fishing and other vessels. China has challenged the
maritime interests of other nations in the South and East China Seas. China has laid claim
to small land masses as a way of expanding its territorial interests and is shoring up small
reefs with airstrips and outposts to counter the interests of others in the region. China has
tried to establish offshore oil rigs in waters claimed by Vietnam and is directly countering
the interests of other nations in the region.¶ TPP won’t address any of that, however.
Proponents who argue that the TPP is vital to countering China’s ambitions are ignoring the
fact that those countries aren’t rushing into China’s embrace. In fact, just the opposite is
true. Several of the TPP participants are more interested in stronger alliances with the
United States which aren’t dependent on preferential trade relations and new trade
agreements. In essence, they need the United States as a counter to China, and the TPP is
not a factor in assessing the risks that China poses. Our “pivot to Asia” doesn’t need to be
anchored by a new preferential trade agreement.
TPP Not Key- TPP Won’t Solve Any Of The TPP’s Established Goals
Michael Wessel 4/17, American commissioner of the US-China Economic and Security
Review Commission, 4/17/15, “The Trans Pacific Partnership won’t fix our China
problem”, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/239154-the-trans-pacificpartnership-wont-fix-our-china-problem
Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations are in the final stages and trade negotiating authority
consideration appears to be just around the corner. Now is a good time to parse the time-honored
progression of arguments surrounding free trade agreements, because that progression, for the TPP,
is going poorly. ¶ In their initial stages, proponents sell them as engines for creating jobs and
restoring American industry and prosperity. But as hard evidence on those claims isn’t available,
and concern about the results of past trade agreements increases, proponents shift to promoting the
alleged importance of a deal for U.S. foreign policy.¶ We’ve reached that stage with the TPP.¶ Americans want
trade agreements that produce benefits in their workplaces, at their kitchen tables and in their
finances -- helping to improve their standard of living and their children’s future. And past
agreements have fueled rising trade deficits, stagnating wages, lower economic growth and job loss.
That reality hasn’t been lost on the average citizen.¶ As momentum for the TPP has stalled, the
administration and its allies are changing course: Now, the TPP is about “writing the rules, so China
doesn’t get to.” Let’s take that argument head on.¶ First, that argument is a profound indictment of the World
Trade Organization (WTO). China, along with the countries party to the TPP, is already bound by
its rules. In fact, those rules were the Clinton administration’s principal argument during the debate
on the granting of Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China. But with this single claim about TPP
creating a new framework, the Obama administration has highlighted the fundamental flaws in our
existing international trade regime – flaws which the TPP won’t fix.¶ The TPP will not effectively
deal with the core reason China enjoyed a $342.6 billion goods trade surplus with the U.S. last year,
or an accumulated goods trade surplus with our country of $3.1 trillion since it joined the WTO:
China operates based on a state-capitalist, mercantilist model, under which international trade law
doesn’t mean much.¶ Nothing in the TPP will deal with China’s currency manipulation, which has
cost millions of jobs here at home, and induces neighboring countries to manipulate their currencies
as well. The administration has made clear it has no intention of providing effective and enforceable
disciplines in currency manipulation in the TPP.¶ China has also built up enormous overcapacity in industry after industry,
resulting in a flood of steel, aluminum, paper, tires and many other products into our market. The prices Chinese firms are charging have
decimated U.S. production and jobs. Once they drive U.S. producers out of a sector, they will have us over a barrel. Nothing in the TPP will deal
with overcapacity.¶ TPP’s draft rules on state-owned enterprises (SOEs) won’t stop their activities. Indeed, reports indicate TPP parties will
exclude many of their SOEs from coverage. For those subjected to coverage, there are many questions about the effectiveness of any disciplines.
