WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
1
Dip Cap DA
Diplomatic Capital Disadvantage
Diplomatic Capital Disadvantage ................................................................................................. 1
Peace Process 1NC Shell .................................................................................................................. 3
Uniqueness ........................................................................................................................................... 5
UQ- Diplomatic Capital High ..................................................................................................... 6
UQ- Peace Process- Kerry focused now ................................................................................ 7
Uniqueness- Peace Talks and Syria- Kerry Focused now.................................... 20
UQ- Peace Talks- A2 Kerry focus on Asia .......................................................................... 22
UQ- A2 US engaging Cuba now .............................................................................................. 23
UQ- Not focusing on LA ............................................................................................................ 24
Links ..................................................................................................................................................... 25
Link- generic- new plans trades off................................................................................... 26
Link- UQ- Mexico ........................................................................................................................ 31
Link- Cuba ..................................................................................................................................... 33
Link- Venezuela ......................................................................................................................... 36
Link- Latin America................................................................................................................... 37
Internal Link Extensions .............................................................................................................. 38
Dip Cap finite ............................................................................................................................... 39
Kerry is Key .................................................................................................................................. 41
US is Key......................................................................................................................................... 42
Talks will be successful ............................................................................................................ 43
Failure of peace process will cause terrorism................................................................. 45
Kerry focused on MEP .............................................................................................................. 46
Peace Process- Dip focus key ................................................................................................. 47
Peace process: A2 Russia key ........................................................................................... 49
Peace Process: A2 Palestine won’t cooperate ........................................................... 51
Peace Process: Dip Cap K to Israel-Palestine ........................................................... 52
Impact Extensions........................................................................................................................... 54
Impact Extensions- Peace Process- Israel-Palestine .................................................... 55
Impact- Peace Process- Nuclear chill .................................................................................. 58
Impact- Peace Process- nuclear War .................................................................................. 59
Syria impacts ............................................................................................................................... 62
2nc/1nr extensions ........................................................................................................................ 64
A2 “Thumpers” ............................................................................................................................ 65
A2 Dip Cap not key .................................................................................................................. 66
Peace Process- A2: Kerry not key ........................................................................................ 67
2NC/1NR- Iran ................................................................................................................................. 69
Aff Answers ....................................................................................................................................... 71
Non-unique: Increased Latin America engagement now ....................................... 72
Non-unique: Mexico engagement ..................................................................................... 74
Kerry not key ............................................................................................................................... 75
Non-unique: Kerry Credibility Low Now ......................................................................... 76
Alt Causes ...................................................................................................................................... 78
Link Turn- ...................................................................................................................................... 82
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
2
Dip Cap DA
No Link – no tradeoff ............................................................................................................... 83
No Link ........................................................................................................................................... 84
Peace Process- will fail- Arab spring................................................................................... 85
Peace process will fail - Conditions.................................................................................. 86
Peace process will fail- middle east ................................................................................. 87
Peace Process- Impact turn- nuclear terror ................................................................. 91
Peace Process- No impact – Arab-Israeli Conflict .................................................... 92
Peace process- No impact- Middle East War.............................................................. 93
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
3
Dip Cap DA
Peace Process 1NC Shell
A. Kerry is focused on the Middle East Peace Process now.
Labott, CNN foreign affairs reporter, 2013
(“Analysis: Kerry ready to dirty hands in diplomatic deal-making” May 7, 2013
Elise Labott is CNN's foreign affairs reporter.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/07/politics/labott-kerry) KH
Having coveted the secretary of state job for his whole career, Kerry is like a kid
in a candy store. In the three months since taking office, Kerry has traveled just
short of 70,000 miles and visited 20 countries in 37 days. He has breathed new
life into the Middle East peace process, worked with President Barack Obama
to broker a rapprochement between Israel and Turkey, traveled topress China for
more support reining in North Korea and pushed for the first nonlethal direct aid
to Syrian rebels, while helping to unite the fractious political opposition and
working with Turkey, Jordan and Israel on contingencies should the United
States get more involved in the crisis
B. Insert Link:
C. Internal link:
1. Diplomatic capital is finite – each new issue trades off with another
one.
Anderson and Grewell, 2000
(Terry L., Executive Director of the Property and Environment Research Center, J. Bishop, former research associate for PERC.
He is a graduate of Stanford University, the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and Northwestern Law School,
“The Greening of Foreign Policy”, PERC Policy Series: PS-20, December 2000, http://www.perc.org/pdf/ps20.pdf)
Greater international environmental regulation can increase international tension.
Foreign policy is a bag of goods that includes issues from free trade to arms
trading to human rights. Each new issue in the bag weighs it down, lessening the
focus on other issues and even creating conflicts between issues. Increased
environmental regulations could cause countries to lessen their focus on
international threats of violence such as the sale of ballistic missiles or border
conflicts between nations. As countries must watch over more and more issues
arising in the international policy arena, they will stretch the resources necessary
to deal with traditional international issues. As Schaefer (2000, 46) writes,
“Because diplomatic currency is finite . . . it is critically important that the United
States focus its diplomatic efforts on issues of paramount importance to the
nation. Traditionally, these priorities have been opposing hostile domination of
key geographic regions, supporting our allies, securing vital resources, and
ensuring access to foreign economies.”
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
4
Dip Cap DA
2. Failure of peace talks leads to war that draws in the U.S.
Haaretz Service 2010
[Haaretz Service, Sep 24, 2010, Jordan's Abdullah: Peace talks failure will drag U.S. into new Mideast war,
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/jordan-s-abdullah-peace-talks-failure-will-drag-u-s-into-new-mideastwar-1.315467] KH
If peace talks fail, the United States will be involved in another Middle East war,
Jordan's King Abdullah told talk show host John Stewart on Thursday. On his
satirical news show program, The Daily Show, Stewart asked Abdullah for his
opinion on the role of the U.S. in the Mideast. "The lack of ability in moving the
Israeli-Palestinian process forward" as well as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
are "weakening the moderates," Abdullah said. "If we don't solve this problem,
you're going to be in the fight as much as we are." When asked about Jordan's
role in the region Abdullah joked that he was "in between Iraq and a hard place."
He spoke about Jordan's vested interest in the success of the peace talks
between Israel and the Palestinians. "Their future security is our security,"
Abdullah said. "We have a vested interest to bring a win-win for everyone here."
E. Middle East war causes WWIII
Reuters ‘7
[quoting Khalilzad -- "Middle East turmoil could cause world war: U.S.
envoy."8/27.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSL2719552620070827]
Upheaval in the Middle East and Islamic civilization could cause another world
war, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was quoted as saying in an
Austrian newspaper interview published on Monday. Zalmay Khalilzad told the
daily Die Presse the Middle East was now so disordered that it had the potential to
inflame the world as Europe did during the first half of the 20th century. "The
(Middle East) is going through a very difficult transformation phase. That has
strengthened extremism and creates a breeding ground for terrorism,"* he said in
remarks translated by Reuters into English from the published German. Europe
was just as dysfunctional for a while. And some of its wars became world wars.
Now the problems of the Middle East and Islamic civilization have the same
potential to engulf the world,"* he was quoted as saying.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
5
Dip Cap DA
Uniqueness
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
6
Dip Cap DA
UQ- Diplomatic Capital High
(__) Diplomatic capital is high—Clinton repaired the US image on the world
stage
Hazelgrove 13 (Sam, University Think Tank on International Affairs, 2-20-13,
“The Senate confirms John Kerry as the new Secretary of State” Future Foreign
Policy) http://blog.futureforeignpolicy.com/2013/02/20/the-senate-confirmsjohn-kerry-as-the-new-secretary-of-state/
In many ways the new Secretary of State has an even more immense task than his
immediate predecessor, Ms. Clinton. Ms. Clinton’s objectives were defined clearly in
President Obama’s first term: she had to revitalise America’s image on the world
stage, repair broken alliances, and give credence to America’s “soft power.” Now that
Ms. Clinton has significantly improved America’s diplomatic capital, it is up to John Kerry
to use that capital and influence the global order.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
7
Dip Cap DA
UQ- Peace Process- Kerry focused now
(__) Kerry close now, but closing the peace deal will take everything he’s got.
Miller, 13
“John Kerry, Lone Ranger of the Middle East: The Secretary of State's Quixotic Bid to
Reset the Peace Process” Aaron David Miller vice president for New Initiatives at the
Woodrow Wilson Center. June 26, 2013
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139532/aaron-david-miller/john-kerrylone-ranger-of-the-middle-east) KH
That also raises the question of the United States’ sense of urgency. We know that
John Kerry is determined to get an Israeli-Palestinian agreement and to spend as
much time and capital as it takes. The same cannot be said for President Barack
Obama. As a second term president focused largely on a domestic agenda and
keeping the economy afloat through the 2014 midterm elections, Obama prefers to
avoid a messy peace process that could draw him into another fight with Netanyahu.
The president didn’t reset his relations with Israel earlier this year only to have
them come apart over an unproductive fight with Israel over a peace process that is
likely to fail anyway.
And that’s the key point. Bill Clinton, the only second term president who pushed
heavily for a peace deal, did not rush ahead because he didn’t have to worry about
re-election. Clinton engaged because he thought there was a real chance to get an
agreement. And so will Obama if there’s really an opportunity. But until then, the
White House is unlikely to get involved.
Right now, Kerry may be on the verge of getting something he really wants: getting
both sides back to the table. And he is sure to receive glowing press coverage if that
comes to pass. But it may also represent the premature pinnacle of his Middle East
diplomacy. Simply telling both sides that time is running out won’t have much effect.
Nor will putting a plan on the table and saying “Take it or leave it.” The United States
simply does not have the nerve or the muscle to force an agreement, and it couldn’t
make one stick even if it were ready to try.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
8
Dip Cap DA
(__) Kerry is making substantial progress in the Israeli-Palestine peace talks—he
is devoting all of his time and effort to closing the deal
Gordon 6-29 (Michael R., New York Times reporter, June 29, 2013, "Kerry extends Israel trip
amid speculation on peace talks" New York Times)
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2013/06/29/kerry-extends-israel-tripamid-speculation-peace-talks/WhI1jxBpkgzHTux3RMvCQM/story.html
¶ JERUSALEM — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry extended his trip to Israel a day
amid speculation that he was closing in on a deal to revive the dormant IsraeliPalestinian peace talks.¶ ¶ Reports in the Israeli news media have suggested that a
meeting between Israeli and Palestinian officials under American and Jordanian
auspices might be announced soon. There has been no comment from U.S. officials,
however.¶ ¶ Kerry’s decision to rip up his itinerary and stay in Israel has heightened
expectations of a potential breakthrough.¶ ¶ After canceling a Saturday news
conference in Jordan and a planned trip later that day to the United Arab Emirates,
Kerry flew by helicopter to Amman, Jordan, for a two-hour meeting with Mahmoud
Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, and his senior advisers, including
the Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat.¶ ¶ Asked whether he was making progress as
the meeting got under way, Kerry replied, “working hard.”¶ ¶ Kerry then headed back
to Israel for an evening meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel,
his third such meeting in three days. Tzipi Livni, Israel’s minister of justice and the
government’s chief negotiator on the Palestinian issue, and Isaac Molho,
Netanyahu’s special envoy, were to attend the meeting as well, according to a State
Department official.¶ ¶ Kerry is scheduled to fly Sunday to Brunei for a meeting of
foreign ministers, and his departure has become an unofficial deadline for showing
results.¶ ¶ Kerry has frequently said that time is the enemy, arguing that attitudes
harden over time and that unexpected developments can complicate painstaking
efforts to lay the basis for progress at the negotiating table.¶ ¶ “Time is the enemy of a
peace process,” he said Wednesday during a visit to Kuwait. “The passage of time
allows a vacuum to be filled by people who don’t want things to happen.”¶ ¶ On Friday
night, Kerry had a Sabbath dinner with Shimon Peres, the Israeli president who won
the Nobel Prize in 1994 for his efforts in producing the Oslo Accord and who has
been a vocal and enthusiastic supporter of Kerry’s push to revive the middle east
peace process.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
9
Dip Cap DA
(__) Kerry is throwing all of his energy into the Peace Process.
Miller, 13
“John Kerry, Lone Ranger of the Middle East: The Secretary of State's Quixotic Bid to
Reset the Peace Process” Aaron David Miller vice president for New Initiatives at the
Woodrow Wilson Center. June 26, 2013
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139532/aaron-david-miller/john-kerrylone-ranger-of-the-middle-east) KH
Kerry surely has advisers around him warning him about the long odds he is facing.
So why is he ignoring them -- and voluntarily risking his prestige -- for the chance to
get something done on the Israeli-Palestinian issue?
In part, the answer has to do with the fact that Kerry clearly believes that peace in
the region is a paramount U.S. interest. But there is something else, too. Unlike
Hillary Clinton, whose political career is ascending, Kerry’s time at the State
Department likely represents the end of his political career. If Kerry wants entry to
the Washington’s unofficial hall of fame, it will likely have to be as a diplomat,
alongside Henry Kissinger and James Baker. And Kerry knows that diplomats earn
reputations for greatness by tackling tough problems. So if President Obama lets
him, Kerry will be more than willing to take risks.
And there are few riskier initiatives than this one. Nobody ever lost money betting
against Arab-Israeli peace. But John Kerry has staked his personal credibility -- and
America’s -- on the possibility that he can beat the odds. And if Netanyahu and Abbas
are prepared to help him, he just might.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
10
Dip Cap DA
(__) Kerry is focusing all of his diplomatic capital towards resolving a
comprehensive peace treaty.
Labott, CNN foreign affairs reporter, 2013
(“Analysis: Kerry ready to dirty hands in diplomatic deal-making” May 7, 2013
Elise Labott is CNN's foreign affairs reporter.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/07/politics/labott-kerry)
Kerry has made no secret that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is his single
most important foreign policy goal. In addition to three trips to the Middle East,
where he shuttled between Israel and the Palestinian territories, he is on the
phone constantly with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and their aides to revive long-stalled talks.
He is working with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a longtime
international envoy on the peace process, on rallying corporate giants to invest in
the Palestinian economy.
Most recently, Kerry hosted a delegation of Arab states to discuss the revival of
the Arab Peace Initiative for a comprehensive peace treaty with Israel in exchange
for the creation of a Palestinian state. At the end of the talks, the ministers agreed
to sweeten a decade-old Arab League proposal by easing its demand that Israel
return to its pre-1967 borders and accept the possibility of tweaking the borders
with agreed-upon land swaps. In the absence of any progress on the peace
process, he convinced the Arabs to take a huge leap of faith.
"In a short period of time, Secretary Kerry has been able to significantly affect the
framework in which the parties are engaging and that is something," said Robert
Wexler, the former congressman from Florida who is now president of the S.
Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace. Wexler noted that George
Mitchell, the former U.S. envoy for Mideast peace, had tried to gain the same
concessions with no success.
(__) Kerry is investing diplomatic capital in the peace process now, and it will
succeed.
Borger 13
(Julian, staff writer, 3-18-13, “Israel to ask Obama to use air strikes in case of Syrian
missile transfer” The Guardian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/17/obama-visit-israel-syrianmissiles-transfer
Although the president has been reluctant to invest political diplomatic capital in
Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking, Kerry is pushing for a new US-backed initiative and
Americans officials say that he has been promised limited presidential backing. "The
Palestian issue is a second-term presidential issue," Zakheim said. "Quite frankly, you
have a president who doesn't have to run for office again and an Israeli prime
minister who is not as strong as he was before. That gives the president a lot of
leverage. If Obama does succumb to the temptation of a second-term president, the
constellation of forces is quite good."
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
11
Dip Cap DA
(__) John Kerry is spending his time in Israel administrating peace talks. If he
abandons the peace talks, the United States will lose credibility.
Greenwood 2013
(Phoebe, journalist based in the Middle East covering news, social affairs and
international development, 6/27/13, “John Kerry flies in to force Israelis and
Palestinians back to talks”, The Telegraph)
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/
10145946/John-Kerry-flies-in-to-force-Israelis-and-Palestinians-back-totalks.html>
This will be the Secretary of State’s fifth visit to the region in as many months. Mr
Kerry is thought to be having dinner with the Israeli leader in advance of meetings with the
Palestinian Authority in Ramallah on Friday. The momentum built up behind his highly
personal, high-stakes mission to restart the peace process has made it impossible for
either side to turn away from negotiation without bearing the full brunt of the
failure, though both the Palestinian Authority and the Netanyahu coalition express
willingness to talk again through gritted teeth.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
12
Dip Cap DA
(__) Kerry Warns Time Is Short to Revive Mideast Peace Talks
Lerman & Ferziger, 2013
(David and Jonathan, David and Jonathan are reporters for Bloomberg News, Jun 27, 2013, “Kerry Warns Time Is Short to
Revive Mideast Peace Talks”, Bloomberg News) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-26/kerry-warns-time-runningshort-to-restart-mideast-peace-talks.html
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry
said some progress toward reviving Middle East peace
talks needs to be made “long before September,” when the next session of the United
Nations General Assembly will begin.? While Kerry said he will set no deadlines for
kick-starting a new round of negotiations, he warned yesterday at an appearance
with his Kuwaiti counterpart that time “allows a vacuum to be filled by people who
don’t want things to happen,” and unforeseen dangers can arise.? Kerry was greeted by such a
development yesterday, when Israel approved plans for 69 new housing units in a section ofJerusalem that Israel
captured from Jordan in the 1967 Middle East War and Palestinians consider occupied territory. A municipal building
committee approved the permits, city spokeswoman Brachie Sprung said by telephone. ? Israel continues to build in
settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, which the U.S. State Department has called “unproductive.” The latest
move to add housing is unhelpful as the U.S. urges all parties to help create a climate for peace, a department official said
yesterday, speaking on condition of anonymity in advance of Kerry’s meetings.? The Palestinians have refused to return to
talks without a freeze in settlement construction, and they have signaled they might resume their quest at the UN to join
the International Criminal Court.? ‘Something Important’? Now Kerry is in Amman, Jordan, for three days of consultations
with Israeli and Palestinian leaders aimed at bringing them to the table for the first time in almost three years.? Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview with Al Jazeera television yesterday that he hopes Kerry brings
“something important” and new that will help narrow the gaps with Israel and lead to fresh talks. Israeli Prime
MinisterBenjamin Netanyahu said this week that he’ll engage in peace negotiations if Palestinians indicate they’re willing
to address all substantial issues and resolve the conflict. ? Netanyahu is willing to withdraw from more than 90 percent of
the West Bank if his security concerns are met, Ha’aretz newspaper said today, citing an unidentified Israeli minister. The
prime minister has said any Palestinian state must be demilitarized, and Israel needs to maintain a security presence on
the border between the West Bank and Jordan.? “Peace is based on security,” Netanyahu said today at a ceremony in
Jerusalem. “It is not based on goodwill and legitimacy,” he said, in remarks broadcast on Army Radio.? UN Status?
Progress is urgent “because time is the enemy of a peace process,” Kerry said
yesterday in Kuwait City, alongside Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheikh Sabah al-Khalid al-Sabah. The
passage of time, Kerry said, “has the ability to wear out people’s patience and to feed cynicism and to
give people a sense of impossibility where there in fact is possibility.”? The timing of the UN General
Assembly in September is significant because last year it recognized the Palestinians as an “observer
state,” and they have threatened to use UN organizations such as the ICC to level war-crimes charges
against Israel.? Kerry has thrown himself into reviving Israeli-Palestinian peace
negotiations, making his fifth trip to Israel since he became the top U.S. diplomat in
February. He’s pushing for renewed talks even amid a crush of competing demands in
the Middle East, including Syria’s civil war, violence in Iraq and Libya, tensions over
Iran’s nuclear program, and worries about the stability of Egypt and Jordan.? Raising
Stakes? Kerry has repeatedly said that time is running out to reach a two-state solution
that would ensure security for Israel and an independent Palestine. The Palestinians want to
establish a state in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and east Jerusalem as well as the Gaza Strip, currently ruled by
Palestinian militant group Hamas.? “If we
do not succeed now, and I know I’m raising the stakes,
we may not get another chance,” Kerry said on June 3 to the American Jewish
Committee, a Washington advocacy group.? Israelis and Palestinians have shown no signs of being any
closer to resuming talks, with each side blaming the other for the impasse, and the Palestinian leadership has been in
disarray. Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah submitted his resignation June 20, two weeks after taking office. ? No
‘Ownership’? An
agreement with the Palestinians is possible and Israel should do more
to strengthen them as peace partners, outgoing Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer said
today on Army Radio. Fischer steps down from the bank on June 30.? The danger of starting U.S.brokered peace talks now is that there’s been no sense of “ownership” of the process from the Israelis
and Palestinians, said Aaron David Miller, a former adviser to Republican and Democratic U.S.
secretaries of state and now a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars in Washington.?
“The real problem here is the absence of ownership,” Miller said in an interview last week. “I don’t see how Kerry can get
around that.”? Kerry said he’s committed to trying because both Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud
Abbas have shown a “seriousness of purpose” in wanting a peace deal. ? “I wouldn’t be here now if I didn’t have a belief
that this is possible,” Kerry said. “But it’s difficult. If this were easy, it would have been done a long time ago.”? Kerry
denied an Israeli news report that he was preparing for three-way talks between U.S., Israeli and Palestinian officials this
week under the auspices of Jordan’s King Abdullah. He plans to meet separately with Abbas in Amman and with
Netanyahu in Jerusalem.?
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
13
Dip Cap DA
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
14
Dip Cap DA
(__) Kerry is committed to investing diplomatic capital in the peace process
Washington Post 13 (Editorial Board, 4-12-13, “John Kerry’s efforts in Middle
East could lay groundwork for success”) http://articles.washingtonpost.com/201304-12/opinions/38492300_1_netanyahu-mr-settlement-freeze
Yet Mr. Kerry dedicated himself this week to spending the next couple of months
focusing intensively on . . . the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process,” which not only has
proved resistant to the diplomacy of President Obama and numberless previous
secretaries of state, but also is not, for now, the source of any of the fires raging
across the region. What gives? Mr. Kerry seems to have a number of reasons for
investing scarce time and diplomatic capital in this perpetually failing venture. Some
are unpersuasive: He says “time is running out” for a two-state solution, but
diplomats and regional experts have been delivering that warning for at least 25
years. One is personal: A veteran of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr.
Kerry has developed a passion for the issue and seems to believe he can avoid the
mistakes made by Mr. Obama, whose attempt to force a settlement freeze on Israel
led to a rancorous three-way impasse between him, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
(__) Chance of Kerry negotiations success is slim, but possible.