Will SOEs be required to act based on “commercial” considerations? When you’re a non-market economy – as TPP participant Vietnam is, and
China is as well – what exactly does that mean? Is a “commercial” interest rate the 5.75% rate an American steel company has to float a bond at,
or the cost of capital available for companies doing the bidding of the Chinese government? How will that be determined and by whom? Without
hard and fast definitions, we’re not likely to have any real impact on Chinese industrial policies and their continued negative impact on our
producers and workers.¶ More questions arise. Will there be rules that effectively prohibit selective enforcement of laws and approaches such as
the “antimonopoly” laws China uses to disadvantage foreign companies doing business in its markets? Will the rule of law be as transparent and
even if the TPP rules did marginally improve things, China – if it were
actually in the TPP – is unlikely to abide by them. Hoping that China will play by the rules has
already proven to be foolish; it was the basic argument during its WTO accession. Fourteen years
later, China has proven itself to be a trade outlaw, and the enforcement efforts of the U.S. and its
partners have failed to make much of a dent in Chinese policy.
fair as that which exists in the U.S.?¶ And
TPP not k2 pivot
TPP Not Key To Pivot- TPP Doesn’t Strengthen Relations
K. Watson 3/25, trade policy analyst, 3/25/15, “Will the TPP Strengthen U.S. Foreign
Relations?”, http://www.cato.org/blog/will-tpp-strengthen-us-foreign-relations
One of the most pressing problems in U.S. trade policy is that policymakers constantly
misstate and misunderstand the purpose of trade agreements. Trade agreements
have the potential to overcome political barriers to trade liberalization in a win-win
scenario for all countries involved. Tariffs, quotas, subsidies, and protectionist regulations harm everyone except
the cronies that lobbied for them. Trade agreements reduce or eliminate these harmful policies.¶ Unfortunately, the
Trans-Pacific Partnership has largely been conceived and shaped by a different set of
motivations. According to its architects, the TPP is supposed to be a “21st century”
agreement that will set the rules of trade in ways favorable to the United States. In other
words, favorable to politically powerful U.S. constituencies. What U.S. policymakers are
touting as the great achievements and aims of the TPP are better understood as
distortions—issues added to agreements to make them more politically appealing at
the expense of the agreement’s core economic function of opening markets to
competition.¶ If the United States truly wants to use the TPP to strengthen relations in
the region, the agreement should look a lot different. For starters, stop pushing for
unpopular rules on intellectual property, investment arbitration, and labor and
environmental protections. The United States could also offer more meaningful
liberalization of the U.S. market in textiles,sugar, and shipping. A truly “ambitious”
agreement would do a lot to improve U.S. international relations, but it would look very
different from the TPP as it has been presented.
Budget creates a material and perceptional shift to the Asia Pivot – TPP is not key
Gopal Ratnam 2/2, Senior Staff Writer at Foreign policy, 2/2/15, Against Other Threats, Obama’s Security
Budget Sticks to Asia-Pacific Pivot, Foreign Policy, http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/02/793982budget-asiapacific-syria-iraq-russia-ukraine/
President Barack Obama’s 2016 budget for national security is a reflection of the administration’s desire to hold fast to
its Asia-Pacific pivot strategy even as newer threats like the rise of the Islamic State and Russia’s aggression in Europe impose new
spending demands on various U.S. agencies.¶ The Obama administration’s $4 trillion budget for 2016 includes $619 billion for a
broad set of defense programs and another $54 billion for all the U.S. intelligence agencies to meet both long-term
challenges and more immediate threats that have emerged in the last two years. ¶ The State Department sought another $50.3 billion — an
increase of 6 percent from last year — including $7 billion for ongoing operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, and $8.6 billion for
international security assistance that pays for a range of programs including counter-narcotics, peacekeeping, and training foreign militaries.¶
Obama’s budget calls for raising taxes on multinational corporations and rich Americans while overhauling the country’s immigration system to
boost the economy with newly legal workers. The spending proposal, which ignores caps set by law, will likely face a barrage of opposition in
Congress, where there’s no consensus on how to pay for increasing costs without raising revenues. ¶ Speaking at the Homeland Security
Department’s headquarters Monday, Obama said his spending plan “recognizes that our economy flourishes when America is safe and secure.”