AP, 2013
(“Kerry's palate gets workout in Mideast peace talks” DEB RIECHMANN / Associated
Press / June 28, 2013 http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/2013/06/28/kerry-palate-gets-workout-mideast-peacetalks/8oKVvUMxuf0bboXEWVWJ8M/story-1.html) KH
William Quandt, who was involved in negotiations that led to the Camp David
Accords and the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty, said Kerry might succeed in getting
the two sides back to the table, ‘‘but that does not count for much.’’ He said he doubts
the two sides have agreed to an outline of territory for a Palestinian state. ‘‘I'm not
very optimistic,’’ he said.
Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Israel’s BarIlan University, doesn’t have high hopes for the two sides getting back into
negotiations, but said that as long as Kerry continues to visit the region, his attempt
won’t be seen as a failure.
‘‘As long as he keeps coming, people will have some hope,’’ Inbar said. ‘‘He is very
perseverant but the chances of him renewing negotiations are very slim.’’
Inbar said Abbas faces opposition to talks with Israel from within his own Fatah
party as well as from its rival, the Islamic militant group Hamas. The Palestinians
have been split since 2007 when Hamas overran Gaza ousting forces from the Fatah
party led by Western-backed Abbas. Abbas has since governed only in parts of the
West Bank, and Hamas rules Gaza.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
15
Dip Cap DA
(__) Chance of successful peace talks are slim, it will take all Kerry’s got.
AP, 2013
(“Kerry's palate gets workout in Mideast peace talks” DEB RIECHMANN / Associated
Press / June 28, 2013 http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/2013/06/28/kerry-palate-gets-workout-mideast-peacetalks/8oKVvUMxuf0bboXEWVWJ8M/story-1.html) KH
‘‘The Palestinians are not interested in negotiations because of domestic politics,
Hamas pressure and with the whole region becoming more Islamic it’s more difficult
for them to make a deal,’’ Inbar said. Within Netanyahu’s own party, ‘‘there are those
who are openly saying that negotiations go nowhere,’’ he added.
After meeting with Netanyahu, Kerry visited Israeli President Shimon Peres, who
received the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize for his role in a landmark interim peace accord
in 1003. Peres, who turns 90 in August, encouraged Kerry to soldier on.
‘‘All of us admire your investment in creating really the right environment to open
the peace,’’ Peres said. ‘‘I know it’s still difficult. There are many problems, but as far I
am concerned, I can see there is a clear majority for the peace process and the twostate solution and the great expectation that you will do it and that you can do it.’’
(__) Kerry is pushing Israel-Palestine Peace talks.
Aljazeera English, 2013
[international news source specializing in underreported regions and
recipient of the Columbia Journalism award the DuPont award and a
George Polk award last year, “Kerry in new push for Israel-Palestine talks:
US Secretary of state meets Israeli peace negotiators and says
Washington seeks to revive peace bid within short time”, 9 May 2013,
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/05/201358233629703392.html ]
US Secretary of State John Kerry has said he will depart in two weeks on another
trip to the Middle East to push peace between Israel and the Palestinians as he
seeks to breathe fresh life into the talks stalled since late 2010.¶ Kerry met with
Israeli Justice Minister and chief negotiator Tzipi Livni in Rome on Wednesday,
after meeting the Palestinian chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, in Washington last
week.¶ 'Seriousness of purpose'¶ All sides were approaching the issues "with a
seriousness of purpose that has not been present in a while and we all believe
that we are working with a short time span," Kerry said as he met Livni in the US
ambassador's residence in Rome.¶ He added they were working through "a
threshold of questions" and he would return to Israel around "the 21 or 22 of this
month" to meet both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
16
Dip Cap DA
(__) Kerry focused on peace talks now.
Reuters, 2013
(“Chief Palestinian peace negotiator backs Kerry's efforts” Michelle
Nichols | Reuters 5/20/13 http://news.yahoo.com/chief-palestinian-peacenegotiator-backs-kerrys-efforts-204539386.html) KH
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The top Palestinian negotiator with Israel on
Monday threw his weight behind U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's bid to
revive stalled peace talks, while describing the situation in the West Bank as apartheid worse than that
suffered in South Africa.
Kerry is due to visit Jerusalem and Ramallah on Thursday and Friday. U.S.-brokered peace talks between
the Palestinians and Israel broke down in 2010 in a dispute over continuing Israeli settlement construction in the West
Bank.
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told a U.N. committee in New York on Monday that a settlement freeze and the
release of Palestinian prisoners were not conditions for returning to negotiations, but rather obligations that Israel must
fulfill.
"We have no conditions to resume negotiations," Erekat told the committee on rights of the Palestinian people, which was
created by the U.N. General Assembly in 1975. "Make no mistake we are exerting every possible effort
in order to see that Mr. Kerry succeeds. No one benefits more from the success
of Secretary Kerry than Palestinians and no one loses more from his failure than
Palestinians," Erekat said. He said that in the past two months Kerry had met
with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas five times, Erekat three times and
that the three spoke by phone almost weekly.
"Mr. Kerry is keeping things (close to) his chest. He likes to work very, very, very
below the radar and grow things like mushrooms," Erekat said. "We did
everything ... in order to enable him to succeed. He is not going to wait for years
or months actually, he's working very hard."
(__) Kerry is making progress in the peace process.
Labott, CNN foreign affairs reporter, 2013
(“Analysis: Kerry ready to dirty hands in diplomatic deal-making” May 7, 2013
Elise Labott is CNN's foreign affairs reporter.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/07/politics/labott-kerry)
Last month Kerry brought together Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani
military chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani in Brussels, Belgium, as tensions between
the two neighbors reached new highs. The White House had feared the meeting
could backfire, but Kerry convinced skeptical officials his longtime relationship
with both men could help move the two countries closer to reconciliation with the
Taliban. In a photo-op before the meeting, Karzai and Kayani looked downright
uncomfortable. But when they emerged afterward alongside Kerry, the
atmosphere was far more upbeat. Kerry did not speak of breakthroughs, merely
saying everyone had "homework" to do. But appearances suggested forward
movement, and the meeting is believed to have opened some space for further
talks.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
17
Dip Cap DA
(__) Kerry must stay focused on the peace process.
Labott, CNN foreign affairs reporter, 2013
(“Analysis: Kerry ready to dirty hands in diplomatic deal-making” May 7, 2013
Elise Labott is CNN's foreign affairs reporter.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/07/politics/labott-kerry)
Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs alike seem impressed with Kerry's drive. The
challenge, they all say, lies in the mistrust between the parties rather than Kerry's
diplomatic acumen.
"We are impressed with his enthusiasm and drive," one Arab diplomat said. " He
wants to take on the issues. The political environment isn't encouraging, but if the
president and Kerry want to try and bring the Israelis and Palestinians together,
we are not going to be the problem."
Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, said, " He landed
running and is still running, and we want to run with him. He wants to move
quickly; we want to move quickly. We are all intensely serious. The issue is
whether we are going to be able to get the Palestinians back to the table."
Kerry seems to have a far rosier view of the Middle East peace process than his
boss, maybe because he is coming to it with fresh eyes. Having more than once
tried and failed to restart peace talks, Obama has had years of a poisonous pill
and is said to be skeptical about the prospects for a peace deal. The hope is that
the White House will become more invested as Kerry shows some degree of
progress.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
18
Dip Cap DA
(__) Kerry is exerting diplomatic capital on Israel and Palestine now.
Siasat, 2013
(John Kerry says Israel, Palestine have two years left for peace ‘or it’s over’¶ 18
April 2013 http://www.siasat.com/english/news/john-kerry-says-israel-palestinehave-two-years-left-peace-%E2%80%98or-it%E2%80%99s-over%E2%80%99)
Washington, Apr. 18 (ANI): US Secretary of State John Kerry has said efforts to
reach a two-state solution to bring about peace between Israel and the
Palestinians is up to two years or the whole concept will become infeasible.
At a hearing at a House Foreign Affairs Committee, Kerry said that he was
committed to this because he believed the window for a two-state solution is
shutting.
He added that he thought they have some period of time: a year, a year and a
half to two years—or it’s over.
According to Politico, Kerry traveled to Israel and the West Bank with President
Barack Obama late last month and then returned just a few days ago. In Israel,
Obama spoke about a window for a peace deal but he didn''t give a time frame.
Kerry said he has ‘enormous confidence’ in Palestinian Authority Prime Minister
Salam Fayyad, who announced his resignation last week.
He however said that Fayyad’s departure from that post doesn''t doom the
possibility of peace, even though Fayyad was widely seen by the U.S. as
moderate, honest leader who had helped bring a stop to attacks from the West
Bank on Israel, the report said.
According to the report, Kerry said both Israelis and Palestinians have ‘enormous
mistrust’ for each other, but are making gestures to keep alive the possibility of
peace negotiations.
A two-state solution has been the focus of international efforts to resolve the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict for two decades.
In recent years, some Palestinians have put their support behind a single,
democratic state in Israel and the West Bank, but Israel’s government views that
as a non-starter since it would by definition mean the end of Israel as a Jewish
nation, the report added. (ANI)
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
19
Dip Cap DA
(__) Conflict resolution will require full dedication from Kerry.
Sherwood, Guardian columnist, 2013
(“John Kerry returns to Middle East amid lowered expectations”
Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem. guardian.co.uk, Sunday 7 April 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/07/john-kerry-middle-eastexpectations)
It's a journey that John Kerry will come to know well. The plane descends either
from the west, over the glittering Mediterranean sea and the bauhaus
architecture of Tel Aviv, or from the east, across the stark biblical landscape of
the West Bank. From there it's uphill – literally and, perhaps, metaphorically – to
west Jerusalem, the seat of the Israeli government, and to Ramallah, the home
of the Palestinian Authority.
The US secretary of state is expected to make this journey many times in the
coming months of grinding shuttle diplomacy between the two sides of the 65year-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He will need stamina, patience,
resourcefulness, determination; a strong sense of history, a clear grasp of the
present, and a vision of the future; plus an instinct for when to tread delicately
and when to diplomatically bang heads.
Kerry is in the Holy Land this week, for the third time in less than a month, as part
of a drive by the second-term Obama administration to get the so-called peace
process back on track after the miscalculations and setbacks of Barack Obama's
first term. Amid carefully lowered expectations, Kerry will strive to bridge the gaps
between the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and the Palestinian
president, Mahmoud Abbas, that have caused a two-and-a-half-year impasse.
But a long history of failed efforts and aborted talks cannot be far from his mind.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
20
Dip Cap DA
Uniqueness- Peace Talks and Syria- Kerry Focused now
(__) Kerry is exerting all of his political capital toward resolving the Syria
and Israel/Palestine conflicts.
Sun Herald, 2013
(“Kerry is winning” 5/15/13¶
http://www.sunherald.com/2013/05/15/4668638/david-rothkopf-you-know-itsbad.html)
Still, the new U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, has been indefatigable in his
first few months in pressing the case for progress on both Syria and
Israel/Palestine. He is winning the attention and respect of leaders in the region.
And while it would be naive beyond reason to expect his efforts to produce
miracle breakthroughs, it is not unreasonable to think he could help engineer
international mechanisms or processes that could at least re-engage the opposing
sides in Syria or Israel and the Palestinian territories -- which would be progress
indeed, if only fragmentary.
The president seems committed to such an outcome. His team is working on it.
And in talking to diplomats from the region, it seems possible that the
administration's efforts could produce something somewhat more akin to
progress than that which we are likely to see at home in America.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
21
Dip Cap DA
(__) Kerry’s diplomatic commitment to Syria is key to peace process.
ABC news, 2013
( “Kerry Prefers Russia Not Aid Syria, But Stands by Joint Peace Plan”, May 9,
2013 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/kerry-prefers-russia-not-aidsyria-but-stands-by-joint-peace-plan/) KH
Secretary of State John Kerry today stood by his renewed push with the Russian
government for the Assad regime and Syria’s opposition to negotiate a political
solution to end the conflict, now going into it’s third year.
Speaking at a news conference in Rome, Kerry addressed a Wall Street Journal report on Thursday that Russia was
preparing to sell missiles to the Syrian government, saying he expressed his general disapproval of Russian support to
the Assad regime during his meetings with President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov earlier this week.
“We’ve made it crystal clear that we would prefer Russians not supply assistance. That is on record. That hasn’t
changed,” said Kerry, who added that the United States believes the shipment of missiles would be “potentially
destabilizing with the respect to the state of Israel.”
But he also acknowledged that there are countries supplying weapons to the rebels, and stressed that he wants to focus
on what the United States and Russia can accomplish towards helping both sides reach a political solution soon.
He said he remained encouraged by the Russians’ cooperation and by what he
described as a public backing-away from their specific support for Assad.
“I thought what Foreign Minister Lavrov said in Moscow was very important. He stood up and said Russia is not tied to
any one person,” Kerry told reporters.
He added that Russia’s stated support of the implementation of the Geneva agreement from last year, which requires that
any transitional government in Syria be appointed by “mutual consent” from both sides, is proof that the Russians
understand Assad will not have a role in any future government.
“There is no way that anybody here believes that the opposition is ever going to give consent to President Assad to be
running that government. so that fact that Russia and Foreign Minister Lavrov embrace this path is very, very significant,”
said Kerry.
He added that the additional $100 million in humanitarian aid the United States
pledged on Thursday to help address Syria’s growing refugee crisis is only a
short-term reprieve from the ongoing violence. He reiterated that the only
permanent solution to Syria’s conflict will be a political one.
“In the end, my friends, the solution to this crisis is not more humanitarian assistance,” said Kerry. “In the end, it’s a
political solution that reduces the humanitarian crisis itself.”
The news conference in Rome came at the end of whirlwind trip that began in Moscow on Tuesday. While in Rome, Kerry
also continued with his push for the Middle East peace process, meeting with Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, Jordanian
Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who serves as the special envoy for the
quartet group of nations attempting to mediate the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
22
Dip Cap DA
UQ- Peace Talks- A2 Kerry focus on Asia
(__) Kerry’s top priority remains Middle East peace.
AFP, 2013
(“Kerry cancels UAE stop to focus on Middle East peace” AFP: June 29, 2013
http://www.yourmiddleeast.com/news/kerry-cancels-uae-stop-to-focus-onmiddle-east-peace_16120) KH
US Secretary of State John Kerry went into overtime Saturday in his bid to revive long
dormant Middle East peace talks as he met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu for a third straight day.
Kerry was shuttling back and forth between Jerusalem and Amman, where he saw
Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas, as US officials insisted on a virtual blackout of
negotiation details as they hoped to reach a deal.
"Working hard," Kerry told a reporter who asked if he was making progress as he
and Abbas began their second round of talks in as many days. Kerry later flew back
to see Netanyahu after the end of the Jewish sabbath.
For their latest meeting, Netanyahu was accompanied by officials including Justice
Minister Tzipi Livni, Israel's designated negotiator to talks with the Palestinians,
while Kerry brought aides who specialise in technical details.
In a potential sign of headway, Kerry cancelled a dinner he had scheduled for
Saturday night in Abu Dhabi, part of his separate tour in the past week through Gulf
Arab states to coordinate support for rebels in Syria's civil war.
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said Kerry would still head to a meeting
of Asian ministers in Brunei starting on Monday but called off the Abu Dhabi stop
because his "meetings on the peace process remain ongoing".
Kerry is up against a tight schedule to leave Sunday in time for the Brunei meetings
and US officials said he hoped to speak one more time with Abbas, who has returned
to Ramallah in the West Bank, after the dinner with Netanyahu.
"Kerry is willing to put in the legwork necessary to move this process forward in a
meaningful way," a US official said on condition of anonymity.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
23
Dip Cap DA
UQ- A2 US engaging Cuba now
(__) Despite warming relations, no significant engagement has taken place with
Cuba.
AP, 2013
(“Cuba, US try talking, but face many obstacles”, By PAUL HAVEN. Associated Press.
Friday, June 21, 2013 http://www.kansas.com/2013/06/21/2857399/cuba-us-trytalking-but-face-many.html) KH
HAVANA — They've hardly become allies, but Cuba and the U.S. have taken some
baby steps toward rapprochement in recent weeks that have people on this island
and in Washington wondering if a breakthrough in relations could be just over the
horizon.
Skeptics caution that the Cold War enemies have been here many times before, only
to fall back into old recriminations. But there are signs that views might be shifting
on both sides of the Florida Straits.
In the past week, the two countries have held talks on resuming direct mail service, and announced a July 17 sit-down on
migration issues. In May, a U.S. federal judge allowed a convicted Cuban intelligence agent to return to the island. This month,
Cuba informed the family of jailed U.S. government subcontractor Alan Gross that it would let an American doctor examine
him, though the visit has apparently not yet happened. President Raul Castro has also ushered in a series of economic and
social changes, including making it easier for Cubans to travel off the island.
Under the radar, diplomats on both sides describe a sea change in the tone of their dealings.
Only last year, Cuban state television was broadcasting grainy footage of American diplomats meeting with dissidents on
Havana streets and publically accusing them of being CIA front-men. Today, U.S. diplomats in Havana and Cuban Foreign
Ministry officials have easy contact, even sharing home phone numbers.
Josefina Vidal, Cuba's top diplomat for North American affairs, recently traveled to Washington and met twice with State
Department officials - a visit that came right before the announcements of resumptions in the two sets of bilateral talks that
had been suspended for more than two years. Washington has also granted visas to prominent Cuban officials, including the
daughter of Cuba's president.
"These recent steps indicate a desire on both sides to try to move forward, but also a
recognition on both sides of just how difficult it is to make real progress," said Robert
Pastor, a professor of international relations at American University and former
national security adviser on Latin America during the Carter administration. "These
are tiny, incremental gains, and the prospects of going backwards are equally high."
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
24
Dip Cap DA
UQ- Not focusing on LA
(__) Kerry isn’t focusing on LA- Its on the back burner
Harper 2/1
[Liz Harper, contributing blogger to AQ Online based in Washington DC, “What
Secretary of State John Kerry Could Mean for Latin American Affairs”, FEBRUARY 1,
2013, http://americasquarterly.org/content/what-secretary-state-john-kerrycould-mean-latin-american-affairs, \\wyo-bb]
In all, during Kerry’s confirmation hearing, Latin America was mentioned seven
times, and Mexico specifically 12 times. In contrast, Afghanistan was mentioned 35 times and Iran 24,
according to a useful word cloud in the Wall Street Journal. Given the security flare-ups in Iran,
Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the instability throughout North Africa, it’s
reasonable that the Western Hemisphere remains on the backburner.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
25
Dip Cap DA
Links
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
26
Dip Cap DA
Link- generic- new plans trades off
(__) Any distractions will trade-off with the short timeframe Kerry has to
succeed.
Shoval, Israeli politician and diplomat, 2013
(“Sabotaging Kerry in advance” Zalman Shoval- Israeli politician and diplomat,
MA at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva
and then a PhD (by correspondence) in international studies
May 16, 2013 http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=4337)
Next week, yet again, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will visit Israel. His
energy and determination to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process are
admirable, but it is difficult to know just how much Kerry actually believes he can
succeed where his predecessors failed -- to bring the sides to the negotiating
table.
What drives him and what plays in his favor, at least in his view, is that he
considers his current post as the pinnacle of his public service career, and that
he has no ambitions to run again for the presidency (along with his hope that an
Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement will solidify his place in the history books).
He is also lucky that America's grave failure in Benghazi, which led to the deaths
of America's ambassador to Libya and three others at the hands of jihadist
terrorists, didn't occur on his watch, such that his slate is clean.
A famous German general once said that he prefers smart but lazy officers over
those less smart but overzealous. Kerry is indeed intelligent and experienced,
which he has proven over his decades of public service in the Senate and other
offices, but the question remains: Will his abundant fervor, along with the short
time frame he has allotted for himself to reach his goal, be to his own detriment ?
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
27
Dip Cap DA
(__) The plan overloads Obama at a key moment, causing tradeoffs.
Walt, Professor of International Relations at Harvard, 2009
(Stephen M, Prof of IR @ Harvard, “Nibbled to death by ducks?” 7-27-09, Foreign Policy,
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/07/27/nibbled_to_death_by_ducks.)
Moreover, trying to advance the ball on so many different fronts simultaneously
carries its own risks. In particular, it provides governments that are opposed to
some or all of Washington's agenda with an obvious way to respond: they can
"just say no." In Taming American Power, I labeled this strategy "balking," (a term
suggested to me by Seyom Brown) and I argued that it was a common way for
weak states to prevent a dominant power from imposing its will. In a world where
the United States remains significantly stronger than any other power, few states
want to get into a direct test of strength with Washington. But American power is
not so vast that it can simply snap its fingers and expect everyone to do its
bidding. Why? Because exercising leverage is itself costly, and the more you do
in one area, the more latitude that opponents somewhere else are likely to have.
There are still only 24 hours in a day, and the White House can't devote equal
attention and political capital to every issue. So states that don’t want to do what
Obama wants can delay, dither, obfuscate, drag their feet, or just say no,
knowing that the United States doesn’t have the resources, attention span,
staying power, or political will to force their compliance now or monitor it
afterwards. An even better tactic (perfected by a number of close U.S. allies) is to
pretend to comply with American wishes while blithely going ahead with their own
agendas. So NATO allies promise to increase their defense efforts but never
manage to do much; Israel promises to stop building settlements but somehow
the number of illegal settlers keeps growing, the Palestinians pledge to reform
but make progress at a glacial pace, Pakistan suppresses jihadis with one hand
and subsidizes them with the other, Iran agrees to negotiate but continues to
enrich, China says it will crack down on copyright violations but the problem
remains pervasive, and so on.
In On War, Carl von Clausewitz famously described what he termed the "friction"
of warfare; the accumulated set of minor obstacles and accidents that made even
the simplest of objectives difficult to achieve. The same problem can arise in
foreign policy: even when everything is simple, "the simplest things are very
difficult." States that oppose what the United States is trying to do have lots of
ways of increasing that friction without triggering an actual crisis. In other words,
Obama's foreign policy may fail not because he loses some dramatic
confrontation, but simply because a whole array of weaker actors manage to
grind him down. In this scenario he doesn't get vanquished, just "nibbled to death
by ducks." Obama took office with energy, a new vision, an experienced team,
and lengthy "to-do" list. But one can already sense the forward motion slowing,
which will encourage opponents to dig their heels in deeper and throw more
obstacles in his path. If the administration keeps trying to do everything at once,
there is a real danger that their actual foreign policy achievements will be quite
modest. The sooner they decide which goals they think they can actually bring
off, and focus their energies there, the more likely they are to succeed. And a few
tangible successes now might actually make the other items on their agenda
easier to accomplish later on.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
28
Dip Cap DA
(__) The plan would have to be spun to control perceptions – this requires
extensive diplomatic focus.
The Quadrennial Defense Review, 2010
(QDR Report prepared for Congress, February 1, 2010)
As part of the U.S. government's integrated civilian-military efforts to interact
effectively with a variety of audiences and stakeholders, DoD will continue to
improve key capabilities that support strategic communication. Effective strategic
communication requires close collaboration across interagency lines at all
stages, and DoD works particularly closely with the Department of State to
support State’s core role in communicating with foreign governments and
international publics. Effective strategic communication also requires the
orchestration of multiple lines of operation. Chief among these are policy
implementation, force employment, information operations, public affairs, civil
affairs, and public diplomacy and engagement. Together, the effects of these
activities support national objectives. Strategic communication is essential in
COIN, CT, and stability operations, where population and stakeholder beliefs and
perceptions are crucial to our success, and where adversaries often enjoy the
advantage of greater local knowledge and calibrate their activities to achieve
sophisticated information objectives.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
29
Dip Cap DA
(__) Any distraction trades off with Kerry’s diplomatic capital.
Sherwood, Guardian columnist, 2013
(“John Kerry returns to Middle East amid lowered expectations”
Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem. guardian.co.uk, Sunday 7 April 2013 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/07/johnkerry-middle-east-expectations)
Obama left the Holy Land with his stock higher than ever among Israelis, but
even lower among Palestinians. It's now down to Kerry to try to move forward.
Kerry's efforts to bring the two sides together will focus initially on measures to
instil confidence in their stated commitment to negotiations.
Israel may be asked to release more than 120 Palestinian political prisoners who have been in jail since before the 1993
Oslo accords. The Palestinians would also like a settlement construction freeze. Israel's formal position is that this is a
non-starter, but it may avoid announcing new building projects in the next two or three months in an unstated gesture.
The Palestinians have said they will refrain from pressing ahead with taking Israel to the international criminal court – a
key Israeli concern –for up to 12 weeks. But they also want to see a proposed map with defined borders at the start of any
talks.
Kerry is believed to be keen to dust off the 11-year-old Arab (or Saudi) peace plan, under which regional states would
normalise relations with Israel in return for the establishment of a Palestinian state. And he is likely to ask Turkey to play
an active role in any revived process.
It all seems reasonably promising on paper, but the reality on the ground looks rather different.
The new Israeli government, sworn in two days before Obama's visit, is a rightwing pro-settler coalition. One of its key
partners, the Jewish Home party led by Naftali Bennett, is vehemently opposed to a two-state solution. Netanyahu also
has a long track record of saying he wants peace talks while pursuing a colonialist policy in the West Bank and East
Jerusalem.
On the Palestinian side, frustration is growing at the lack of a political horizon and the continued suffocated existence
under occupation. Cynicism about the "peace process" abounds, faith in Abbas is plummeting and the mood among
young men in villages and refugee camps is growing more radical. Talk of a new Palestinian intifada(uprising) is common
both on the street and in Israeli military-intelligence circles.
In Gaza, perhaps the most complicated and least discussed aspect of any peace talks, rocket fire has resumed on a
limited scale over recent weeks.
Another conflict like those in 2008-9 and 2012 would likely
derail Kerry's ambitions.
Kerry will also focus on Iran's nuclear programme, as well as the worsening
situation in Syria and its knock-on effect in Lebanon. The secretary of state will
have his hands full. "It's too early to be optimistic," said a western diplomat.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
30
Dip Cap DA
(__) Military reforms and changes to our SQ policy require tons of
diplomatic capital – consultation and reviews will happen at all levels of
government.
The Quadrennial Defense Review in 2010
(QDR Report prepared for Congress, February 1, 2010)
Part of the Department’s obligation to defend and advance U.S. interests while taking care of our
people is the imperative to reform how it does business. The Department is working to help build
a whole-of-government approach to the provision of security assistance, improving our defense
acquisition and logistics processes to better support our personnel in harm’s way, strengthening
our technology and industrial bases to facilitate innovation, and crafting a strategic approach to
climate and energy challenges. Given the complex security environment and the range of
missions, capabilities, and institutional reforms necessary to protect and advance U.S.
interests, the QDR highlights the importance of revitalizing defense relationships with allies
and partners in key regions. An important element of revitalizing key relationships is the need to
craft an approach to the U.S. defense posture that emphasizes cooperation with allies and
partners and retailoring military forces, facilities, and defense agreements across regions. This
QDR benefited from extensive engagement with key stakeholders. As the QDR generated
insights and interim findings, these were shared with and reviewed by a wide range of
experts, both within DoD and beyond. Over the course of the review, QDR staff consulted with
and briefed congressional staff as well as representatives of allied and other governments.
DoD officials also engaged with their counterparts elsewhere in the U.S. government to
further the kind of integrated security approaches long advocated by the President, Secretary of
Defense, and Secretary of State. For example, Defense leaders and staff worked closely with
the Departments of State and Homeland Security, as well as the Intelligence Community,
as they undertook their Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, Quadrennial
Homeland Security Review, and Quadrennial Intelligence Community Review respectively,
sharing insights regarding analysis, key missions, capabilities, and plans in overlapping issue
areas.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
31
Dip Cap DA
Link- UQ- Mexico
(__) US not focused on Mexico.
Borderzine 2013
[Borderzine: Reporting Across Fronteras, project of UT El Paso and the
Department of Communication, “The perception of Mexico in the U.S. hits a new
low, according to survey”, May 10 2013, http://borderzine.com/2013/05/theperception-of-mexico-in-the-u-s-hits-a-new-low-according-to-survey/]
In general, the perception today in the U.S. of Mexico is not favorable according
to a recent study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the Woodrow
Wilson Center. On a scale of 0-100 with 0 being very cold and 100 being very
warm, Mexico scores a 43. These feelings toward Mexico can be attributed in part
to immigration issues and to the escalating level of violence in that country.¶
According to the public opinion survey conducted in April, a majority of
Americans believe that bilateral relations are more important with other countries
than they are with Mexico. China is “somewhat important” to the U.S. for 89 per
cent of Americans, while only 68 per cent of Americans consider Mexico
“somewhat important.”¶ In terms of being “very important” to the United States,
Mexico has declined in the eyes of Americans from 37 percent in 2008 to 25
percent in 2010. Despite this, fewer Americans believe relations worsened after
2010.
Engaging with Mexico requires diplomatic capital
Ayala 09
(Elaine, president of the San Antonio Association of Hispanic Journalists, 1-19-09,
“Obama will have to ‘invest’ diplomatically in Latin America” My San Antonio)
http://blog.mysanantonio.com/latinlife/2009/01/obama-will-have-to-investdiplomatically-in-latin-america/)
The Washington Post writes a tough editorial about President-elect Obama’s Latin America agenda.
While President Bush faced many democratic-leaning countries when he entered office,
Obama faces more anti-American-leaning ones, and not just Venezuelan President Hugo
Chavez. The editorial also says Mexico may be Obama’s more pressing Latin American
issue. Mexican President Felix Calderon’s war against drug cartels “threaten to destroy
Mexico’s relatively fragile institutions. “By the president’s own account, some 6,000 persons
were killed in drug-related violence during 2008, a level of bloodshed exceeding that of Iraq. The
Bush administration initiated a $1.4 billion aid program to help Mexican security forces, and
Congress has appropriated the first $400 million. But little has been done to stop the massive flow of
weapons — not just guns but grenade launchers, night vision equipment and high explosives — from
the United States.” In April, President Obama will attend a summit of the Americas, as good as any
opportunity to address those issues, the Post editorial says. Unlike Bush, the new president “has
an objective and urgent interest in investing some of his diplomatic capital in Latin
America.”
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
32
Dip Cap DA
(__) US- Mexico engagement low now.
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs 2013
[Dina Smeltz, senior fellow of public opinion and foreign policy at the Chicago Council, Craig Kafura, senior program
officer at the Chicago Council, “As Presidend Obama Heads to Mexico, Americans Have Mixed Views of Neighbor across
the Border”, April 29 2013, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/chicago_mexico_survey.pdf]
Favorable Ratings of Mexico at a New Low¶ Despite majority affirmation of
positive ties between ¶ the United States and Mexico, American feelings ¶ toward
Mexico are now at the lowest level since the ¶ question was first posed in Chicago
Council online ¶ surveys in 2002. Mexico receives a mean rating of 43 ¶ on a
thermometer scale of how Americans feel ¶ towards other nations (with 0
meaning a very cold, ¶ unfavorable feeling; 100 meaning a very warm, ¶
favorable feeling; and 50 being neutral). From 1994 ¶ to 2002 the question was
also asked in telephone ¶ surveys; the mean rating of the telephone surveys in ¶
1994 and 1998 was 57 and in 2002 was 60. The ¶ current mean rating is higher
than that given to China ¶ (39), but lower than that for Brazil (53) and Canada ¶
(78) (Figure 3).¶ The low rating appears to be linked at least in part to ¶ the
perception that the two nations are not working ¶ together on key bilateral issues
(see Figure 9, page 6). ¶ Negative views of Mexican immigrants may also play ¶
some role (a separate report on attitudes toward immigration is forthcoming).
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
33
Dip Cap DA
Link- Cuba
(__) Cuba engagement would cost diplomatic capital.
AP, 2013
(“Cuba, US try talking, but face many obstacles”, By PAUL HAVEN. Associated Press. Friday, June 21, 2013
http://www.kansas.com/2013/06/21/2857399/cuba-us-try-talking-but-face-many.html) KH
To be sure, there is still far more that separates the long-time antagonists than unites
them.
The State Department has kept Cuba on a list of state sponsors of terrorism and
another that calls into question Havana's commitment to fighting human trafficking.
The Obama administration continues to demand democratic change on an island
ruled for more than a half century by Castro and his brother Fidel.
For its part, Cuba continues to denounce Washington's 51-year-old economic
embargo.
And then there is Gross, the 64-year-old Maryland native who was arrested in 2009 and is serving a 15-year jail sentence for
bringing communications equipment to the island illegally. His case has scuttled efforts at engagement in the past, and could
do so again, U.S. officials say privately. Cuba has indicated it wants to trade Gross for four Cuban agents serving long jail terms
in the United States, something Washington has said it won't consider.
Ted Henken, a professor of Latin American studies at Baruch College in New York who helped organize a recent U.S. tour by
the Obama administration is too concerned with
upsetting Cuban-American politicians and has missed opportunities to engage with
Cuba at a crucial time in its history.
"I think that a lot more would have to happen for this to amount to momentum
leading to any kind of major diplomatic breakthrough," he said. "Obama should be
bolder and more audacious."
Even these limited moves have sparked fierce criticism by those long opposed to engagement.
Cuban dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez, said
Cuban-American congressman Mario Diaz Balart, a Florida Republican, called the recent overtures "disturbing."
"Rather than attempting to legitimize the Cuban people's oppressors, the administration should demand that the regime stop
harboring fugitives from U.S. justice, release all political prisoners and American humanitarian aid worker Alan Gross, end the
brutal, escalating repression against the Cuban people, and respect basic human rights," he said.
Another Cuban-American politician from Florida, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, scolded
Obama for seeking "dialogue with the dictatorship."
Despite that rhetoric, many experts think Obama would face less political fallout at home if he chose engagement because
younger Cuban-Americans seem more open to improved ties than those who fled immediately after the 1959 revolution.
Of 10 Cuban-Americans interview by The Associated Press on Thursday at the popular Miami restaurant Versailles, a de facto
headquarters of the exile community, only two said they were opposed to the U.S. holding migration talks. Several said they
hoped for much more movement.
Jose Gonzalez, 55, a shipping industry supervisor who was born in Cuba and came to the U.S. at age 12, said he now favors an
end to the embargo and the resumption of formal diplomatic ties. "There was a reason that existed but it doesn't anymore," he
said.
Santiago Portal, a 65-year-old engineer who moved to the U.S. 45 years ago, said more dialogue would be good. "The more
exchange of all types the closer Cuba will be to democracy," he said.
Those opinions dovetail with a 2011 poll by Florida International University of 648 randomly selected Cuban-Americans in
Miami-Dade County that said 58 percent favored re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. That was a considerable
increase from a survey in 1993, when 80 percent of people polled said they did not support trade or diplomatic relations with
Cuba.
"In general, there is an open attitude, certainly toward re-establishing diplomatic
relations," said Jorge Duany, director of the Cuban Research Institute at Florida International University. "Short of
perhaps lifting the embargo ... there seems to be increasing support for some sort of
understanding with the Cuban government."
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
34
Dip Cap DA
(__) Changing Cuba policy would sap Kerry’s capital
Miroff 13
(Nick, 1-2-13, “Can Kerry make friends with Cuba?” Global Post)
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/cuba/121231/kerry-cuba-secretary-of-state-obama)
HAVANA, Cuba — At the last Summit of the Americas, held in Colombia in April, Washington’s rivals in Latin America and its
political allies had the same piece of advice for better US diplomacy in the region: get over your Cuba fixation. Now, with Sen.
as the next secretary of state, the United States will
have a top diplomat who has been a frequent critic of America’s 50-year-old effort to
force regime change in Havana. In recent years, Kerry has been the Senate’s most prominent skeptic of USJohn Kerry (D-Mass.) likely to be confirmed
funded pro-democracy efforts that give financial backing to dissident groups in Cuba and beam anti-Castro programming to
the island through radio and television programs based in Miami .
Kerry has also favored lifting curbs on
US travel to the island, and opening up American tourism to the only country in the world the US government
restricts its own citizens from visiting. For the rest of Latin America, where leaders say they're eager for Washington to
modernize its view of the region and engage in new ways, Cuba remains “a litmus test” for the Obama presidency, according to
getting
Cuba right would reverberate throughout the Americas,” said Sweig, calling Kerry
“ideally suited to the task.” “Kerry's instincts and experience in Latin America are to see past lingering and often
Julia Sweig, director of Latin American Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. “The strategic benefits of
toxic ideology in the US Congress and bureaucracy in favor of pragmatism and problem solving,” she said.
Regardless of
Kerry’s record on Cuba policy in the Senate, analysts say he will face several obstacles
to major change, not least of which will be the man likely to replace him as chairman of the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey), a Cuban American. If Menendez becomes
chairman, then the committee responsible for shaping US foreign policy in the upper house will be led by a hardliner who
while Kerry may have some latitude to
adjust Cuba policy from inside the White House, Latin America experts don’t expect sweeping
change — like an end to the Cuba Embargo — which requires Congressional action. “On Latin America, in
wants to ratchet up — not dial back — the US squeeze on Havana. So
general, I think Kerry has a longer and broader vision,” said Robert Pastor, professor of international relations at American
when it comes to Cuba, he cautioned, “Kerry is also a political realist.”
“Changing US policy is not a high priority for him, but not changing US policy is the only priority for
University. But
Bob Menendez,” Pastor said. In 2011, Kerry delayed the release of nearly $20 million in federal funds for pro-democracy Cuba
projects run by the US Agency for International Development (USAID), questioning their effectiveness and insisting on greater
oversight. “There is no evidence that the ‘democracy promotion’ programs, which have cost the US taxpayer more than $150
million so far, are helping the Cuban people,” Kerry said at the time. “Nor have they achieved much more than provoking the
Cuban government to arrest a US government contractor.” The US government contractor is Alan Gross, jailed on the island
since December 2009. Cuban authorities arrested Gross while he worked on a USAID project to set up satellite
communications gear that would allow members of Cuba’s Jewish community to connect to the internet without going through
government servers. Cuba sentenced him to 15 years in prison, but now says its willing to work out a prisoner swap for the
“Cuban Five,” a group of intelligence agents who have been serving time in a US federal prison. The Obama administration has
refused to negotiate, calling on Havana to release Gross unconditionally, and even US lawmakers who advocate greater
engagement with Cuba say no change will be possible as long as he’s in jail. The Castro government insists it’s not willing to
Alzugaray, a former Cuban diplomat and scholar of US-Cuba
relations at the University of Havana, said a resolution to the Gross case and other
significant changes in US policy would “require a big investment of political capital” by Kerry
give up Gross for nothing. Carlos
and Obama.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
35
Dip Cap DA
(__) Kerry will get involved in the plan—he’s the best candidate to repair Cuba
relations
Levy 13
(Arturo, Lecturer and Doctoral Candidate, University of Denver, 4-19-13, “Kerry’s Cuba Sanity” Huffington Post)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arturo-lopez-levy/kerrys-cuba-sanity_b_3112491.html
Admittedly, Kerry has not always applied these lessons properly -- witness his regrettable support for the Bush
in his efforts to ease the archaic U.S.
blockade on Cuba, Kerry continues to promote engagement as the fundamental tool
of foreign policy. In a 2009 Tampa Bay Times op-ed, for example, Kerry relates how the success of the U.S.
administration's disastrous invasion of Iraq. But elsewhere, as
rapprochement with Vietnam helped shape his advocacy for improved relations with Cuba, which he presented as a defense of
U.S. interests and democratic values. "For 47 years," he wrote, "our embargo in the name of democracy has produced no
democracy at all. Too often, our rhetoric and policies have actually furnished the Castro regime with an all-purpose excuse to
draw attention away from its many shortcomings." This evidence has informed the future secretary of state's position against
the ban on travel to Cuba for U.S. citizens. Based on the experience of tourists from other countries and the return of CubanAmericans who "have already had a significant impact on increasing the flow of information and hard currency to ordinary
Cubans," Kerry understands that unrestricted U.S. travel to Cuba would be "a catalyst for change." The senator also placed a
temporary freeze in 2010 on the poorly designed USAID Cuba programs, which have led to the imprisonment of Alan Gross, an
the revision of the Bush
administration-designed USAID programs advanced the possibility of Alan Gross's
release as a Cuban humanitarian act. Senator Kerry participated in a effort to
negotiate a diplomatic solution. With State Department's approval, Kerry met Bruno Rodriguez, Cuba's
agency subcontractor. According to an article by R.M. Schneiderman in Foreign Affairs,
ministry of foreign affairs at the residence of the Cuban Ambassador to the United Nations in New York. Unfortunately Senator
Robert Menendez , a Cuban-American, stepped in and spoiled the possibility of a negotiated solution. The senator from New
Jersey demanded that the full 20 million dollars be spent and the provocative programs be restored. Under the pressure of a
delicate balance of forces in the Senate, The White House conceded. Schneiderman quoted Fulton Armstrong, a member of
Senator Kerry's staff who was involved in the dialogue with Cuban diplomats. "Poor Alan Gross -- Armstrong wrote -- the
Cuban-American lobby had won." Kerry, who has visited Vietnam post-reconciliation, knows that a USAID program there
helped to multiply Internet connectivity rates in the country. The USAID program in Vietnam is jointly implemented with the
Japanese development agency and with the support of the local government, unlike the Helms-Burton law, which geared
USAID programs in Cuba toward regime change and was repudiated in the UN for its unilateralism. The USAID program in
Vietnam encourages development, which is what USAID was created for, not efforts to overthrow Hanoi's government. The
premise is that a population more affluent, better educated, and more connected will demand more democratic practices.
According to Kerry, the United States will never stop supporting human rights in Cuba, simply because they are fundamental
values of American society. After all, the United States has continued pushing for civil and political liberties in Vietnam since
ending its embargo. Washington does so not because it opposes Hanoi's leaders or to impose a regime change, but as part of a
rational strategy of promoting a peaceful evolution to a more open Vietnamese political system. Washington wants stable
relationships with the whole Vietnamese nation, not only with the government. Peoples of the world, no matter how
suspicious of U.S. motives they may be, appreciate human rights promotion within the framework of international law.
President Obama's designation
of John Kerry is also consistent with the political changes
that have occurred in the Cuban-American community, expressed by the elevated Cuban diaspora
vote for Democrats in the last election. Like Kerry, and as then-Senate candidate Obama stated in 2004, most CubanAmericans believe that the embargo has failed and that it is time to influence the processes of economic
reform and political liberalization that began in Cuba after the retirement of Fidel Castro. Once public opinion
turned against the war in Vietnam, the political leadership in the U.S. found it had no
choice but to follow suit. Kerry is better positioned than anyone to be a leader and see
that point of departure when it comes to U.S. policy and Cuba.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
36
Dip Cap DA
Link- Venezuela
(__) Restoring ties with Venezuela will require significant time and effort by
Kerry
Meacham 13
(Carl, director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 6-21-13, "The Kerry-Jaua
Meeting: Resetting U.S.-Venezuela Relations?" csis.org/publication/kerry-jaua-meeting-resetting-us-venezuela-relations
Kerry raised eyebrows when he met with his Venezuelan
counterpart, Foreign Minister Elías Jaua. Both were in Guatemala to attend the recent General Assembly of
On June 5, Secretary of State John
the Organization of American States (OAS). The pair’s meeting was the first high-level public meeting between the two
countries since U.S. president Barack Obama and former Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez shook hands and had a brief
exchange at the fifth Summit of the Americas in 2009. The Venezuelan government requested the meeting, which lasted 40
minutes and was followed by the announcement that the governments would embark on high-level talks aimed at improving
bilateral relations. Of particular note,
both sides expressed hope that the reciprocal appointment
of ambassadors would take place in short order; Chávez expelled the U.S. ambassador in 2008 and the
United States retaliated in kind. All of this is complicated by the outcome of the Venezuelan presidential election on April 14.
The official results have named Nicolás Maduro the winner, having beaten opposition leader Henrique Capriles by a slim 1.5
percentage points—though the opposition continues to contest both the results and the audit. While much of the region moved
quickly to recognize Maduro as the victor, the United States has yet to formally recognize the outcome and is waiting for the
results of an audit that is satisfactory to all parties. So, given these developments, should the United States be resetting its
Despite many fits and starts to
advance relations in recent years, genuine improvements in the relationship have
been hard to come by. Various U.S. government agencies hold sanctions against
elements of the Venezuelan government, including on state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA)
relationship with Venezuela? Q1: Where do U.S.-Venezuelan relations stand? A1:
for trading with Iran; on a former Iran-Venezuela Bank (IVB) for handling money transfers with a Chinese bank on behalf of
the Export Development Bank of Iran (EDBI); and on the state-owned Venezuelan Military Industry Company after it traded
with Iran, North Korea, and Syria. The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), over the past
five years, has also designated more than half a dozen Venezuelan government officials for acting for, or on behalf of, the
And, let’s
not forget that the reason there are no ambassadors in Caracas or D.C. was Chávez’s
refusal in 2010 to accept Obama’s nominee for the post in Venezuela. Similarly,
Venezuela severed ties with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in 2005. On the day
Chávez’s death was announced, Maduro, as caretaker, expelled two U.S. air force
attachés based in the Caracas embassy, accusing them of espionage. The United States
retaliated in kind. The Maduro government also arrested U.S. filmmaker Tim Tracy for allegedly instigating
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), designated a narco-terrorist organization by the U.S. agency.
postelection violence, though many pointed out he was simply in Venezuela to film a documentary on politics in the country.
Suggestions by members
of the Venezuelan government that the United States may have given Chávez the
cancer that caused his death have certainly not helped relations either, neither have
repeated accusations targeted at former officials and U.S. military and intelligence
involvement in countless evidence-free plots. Given the complex reality of the
bilateral relationship, it looks like both sides have a long road ahead of them if they
seek to enact positive changes.