He said it aims to support American troops, bolster U.S. borders from threats, and help confront global crises including the Islamic State and
Russia’s violent overreach in Ukraine.¶ Underscoring the focus on Asia, Secretary of State John Kerry, in his department’s
budget submission, called the pivot to the Asia-Pacific region “a top priority for every one of us in [Obama’s]
administration.Ӧ And at the Pentagon, Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work said the focus on Asia remains at the top of the
military’s five main priorities for the upcoming year. At the top of the list, Work told reporters, are efforts to “continue to rebalance
to the Asia-Pacific region. We continue to do that.”¶ The Obama administration said the Pentagon’s budget is driven by the 2014 Quadrennial
Defense Review, a once-in-four-year strategy document that mostly focused American forces toward the Asia-Pacific region while aiding allies
in developing defenses to deal with regional crises on their own. The strategy calls for spending heavily on long-range bombers, new fighter
aircraft like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, and naval vessels, as well as cybersecurity efforts. ¶ The Pentagon’s budget includes $534.3 billion for
regular Defense Department operations — an 8 percent increase over what Congress approved for 2015 — and an additional $50.9 billion for
Overseas Contingency Operations that pays for ongoing wars and conflicts. That fund was reduced from the $64.2 billion Congress approved for
last year, largely because of the drawdown of forces from Afghanistan
TPP no solve China rise
TPP won’t curb China’s power
Clyde Prestowitz 1/22/15, president of the Economic Strategy Institute and the author most recently of "The
Betrayal of American Prosperity." He served in the Reagan administration and was vice chairman of President
Clinton's Commission on Trade and Investment in the Asia-Pacific Region, "The Trans-Pacific Partnership won't
deliver jobs or curb China's power," LA Times, www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-prestowitz-tpp-trade-pact20150123-story.html
In any case, the ever-closer linking of the U.S. economy to those of the TPP countries over the last 35 years has not
prevented the rise of Chinese power, nor has it deterred U.S. trade partners and allies from developing ever closer
ties with China. Further, the GDP of the combined TPP countries already dwarfs that of China. But this means
nothing. The TPP is not going to bring together nations such as Mexico, Peru, Chile, New Zealand, Australia,
Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei to gang up against China. That is just not going to happen.¶ Thus the TPP fails on
both economic and political grounds. It is no more than a late lament for the dying age of free-trade agreements.
Impact
Turn - Hurts economy
TPP hurts the economy – massive job losses trade off with benefits to large corporations.
David Rosnick 13, economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, September 2013, “Gains from
Trade? The Net Effect of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement on U.S. Wages”,
http://www.cepr.net/publications/reports/net-effect-of-the-tpp-on-us-wages
Recent estimates of the U.S. economic gains that would result from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are very
small — only 0.13 percent of GDP by 2025. Taking into account the un-equalizing effect of trade on wages, this paper
finds the median wage earner will probably lose as a result of any such agreement . In fact, most workers are likely to
lose — the exceptions being some of the bottom quarter or so whose earnings are determined by the minimum wage; and those with the highest
wages who are more protected from international competition. Rather, many top incomes will rise as a result of TPP expansion of
the terms and enforcement of copyrights and patents. The long-term losses, going forward over the same period (to
2025), from the failure to restore full employment to the United States have been some 25 times greater than the
potential gains of the TPP, and more than five times as large as the possible gains resulting from a much broader
trade agenda.
Turn - TPP kills China relations
The TPP is perceived as containment by China – kills relations.
Amitendu Palit 13, Senior Research Fellow and Head at the Institute of South Asian Studies in the National
University of Singapore, 6-16-13, “Negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Possible Effects on the U.S.-China
Relationship in Asia”, http://www.chinacenter.net/2013/china_currents/12-1/negotiating-the-trans-pacificpartnership-possible-effects-on-the-u-s-china-relationship-in-asia/
Various implications of the agreement are also becoming critical for China. From a larger geostrategic perspective, the TPP can
arguably be perceived as a U.S. effort to ‘ring-fence’ China. The perception stems from the negotiating members
including U.S. political, military, and strategic allies such as Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Singapore. Vietnam’s
presence in the TPP is a further irritant for China. China’s discomfort with the agreement is also due to its emphasis
on the ‘WTO plus’ issues on which many of its views are radically different from the U.S. and other OECD
economies. China’s domestic regulations on IP and government procurement, for example, hardly come close to those likely to
be adopted by the TPP.