(Tracy was released without further explanation the same morning Kerry and Jaua met.)
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
37
Dip Cap DA
Link- Latin America
(__) Increased engagement with Latin America would cost diplomatic
capital.
US Department of State 2013
[“Remarks With Mexican Foreign Secretary Jose Antonio Meade After their
Meeting”, April 19 2013,
http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/04/207772.htm]
SECRETARY KERRY: The answer is profoundly yes, we do intend – I inCuend to personally. And in fact, I had intended
to try to travel to the region next week, but because of the events this week and because of some other things happening,
I’ve had to postpone that just temporarily. And I mean temporarily. I will be getting to the region very shortly. President
Obama is traveling to the region.
President Obama feels very strongly and has asked me to
focus on how we can strengthen our economic partnerships in Latin America and
Central America, and I intend to do that.¶ We talked today – I think the beginning of our conversation
today, the very first thing out of my mouth was we don’t want to define this relationship with
Mexico or with other countries in the context of security or counternarcotics
trafficking. We want to define it much larger in the context of our citizens’
economic needs and our capacity to do more on the economic frontier. I am convinced
we’re going to growth that relationship.
In terms of jobs, we talked about ways to link up perhaps ultimately with the Transatlantic Investment Trade and
Partnership Program. In the long run it may be possible to find ways to strengthen both of us through those kinds of
initiatives. And of course, Mexico is a partner in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. So we are already growing
this relationship. We’re going to continue to grow it. I think it needs to be, frankly,
the defining issue of our relationship together with our commitment to democracy
and human rights.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
38
Dip Cap DA
Internal Link Extensions
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
39
Dip Cap DA
Dip Cap finite
(__) Kerry’s diplomatic capital is finite especially in the context of new
Middle East policies
Foreign Times 2-28
(John Kerry: an able performer in a tough role, The Economist, Foreign Times, 28 February 2013,
http://blogs.ft.com/the-a-list/2013/02/#axzz2NLY74YLL, da 3-12-13) PC
But beyond early assessments of whether Mr Kerry is up to the job, we must
acknowledge that success as secretary of state depends increasingly these days
on the ability of a skilled manager to do more with less. This president’s stated
policy goals focus overwhelmingly on the domestic side, and when boasting of
his first-term foreign policy achievements, Barack Obama speaks mainly of
bringing soldiers home, reducing the leverage of US diplomats at international
bargaining tables.¶ As for this first trip, it’s no surprise that Mr Kerry begins his
work in Europe and the Middle East, the two regions he knows best. Friendships
in London, Berlin, Paris, Rome, Ankara, Cairo, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and Doha will
serve him well. His challenge in Europe will be to keep the US involved in the
process of eurozone reform without offering much direct material help and to
create momentum behind a transatlantic trade pact that will take years to
negotiate.¶ In the Middle East, the first step will be to try to stop the carnage in
Syria and help prepare the ground for a capable new government. He scored an
early apparent success by helping persuade opposition leaders to join talks on
Syria’s future. Yet Mr Kerry knows well that here, as in other Middle East
hotspots, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran will have significant say in how a postAssad Syria develops in coming years. Particularly given the “pivot” of more US
resources and attention to Asia, America’s direct involvement will be more limited
than in the past, and every government in the Middle East knows it.
(__) The State Department is stretched thin – other policies trade off with
engaging Iran.
Washington Post 12-24
(Kerry provides new brand of diplomacy, The Washington Post, 24 December 2012,
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/12/24/world/kerry-provides-new-brand-of-diplomacy/#.UT9pcnyx_i4, da 3-12-13)
PC
He is expected to push for more aggressive, direct U.S. involvement on the
interconnected challenges of Iran’s nuclear program, upheavals in Syria, Egypt
and other Arab Spring countries, and dim prospects for an Arab-Israeli peace.¶ If
confirmed, Kerry would take over a department stretched by short budgets and
rising security costs overseas, and a diplomatic corps still reeling from the death
of Christopher Stevens, U.S. ambassador to Libya, during the Sept. 11 attack on
the U.S. mission in Benghazi.¶ A former top State Department official said that
“good internal management of the department” could be a challenge for Kerry.
“It’s very different running a Senate staff and running a big agency,” he said.
“Senators have unique challenges, but they’re used to a world that revolves
around them, and they have a staff, not a team.”
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
40
Dip Cap DA
(__) Capital is limited.
Washington Post, 2010
(Jackson Diehl, “A Mideast opportunity Obama shouldn't ignore”, 3-19-2010,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/04/18/AR2010041802726.html)
"Timing is everything in life," George Mitchell said this year while discussing his
daunting job as a Middle East envoy. It's a piece of wisdom that applies perfectly
to the Obama administration's troubles in the region -- and one that, curiously
enough, Mitchell and his boss have willfully ignored. The United States faces three
big strategic challenges in the Middle East. One is the threat of Iran. The second is
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And the third is the corrupt and crumbling Arab
autocracies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and half a dozen other states, which
fuel Islamic extremism and provide almost all of al-Qaeda's recruits. U.S.
diplomacy can have an impact on all of those problems -- but Washington can't
impose solutions by itself. It has to seek or create moments of opportunity and then
use them well. Policy has to be based on not only what the White House aspires to do
but also what conditions on the ground make possible.
(__) Any distractions will trade-off with the short timeframe Kerry has to
succeed.
Shoval, Israeli politician and diplomat, 2013
(“Sabotaging Kerry in advance” Zalman Shoval- Israeli politician and diplomat, MA
at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva and
then a PhD (by correspondence) in international studies
May 16, 2013 http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=4337)
Next week, yet again, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will visit Israel. His energy
and determination to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process are
admirable, but it is difficult to know just how much Kerry actually believes he
can succeed where his predecessors failed -- to bring the sides to the negotiating
table.
What drives him and what plays in his favor, at least in his view, is that he
considers his current post as the pinnacle of his public service career, and that
he has no ambitions to run again for the presidency (along with his hope that an
Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement will solidify his place in the history books).
He is also lucky that America's grave failure in Benghazi, which led to the deaths of
America's ambassador to Libya and three others at the hands of jihadist terrorists,
didn't occur on his watch, such that his slate is clean.
A famous German general once said that he prefers smart but lazy officers over
those less smart but overzealous. Kerry is indeed intelligent and experienced, which
he has proven over his decades of public service in the Senate and other offices, but
the question remains: Will his abundant fervor, along with the short time frame
he has allotted for himself to reach his goal, be to his own detriment?
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
41
Dip Cap DA
Kerry is Key
(__) Kerry is the key player in the peace process—he’s the only diplomat with
the skill and familiarity to solve the problem
Debusmann 13
(Bernd, former Reuters foreign affairs columnist, 4-19-13, “Kerry and the peace
process .. Can he be the honest broker” The Daily Star)
http://www.nosratashraf.com/en/content/21806
In theory, Kerry is in a good position to introduce a measure of even-handedness into
dealing with the long-festering problem. He is familiar with the region, having
travelled there often as a member and later chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, on which he served for 28 years. In 2009, as chairman of the committee,
he made a rare visit to Gaza. Aides say he has a personal passion for this “most
vexing” of conflicts. Perhaps as importantly, Kerry is said to want to go down in
history as one of America’s great secretaries of state. Helping settle the IsraeliPalestinian conflict would earn him a place in the pantheon of diplomacy and trump
the achievements of many of his predecessors, including Hillary Clinton. She left
office as the most widely traveled top diplomat in U.S. history but did not score a
diplomatic triumph worthy of the history books. Unlike Clinton, Kerry appears to
have no presidential ambitions for 2016, hence he is less constrained by domestic
politics and the heated disputes often generated by the subject of Israel and the
Palestinians.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
42
Dip Cap DA
US is Key
(__) In Middle East talks, US is mediator and actor
Belmaker '10
Gidon. Epoch Times Staff. 9/9/10. In Middle East Talks, US Plays Both
Mediator and Actor. The Epoch Times.
<http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/world/in-middle-east-talks-us-plays-bothmediator-and-actor-42303.html>
U.S. leadership in the Middle East has helped foster conditions for
productive negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority,
said Secretary of State Hilary Clinton in a speech in front of the council on foreign relations Wednesday.
Clinton explained the main facets of American foreign policy in the Middle East and in other parts of the
world.
Many U.S.
officials have referred many times to the Middle East peace talks
as an “American interest.” Indeed so. America’s role is not just one of mediator
in negotiations between the two sides, as is sometimes portrayed, but it is also an actor with
goals of its own.
“Look at the work to build institutions and spur economic development in the Palestinian territories,” said
Clinton. “The
United States invests hundreds of millions of dollars to
build Palestinian capacity because we know that progress on the ground
improves security, and helps lay the foundation for a future Palestinian
state, and it creates more favorable conditions for negotiations.”
United States has helped to train and establish PA
security forces, with cooperation from the Jordanians. These actions help abate Israeli
In recent years, the
concerns that the PA will not be able to maintain security in any future
peace agreement.
The first round of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians started n Washington
last week. This round of talks is the product of a few months of proximity talks
mediated by U.S. Special Envoy George Mitchell.
During the 20-year long Israeli-Palestinian peace process, many of the outstanding issues have
been discussed. Nevertheless the peace process—“The Annapolis process,” under President
George W. Bush—was
put on hold after the last elections in Israel two years ago.
Despite both Israel and Palestine wanting conditions for peace talks,
In the end, under pressure from the United States, the two sides agreed to
direct talks.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
43
Dip Cap DA
Talks will be successful
(__) Talks will be successful- Neither country want to be blamed failure of talks
and complicate relations with the US
Makovsky 7/3
[David Makovsky, Ziegler distinguished fellow and director of the Project on the
Middle East Peace Process at The Washington Institute, “Kerry Stands a Chance with
Israelis and Palestinians”, July 3, 2013, http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policyanalysis/view/kerry-stands-a-chance-with-israelis-and-palestinians, \\wyo-bb]
Despite these obstacles, low expectations
have not doomed the Kerry mission. Neither Abbas
nor Netanyahu wanted to be blamed if the mission failed, believing such an outcome
would only complicate relations with Washington and, in Netanyahu's case, with parts
of his own public. Abbas is aware that if he keeps spurning the Obama administration, the
United States will likely move on to other crises, and the deadlock will continue. He also
realizes that protracted stalemate is bound to push the populace toward Hamas
radicalism, and his nonviolent approach will no longer be able to compete. For his part,
Netanyahu defended the idea of peace with the Palestinians during a speech last week at the
gravesite of the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, stating, "We do not want a binational country."
(__) Talks will be successful- Netanyahu will make concessions
Makovsky 7/3
[David Makovsky, Ziegler distinguished fellow and director of the Project on the
Middle East Peace Process at The Washington Institute, “Kerry Stands a Chance with
Israelis and Palestinians”, July 3, 2013, http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policyanalysis/view/kerry-stands-a-chance-with-israelis-and-palestinians, \\wyo-bb]
As for the meetings with
Kerry, a report by the Israeli daily Maariv indicates that Netanyahu
expressed his willingness to seek security cabinet approval for preventing expansion
of settlements beyond Israel's West Bank security barrier; he is even willing to make
unspecified limitations on the settlement blocs adjacent to the pre-1967 boundaries.
Approximately 80 percent of Israeli settlers are concentrated in blocs that constitute 5 percent of the West Bank, while the
remaining 20 percent of settlers are dispersed in the other 95 percent of the land. The Maariv article also claimed that Israel
has agreed to release about 60 of the 123 prisoners convicted before the 1993 Oslo
Accords. This issue is complex because many of these prisoners were arrested on
murder charges. If they are released, the amnesty would occur in three phases, and only after talks begin. Netanyahu
has said in the past that he does not want to set prisoners free before negotiations commence because he does not want "pay"
for talking to the Palestinians. If the prisoners are released up front, he and other officials may be concerned that the
Palestinians will have no incentive to continue the talks. In
exchange for these concessions, Netanyahu
reportedly wants Abbas to drop his demand that Israel commit in advance to
negotiations based on the pre-1967 borders and land swaps. According to Maariv, Abbas is willing to do so
but would like all 123 prisoners delivered at once in order to make a bigger splash with the Palestinian public, especially since
Israel released over 1,000 prisoners to Hamas in 2011 in return for hostage Gilad Shalit. In
short, if an agreement
to enter final-status talks is reached, it would entail Israel compromising on
settlements and prisoners, and Abbas dropping his territorial preconditions.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
44
Dip Cap DA
(__) Talk will succeed- Isreal is cracking down on violence against Palestinians
as a sign of good faith and opening talks on West bank. Kerry’s tactics will be
successful
Makovsky 7/3
[David Makovsky, Ziegler distinguished fellow and director of the Project on the
Middle East Peace Process at The Washington Institute, “Kerry Stands a Chance with
Israelis and Palestinians”, July 3, 2013, http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policyanalysis/view/kerry-stands-a-chance-with-israelis-and-palestinians, \\wyo-bb]
Kerry's visit has produced other interesting signs as well. For example, the Israeli Ministry of
Defense suddenly announced this week that it would crack down on perpetrators of violence
against innocent Palestinians. Meanwhile, Kerry left behind Jonathan Schwartz, a State Department legal
advisor who has the best institutional memory in the U.S. government about Arab-Israeli negotiations and is usually
dispatched when talks reach the agreement drafting stage. More
broadly, Kerry views his current
mission as a piece of a wider Israeli-Palestinian puzzle. In late May, for instance, Washington
tasked Gen. John Allen -- U.S. Central Command's former number-two man on the Middle East -- with discussing
Israeli security concerns as part of any final-status deal. Since then, he has reportedly
held at least three rounds of meetings with the Israelis. Kerry also persuaded an Arab
League delegation to renew their commitment to an Arab peace initiative;
specifically, they discussed the prospect of Arab states normalizing their relations with Israel
after it yields the West Bank, indicating that Israel could keep some settlements as
long it offsets annexations with land swaps. Last but not least, Kerry declared a $4
billion economic development program for the West Bank. THE MISSION AND THE REGION
Kerry has pursued the Israeli-Palestinian issue not because he sees a peace deal as potentially
transformative for the Middle East, but because he fears an outbreak of violence would have
explosive resonance in a region already in turmoil. Israelis and Palestinians have
various tactical reasons to understate the Kerry mission. Yet if reports are to be believed, he
stands at least a chance for getting the parties to the table after years of deadlock,
primarily by avoiding all-or-nothing principles and finding compromises. If a breakthrough
fails to emerge, nobody can accuse Kerry of not prioritizing the issue.
(__) Kerry is going to make a break through if his focus holds
Associated Press 7/4
[AP, “Palestinians: Kerry is close to revive peace talks between Israelis and
Palestinians”, July 04, 2013, Translated from Spanish Via Google Chrome ,
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/espanol/2013/07/04/palestinos-kerry-estacerca-de-reactivar-conversaciones-de-paz-entre-israelies/#ixzz2Y6AHj2UC, \\wyobb]
RAMALLAH, West Bank - The U.S. secretary of state John Kerry is about to reach an
agreement between Israel and the Palestinians to resume peace negotiations within a
period of six to nine months, said Thursday the Palestinian authorities. Although the
agreement has not caught yet, Palestinians said their president, Mahmoud Abbas, is
pleased with the progress and expected to be found a formula to start the first
substantial peace dialogue in nearly five years. Kerry announced this week that
markedly shortened the differences between the two parties and will return soon to
the region to reach an agreement. Since taking office in early years, Kerry has met
with the leaders of both sides to try to resume negotiations through diplomacy.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
45
Dip Cap DA
Failure of peace process will cause terrorism
(__) Failure of the Peace Process causes terrorism
Jerome Slater, professor of political science at SUNY at Buffalo, Winter 1998
(Political Science Quarterly "Netanyahu, a Palestinian state, and Israeli security
reassessed" Vol. 112, Issue 4 ebsco)
Israel has had to live with what I shall call conventional terrorism since the early
years of the Zionist enterprise in Palestine in the 1920s. Terrible as it has been, this
kind of terrorism in no way threatens Israeli national security, as distinct from the
personal security of the Israeli victims. Despite the carnage of the fundamentalist
suicide bombings of 1994-1996, the odds of any individual Israeli becoming the
victim of terrorism--as opposed, say, to dying in Arab-Israeli wars or even in traffic
accidents--have been minute. This is not to minimize the horrors of terrorism, but
rather to place them in perspective. But in any case, the crucial point is that the
establishment of a Palestinian state would greatly reduce the incentive for continued
terrorism, most of which has been intended to force Israel out of the occupied
territories. To be sure, the purpose of the fundamentalist terrorism since 1993 goes
beyond that, for it has been designed to destroy the peace process and ultimately
Israel itself. Faced with that kind of murderous fanaticism, Israel and its new-found
allies in the PLO have no choice but to crush it. Following the suicide bombings of
March 1996, the Palestinian Authority decided to closely cooperate with Israeli
security forces to end the terrorism. The absence of any suicide bombings in the
next year--until the Arafat-Netanyahu break in March 1997, following the Israeli
government's decision to build new Jewish housing in East Jerusalem-demonstrates the crucial importance of such joint efforts. A breakdown of the peace
process is likely both to increase the support for the fundamentalists within overall
Palestinian opinion and diminish the incentives of the Palestinian Authority to
control them.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
46
Dip Cap DA
Kerry focused on MEP
(__) Kerry is in non-stop meetings to broker the deal- any perceived failure
would undo any future talks
Deyoung 6/29
[Karen DeYoung, Published: June 29, “Kerry extends marathon Mideast peace
effort”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/kerry-extendsmarathon-mideast-peace-effort/2013/06/29/34c1c478-e107-11e2-a63e8d9380ed1f73_story.html, \\wyo-bb]
The goal of the meetings is to persuade the two men to at least begin talks toward a sustainable twostate solution to the long-running- conflict, with the hard work of actually negotiating an agreement still
stretching far into the future. Although he is due to attend a meeting with foreign ministers of the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations in the sultanate of Brunei that begins Monday, Kerry has already
postponed his departure
from the Middle East, originally scheduled for Saturday night, and canceled a stop in
the United Arab Emirates. The nonstop meetings have set off a frenzy of speculation
in Israel, the West Bank and Jordan that Kerry may be able to broker a deal, if not for an
immediate Israel-Palestinian meeting, at least for a confirmed date for talks to start.
The rising expectations, however, have also increased the likely magnitude of perceived
failure in the event Kerry does not succeed. As they sat down for a private dinner Saturday night with
Netanyahu’s team, Kerry and his aides appeared somber and exhausted. But the composition of the parties on
both sides seemed to indicate that discussions had gone beyond generalities to
technical specifics.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
47
Dip Cap DA
Peace Process- Dip focus key
(__) Diplomatic focus is key to successful peace process.
Labott, CNN foreign affairs reporter, 2013
(“Analysis: Kerry ready to dirty hands in diplomatic deal-making” May 7, 2013
Elise Labott is CNN's foreign affairs reporter.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/07/politics/labott-kerry)
Allies seem impressed with Kerry's willingness to engage and ask their opinions.
South Korean President Park Geun-hye teased Kerry during a meeting in
Seoul in which he asked a lot of questions.
But some diplomats say while consultation is key, it remains to be seen if Kerry
can deliver with the White House.
In Washington, there is a fear Kerry may be raising too many expectations, writing
a bunch of checks he can't cash on a host of issues. If he starts to freelance or
strays too far from the White House script, Kerry may well find himself alone on
an island. Even America's top diplomat has a short leash.
"Even if the instinct is to do things on his own, he is smart enough to know that a
secretary of state cannot afford to lose the confidence of the White House," one
senior White House official said. "The president decides what the policy is, and
he has to respect those bounds."
For now, Obama seems willing to let Kerry put himself out there. Officials said
the White House appreciates Kerry's enthusiasm and feels it could produce
results if harnessed the right way.
But Obama bears some responsibility for doing that harnessing. More than one
foreign policy expert has said Kerry has what it takes to become one of the great
secretaries of state, along the lines of Henry Kissinger, James Baker and George
Shultz. The one thing they all had in common is a president who trusted them,
not just to implement foreign policy but to formulate it.
For a White House admittedly controlling over foreign policy, that will be no easy
task.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
48
Dip Cap DA
(__) Kerry’s focus is key to negotiations.
Ravid, Columnist, 2013
(“Kerry departs, urges Israel and Palestinians to 'make hard decisions'” By Barak
Ravid | May.24, 2013
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/kerry-departs-urges-israel-andpalestinians-to-make-hard-decisions.premium-1.525844) KH
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry left Israel early Friday afternoon following
an additional round of talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, with whom he discussed the
possibility of restarting peace talks.
Speaking at a press conference at Ben-Gurion International Airport, Kerry said
that he has considered holding another round of talks with the two sides on
Monday morning but decided that the time was not ripe.
Netanyahu and Abbas have to take a week or two to make some difficult decisions
that would allow peace talks to resume, Kerry said before his departure. He urged
both sides to exhibit leadership in order for that to happen.
"We are reaching the time (when) leaders need to make hard decisions," Kerry
said at the end of his fourth visit to the region in barely two months as he tries to
overcome deeply entrenched positions that have snarled the peace process.
Kerry, who met with Netanyahu Friday morning, said that gaps still remained
between the two sides. Israel is focused on security issues, while the Palestinians
are more interested in defining the borders of a future state, Kerry said. There is
only one way to realize the two sides' vision, he added: by resuming direct peace
talks.
"I made clear in my discussions that the parties should be focused on making
progress toward ... direct negotiations," he said, adding that each side needed to
"refrain from provocative rhetoric or actions ... that take us backwards."
A senior Israeli official called the meetings between Kerry and Netanyahu
"productive."
"Netanyahu appreciates Kerry's efforts to restart negotiations between Israel and
the Palestinians," the official said after Kerry's departure. "We welcome his
comments calling for the renewal of direct talks between the two sides. Israel has
already reached that decision – we are prepared to launch direct negotiations with
the Palestinians immediately."
Kerry said that the subject of settlement construction had been discussed with
both leaders and that the U.S. position on settlements is clear – the administration
believes settlement construction must end.
The U.S. secretary of state also addressed Israel's decision to retroactively
legalize some settlement outposts that has been slated for demolition, saying the
Israeli government could change its position in the coming month.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
49
Dip Cap DA
Peace process: A2 Russia key
(__) Cooperation key- Russia and US are tenuously starting Syrian peace
talks
VOA News 2013
[Voice of America News, funded by US government to provide comprehensive balanced news to an international
audience and governed by the VOA Charter signed into law by President Ford, “Kerry Says Syria Peace Talks Expected
in June”, 14 May 2013, http://www.voanews.com/content/putin-netanyahu-to-hold-syriafocused-talks/1660485.html] KH
Russia and the United States agreed last week to arrange peace talks despite their
sharp disagreements over Syria. Russia is a long-time ally of Syrian President
Basher al-Assad while the United States has been sending non-lethal aid to the
rebels.¶ Kerry said last week that the outcome of a peace conference could influence a U.S. decision whether to arm
the opposition.¶ French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has acknowledged that diplomatic efforts to bring Syria's warring
parties together are "very difficult." He said the two sides have to agree on negotiators who do not have "blood on their
hands" from the conflict, which has killed more than 80,000 people overt the last two years.¶ Russian President
Vladimir Putin said it is extremely important for all parties to avoid actions that
could aggravate the situation in Syria. He made the comment after talks with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu Tuesday in the Russian resort of Sochi.¶ Netanyahu said he and Putin are trying to find ways to
strengthen stability and security in the Middle East by explaining their positions to each other "directly" and "openly."
(__) Kerry’s diplomatic capital key to stability for US-Russian cooperation.
Gvosdev, former editor of the National Interest and a frequent foreign policy commentator in both the print and
broadcast media; he is currently on the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College, 2013
(“The Realist Prism: Narrowed Focus in U.S.-Russia Relations Proves Productive” By Nikolas Gvosdev, on 10 May 2013,
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12941/the-realist-prism-narrowed-focus-in-u-s-russia-relations-provesproductive) KH
John Kerry undertook his maiden voyage to Moscow as U.S. secretary of state
this week, and the initial impression is that his visit was a success. There was a
perceptible thaw in what, over the past year, has been described as a much more contentious relationship. U.S.
officials have focused on the prospect of a "more intensified dialogue with the Russians" that can now take place in the
aftermath of the presidential elections in both Russia and the United States.
Building upon the foundation laid last month by National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, Kerry continued the
process of leaving behind the baggage that had accumulated between Moscow
and Washington during the last part of the first term of the Obama administration,
particularly over human rights issues. The United States can no longer rely on a
close president-to-president relationship; in all of their encounters so far,
Presidents Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin have been formally correct but not
particularly close. For a "de-personalized" U.S.-Russia relationship to work, it
must move away from personalities to focus on issues, while avoiding the many
landmines that still litter the landscape—notably continued differences over the
state of democracy and human rights in Russia.
Donilon and Kerry, in their visits to Moscow and their meetings with Putin, have
spearheaded a fresh start in U.S.-Russia relations, one that, while acknowledging
the "values gap" between the two countries, seeks not to be dominated by it. The
Obama administration proceeded to sanction a number of Russian officials under the provisions of the Magnitsky Act—
drawing the ire of the Kremlin—but far fewer than the several hundred that were predicted, suggesting that the U.S.
government will bring up human rights issues but not make them the centerpiece of the relationship. With the Obama
administration anxious for a smooth disengagement from Afghanistan, the importance of maintaining the northern supply
route through Central Asia has trumped unnecessarily irritating Moscow. The aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing
has also re-awakened interest in increasing counterterrorism cooperation, even if it means accepting Russia's "democracy
deficit." The Kremlin, for its part, may be moving to a grudging acceptance that tolerating the U.S. need to raise "values
issues" is part of the price for maintaining a more normal relationship.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
50
Dip Cap DA
(__) US-Russia cooperation is key to resolve Syria conflict.
Gvosdev, former editor of the National Interest and a frequent foreign policy commentator in both the print and
broadcast media; he is currently on the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College, 2013
(“The Realist Prism: Narrowed Focus in U.S.-Russia Relations Proves Productive” By Nikolas Gvosdev, on 10 May 2013,
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12941/the-realist-prism-narrowed-focus-in-u-s-russia-relations-provesproductive) KH
Just as the election of Viktor Yanukovych as president of Ukraine in 2010 took that country out of contention as a friction
point between Russia and the United States, the electoral victory of the Georgian opposition and the installation of Bidzina
Ivanishvilias prime minister in Tbilisi has also helped the U.S.-Russia relationship. Ivanishvili, while not prepared to
renounce Georgia's Western aspirations, is nonetheless much more open than his predecessor to improving relations with
Russia and finding compromises that President Mikheil Saakashvili has been unwilling to entertain. Over the past several
months, Georgia has receded as a flashpoint between Moscow and Washington.
But it is on Syria where there has been the most unexpected convergence. Several
factors have strengthened the hand of those within the U.S. government calling
for caution, among them increased signs of the radicalization of the Syrian opposition, including the announcement
by the al-Nusra Front, one of the main rebel organizations, of its pledge of loyalty to al-Qaida; the kidnapping of two
Orthodox Christian bishops engaged in humanitarian relief operations; and the conflicting reports that suggest chemical
weapons might have been used by rebels, not government forces. While the U.S. continues to search
for opportunities to aid moderate elements within the opposition to Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad, Washington now seems much more receptive than it
did a year ago to Russian concerns about the rise of extremism—a more chastened
attitude created in part by the attacks in Benghazi and assessing the record of the Muslim Brotherhood once in power in
Egypt.
A hopeful sign is that both Washington and Moscow have dropped the expansive
rhetoric about partnership that characterized previous efforts at official U.S.Russia dialogue. Instead, the focus seems to be on searching for pragmatic solutions to discrete and specific
problems, from Syria to Afghanistan. There is no guarantee of success. On Syria, there still remains a major gap between
the Russian position—that the opposition should be willing to enter into a dialogue with no preconditions—and the
American one, which wants any dialogue to lay out a road map for Assad's departure from power. In addition, there are
strong anti-American and anti-Russian currents in both capitals, which could easily sabotage any dialogue that is not seen
to have the full support and backing of both presidents. Nevertheless, for the first time since the reset
began to falter at the end of 2011, there is room for cautious optimism in the
direction U.S.-Russia relations are taking.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
51
Dip Cap DA
Peace Process: A2 Palestine won’t cooperate
Despite barriers, Palestinians will cooperate if talks progress.
Irish Times, 13
“John Kerry reaches out in effort to restart Middle East peace talks”. Mark Weiss.
May 24, 2013
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/john-kerry-reaches-out-ineffort-to-restart-middle-east-peace-talks-1.1404621
Mr Netanyahu said Israel wanted, above all, to restart the peace talks with the
Palestinians. “It’s something I hope the Palestinians want as well and we ought to be
successful for a simple reason: when there’s a will, we’ll find a way.”
A US official said Mr Kerry outlined to the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas,
during the meeting in Ramallah some of the economic development plans he has for
the West Bank, but stressed that these would be parallel to, not instead of,
negotiations towards a separate, independent Palestinian state.
Palestinian officials have also expressed a desire to restart peace talks. Chief
negotiator Saeb Erekat said the diplomatic impasse hurts Palestinians most, and no
one has more to benefit from a resumption of talks than Palestinians. However, the
Palestinians are reluctant to resume negotiations while Israel continues with
settlement expansion in the West Bank and Jewish neighbourhoods in east
Jerusalem.
(__) US intervention is key to prevent conflict in the Middle East.
Foreign Policy, 2013
(“Syrian forces and Israeli soldiers exchange fire”, By Mary Casey, Jennifer
Parker, May 21, 2013
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/21/syrian_forces_and_israeli_sol
diers_exchange_fire) KH
"When Ban Ki-moon opens the promised international conference on Syria in Geneva next month, the war-ravaged
country will experience the first sliver of hope it has dared to feel for months. A year has gone by since Russia and the
United States approved guidelines for a transition to a more democratic and pluralistic Syria and it is a tragedy that so
many lives have been wasted without any effort to implement the guidelines.
It has required several U-turns to bring about a new conference to discuss the issue. The US has dropped its precondition
that Bashar al-Assad step down in advance of talks. Unlike Hillary Clinton, John Kerry seems to realise that
Assad's forces cannot be defeated without full-scale US intervention - a prospect
that Barack Obama will not permit - and that prolonged conflict only strengthens
al-Qaida and the other jihadis who have swarmed into Syria. For his part, Assad has dropped
his demand that the armed opposition lay down its guns before he sends his people to meet them. His prime minister and
several other ministers are expected in Geneva.
The Syrian opposition is the obstacle, or at least some of them. The secular nationalists in theNational Co-ordination Body
for Democratic Change promoted the Geneva idea and will attend keenly. The Syrian National Coalition, which is backed
by western governments as well as Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, is still reluctant to turn up without a commitment that
Assad's departure is assured. To their credit, British and other western diplomats are urging them not to boycott and
thereby hand Assad a propaganda victory."
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
52
Dip Cap DA
Peace Process: Dip Cap K to Israel-Palestine
(__) American diplomacy should be spent focusing on creating a solution
to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
ATFP, The American Task Force on Palestine, 2009
(“The Obama Administration and the Unavoidable Issue of Palestine”, February 5, 2009,
http://www.americantaskforce.org/policy_and_analysis/policy_focus/2009/02/05/12355 93351_3)
While it is important to keep permanent status negotiations going, and while it is essential that the incoming Administration
strongly reaffirm its unwavering commitment to a two-state solution by word and deed,
the initial bulk of the
American diplomatic focus should shift towards improving conditions,
both on the ground and diplomatically. Such improvements would facilitate
creating conditions in which a peace deal can, in fact, be realized. This would
require maintaining, stepping up and fine-tuning the ongoing efforts in the economic and security spheres, in addition to
pushing for a settlement freeze and working with the Arab world to develop the potential of the Arab Peace Initiative (API).
It must be emphasized that such measures on the ground – important as they may be – are not sustainable nor are they
Specifically, as long as the
occupation remains in place, economic and security progress will be
stunted. This, however, should not be an excuse for not developing these
areas within the context of a viable political and diplomatic process.
fully realizable if the overall political environment is not changed.
(__) Lack of American leadership in the Middle East leads to war and
adventurist Russian policies
Landis, 2010
(Joshua Landis, Associate Professor in the School of International and Area Studies at the University of Oklahoma and
Director of the Center of Middle Eastern Studies, May 2010, Will failure to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict mean a new Cold
War in the Middle East?
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/11/will_failure_to_solve_the_arab_israeli_conflict_mean_a_new_cold_war
_in_the_middle_e)
America's leading allies have been Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt. The Saudis
have shown some signs of distancing themselves from Washington and have
reached out to both Russia and China to hedge their bets. Saudi-Syrian relations reached a
low point during Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 2006, when Syria accused Riyadh of supporting Israel against Hezbollah
and called Saudi leaders "quasi-men." Since then, Syria and Saudi Arabia have patched up their relations by agreeing not
to allow differences over Lebanon to come between them . Saudi Arabia has shifted its attention
away from Lebanon and toward Iraq, where it can cooperate with Damascus on
stabilizing a post-American government. Both governments stood together in
favoring Ayad Allawi as leader of a new Iraqi government. Syria has supported
Saudi actions in Yemen. Jordan has also worked to improve relations with Syria.
King Abdullah has warned the United States that it must pressure Netanyahu to
stop settlement expansion for fear that war will break out. Egypt's relations with Damascus
have been the most resistant to improvement. The two countries traded nasty accusations during Israel's invasion of Gaza
in 2008. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, in bringing a bunch of Hezbollah operatives to trial recently, has shown that
Syria and Hezbollah threatened Egyptian state security. This was a blow to Syria. All the same, Syria will continue to paint
Mubarak as a traitor and Israel-lover who is willing to starve the Palestinians. This is not good for the Egyptian president,
who has extended an olive branch of sorts to Syria by speaking up in favor of Syria's accession to the World Trade
Organization and by championing a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East. Syria will work to isolate the
United States in the Middle East. Russia will fish in the troubled waters of the
Middle East. American isolation can only redound to its advantage. The Arabs and
Iran will look to Russia for arms. Russia can also be gratified by the deterioration
of Turkey's relations with both Israel and the United States. It will continue to look
for ways to frustrate U.S. efforts to add teeth to its sanctions regime against Iran.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
53
Dip Cap DA
(__) Diplomatic focus is key to preventing an Israel-Palestine conflict.
Ben-Meir, PhD IR Oxford, 2009
(Alon, professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international
negotiation and Middle Eastern studies, “Obama’s peace offensive,” Yemen Observer, 7-28-9
http://www.yobserver.com/opinions/10016963.html)
Israelis and Palestinians have shown that they are
simply incapable of resolving this conflict on their own. This is why the Obama
administration must pursue an aggressive political agenda with unwavering
commitment to produce concessions from all sides to provide the basis for an agreement. The
Considering this paradoxical reality, both
United States cannot equivocate with the Israelis, the Palestinians or the Arab states as to what is required to forge a
the Obama administration must secure a number of
prerequisites to avoid the pitfalls of previous administrations and capitalize on the
changing political environment in the Middle East especially among the Arab states that favor
lasting peace. But for peace to occur,
peace with Israel. Ending the Settlements Expansion: Ending the settlements expansion is one of the most critical
the settlements
send a clear message that Israel has no intention of seriously relinquishing
territory and that the idea of a two state solution is dead. If Israel were to stop
expansion, it could strengthen Mahmoud Abbas’ hand as he would be able to claim credit for
elements in changing the dynamic of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. More than anything else
an extraordinary Israeli concession. To resolve the conflict on this issue between the Obama administration and Israel,
both sides must agree on a moratorium for a specific period of time (instead of an open-ended freeze)
pending a resolution to the borders dispute. The expansion can then be resumed on the settlements that would be
incorporated into Israel proper by agreement with the Palestinians. The Israeli government must also control the settlers
currently residing in the West Bank who have on a number of occasions resorted to violence against the Palestinians. In
return for an Israeli cooperation and a moratorium on the settlements, the Obama administration must demand and
receive from the Palestinian Authority an immediate cessation of all incitements against Israel in the Palestinian media,
especially those in Arabic. This must include the revision of text books, as is being promoted by the Peace Research
Institute in the Middle East. Moreover, although violent attacks against Israel have been reduced dramatically since the
Gaza war, the PA must demonstrably continue to take whatever action needed to prevent future acts of violence. In
addition, the PA must undertake a major public relations campaign to foster the virtues of peaceful coexistence with Israel.
Promoting a Palestinian Unity Government: Establishing a unity government remains central to promoting a lasting
Israeli-Palestinian peace.
The Obama administration must exert tremendous pressure on
Egypt and Saudi Arabia to do everything in their power to advance a unity
government between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Every effort must be
made to pressure Hamas to accept the Arab Peace Initiative. It is unlikely that Hamas will
abandon their charter and recognize Israel outright; therefore, accepting the Arab Peace Initiative as an act of solidarity
with the 22 Arab states may allow its leadership to save face. It would also allow Israel and the US to come to an indirect
agreement with Hamas should they start looking seriously at the Arab Peace Initiative as a viable framework for peace.
Having been substantially weakened by the Israeli Gaza offensive late last year,
the continuing closure of border crossings and the growing disenchantment of its policies by Palestinians in Gaza and
other Arab states,
Hamas may now be more inclined to forge a unity government than
at any time before. Moreover, Hamas’ leadership seems more open to discuss a
two-state solution in order to have a say in the peace process. Otherwise, the growing
chasm between Hamas and the PA will not serve the interest of any of the players in the conflict and will only perpetuate
the possibility of large scale violence.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
54
Dip Cap DA
Impact Extensions
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
55
Dip Cap DA
Impact Extensions- Peace Process- Israel-Palestine
(__) Impact- Israel-Palestine war goes nuclear.
Anderson, editor, 2002
“Terrible paradox behind Middle East slaughter”, Bruce Anderson, May 10, 2002 http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P212980309.html
It is hard to find words to express
the horror and terror of recent events in Israel and Palestine - and there is no reason to
believe that we are at the worst. The region is locked in conflict and hate. It is still the most likely
battleground for the outbreak of nuclear war. Yet, underlying all the slaughter, there is a terrible
paradox. Almost everyone who has studied the situation knows what needs to be done, and not only that. It is
not merely the case that the broad outlines of a solution are widely understood. It is the only possible
solution. Under it, Israel's security and frontiers would be guaranteed, principally
by America, but also by a treaty signed by most of Israel's Arab neighbours, including the Palestinians.
SCREAMING relatives, bloodied victims; broken bodies, broken lives.
This would also give the Palestinians a nation state, equal in size to the territories which Israel conquered in the 1967 war,
and looking like a country on the map, not like a patchwork of cantons. There would also be a complicated deal for the
future status of East Jerusalem . None of this would be easy to negotiate in detail. Any talks would
undoubtedly involve tenacious arm-wrestling. But the Bush administration believes in a solution along those lines, as do
the Jordanians and the Egyptians - whatever their public stance - plus a large section of Israeli opinion. Equally, and
despite their public statements, a majority of older, more thoughtful Palestinians also realise that this is the best
outcome on offer: the only alternative to unending strife.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
56
Dip Cap DA
(__) Israel-Palestine conflict could result in Nuclear war.
Nawash, JD Thomas M. Cooley Law School, 2009
(Kamal M, BA, business management, Southeastern Louisiana University, master of laws, international legal studies,
American University, Legal Director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, “Israel/Palestine Conflict May
Lead to Nuclear War,”, 15 January, http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=3501)
the Palestinian/Israeli conflict spirals out of control. However, this
particular battle has produced circumstantial evidence that the conflict has
become more dangerous than ever before. Unless a permanent solution is found
soon, the violence may increase in severity until the conflict ends tragically. In the
Once again
latest fighting, Israel has bombed the HAMAS controlled city of Gaza for the stated reason of neutralizing HAMAS and
stopping them from firing rockets into Southern Israel. As of the date of this article, approximately 900 Palestinians and 15
Israelis have been killed. HAMAS’ stated reasons for firing the rockets is to end the siege of Gaza by Israel which HAMAS
alleges is preventing the free movement of people and goods and causing a humanitarian crisis. Israel denies the
existence of a humanitarian crisis and refuses to end the siege of Gaza unless HAMAS recognizes Israel or is out power.
what makes the Palestinian/Israeli conflict so dangerous is that half the
world, (three billion people (Jews, Christians & Muslims)) are emotionally,
historically and religiously attached to the land known as Israel/Palestine. This fact
In general,
was demonstrated in the last few days as demonstrations erupted in more than 95 countries around the world. Moreover,
due to the affordability of satellite TV, in even the most underdeveloped countries, billions of interested people are
exposed to 24 hour graphic coverage of this latest battle in Gaza. Western News stations like BBC and CNN no longer
have a monopoly on reporting news. Many Middle Eastern TV stations have surpassed the reach of BBC, CNN and other
western media. As to graphic images, dozens of news stations like Aljazeera have been broadcasting live and
prerecorded graphic images of Palestinian babies blown up into pieces by the Israeli military. One particular gruesome
scene that was played over and over again was that of a three year old little girl with her heart protruding out of her body
after a bomb fell on her house. Another station, Al Alam, repeated the scene of four dead babies who were placed next to
each other in the same refrigerator of a morgue because of the large number of dead in Gaza. The graphic and often
emotional coverage of this latest battle is inspiring the fury of the masses which in turn are putting enormous pressure on
their governments to join the fight on the side of the Palestinians. This conflict is much more dangerous than most people
realize. For example, Egypt is receiving so much negative media coverage for not opening its border with Gaza that
People throughout the Arab and Muslim world started calling for the overthrow of the Egyptian government and
demonstrators attacked Egyptian embassies in several countries. The pressure on Egypt is so intense and ruthless that a
shaken Egyptian president was forced to hold two press conferences to explain his government’s position and to distance
Egypt from Israel. Similarly, the friendly nation20of Jordan came under so much pressure for not breaking diplomatic
relations with Israel that King Abdullah held a publicity stunt in which he was seen donating blood for the people of Gaza
and for the first time in recent memory he referred to Israel as the Enemy.
Even the Saudi government was not immune from attacks and calls for the overthrow of the Saudi government. Media
outlets repeated scenes of demonstrators burning the effigy of the King of Saudi Arabia with the Israeli flag wrapped
around him for hundreds of millions of people to see. Saudi Arabia is perceived as a secret ally of Israel in the desire to
destroy HAMAS and the refusal of the Saudi government to allow demonstrations against Israel only reinforced this belief.
Whatever the truth, the Saudi government was so shaken by the attacks against it and the constant portrayal of the Saudi
King wrapped in the Israeli flag that the official Saudi media began publicizing Saudi efforts to raise money for the people
of Gaza. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is becoming extremely dangerous and can only be described as
a ticking NUCLEAR BOMB. Currently, only Israel has nuclear weapons in the Middle East. But Iran may also go nuclear
and if that happens the Arabs will try to do the same. Without a doubt, there is no conflict on earth that has the same
global impact as the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Because of the potential for global instability, the entire world must do all it
can to bring peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. The question is can this conflict be solved after many wars
failed to end the conflict? The answer is YES but time is running out. Currently, there are four proposals to the
Israel/Palestinian conflict and three have been attempted and failed. The first is that the Israelis and Palestinians continue
fighting until one submits to the other, a plan that has been tried and failed. The second is a plan where both people
separate by creating two separate countries. This plan is referred to as the two state solution and all attempts to
implement it have failed. The third is to divide the Palestinian territories and place them under the control of Egypt and
Jordan. This solution has been tried (1948-1967) and also failed because it did not address the core of the conflict. The
fourth solution is based on integration of both Israelis and Palestinians in one nation and is the only solution that has
proven successful. For the last 20 years the world has focused on the two state (two country) solution which has clearly
failed. However, contrary to unanimous belief,
neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis are to
blame for the failure of the two state solution. The two state solution failed
because the concept of creating two separate countries by dividing
Israel/Palestine was and still is a difficult pill to swallow for Israelis & Palestinians.
It is a fact that Israelis and Palestinians have religious, historical and emotional
attachments to every square inch of the land that include s Israel and Palestine
and neither side is eager to embrace permanent separation or “amputation” as
described by Israeli novelist Amos Oz. Consequently, it is highly unlikely that permanent separation will lead to permanent
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
57
Dip Cap DA
peace. In light of the above facts some may think that a solution is impossible. NOT TRUE. The Palestinian/Israeli conflict
can be solved as long as both sides give up the notion that they deserve exclusive control and rule over Israel/Palestine.
In light of the attachments that both parties have for the same territory, the solution cannot be in separating but in finding a
formula for living together. Many Israelis and Palestinians agree that Israel/Palestine is indivisible. Thus, the solution lies
in uniting Israelis and Palestinians in one country while guaranteeing both sides equality and absolute security. What is
being proposed here is the creation of two sovereign states similar to New York and New Jersey, joined together in a
confederation to form one country. To illustrate further, after occupying the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, Israel could
have annexed those territories into Israel by providing the Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. Israel did not do this and
instead chose to treat the West Bank and Gaza as part of Israel without granting the Palestinians citizenship, equality or
political participation. Legally, Palestinians were and continue to have the same status as American blacks in the 19th
century. Israel did not integrate the Palestinians into Israel because Israelis were afraid that the Palestinians may one day
outnumber the Jews and vote Israel out of existence. While this is a legitimate concern, Jews and Israelis who fear
equality for Palestinians assume that granting the Palestinians equality would lead to the destruction of Israel. This is a
false assumption. The world has produced many successful formulas for different people living together and sharing
power and a formula can be found in this case. An example of a formula is the creation of a confederation of
Israel/Palestine based on the principles of free trade and the free movement of labor and people. As to the national
government, Israel and Palestine can each contribute 50% to the national parliament, a formula that would guarantee
security, and eliminate political dilution from demographic changes and make certain that extremist become marginalized.