Misc. TPP bad
TPP Hurts Foreign Policy and National Security
Daniel Slane 5/15, republican commissioner on U.S-China Economic and Security Review
Commission, and Michael Wessel 5/15, democratic commissioner on U.S-China Economic
and Security Review Commission, 5/15/15,“The TPP: Why It Won’t Address Security
Concerns With China”, http://blogs.cfr.org/renewing-america/2015/05/15/the-tpp-why-itwont-address-security-concerns-with-china/
In some ways, the increasing investment by U.S. companies in TPP countries identified as an
objective of the agreement by the United States might diminish our foreign policy and national
security flexibility. Our experience in China provides some guidance. Because of the vast
investments by U.S. companies there, they have often acted as lobbyists for the PRC because they are
worried about protecting their investments. We can expect that, as U.S. company investments in the
TPP countries increase, the potential for our firms to “protect” their investments by advocating for
the interests of their host country might be counter to some of our foreign policy or national security
interests. If a TPP country, for example, wanted to provide expanded access to port facilities
for Chinese vessels at a time when they were adverse to U.S. security interests, our companies might
put pressure on their friends in Congress and the U.S. government to moderate their views in support
of the TPP partner
Asia relations high now
SQUO Relations With Asia High- Japan Deal Shows.
Daniel Slane 5/15, republican commissioner on U.S-China Economic and Security Review
Commission, and Michael Wessel 5/15, democratic commissioner on U.S-China Economic
and Security Review Commission, 5/15/15,“The TPP: Why It Won’t Address Security
Concerns With China”, http://blogs.cfr.org/renewing-america/2015/05/15/the-tpp-why-itwont-address-security-concerns-with-china/
Indeed, Secretary of State John Kerry recently reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to
Japan’s defense which he said was “iron clad.” Japan announced new U.S.-Japan
defense guidelines with that country taking on an expanded role. The TPP did not secure
that change in Japan’s defense posture; self-interest did. The U.S.-Japan security
relationship is the strongest it’s been in decades.¶ In some ways, the increasing investment by U.S.
companies in TPP countries identified as an objective of the agreement by the United States might diminish our foreign policy and
national security flexibility. Our experience in China provides some guidance. Because of the vast investments by U.S. companies
there, they have often acted as lobbyists for the PRC because they are worried about protecting their investments. We can expect
that, as U.S. company investments in the TPP countries increase, the potential for our firms to “protect” their investments by
advocating for the interests of their host country might be counter to some of our foreign policy or national security interests. If a
TPP country, for example, wanted to provide expanded access to port facilities for Chinese vessels at a time when they were adverse
to U.S. security interests, our companies might put pressure on their friends in Congress and the U.S. government to moderate their
views in support of the TPP partner.¶ This isn’t unheard of. U.S. multinational interests argued against imposing strict sanctions
against China after the Tiananmen Square massacre. They lost that battle as the students, joined by others, stood up to their
government and the Clinton Administration had no choice but to act. The bravery of the students trumped the interests of corporate
America, but people shouldn’t have to put their lives on the line to advance their cause.¶ China’s increased military spending is also,
in part, fueled by its massive currency manipulation, which has allowed China to build enormous currency reserves and has helped
fuel its economic success. Addressing currency manipulation in the TPP has been deemed off limits by U.S. negotiators, signaling to
China and others, that the subsidized Chinese exports can continue to support budget expenditures on military modernization. ¶
Finally, the further dispersion of supply chains puts our national security at risk by creating the potential for increasing procurement
of materials for our military from outside the United States. The offshoring and outsourcing of production has an impact on the
defense industrial base, ranging from loss of capabilities to reduced skill levels to diminished R&D. Supply chains are vulnerable to
natural disasters as well as human events. Of course, the U.S. is not going to be totally independent in meeting its defense
procurement needs, but the domestic defense industrial base is at risk and TPP has the potential to further undermine our domestic
capabilities.¶ It’s been a long time since advocates for the TPP tried to sell the agreement as a net job creator for America. Yes,
exports may increase, but imports will certainly increase as well and, if history is a guide, our trade deficit will increase. Deficits are
not a sign of strength–if they were, every nation would be trying to run them. Deficits diminish economic growth which is one of the
foundations of a strong nation.¶ Our
alliances and relationships in the region are strong and aren’t
at risk. Self-interest is promoting a deepening of those relationships and a new trade
agreement might, over the long term, actually undermine our national security interests.