The above formula is an example that gives Palestinians and Israelis most of what they want while allowing both people to
be independent and secure. Moreover, with this solution, Jerusalem becomes a non-issue and borders become less
relevant. As proof that integration can work, consider that Israel has one million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship who
are often referred to as “Israeli Arabs.” It is important to note that they are not participating in violence. This is because
Palestinians who are citizens of Israel have civil and political rights while the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza
have nothing. Without a doubt most readers of this article will think that the author is naïve, idealistic, stupid, Zionists or
trying to destroy Israel. We understand your beliefs. However, please ask yourself if Israel destroys Hamas or Islamic
Jihad will there be peace between Israelis and Palestinians? Consider that Hamas was created in 1987. Before HAMAS
was created, Israel fought five major wars and numerous other battles. Moreover, before HAMAS there were the PLO,
Fatah, PFLP, PFLP-GC, 15 May Organization, Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades, Al-’Asifah, Arab Liberation Front, Force 17,
Black Hand , Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – Special Command, Popular Resistance Committees, Popular
Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Black September, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine,
Doghmush, Omar Ben al-Khatib Warriors, Palestinian Liberation Army, Palestinian Popular Struggle Front, Palestinian
fedayeen, Swords of Truth, Rejectionist Front, among other organizations. Today most of the above organizations have
been destroyed or just vanished. However, the conflict has not ended as the above organizations have been replaced by
Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Holy Jihad Brigades, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Army of Islam, As-Sa’iqa, Tanzim, Al-Quds
Brigades, among others. The point here is that even if Israel destroys HAMAS, the conflict between Israelis and
Palestinians would not be solved and it would only be a matter of time before a new group forms to replace HAMAS.
Israelis and Palestinians must realize that what they have done for the last 70
years will never bring peace to either Palestine or Israel under the best of
circumstances. Under the worst of circumstances this conflict may lead to an all
out nuclear war where millions will die and this is no longer an exaggeration. To
summarize, Israel and its neighbors have fought numerous wars and no side has
given up on their fundamental claims. For the last 20 years, both sides have tried to separate by
creating two separate countries but this approach has failed because all sides have attachments to Israel and Palestine.
The only solution that has a record of success is integration as demonstrated by the Palestinians who are citizens of
Israel. If peace is not found then the day may soon come when the governments of the Middle East maybe overthrown by
people who want to directly intervene on behalf of the Palestinians .
If an uprising erupts throughout the
Middle East then nuclear war may soon follow. Therefore, the choices are
between total annihilation or equality for Palestinians and security for Israel.
There are no other choices.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
58
Dip Cap DA
Impact- Peace Process- Nuclear chill
(__) Middle East war leads to extinction due to nuclear chill generating
massive ozone loss and warming
Hoffman 06
[Ian Hoffman, Staff Writer, December 12, 2006, “Nuclear Winter Looms, experts say”, MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG
Newspapers]
SAN FRANCISCO -- With superpower nuclear arsenals plummeting to a third of 1980s levels and slated to drop by
nightmarish visions of nuclear winter offered by scientists during the
Cold War have receded. But they haven't gone away. Researchers at the
American Geophysical Union's annual meeting warned Monday that even a small
another third, the
regional nuclear war could burn enough cities to shroud the globe in black smoky
shadow and usher in the manmade equivalent of the Little Ice Age. "Nuclear
weapons represent the greatest single human threat to the planet, much more so
than global warming," said Rutgers University atmospheric scientist Alan Robock.
By dropping imaginary Hiroshima-sized bombs into some of the world's biggest
cities, now swelled to tens of millions in population, University of Colorado
researcher O. Brian Toon and colleagues found they could generate 100 times
the fatalities and 100 times the climate-chilling smoke per kiloton of explosive
power as all-out nuclear war between the United States and former Soviet Union.
For most modern nuclear-war scenarios, the global impact isn't nuclear winter, the notion of smoke
from incinerated cities blotting out the sun for years and starving most of the Earth's people. It's not even nuclear autumn,
but rather an instant nuclear chill over most of the planet, accompanied by
massive ozone loss and warming at the poles. That's what scientists' computer
simulations suggest would happen if nuclear war broke out in a hot spot such as
the Middle East, the North Korean peninsula or, the most modeled case, in Southeast Asia. Unlike in the Cold
War, when the United States and Russia mostly targeted each other's nuclear, military and strategic industrial sites, young
nuclear-armed nations have fewer weapons and might go for maximum effect by using them on cities, as the United
States did in 1945. "We're at a perilous crossroads," Toon said.
The spread of nuclear weapons
worldwide combined with global migration into dense megacities form what he
called "perhaps the greatest danger to the stability of society since the dawn of humanity."
More than 20 years ago, researchers imagined a U.S.-Soviet nuclear holocaust would wreak havoc on the planet's
climate. They showed the problem was potentially worse than feared: Massive urban fires would flush hundreds of
millions of tons of black soot skyward, where -- heated by sunlight -- it would soar higher into the stratosphere and begin
cooking off the protective ozone layer around the Earth. Huge losses of ozone would open the planet and its inhabitants
to damaging radiation, while the warm soot would spread a pall sufficient to plunge the Earth into freezing year-round. The
hundreds of millions who would starve exceeded those who would die in the initial blasts and radiation. Popularized by
astronomer Carl Sagan and Nobel prize winners, the idea of nuclear winter captured the public imagination, though
nuclear-weapons scientists found nuclear winter was virtually impossible to achieve in their own computer models without
dropping H-bombs on nearly every major city. Scientists on Monday say nuclear winter still is possible, by detonating
every nation's entire nuclear arsenals. The effects are striking and last five times or longer than the cooling effects of the
biggest volcanic eruptions in recent history, according to Rutgers' Robock.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
59
Dip Cap DA
Impact- Peace Process- nuclear War
(__) Peace talk failure culminates in major escalation and nuclear war
NPR 2012
[NPR “Talk of the Nation” Broadcast, host Neal Conan, March 15, 2012, Without Talks, For Israel and Palestine,
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/15/148688617/peace-without-talks-for-israel-and-palestine, uwyo//amp]
ONAN: And is that new leader or leadership going to be strong enough to say: And this is our position, and this is what
we're going to give up? MALLEY: Not at the beginning, which is why - you know, you could argue if you want to get a
deal, now is the time to get it with somebody like Mahmoud Abbas. For the reasons Aaron and I have said, that seems
extremely unlikely. It's going to be much harder, and anything that Mahmoud Abbas hasn't accepted is going to be very
hard for his successors to accept. I would say one thing, though.
We could talk about how much the
incentives don't exist, and this is not at the top of the issue. Gaza was one
reminder that we're only always just one crisis away from a major escalation. And
if nothing were to happen, if people simply said, well, there's no incentive, you
could see an explosion in Gaza, you could see one in Jerusalem, you could see
one in the West Bank. So it's not a reason to be complacent. The fact that today
is no incentive means we have to think of a new way to move forward, not simply
staying still. CONAN: Rob Malley, who's program director of the Mideast and North Africa Program at the International
Crisis Group and co-author of an op-ed we're talking about, "Middle East Peace with Something Short of a Deal"; Aaron
David Miller is his co-author. They - he's at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars. He's also served as a negotiator.
Both of them served as negotiator in several administrations on the Middle East. They're here with us in Studio 3A.
What's the incentive for either the Israelis or the Palestinians to negotiate at this
moment? Call us, 800-989-8255. Email is talk@npr.org. And let's start with Peter, Peter's on the line with us from
Berkeley. PETER: Hi, Neal, thanks for this. It seems to me the incentive for both sides is to
prevent a catastrophic war and realize their responsibility to the whole globe not
to trigger exactly that, a huge global conflict where the two worlds, so to speak,
would line up against each other, and we might have a nuclear war that could end
it all.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
60
Dip Cap DA
(__) Peace talk failure culminates in civil war due to lack of Palestinian
nationalistic infrastructure
O’Sullivan, journalist, 2010
(Arieh O’Sullivan, journalist for Jpost, 09/01/2010, Analysis: What happens when the peace talks fail,
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=186735)
They are aware of the fact that they have to be sustainable and not for show,” Elad said. “I’m
not sure they are going to gamble on all these projects. This is a good sign that they are serious.”
With much
more to lose, the Palestinians would be less inclined to open harsh confrontation
with Israel, even if the peace talks bog down or fail. “If you have the impression that these talks
will fail, then there is a need to prepare for this result,” Former PA minister and Fatah leader
Qadura Fares told The Media Line, arguing that the most substantive result of talks is likely to be a legitimacy test for the
Palestinian leadership. “It’s not as if we have only two options, either conflict or non-stop negotiations. There is another
element. The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) will face a real test of credibility and will have to convince the
Palestinian people that it truly is a national movement.” If the PLO can’t deliver, the Palestinians
may increasingly opt to support Islamic fundamentalism, i.e. Hamas.
The London-based
daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported that during the negotiations Fatah planned to escalate popular resistance against the
Israeli separation barrier and Jewish communities in the territories captured by Israel in the 1967 War. The Fatah
move could be seen as a way to draw support away from Hamas, which opposes
peace talks with the Jewish state. Fares was skeptical, saying Fatah has been calling for non-violent
opposition to the Israeli occupation for years, but no one took the call seriously. Elad, the former Israeli liason, said that
the split between the West Bank and the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip was fueling
the opposition to the peace talks. “In the past year, despite Gaza, the Palestinians
have been moving ahead with nation building steps,” he said. “But don’t forget that Hamas is
not so weak in the West Bank. And once Hamas-Gaza-Damascus will instruct its
people to act (attack Israelis) I am not so sure all those training of troops will be
enough to stop the Hamas in the West Bank.” “The people in the West Bank see the blooming prosperity,” he
continued. “But I would say in case Hamas-Gaza will start instructing their people to
sabotage and to jeopardize so-called peace events it will be very close to a civil
war.” “Even in the West Bank Hamas will have the advantage of fighting against regular troops like the Palestinian
National Security Forces,” Elad concluded. “They will get the major support of the people. This is how things work in
Palestinian society. The underdog always gets a lot of support. I am afraid that Israel will have to stay for a longer period
of time.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
61
Dip Cap DA
(__) Israel strikes cause nuclear WWIII.
Reuveny, PhD, 2010
(Rafael, PhD, Professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University, "Unilateral Strike on Iran
could trigger world Depression",op-ed distributed through McClatchy Newspaper Co,
http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/news/speaking_out/reuveny_on_unilateral_strike_Iran.shtml)
A unilateral Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would likely have dire consequences,
including a regional war, global economic collapse and a major power clash . For an Israeli campaign to succeed, it must be
quick and decisive. This requires an attack that would be so overwhelming that Iran would
not dare to respond in full force. Such an outcome is extremely unlikely since the locations of some of Iran’s nuclear facilities are not
fully known and known facilities are buried deep underground . All of these widely spread facilities are shielded by
elaborate air defense systems constructed not only by the Iranians, but also the Chinese
and, likely, the Russians as well. By now, Iran has also built redundant command and
control systems and nuclear facilities, developed early-warning systems, acquired ballistic and cruise missiles and upgraded and enlarged its armed
forces. Because Iran is well-prepared, a single, conventional Israeli strike — or even numerous strikes —
could not destroy all of its capabilities, giving Iran time to respond. A regional war Unlike Iraq, whose nuclear
program Israel destroyed in 1981, Iran has a second-strike capability comprised of a coalition of Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese, Hezbollah, Hamas, and, perhaps,
Turkish forces. Internal pressure might compel Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority to jointhe assault, turning a bad situation into a regional war. During
the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, at the apex of its power, Israel was saved from defeat by President Nixon’s shipment of weapons and planes. Today, Israel’s numerical
. Despite Israel’s touted defense systems,
Iranian coalition missiles, armed forces, and terrorist attacks would likely wreak havoc on
its enemy, leading to a prolonged tit-for-tat. In the absence of massive U.S. assistance,
Israel’s military resources may quickly dwindle, forcing it to use its alleged nuclear
weapons, as it had reportedly almost done in 1973. An Israeli nuclear attack would likely destroy most of Iran’s capabilities, but a crippled Iran and its
inferiority is greater, and it faces more determined and better-equipped opponents
coalition could still attack neighboring oil facilities, unleash global terrorism, plant mines in the Persian Gulf and impair maritime trade in the Mediterranean, Red
Sea and Indian Ocean. Middle Eastern oil shipments would likely slow to a trickle as production declines due to the war and insurance companies decide to drop
The world economy would
head into a tailspin; international acrimony would rise; and Iraqi and Afghani citizens might fully turn on the United
States, immediately requiring the deployment of more American troops. Russia, China,
Venezuela, and maybe Brazil and Turkey — all of which essentially support Iran — could
be tempted to form an alliance and openly challenge the U.S. hegemony. Replaying
Nixon’s nightmare Russia and China might rearm their injured Iranian protege overnight, just as Nixon rearmed Israel, and
their risky Middle Eastern clients. Iran and Venezuela would likely stop selling oil to the United States and Europe.
threaten to intervene, just as the U.S.S.R. threatened to join Egypt and Syria in 1973. President Obama’s response would likely put U.S. forces on nuclear alert,
replaying Nixon’s nightmarish scenario.
Unchecked terrorism means extinction
Gordon, 2002
Harvey Gordon, Visiting Lecturer, Forensic Psychiatry, Tel Aviv University, Psychiatric Bulletin, v. 26, 2002, p. 285-287, online:
http://pb.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/26/8/285.
Although terrorism throughout human history has been tragic, until relatively recently it has been more of an irritant than any
major hazard. However,
the existence of weapons of mass destruction now renders terrorism
a potential threat to the very existence of human life (Hoge & Rose, 2001). Such potential
global destruction, or globicide as one might call it, supersedes even that of genocide in its
lethality. Although religious factors are not the only determinant of ‘suicide’ bombers, the revival of religious
fundamentalism towards the end of the 20th century renders the phenomenon a
major global threat. Even though religion can be a force for good, it can equally be abused as a force for evil.
Ultimately, the parallel traits in human nature of good and evil may perhaps be the most durable of all the characteristics of
the human species. There is no need to apply a psychiatric analysis to the ‘suicide’ bomber because the phenomenon can be
explained in political terms. Most participants in terrorism are not usually mentally disordered and their behaviour can be
psychiatric terminology
is as yet deficient in not having the depth to encompass the emotions and behaviour
of groups of people whose levels of hate, low self-esteem, humiliation and alienation
are such that it is felt that they can be remedied by the mass destruction of life,
construed more in terms of group dynamics (Colvard, 2002). On the other hand, perhaps
including their own.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
62
Dip Cap DA
Syria impacts
(__) US COMMITMENT TO PEACE TALKS AND NEGOTIATIONS OVER THE
RETURN OF THE GOLAN HEIGHTS ENSURES ARAB-ISRAELI PEACE AND AN END
OF SYRIAN SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM.
¶ Meeks (Colonel, US Army War College) 2006
¶ [Robert, “Syria: Reassessing US Approach and Options”, USAWC STRATEGY RESEARCH PROJECT,pg 19-20, 15 Mar 2006,
WDC//BK]¶
Achieving the U.S. interests of gaining genuine Syrian commitment for advancing the ArabIsraeli Peace Process and a halt to Syrian support for Lebanese Hezbollah and radical
Palestinian groups will be difficult tasks and true tests of Syrian willingness to modify its
behavior. To achieve these goals, in return, the United States should be willing to broker
renewed peace talks between Syria and Israel, to include negotiations to resolve the Golan
Heights issue. However, such talks should occur only on the condition that Syria meets specific
prerequisites. First, it should renounce terrorism and other forms of violence as a means for
resolving Arab-Israeli differences. The United States must recognize that it is unlikely that Syria
will completely abandon Lebanese Hezbollah since both Syria and Lebanon recognize it as a
legitimate political and resistance group. However, Syria should commit to no longer providing
Hezbollah arms or other military-related support, thus leaving its disposition to internal
Lebanese determination. Syria must also build on its earlier expulsion of the Palestinian group’s
headquarters from Damascus by continuing to refuse to allow Palestinian terrorist groups to
operate from Syria. Finally, in addition to providing acceptable counterinsurgency cooperation in
Iraq, Syria must also comply with international demands regarding non-interference with
Lebanon, continue cooperation with the Mehlis investigation, and turn over for trial any Syrian
officials the investigators find to be implicated in the Hariri murder.73 Thus far, Syria has
ostensibly complied with the Mehlis investigation, relaxed its hold on Lebanon and cooperated
in varying degrees on the Iraq issue—all encouraging signs of conciliation. It is uncertain
whether Syria will continue to cooperate on these issues or will be willing to compromise fully
on the others. However, properly measured incentives, applied with a reasonable degree of
patience and backed by consequences, which include the use of force, may eventually steer
Syria in the desired direction.
(__) THE SYRIAN REGIME IS CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO ADVANCE A
PEACE DEAL; THEY WILL END THEIR TIES TO IRAN IN RETURN FOR THE GOLAN
HEIGHTS. THE UNITED STATES IS KEY TO SOLVE BECAUSE SYRIA WON’T END ITS
TIES TO IRAN WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO GAIN U.S. SUPPORT
Susser, (Reporter for The Jerusalem Report) July, 2007
[Leslie, “Keeping A Finger On The Syrian Pulse” Accessed from LexisNexus on
8-3-07 wyo-CK]
Syria expert Prof. Moshe Maoz of the Hebrew University argues that Asad is trying to keep two
strategic options open: Iranian or Western orientation, and that, of the two, he prefers the West.
But, says Maoz, Asad won't give up bargaining chips like his current strategic relationship with
Iran in advance of negotiations, and he needs to be convinced that if, as part of a peace deal
with Israel, he goes over to the West, the U.S. will deliver. "What does he want besides the
Golan? Good relations with the U.S., large-scale American investment, to be removed from the
list of terror supporting states and to be absolved of the [2005 former Lebanese prime minister
Rafiq] Hariri murder. But he continues to nurture the Iranian alternative because Bush won't
even talk to him," Maoz contends. For any Israeli-Syrian negotiation to succeed, Maoz believes,
the Americans would have to be deeply involved, precisely because Asad sees Israeli-Syrian
peace as part of a much wider package deal. "Unfortunately, no one in Washington takes this
seriously," Maoz complains. And he concludes that "as long as Bush is in the White House,
nothing will happen on the Israeli-Syrian track. For his part, Bush is convinced that there is little
to be gained by talking to Asad, whom he sees as an incorrigible member of the Iranian-led axis
of evil. His strategy seems to be to wait it out until someone else is installed as president in
Damascus.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
63
Dip Cap DA
(__) Syrian instability will draw in the US.
“Obama: ‘Peace is possible,’ but see the world as Palestinians do”. John King, Jessica
Yellin,reported from Jerusalem and the West Bank. March 21, 2013
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/21/politics/obama-mideast-visit
Obama also warned the Syrian government that using chemical weapons against
opposition forces or allowing such weapons to be obtained by terrorists would be a
"game-changer" in terms of U.S. involvement in the conflict. His administration has
been criticized for not providing military aid to the Syrian opposition.
(__) MIDDLE-EAST WAR LEADS TO GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR
Steinbach, 02
(John, Centre for Research on Globalization, “Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: A threat to peace”,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html)
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn
has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the
threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,...
or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation,
once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar
Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum(and the) next war will
not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major(if not the major)
target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel
was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear
targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.)
Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control
negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is
enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all
out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its
weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reasonthe deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration." (44)
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
64
Dip Cap DA
2nc/1nr extensions
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
65
Dip Cap DA
A2 “Thumpers”
(__) Kerry will be able to handle the diplomatic agenda now, but his plate is full
Jewell 12
(Daniel, economics graduate student at a state school in Southern California, 12-1412, "THE NATURE OF A JOHN KERRY STATE SECRETARIAT" Ideas from the
Periphery) ideasfromtheperiphery.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/the-nature-of-ajohn-kerry-state-secretariat/
Mr Kerry’s reputation for gravitas and diplomacy suggest that he would earn
international respect. Indeed, he has also lived abroad. He has travelled extensively,
and doubtless many Foreign Ministers already know him. Thus, the learning curve
would not be steep, and he could begin building diplomatic capital straight away. And
he will need it. The foreign policy plate is full. Syria’s regime is near collapse. North
Korea is launching rockets. Rebels in the Congo and terrorists in northern Mali
should make Africa a top priority for the next Secretary of State. China’s power grows
by the day. Dear reader, our Republic has known constant war for a decade. Mr
Kerry, teaming up with fellow Vietnam veteran Chuck Hagel in the Defense
Department, could very well represent a good chance for a refined, constitutional
foreign policy that puts peace first.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
66
Dip Cap DA
A2 Dip Cap not key
(__) Diplomatic Capital solves back.
Friedman, 10
(Thomas L., writer for the ny times Everybody Loves a Winner
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/opinion/21friedman.html April 20)
In politics and diplomacy, success breeds authority and authority breeds more
success. No one ever said it better than Osama bin Laden: “When people see a
strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.” Have no
illusions, the rest of the world was watching our health care debate very closely, waiting to see who would be the strong
horse — Obama or his Democratic and Republican health care opponents? At every turn in the debate, America’s
enemies and rivals were gauging what the outcome might mean for their own ability to push around an untested U.S.
president. It remains to be seen whether, in the long run, America will be made physically healthier by the bill’s passage.
But, in the short run, Obama definitely was made geopolitically healthier. “When
others see the president
as a winner or as somebody who has real authority in his own house, it
absolutely makes a difference,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said to me in an
interview. “All you have to do is look at how many minority or weak coalition
governments there are around the world who can’t deliver something big in their
own country, but basically just teeter on the edge, because they can’t put
together the votes to do anything consequential, because of the divided
electorate.” President Obama has had “a divided electorate and was still able to muscle the thing through.” When
President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia spoke by phone with Obama the morning after the health care vote — to finalize the
New Start nuclear arms reduction treaty — he began by saying that before discussing nukes, “I want to congratulate you,
Mr. President, on the health care vote,” an administration official said. That was not just rank flattery.
According to
an American negotiator, all throughout the arms talks, which paralleled the health
care debate, the Russians kept asking: “Can you actually get this ratified by the
Senate” if an arms deal is cut? Winning passage of the health care bill
demonstrated to the Russians that Obama could get something hard passed.
Our enemies surely noticed, too. You don’t have to be Machiavelli to believe that
the leaders of Iran and Venezuela shared the barely disguised Republican hope
that health care would fail and, therefore, Obama’s whole political agenda would
be stalled and, therefore, his presidency enfeebled. He would then be a lame duck for the next
three years and America would be a lame power. Given the time and energy and political capital that was spent on health
care, “failure would have been unilateral disarmament,” added Gates. “Failure would have badly weakened the president
in terms of dealing with others — his ability to do various kinds of national security things. ... You know, people made fun
of Madeleine [Albright] for saying it, but I think she was dead on: most of the rest of the world does see us as the
‘indispensable nation.’ ” Indeed, our allies often complain about a world of too much American power, but they are not
stupid. They know that a world of too little American power is one they would enjoy even less. They know that a weak
America is like a world with no health insurance — and a lot of pre-existing conditions. Gen. James Jones, the president’s
national security adviser, told me that he recently met with a key NATO counterpart, who concluded a breakfast by
congratulating him on the health care vote and pronouncing: “America is back.” But is it? While Obama’s health care
victory prevented a power outage for him, it does not guarantee a power surge. Ultimately, what makes a strong president
is a strong country — a country whose underlying economic prowess, balance sheet and innovative capacity enable it to
generate and project both military power and what the political scientist Joe Nye calls “soft power” — being an example
What matters most now is how Obama uses the political
capital that health care’s passage has earned him. I continue to believe that the most important
foreign policy issue America faces today is its ability to successfully engage in nation building — nation building at home.
Obama’s success in passing health care and the bounce it has put in his step will
be nothing but a sugar high if we can’t get our deficit under control, inspire a new generation of startups, upgrade our railroads and Internet and continue to attract the world’s smartest and most
energetic immigrants. An effective, self-confident president with a weak country
is nothing more than a bluffer. An effective, self-confident president, though, at
least increases the odds of us building a stronger country.
that others want to emulate.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
67
Dip Cap DA
Peace Process- A2: Kerry not key
(__) Kerry is alone in pushing for MEP, his focus is Critical
Klapper and Lee 6/22
[BRADLEY KLAPPER and MATTHEW LEE, “Top diplomat Kerry battles to deliver on big ideas”, June 22, 2013, Associated
Press, http://www.islandpacket.com/2013/06/22/2551637/top-diplomat-kerry-battles-to.html#storylink=cpy, \\wyo-bb]
On Middle East peace, too, Kerry has put his credibility on the line. Refusing to avoid one of the
world's most difficult conflicts, as Obama and Clinton largely did over the second two years of the first administration,
Kerry has made four trips to the region to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and senior government members from both sides. Kerry
will visit the region again this coming week to try to push the two sides back into
talks, despite little to show so far for his efforts. Kerry insists his quiet diplomacy is
making headway, a claim that only he, Netanyahu and Abbas truly can substantiate because most of the discussions
are one-on-one. Several senior Israeli and Palestinian officials have suggested otherwise in highly
critical comments to local and international media. Few American officials, however, seem
to know what is going on because they say Kerry rarely briefs even the most experienced
U.S. negotiators in that part of the world on his talks. At times, the process has seemed ad hoc. In
Jordan last month, Kerry announced a sketchy $4 billion economic revitalization strategy for the West Bank that would
accompany his peace plan. No details were provided, and U.S. officials even sent reporters to aides of U.N. peace mediator
Tony Blair for more information. Blair's staff wouldn't provide information or even confirm that the outline of an economic
plan exists. Officials say Kerry's friend, investor Tim Collins, is handling the portfolio, though it's unclear if any money has been
secured. On
Mideast peace, Kerry is largely fighting the battle alone. Since Obama's visit
to Israel in March, Kerry has gotten almost no public displays of support from the
president, with the White House appearing reluctant to stake political capital in an
endeavor that so often has proved a disappointment.
(__) Kerry is key player in talks.
AFP, 2013
(“Kerry cancels UAE stop to focus on Middle East peace” AFP: June 29, 2013
http://www.yourmiddleeast.com/news/kerry-cancels-uae-stop-to-focus-on-middle-east-peace_16120) KH
Netanyahu has rejected such "pre-conditions" but insists he remains ready to talk.
One idea floated is for Israel to agree not to announce new settlement construction but to make the commitment informally -reducing the risk of revolt in Netanyahu's largely right-wing governing coalition.
Economy Minister Naftali Bennett, who heads the far-right Jewish Home party, recently described the Palestinian issue as
"shrapnel in the buttocks" -- a problem Israel simply had to keep suffering through -- but threatened to quit if the government
agreed to a Palestinian state.
Abbas, whose rule is effectively confined to the West Bank, also faces Palestinian divisions.
Ismail Haniya, the Gaza-based prime minister of the rival Hamas movement, warned Abbas on Friday not to fall into the "trap
of negotiations".
But Kerry
heard encouraging words from Israeli President Shimon Peres over a two-hour
Friday night dinner following the meeting with Netanyahu.
Peres now holds a largely ceremonial role but was identified with the peace process while prime minister.
Peres, welcoming Kerry at his official residence full of memorabilia
from the decades-old peace process, acknowledged that "it is difficult, there are many
problems" in moving forward.
"But as far as I'm concerned I can see how (among) people, there is a clear majority for the peace
process, a two-state solution, and a great expectation that you will do it and that you
can do it," Peres told him.
The nearly 90-year-old
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
68
Dip Cap DA
(__) Kerry is in non-stop meetings to broker the deal- any perceived failure
would undo any future talks
Deyoung 6/29
[Karen DeYoung, Published: June 29, “Kerry extends marathon Mideast peace effort”,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/kerry-extends-marathon-mideast-peaceeffort/2013/06/29/34c1c478-e107-11e2-a63e-8d9380ed1f73_story.html, \\wyo-bb]
The goal of the meetings is to persuade the two men to at least begin talks toward a
sustainable two-state solution to the long-running- conflict, with the hard work of
actually negotiating an agreement still stretching far into the future. Although he is
due to attend a meeting with foreign ministers of the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations in the sultanate of Brunei that begins Monday, Kerry has already postponed
his departure from the Middle East, originally scheduled for Saturday night, and
canceled a stop in the United Arab Emirates. The nonstop meetings have set off a frenzy
of speculation in Israel, the West Bank and Jordan that Kerry may be able to broker a deal , if
not for an immediate Israel-Palestinian meeting, at least for a confirmed date for
talks to start. The rising expectations , however, have also increased the likely magnitude
of perceived failure in the event Kerry does not succeed . As they sat down for a private
dinner Saturday night with Netanyahu’s team, Kerry and his aides appeared somber
and exhausted. But the composition of the parties on both sides seemed to indicate
that discussions had gone beyond generalities to technical specifics.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
69
Dip Cap DA
2NC/1NR- Iran
(__) Kerry is pressuring Iran, and his capital is key.
Barnes 1-24
(Diane, Kerry Commits "Totally" to Iran Sanctions Enforcement, Nuclear Threat Initiative, 24 January 2013,
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/kerry-state-department-nomination/, da 3-12-13)
Kerry on Thursday pledged to commit "totally" to
enforcing a regime of unilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran if the Senate confirms his
U.S. Secretary of State-designate John
nomination to assume the nation's top diplomatic post.¶ Kerry issued the assurance in response to questioning from
Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who during President Obama's first term helped to develop and push into law
several sets of economic penalties aimed at nudging Iran toward allaying international fears over the end goal of its
ostensibly peaceful nuclear program. The lawmaker, who chaired Kerry's confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee,
noted the State Department's critical role in implementing a
significant number of the penalties .¶ Iran remains "entrenched in its nuclear
weapons ambition," said Menendez, whose proposals to mandate punitive U.S. steps against Iran's
foreign business partners have at times placed him at odds with the Obama administration.¶ A drop-off in
Iranian oil sales and a rapid decline in the value of the nation's currency
demonstrate "the impact" of the penalties, Kerry said when asked if he would be devote himself "to
the full enforcement" of congressionally established sanctions and their implementation abroad if confirmed to lead the
State Department.¶ "Congress deserves credit, together with the administration, for having put the toughest sanctions and
the biggest coalition together in history," the Democratic senator from Massachusetts added in his appearance before the
panel he usually leads.¶ After President Obama tapped Kerry for the top position at State and a vocal critic of unilateral
sanctions to head the Defense Department, issue experts speculated that his second administration could prove more
willing to curb sanctions against Iran as part of a potential compromise to end the nuclear standoff. Iran last year joined
three rounds of high-level nuclear negotiations with China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United
States.¶
The U nited S tates would press Iran to fully comply with its obligations to
the Security Council and the I nternational A tomic E nergy A gency under any deal, Kerry said.
The 15-nation U.N. body has pressed Tehran in four sanctions resolutions to
cease uranium enrichment, a process capable of generating civilian reactor fuel as well as nuclear-weapon
material. Iran has for years ruled out such a move and demanded international acknowledgement of its right to refine the
material as an initial concession in a potential agreement.¶ "The president has made it clear that he is prepared to
engage, if that's what it takes, in bilateral efforts," Kerry said, adding there is "hopefully ... a negotiation going on right now
for the next meeting of the P-5+1."¶ "It is not hard to prove a peaceful program," he said. "Other nations have done that
and do it every day. And it takes intrusive inspections. It takes living up to publicly arrived-at standards. Everybody
understands what they are."¶ Speaking earlier, Kerry reaffirmed President Obama's assurance that the United States "will
do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon" and would not focus its strategy on deterring
aggression by the Persian Gulf regional power should it acquire atomic arms.¶ "I repeat here today: our policy is
not containment. It is prevention and the clock is ticking on our efforts to secure
responsible compliance," he said in prepared testimony.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
70
Dip Cap DA
(__) Kerry’s influence is key to Iran talks, and he will push.
Labott and Dougherty 12-15
(Elise and Jill, Sizing up Kerry as secretary of state, CNN Security Blog, 15 December 2012,
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/15/sizing-up-kerry-as-secretary-of-state/, da 3-12-13)
Like Obama, Kerry sees the benefit of reaching out to adversaries, like Iran and Syria, and give
them a chance to negotiate. At one point, Kerry even spearheaded outreach efforts to Syrian President Bashar alAssad before the administration turned on Assad over his crackdown on protesters. But he also has called for arming the
opposition and for NATO airstrikes, which Obama's administration has resisted.¶ The Middle East is sure to
take up a good part of the secretary’s time. In addition to helping bring about a political transition in Syria,
the U nited S tates also must manage the political chaos in Egypt and the rest of North Africa while trying
to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran and revive the Middle East peace process. Kerry is one of
the well-traveled senators to the Middle East, has a good feel for the region and
knows many of the players. Kerry insiders say a Secretary of State Kerry would want to
play a big role shaping policy for in the Mideast and try to help solve some of
intractable issues, including delving heavily into the peace process.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
71
Dip Cap DA
Aff Answers
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
72
Dip Cap DA
Non-unique: Increased Latin America engagement now
(__) Kerry is focusing on LA- Calls it America’s Backyard
Karpova 4/23
[Lisa Karpova, staff writer @ Pravda.Ru, “John Kerry, Secretary of State: "Latin
America is our back yard"”, 23.04.2013,
http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/23-04-2013/124377-latam_backyard-0/,
\\wyo-bb]
On Wednesday, the American Secretary of State, John Kerry, called
Latin America the "back yard" of
the United States. During a speech before the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives, and
following the old Monroe Doctrine, regardless of the sovereignty of Latin American countries, Kerry considers these
countries as their "back yard" and added that plans are being made to change the
attitude of some of these nations. Likewise, the head of U.S. diplomacy, said that in the near future
President Barack Obama will depart for some Latin countries, not even remembering their names, after
traveling to Mexico. "The Western Hemisphere is our back yard (sic), it is of vital importance
to us. Too often, many countries in the western hemisphere feel that the United States
does not give them enough attention and sometimes this is probably true. We need to be closer
and we plan to do it. The President will travel soon to Mexico and then to the south, I cannot remember which
countries, but he will go to the region," said John Kerry.
(__) Republicans Support economic engagement in Latin America
Newsmax 2012
[“Boehner: Urges Deeper Engagement in Latin America”, May 8 2012,
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/boehner-latin-americagop/2012/05/08/id/438420]
The U.S. Congress' top Republican called on Tuesday for deeper economic
engagement with Latin America as a bulwark against Iran's attempt to gain
influence in the region and the destabilizing effects of international drug cartels.
"The best defense against an expansion of Iranian influence in Latin America - and against the destructive aspirations of
international criminals in the region - is for the United States to double down on a policy of direct engagement," U.S.
House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said at the State Department.
"We must be clear that we will be there, with our friends and partners in the
region, committed to fighting and winning the war for a free, stable, and
prosperous hemisphere," Boehner said in a speech to the Council of Americas,
which represents companies that do business in Latin America.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
73
Dip Cap DA
(__) US is increasing economic engagement with Latin America now.
Lederman, AP, 2013
(“State visits amplify Obama focus on Latin America” By JOSH LEDERMAN
Associated Press / May 8, 2013
http://www.boston.com/business/news/2013/05/08/state-visits-amplify-obamafocus-latin-america/OVDxakHRU9AE1Jo8ip8MLP/story.html)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Keeping a keen eye south of the border, the Obama
administration is intensifying its engagement with Latin America, hosting leaders
from a pair of presidents at the White House and sending Vice President Joe
Biden to visit two others.
Peru’s President Ollanta Humala and Chile’s President Sebastian Pinera will
travel to Washington in June to meet with President Barack Obama, the White
House said Wednesday. And next week, Biden will make stops in Brazil and
Colombia, plus the Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago.
Dovetailing on Obama’s trip last week to Mexico and Costa Rica, the visits reflect
the administration’s desire to show the U.S. relationship with its neighbors to the
south is about much more than drugs, crime and illegal immigration. The need for
closer economic ties topped Obama’s agenda during the three-day trip.
‘‘All told, we will have the most active stretch of high-level engagement on Latin
America in a long, long time,’’ Biden said Wednesday at the State Department.
‘‘There are so many opportunities. There’s so much more we believe we can do.’’
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
74
Dip Cap DA
Non-unique: Mexico engagement
(__) Non unique- State department cooperation inevitable.
Castillo and Corcoran, Associated Press, 2013
(“Mexico seeks new security, economic agenda with United States”
E. Eduardo Castillo and Katherine Corcoran, Associated Press
April 30, 2013 http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2013/apr/30/mexico-seeks-new-security-economic-agenda-uniteds/)
MEXICO CITY — Mexico is ending the widespread access it gave to U.S. security
agencies
in the name of fighting drug trafficking and organized crime as the country's new government seeks to
change its focus from violence to its emerging economy.
The change was confirmed by Mexico's Foreign Ministry on Monday as the government lays out a broad bilateral agenda
in advance of Thursday's visit by U.S. President Barack Obama.
All contact for U.S. law enforcement will now go through "a single door,"
the federal
Interior Ministry, the agency that controls security and domestic policy, said Sergio Alcocer, deputy foreign secretary for
North American affairs.
It's a dramatic shift from the direct sharing of resources and intelligence between U.S. and Mexican law
enforcement under former President Felipe Calderon, who was lauded by the U.S. repeatedly for increasing cooperation
between the two countries.
FBI, CIA, DEA and border patrol agents had direct access to units of Mexico's Federal Police, army and navy and worked
side by side with those units in major offensives against drug cartels, including the U.S.-backed strategy of killing or
arresting top kingpins.
Alcocer said high levels of cooperation with the U.S. will continue on security matters, but he said anti-narcotics efforts
were lacking proper coordination.
"Before, you had Agency A from the U.S. government that would deal with agency X, Y and Z from Mexico and then
Agency B from the U.S. that would also deal with agency X, Y and Z from Mexico. Nobody knew what was going on," he
said. "Far from having a large number of agencies without coordination that are knocking on every door, the Mexican
government has a single door called the Secretary of the Interior."
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies deferred
comment on Monday to the State Department, which said it looks forward to
"continued close cooperation."
Security and the economy remain the top themes between the two countries.
But
many analysts have speculated for months about likely changes in the security relationship under new President Enrique
Pena Nieto, whose Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, has always favored central political and bureaucratic control.
(__) Increased US-Mexican economic engagement happening now.
Castillo and Corcoran, Associated Press, 2013
(“Mexico seeks new security, economic agenda with United States”
E. Eduardo Castillo and Katherine Corcoran, Associated Press
April 30, 2013 http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2013/apr/30/mexico-seeks-new-security-economic-agenda-uniteds/)
Wearied by a six-year offensive against organized crime that took an estimated 70,000 lives and saw the disappearance
of thousands more,
Mexico has sought to change its message and image since Pena Nieto took
an aggressive agenda for reform. That includes focusing on trade
and increased economic integration with the U.S. as Mexico experiences a boom
in manufacturing and worldwide buzz about its competitive edge over China and
Brazil.
office Dec. 1 with
"What we are striving for in Mexico is to convert the North American region into the most competitive and the most
dynamic region of the world. That means that certainly there will be integration of the economy," Alcocer said.
Pena Nieto's the meeting with Obama "will allow us to revive a relationship that is more balanced and diversified, much
broader and deeper," he said.
U.S. officials are echoing the message.
Bilateral trade amounted to nearly $500 billion last year, more than four times
what it was only 20 years ago, and Mexico is the most important export market for
22 of 50 U.S. states, both countries' top diplomats said at an April 19 meeting preparing for Obama's trip.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
75
Dip Cap DA
Kerry not key
(__) Kerry has no influence, and his agenda is directed by Obama
Debusmann 13
(Bernd, former Reuters foreign affairs columnist, 4-19-13, “Kerry and the peace process .. Can he be the honest broker” The
Daily Star) http://www.nosratashraf.com/en/content/21806
In practice,
Kerry’s first three visits to the region as secretary of state – Turkey, Israel
and the West Bank – produced no clear signs that the administration of President
Barack Obama is rethinking its relationships with the protagonists in the conflict – or
its tendency to shrug off Israeli actions that run counter to official American policy and international law,
such as building Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. While there were no expectations for immediate
results, the Kerry visits served to underscore the limits of U.S. influence in the region. In Istanbul, Kerry stressed that “Turkey
can be a key, an important contribution to the process of peace in so many ways.” One of those ways, he explained, would be to
help revive the ailing economy of the West Bank, another to create a climate of peace in Gaza, the Hamas-run coastal strip that
often is the elephant in the room in discussions about the conflict. Both Israeli and Palestine Authority officials poured cold
Kerry was equally unsuccessful in trying to
persuade Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to keep in place Prime Minister
Salam Fayyad, the U.S.-educated former World Bank economist whose drive to build
institutions for a future Palestinian state drew more praise from the U.S. than from
Palestinians. The two leaders had been at loggerheads and despite a phone call from Kerry, Abbas accepted Fayyad’s
water on Turkey’s possible insertion into the peace process.
resignation on April 14. Kerry appears undaunted by such setbacks. He plans more visits to the Middle East in the next few
months. Before that, an Arab League delegation is due in Washington on April 29 to discuss a peace proposal first introduced
by Saudi Arabia in 2002 and later adopted by an Arab League summit in Beirut. The plan offered full Arab recognition of Israel
in exchange for territory it captured in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Israel rejected the proposal but the Arab League reendorsed it five years later. Whether the initiative, in its original form or with changes, has better prospects of being accepted
now than it had then is open to doubt.
How much time and diplomatic capital Kerry can spend on
reviving something that has been more process than peace for two decades
ultimately depends on Obama, who firmly directed foreign policy in his first term.
Major decisions were shaped in the White House, not the State Department,
something not likely to change in Obama’s second term.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
76
Dip Cap DA
Non-unique: Kerry Credibility Low Now
(__) Non-unique: Kerry credibility low now
Vadum, senior editor at Capital Research Center, 2013
(“John Kerry: National Security Menace” April 26, 2013 By Matthew Vadum, senior editor at Capital Research Center, a
conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. http://frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/john-kerry-national-securitymenace/)
Secretary of State John Kerry’s credibility has taken a major hit with the revelation that
his favorite Middle Eastern dictator has been killing his own people with illegal
chemical weapons.
Kerry’s abominable judgment, coupled with his anti-Americanism, has blinded him
for a long time to the threat posed by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
For years Kerry functioned as an unofficial lobbyist for Assad in Washington,
D.C., making excuses for him and doing his bidding in Congress.
So it must have pained Kerry yesterday to admit that someone he not-too-long-ago
called his “dear friend” used Sarin in at least two known attacks against rebels in
Syria’s increasingly blood civil war,according to reports.
The United Nations designates Sarin as a weapon of mass destruction. Its
manufacture and stockpiling are prohibited under the Chemical Weapons
Convention of 1993.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention describes Sarin (also known by
the military designation GB) as
“a nerve agent that is one of the most toxic of the known chemical warfare
agents. It is generally odorless and tasteless. Exposure to sarin can cause death
in minutes. A fraction of an ounce (1 to 10 ml) of sarin on the skin can be fatal.”
The pressure will now be on President Obama, who said last summer that if
Syria used chemical weapons such an action would be a “game-changer” for the
United States.
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime but also to other players on the
ground that a red line for us is [when] we start seeing a whole bunch of weapons
moving around or being utilized,” Obama said. “That would change my calculus.
That would change my equation.”
The ultimate pampered limousine leftist, Kerry has been on the wrong side of every
major foreign policy debate for his entire adult life.
His embrace of adversarial tyrants is nothing new. Over and over again he has
become infatuated with thugs. Kerry supported an array of Communist dictators
including Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega.
When the U.S. liberated Grenada in 1983 from the clutches of Marxist dictator
Bernard Coard, Kerry’s first instinct was to attack his own country. “The invasion
represented a bully’s show of force against a weak Third World nation,” said
Kerry. “The invasion only served to heighten world tensions and further strain
brittle U.S.–Soviet and North–South relations.”
But now the Kerry-Assad “bromance” that captured the imagination of liberalinternationalists everywhere is over. As secretary of state, Kerry has had to distance
himself from his love-object.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
77
Dip Cap DA
(__) Kerry credibility at the bottom now.
Vadum, senior editor at Capital Research Center, 2013
(“John Kerry: National Security Menace” April 26, 2013 By Matthew Vadum, senior editor at Capital Research Center, a
conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. http://frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/john-kerry-national-securitymenace/)
Let’s recap just two of Kerry’s foul-ups since joining President Obama’s cabinet on
Feb. 1:
On April 21, Kerry compared victims of terrorism with perpetrators of it. He drew
parallels between innocent bystanders murdered in the Boston Marathon bombing to
Turkish-backed armed belligerents killed three years ago trying to violently break
Israel’s blockade of the terrorist-infested Gaza Strip.