TPP should be judged based on its core economic value to the United States and for how it
will improve domestic production and employment and strengthen the middle class. Raising
false security arguments only highlights the significant limits of the underlying
agreement.
Impact D---Asia
No Asia war
Nick Bisley 14, Professor of IR @ La Trobe University (Australia) and Executive Director of La Trobe Asia, “It’s
not 1914 all over again: Asia is preparing to avoid war”, 3/10, http://theconversation.com/its-not-1914-all-overagain-asia-is-preparing-to-avoid-war-22875
Asia is cast as a region as complacent about the risks of war as Europe was in its belle époque. Analogies are an understandable way of trying to make sense of unfamiliar circumstances. In this
the historical parallel is deeply misleading. Asia is experiencing a period of uncertainty and strategic risk unseen since the US and China reconciled
there are very
good reasons, notwithstanding these issues, why Asia is not about to tumble into a great power war. China is
America’s second most important trading partner. Conversely, the US is by far the most important country with
which China trades. Trade and investment’s “golden straitjacket” is a basic reason to be optimistic. Why should this be seen as being
case, however,
their differences in the mid-1970s. Tensions among key powers are at very high levels: Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe recently invoked the 1914 analogy. But
more effective than the high levels of interdependence between Britain and Germany before World War One? Because Beijing and Washington are not content to rely on markets alone to keep
They are acutely aware of how much they have at stake. Diplomatic infrastructure for peace The two powers have
established a wide range of institutional links to manage their relations. These are designed to improve the level
and quality of their communication, to lower the risks of misunderstanding spiralling out of control and to manage
the trajectory of their relationship. Every year, around 1000 officials from all ministries led by the top political figures in each country meet under the auspices of the
the peace.
Strategic and Economic Dialogue. The dialogue has demonstrably improved US-China relations across the policy spectrum, leading to collaboration in a wide range of areas. These range from
disaster relief to humanitarian aid exercises, from joint training of Afghan diplomats to marine conservation efforts, in which Chinese law enforcement officials are hosted on US Coast Guard
Unlike the near total absence of diplomatic engagement by Germany and Britain in the
lead-up to 1914, today’s two would-be combatants have a deep level of interaction and practical co-operation. Just as the
extensive array of common interests has led Beijing and Washington to do a lot of bilateral work, Asian states have
been busy the past 15 years. These nations have created a broad range of multilateral institutions and mechanisms
intended to improve trust, generate a sense of common cause and promote regional prosperity. Some organisations, like the Asia-Pacific Economic
vessels to enforce maritime legal regimes.
Cooperation (APEC), have a high profile with its annual leaders’ meeting involving, as it often does, the common embarrassment of heads of government dressing up in national garb. Others like
there are more than 15 separate multilateral
bodies that have a focus on regional security concerns. All these organisations are trying to build what might be described as an infrastructure for peace in the
region. While these mechanisms are not flawless, and many have rightly been criticised for being long on dialogue and short on action, they have been crucial in
managing specific crises and allowing countries to clearly state their commitments and priorities.
the ASEAN Regional Forum and the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus Process are less in the public eye. But
Economic interdependence makes war non-viable – both the US and China have vested
interests in each-others economies.
Ashley J. Tellis 15, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace specializing in
international security, defense, and Asian strategic issues, 3/2/15, “The geopolitics of the TTIP and the TPP”,
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Tellis_Geopolitics_TTIP_TPP.pdf
China’s integration into the multilateral trading order and its progressive entrenchment as a manufacturing and
exporting hub has now tied it to the US and its regional allies in Asia, ensuring for the first time in American history that
Washington is economically trapped in a mutual-hostage relationship with its most serious rival. The intense ‘global
codependency’6 that defines US–China ties also characterises China’s relations with all of its major Asian
neighbours, many of whom are treaty allies of the US. This unprecedented condition thus creates the peculiar paradox where
China and all of its trading partners are bound ever more deeply through their economic gains, even as they are
driven further apart by their national rivalries and Beijing’s expanding military power
Deterrence and economics check
Paul Dibb 14, emeritus professor of strategic studies @ The Australian National University, “Why A Major War
In Asia Is Unlikely,” March 31, East Asia Forum, Economy Watch, http://www.economywatch.com/features/why-amajor-war-in-asia-is-unlikely.31-03.html
Even so, there are two major reasons why a major power war in Asia is unlikely. First, there is the iron discipline of
nuclear deterrence, which has prevented a major war for almost 70 years, even at the most dangerous heights of the
Cold War. An all-out nuclear war between the US and China would involve the deaths of hundreds of millions of
people on both sides in a matter of hours. For all intents and purposes, they would cease to exist as modern functioning societies.
This is an existential threat unlike any faced by humankind previously. Once nuclear weapons are used it would be practically impossible to avoid full-blown
escalation. The
second factor is the unprecedented economic and technological interdependence that now
intertwines virtually every economy in the region. Assertions that globalisation was even deeper in 1914 are simply
untrue. Global supply chains for almost every product consumed in the Asia Pacific make every country in the
region critically vulnerable to the outbreak of war. And that includes China as much — or even more so — as any
other country. China is now crucially dependent on imports for its economic security (for example, it accounts for 60 per cent of
global seaborne iron ore trade). So, as the doyen of US international relations studies Professor Joseph Nye of Harvard University argues, we should be wary
of analysts wielding historical analogies, particularly if they have a whiff of inevitability. War, he observes, is never inevitable, though the belief that
it is can become one of its causes.
Impact D---Trade
Trade is irrelevant for war
Katherine Barbieri 13, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of South Carolina, Ph.D. in
Political Science from Binghamton University, “Economic Interdependence: A Path to Peace or Source of Interstate
Conflict?” Chapter 10 in Conflict, War, and Peace: An Introduction to Scientific Research, google books
How does interdependence affect war, the most intense form of conflict? Table 2 gives the empirical results. The rarity of wars makes any analysis of
their causes quite difficult, for variations in interdependence will seldom result in the occurrence of war. As in the case of MIDs, the log-likelihood ratio tests for each model suggest that the
inclusion of the various measures of interdependence and the control variables improves our understanding of the factors affecting the occurrence of war over that obtained from the null model.
However, the individual interdependence variables, alone, are not statistically significant. This is not the case with contiguity and relative capabilities, which are both statistically significant.
Again, we see that contiguous dyads are more conflict-prone and that dyads composed of states with unequal power are more pacific than those with highly equal power. Surprisingly, no
evidence from the preWWII period provides support for those arguing that economic factors have little, if any, influence on affecting
leaders’ decisions to engage in war, but many of the control variables are also statistically insignificant. These results should be interpreted with caution, since the sample
evidence is provided to support the commonly held proposition that democratic states are less likely to engage in wars with other democratic states.¶ The
does not contain a sufficient number wars to allow us to capture great variations across different types of relationships. Many observations of war are excluded from the sample by virtue of not
having the corresponding explanatory measures. A variable would have to have an extremely strong influence on conflict—as does contiguity—to find significant results. ¶ 7. Conclusions
This study provides little empirical support for the liberal proposition that trade provides a path to interstate peace.
Even after controlling for the influence of contiguity, joint democracy, alliance ties, and relative capabilities, the
evidence suggests that in most instances trade fails to deter conflict . Instead, extensive economic interdependence
increases the likelihood that dyads engage in militarized dispute; however, it appears to have little influence on the incidence of war. The greatest hope
for peace appears to arise from symmetrical trading relationships. However, the dampening effect of symmetry is offset by the expansion of interstate linkages. That is, extensive economic
linkages, be they symmetrical or asymmetrical, appear to pose the greatest hindrance to peace through trade.