He said the bombing victims made him think of Turks who died during “the 2010
IDF raid on the Marmara,” a reference to Israeli commandos’ boarding of the
Mavi Marmara, a ship carrying pro-Hamas militants in the blockade-running
“Gaza Freedom Flotilla.”
Without acknowledging that terrorists participated in the flotilla, Kerry said the
Boston bombing made him “acutely aware of the emotions felt by the families of the
nine Turks who died” during the raid.
Earlier this month Kerry adopted a curious peace-through-weakness stance toward
North Korea after the Defense Intelligence Agency announced that Pyongyang
probably already has nuclear weapons capable of being delivered to targets. Instead
of talking tough, Kerry offered to reduce U.S. ballistic missile defense deployments if
China puts a leash on North Korea.
And like a bumbling salesman lowering an offering price when he learns the
buyer is wealthier than he suspected, Kerry rattled America’s allies by suggesting
the U.S. may lower the bar for opening direct negotiations with the rogue Stalinist
state. Such an approach rewards North Korea’s aggression.
Is Kerry completely incompetent or consciously pursuing an agenda to hurt
American interests? Time will tell.
But one thing is certain: Kerry is a dangerous national security menace that the U.S.
cannot afford in its top diplomat.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
78
Dip Cap DA
Alt Causes
(__) Kerry focus has shifted from peace process to Southeast Asia.
AP, 2013
(“Kerry shifts from Mideast to issues in Southeast Asia, testy US relations with
China, Russia”. By Deb Riechmann, The Associated Press July 1, 2013
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Kerrys+focus+switches+North+Korea+Syr
ia+attends+Asia/8600580/story.html) KH
BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN, Brunei - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry swapped his
Mideast peace portfolio for issues in emerging Southeast Asia and road bumps in U.S.
relations with Russia and China when he landed Monday in Brunei for a regional
security conference.
The tiny sultanate in the South China Sea, where he is attending the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations Regional Forum, is the last stop on Kerry's two-week tour of
seven countries in Asia and the Middle East.
He landed in Brunei's capital, Bandar Seri Begawan, after flying overnight from Tel
Aviv, where he spent four days in long meetings trying to get Israel and the
Palestinians back to the negotiating table. During the flight, Kerry got an update on
the ongoing discussions by phone from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
On the sidelines of the ASEAN conference, Kerry is scheduled to have a lengthy chat
with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that likely will centre on the Syrian
crisis. Russia is a key backer of embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad, who is
fighting rebel forces that have been being armed by the U.S. and other nations.
"Clearly, part of my conversation with Foreign Minister Lavrov and the Russians will
be how we can maximize our efforts together to have an impact on this," Kerry said in
Tel Aviv before he left Israel. "I'm not going to go into greater detail with respect to
that conversation, but I very much look forward to meeting with Sergey Lavrov
when I get there."
In his meetings with both Lavrov and the Chinese minister, the discussion also is
likely to include National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden, who is wanted
in the U.S. on espionage charges.
The White House has said Hong Kong's refusal to detain Snowden has
"unquestionably" hurt U.S. relations with China. After Hong Kong's government
claimed it had to allow Snowden to flee because the U.S. got Snowden's middle name
wrong in documents requesting his arrest, the Justice Department said the U.S.
didn't buy that excuse, calling it "a pretext for not acting."
Russia called Snowden a "free man" and also refused to turn him over to
Washington. He is believed to be holed up in an airport transit zone in Moscow.
Kerry is also slated to have talks on the sidelines of the meeting with his counterparts
in China, Japan, South Korea and other Asian nations.
North Korea's nuclear ambitions are expected to be a hot-button issue throughout the
conference. Nations attending are expected to reiterate a call for denuclearizing the
Korean Peninsula. Many want North Korea to abide by its obligations under U.N.
Security Council resolutions and commitments it made following six-party talks in
2005.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
79
Dip Cap DA
(__) Kerry shifted focus to the South China Sea.
AP, 2013
(“Kerry shifts from Mideast to issues in Southeast Asia, testy US relations with China, Russia”. By Deb Riechmann, The
Associated Press July 1, 2013
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Kerrys+focus+switches+North+Korea+Syria+attends+Asia/8600580/story.html) KH
Another issue that will take centre stage at the conference is territorial disputes in
the South China Sea.
China has territorial disputes with the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Brunei and Malaysia over the South China Sea and its
potentially oil- and gas-rich islands. Several claimants want group discussions in order to create a legally binding "code of
conduct" to prevent clashes in the sea, but Beijing has not clearly stated when it will sit down with the 10-nation ASEAN bloc
to discuss such a nonaggression pact.
"We have a strong interest in the manner in which the disputes of the South China Sea are addressed, and in the conduct of the
parties,"
Kerry said in opening remarks at the conference. "We very much hope to see progress soon
on a substantive code of conduct in order to help ensure stability in this vital region."
Kerry reiterated U.S. commitment to the ASEAN region where he said roughly half of the region's
600 million people — a population as large as the United States — will be defined as middle class by the end of the decade. The
U.S. commitment is not meant as a counterweight to any specific country in the region, Kerry said in an apparent reference to
economic powerhouse, China.
"For any country that questions whether the United States will sustain our greater
engagement in the Asia-Pacific, I want to put those concerns to rest — completely —
today," Kerry said. "President Obama has made a smart and strategic commitment to
rebalance our interests and investments in Asia.
"We have many goals. We have economic and security interests. But I want to
emphasize, importantly, our actions are not intended to contain or to counterbalance
any one country."
(__) Kerry is spending diplomatic capital on China
The Fiscal Times 13
(1-29-13, “John Kerry’s China Problem: How Tough Can He Get?”)
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/01/29/John-Kerrys-China-Problem-How-Tough-Can-He-Get.aspx#page1
American carmakers are already part of the collateral damage. “The U.S. has launched investigations, continued existing duties,
and filed complaints at the World Trade Organization, on a number of other Chinese products as well over the past year,” the
D.C.-based lobbying shop ML Strategies wrote in its 2013 outlook. “In response, China has taken similar actions on American
The coming year will likely see a
continuation of trade tensions between the U.S. and China.” Will there be a battle over island
territory? The World Economic Forum, the Swiss nonprofit that sponsors “Davos,” warns that China
and Japan could be headed for a naval confrontation over the Senkaku/Diaoyu
islands. Never heard of these five islands and three rocks in the Pacific Ocean? It’s a
major headache for Kerry. He might have to defuse the nationalist tensions of both
products, most notably certain automobiles imported from the U.S.
countries, spending diplomatic capital on security issues instead of economic ones. After
all, the United States briefly had control of these islands after World War II and gave them to the Japanese in 1972, the same
year China and Taiwan claimed ownership.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
80
Dip Cap DA
(__) State Department shifting focus to North Korea now.
Labott, CNN Foreign Affairs Reporter, 2013
(“Sources: State Department will shift North Korea focus to diplomacy” April 4th, 2013 CNN Foreign Affairs Reporter Elise
Labott
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/04/sources-state-department-will-shift-north-korea-focus-to-diplomacy/)
Senior U.S. officials tell CNN that at the State Department briefing Thursday, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland is
going to try and take the focus on North Korea in a different direction toward
diplomacy, as part of an administration-wide effort to calm tensions with North
Korea.
The U.S. has been saying its military actions have all been defensive in nature and focused on the U.S. protecting its
allies and its homeland. Now Nuland is going to send the message “this is time for
diplomacy” and urge North Korea to stop threats and get back on the peace train,
one official said.
Nuland is going to be setting up the fact Kerry is in Asia next week and will be
talking about “finding a diplomatic way forward,” the official said.
(__) State department is focusing on global health diplomacy.
Brino, Associate Editor, 2013
(“State Department renews focus on global health diplomacy” February 28, 2013 | Anthony Brino, Associate Editor
http://www.govhealthit.com/news/state-department-renews-focus-health-diplomacy)
the State Department’s
is trying integrate the U.S. government’s international
health aid efforts and help governments in developing countries create
sustainable healthcare funding and care models.
As the federal government works to reform America’s beleaguered health system,
new
Office of Global Health Diplomacy
“We really are at a remarkable moment,” Eric Goosby, MD, U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and recently named head of
the Office of Global Health Diplomacy, said at a Kaiser Family Foundation forum.
“There has been a convergence of a number of experiences, facts and understandings that have come together to
convince, I think, a broader portion of the world community that we have learned how to take programs from a pilot to
scale,” said Goosby, who helped develop care models for AIDS and HIV at San Francisco General Hospital in the 1980s
before going on to oversee the Department of Health and Human Services AIDS programs.
While poverty, political upheaval and related problems of terrorism remain as
prime challenges to the U.S. and other industrialized countries providing sustainable healthcare aid, Goosby
said, multi-institution collaboration, planning and financial management has the
potential to help developing countries craft programs around their needs.
[See also: HIE 2.0 closer than it might appear]
For instance, he said,
the U.S. and other governments are working with the World Bank
to help countries with growing mining industries avoid the so-called resource
curse and set aside perhaps three to five percent of government mining tax
revenues for healthcare, as Botswana has done.
In addition to on-the-ground aid — such as malaria, AIDS and maternal and children’s healthcare programs — Goosby
said the emerging global health diplomacy paradigm model needs also to focus on technical cooperation and assistance,
supporting the expansion of government health ministries and helping them design plans that meet their populations’
needs.
“The huge diplomatic tool chest is to try to elevate the discussions with countries,”
he said. There’s also a renewed focus on public-private partnerships to both sustain
and advance health programs. “If we identify the profit interest with companies, they work better and
deliver. If we don’t we find that after a year or two, it fades out.”
Global health diplomacy “is a reflection of the conscious of the American people,”
Goosby said. “We’ve really been given an opportunity to supply those scaled operations, allowing us to apply the
science...and really move public health.”
Indeed, global health development is being seen more and more as integral to U.S. international trade and security
interests.
“What exactly does maternal health, or immunizations, or the fight against HIV and AIDS have to do with foreign policy?"
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in 2010. "Well, my answer is everything.”
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
81
Dip Cap DA
(__) Kerry’s main concern is public safety in his new position
Huffington Post 2013
[Huffington Post Politics, “John Kerry Addresses State Department Colleagues Monday”, 5/15/2013,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/john-kerry-state-department_n_2614538.html]
-- New Secretary of State John Kerry reported for duty Monday,
acknowledging that as Hillary Rodham Clinton's successor he has "big
heels to fill" and promising to protect U.S. foreign service workers from
terrorist attacks overseas.¶ On his first day at the office in his new job, the former senator and 2004
WASHINGTON
Democratic presidential candidate was greeted with loud cheers by employees of the State Department and the U.S.
Agency for International Development.¶ As the first man in the post in eight years, Kerry referred to his two most recent
predecessors, Clinton and Condoleezza Rice, by asking in jest: "Can a man actually run the State Department?"¶ "I don't
know," he answered. "As the saying goes, I have big heels to fill."¶ Kerry told his new agency's
employees that he and President Barack Obama needed their help to make
America safer and the world more prosperous and peaceful.¶ And after noting the deaths of
Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, Kerry
said the protection of American diplomats would be a top priority.¶ "I guarantee
you that beginning this morning when I report for duty upstairs, everything I do
will be focused on the security and safety of our people," he said.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
82
Dip Cap DA
Link Turn-
(__) Lifting the Cuban embargo would increase US diplomatic capital
Houston Chronicle 07
(8-17-07 “Peacemaking for profit: U.S. shouldn't wait to ratchet down Cuba
embargo”) http://uscubanormalization.blogspot.com/2007/08/houston-chronicleeditorial.html
What the United States does need, and urgently, is diplomatic capital. Free of charge,
our Cuba embargo has given Castro and his protege, Venezuelan President Hugo
Chavez, an enemy straight from Central Casting with which to justify their regimes.
The embargo also alienates people throughout Latin America, including many who
risked their lives fighting for democracy in their own countries. For many, the
embargo is the disproportionate wrath of the Americas' Goliath toward a country
that dared to defy it. Ratcheting down the embargo, and the assumptions about it,
would echo positively around the world. Venezuela, though, might be the most
immediate logjam to unstick. President Chavez wants nothing more than an oldtime Cold War enmity with the United States. The drama therein provides him with
material for countless speeches, and endless distractions as he mines at democratic
institutions. Imagine how his rhetoric and policies might be retooled if Cuba and the
United States suddenly began cooperating on counterterrorism, counter-narcotics
and technical exchange projects.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
83
Dip Cap DA
No Link – no tradeoff
(__) Diplomatic capital is not being invested in the peace process now
The Japan Times 13
(4-3-13, “Symbols, substance in the Mideast” Editorial)
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/04/03/editorials/symbols-substancein-the-mideast/#.UcswTPmsiSo
In truth, Mr. Obama’s commitment to the defense of Israel has not wavered. His
overtures to the Islamic world reflected a desire to undo the damage done by the
Bush administration’s global war on terror. He kept a distance from the Middle East
peace process — although he created a special envoy to the negotiations — because
neither Israelis nor Palestinians were ready to take hard steps needed for a durable
peace. Cognizant that the region has long been a graveyard of U.S. diplomats’ dreams,
Mr. Obama decided to preserve his diplomatic capital until circumstances indicated that
there was a real chance of success. That moment is not yet here. But dynamics in the
region, along with his re-election, demanded that he refocus on the Middle East, and
a visit was overdue. The trip had several objectives. Mr. Obama had to win the
confidence of the Israeli people, and assure them — and others — of the strength of
their relationship with the U.S. At the same time, he had to make the case for the
Palestinians without suggesting that there is a zero-sum relationship between the
two.
(__) Diplomatic capital doesn’t trade off – the state department can
collaborate and hire more people to avoid any tradeoff.
GAO, Government Accountability Office, 2003
(Government Accountability Office, “U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department
Expands Efforts but Faces Significant Challenges: GAO-03-951.”, 4 September 2003,
GAO-03-951, EBSCO)
To improve the planning, coordination, execution, and assessment of U.S.
public diplomacy efforts, we recommend that the Secretary of State •
develop and widely disseminate throughout the department a strategy that
considers the techniques of private sector public relations firms in integrating all
of State’s public diplomacy efforts and directing them toward achieving common
and measurable objectives; • consider ways to collaborate with the private
sector to employ best practices for measuring efforts to inform and influence
target audiences, including expanded use of opinion research and better use of
existing research; • designate more administrative positions to overseas
public affairs sections to reduce the administrative burden; • strengthen
efforts to train Foreign Service officers in foreign languages; and • program
adequate time for public diplomacy training into State’s assignment process.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
84
Dip Cap DA
No Link
(__) No USAID budget trade off’s increasing for year 2013, also plans
funding comes from the DOD
Rogin, Foreign Policy Columnist, 2012
“5 coming battles over the 2013 international affairs budget” Josh Rogin, A graduate of George Washington University's
Elliott School of International Affairs,
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/13/5_coming_battles_over_the_2013_international_affairs_budget)
The top line budget numbers. The State Department and
USAID requested $51.6 billionfor fiscal year 2013, but $8.2 billion is
categorized as temporarily needed funding for Afghanistan, Iraq, and
Pakistan under what's called the Overseas Contingency Operations fund
(OCO) account. The remaining $43.6 billion is the "core budget" request
and represents a 10 percent increase over fiscal 2012 levels as enacted
by Congress. For fiscal 2012, lawmakers moved a lot of funding from the
core budget to the OCO account in order to fit State Department funding inside the
mandatory discretionary spending caps set forth in the Budget Control Act of 2011. Now, State is trying to move that
funding back into its core budget so that it will have it whenever the need for emergency funding wanes. In general,
Congress is more willing to fund
programs that are needed in the current wars... and because the OCO account is off
State prefers to use the OCO accounts when possible because
budget. ("Obviously, the benefit of the OCO account in general allows for all of you who report on this and for the Hill
to look at the costs of our frontline states, to look at the costs of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan," said Nides.) But outside
experts see the OCO account, which has been used by State since last year and by the Pentagon since 9/11, as a
slush fund. "I think OCO accounts are a scourge," said Gordon Adams, former national security director at the Office
of Management and Budget during the Clinton administration. "Special extra accounts are a refuge for budget
scoundrels. Funding for all three of those countries are going to be subject to debate and dispute."
(__) USAID has failed to show results Pakistan proves
The Nation, 11
(US aid fails to achieve goals, http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/09-Feb2011/US-aid-fails-to-achieve-goals)
The US has failed to show progress from billions of dollars in aid given
to Pakistan over the past few years to help the country with basic needs like electricity, health
care and education, said an inspector general’s report . The finding comes as some in the US
have questioned the wisdom of lavishing Pakistan with military and
civilian aid given the government’s reluctance to target Islamist militants based on its territory who regularly
attack American troops in Afghanistan. The US has committed nearly $4 billion to
projects in Pakistan since 2009 to help the country address critical infrastructure needs, provide
basic services and improve government performance, said the report released Monday. But the largest
contributor, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), has
not committed to a way to measure the success of its programmes, said the
report, which was written by officials at USAID, the State Department and the Defense Department . “We
believe that USAID has an imperative to accumulate, analyse, and report
information on the results achieved under its programs,” said the report, which
covered the period through Dec. 31, 2010, and came about a year after the State Department, which guides USAID,
developed a strategy for providing civilian assistance to Pakistan. “One
year after the launch of the
civilian assistance strategy in Pakistan, USAID has not been able to
demonstrate measurable progress,” it said.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
85
Dip Cap DA
Peace Process- will fail- Arab spring
(__) Peace Process will fail – Arab Spring
Duz, reporter for the Voice of Russia Radio, 2013
(“Syria: a key to Middle East peace” Sergey Duz, reporter for The Voice of Russia Radio. 22 May, 2013
http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_05_22/Syria-a-key-to-Mid-East-peace/)
With all eyes on Syria, the world has somewhat forgotten about the Middle East while experts claim that Syria is
indispensable to the solution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The Middle East is a small and tangled world so Syria really
matters for Israel and Palestine. Even the smallest moves in the Syrian conflict may trigger drastic changes between
Israel and Palestine.
Irina Zvyagelskaya, senior researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of Russian Academy of Science, commented on
the situation.
“I think any attempts to revive Palestinian-Israeli talks now will be doomed to fail
especially amid the Arab Spring and general instability in the region. Israel
evidently couldn’t care less about getting on the track of peace and has no motive
to hold territorial talks now. As for Palestine, it is at least trying, its rival factions
Fatah and Hamas have announced a plan to form a unity government and hold
elections but they are still split which doesn’t add to the peace process”.
Even though ties between Israel and Syria are tense, Assad is the best leader as far as Israel in concerned, an Israeli
intelligence source told The Times, saying the following.
“Better the devil we know, than the demons we can only imagine if Syria falls into chaos and the
extremists from across the Arab world gain a foothold there”. What he meant were Islamists
that are now prevailing among Syria’s opposition.
Therefore, Israel and Palestine have more pressing issues than rivalry right now .
Dmitry Maryasis, senior researcher with the Department of Israeli Studies of the Oriental Studies Institute says: “Syria was
an active supporter of Hamas funding it and supplying it with arms, so if Assad quits, Hamas will loose its shells supplied
via Iran. At the same time the Syrian opposition has plenty of Al-Qaeda-linked Islamists and if they grab the helm, this will
mean a danger for Fatah which is a national not a religions party.
Now the entire Middle East should be viewed through the prism of the Syrian
conflict which threatens to set the whole region ablaze. Thus, all global efforts should be
focused on Syria and not on boosting the Palestine-Israeli peaceful process.
The Arab Spring has once triggered an irreversible escalation of violence and
there is no way back.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
86
Dip Cap DA
Peace process will fail - Conditions
(__) Talks doomed to fail now without settlement agreement over the West
Bank.
Weiss, Reporter for the Irish Times, 2013
(“John Kerry reaches out in effort to restart Middle East Peace Talks” Mark
Weiss, reporter. May 23, 2013
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/john-kerry-reaches-out-ineffort-to-restart-middle-east-peace-talks-1.1404621)
Last week Mr Kerry telephoned Mr Netanyahu to voice US displeasure over
Israeli plans to declare legal four illegal West Bank settler outposts.
However, Mr Netanyahu is unwilling to declare another settlement building freeze
and maintains that direct peace talks should resume without conditions.
A Palestinian Authority source told Palestinian newspaper al-Ayyam negotiations
were unlikely to resume, since Mr Kerry failed to persuade Mr Netanyahu to cease
settlement construction or agree that the 1967 border between Israel and the West
Bank will serve as a basis for negotiations for a future Palestinian state.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
87
Dip Cap DA
Peace process will fail- middle east
(__) The Middle East Peace Process inherently fails at establishing peace
and only fosters more violent conflict
Greenfield, 10
(New York City based writer and freelance commentator, writes extensively about the middle east) “The Middle East
Peace Scam” Daniel Greenfield Canada Free Press Online, March 10 2010,
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20865)
But the murder of Israelis never “undermines the trust we need right now”. Only Jews living in East Jerusalem can do
that. Not Israelis, Jews, for if Arab citizens of Israel were moving into new buildings in East Jerusalem, Biden and the
It is precisely Jews that are the problem for
the Obama Administration and its Media-Government Complex. Just as they
were a problem for Hitler and Stalin. Just as they have always been a problem
for would-be tyrants. There are, of course, no worries about whether Israel
will trust Abbas and his Fatah gang. As if anybody in their right mind
would, after nearly two decades of terrorism that followed the ballyhooed
signing of the Peace Accords and the famous handshake overseen by a smiling Clinton. After
violating nearly every agreement he ever signed with Israel, Arafat
unleashed a wave of terror, while pocketing a fortune in foreign aid. And
media would not be condemning Israel for it.
after every bombing, the same despicable conglomeration of diplomats and politicians and diplopols that form the
Their only solution, then as now,
was more concessions; by Israel to the terrorists—of course. And so here we
“World Community” pointed Israel to the negotiating table.
are in the splendid year 2010, 5770 in the Hebrew calendar, and 1431 in the Muslim calendar. In a few months it will
be 43 years since the Liberation of Jerusalem. Since Jews returned to the Old City they were ethnically cleansed from
by Muslim soldiers. And today the Hurva synagogue, twice destroyed by Muslims, has been completely reconstructed.
In 1948 the Jordanian command expelled the Jews from East Jerusalem and destroyed the Hurva synagogue, vowing
that the Jews would never return. And today in the year 2010, the Vice President of the United States comes on a
mission to carry on their work. That of the dynamiters and the bombers and the expellers.
This is where
nearly two decades of negotiations have brought us. In the early nineties, Israel was
discussing the status of certain West Bank towns. Today, Israel is being warned against allowing Jews to live in
Jerusalem. Tomorrow I would dearly like to say that the possibilities are endless, but there are only so many parts of
Israel where Jews still live, and no doubt the eager ethnic cleansers in the Obama Administration and the EU have
plans for them, too.
And so the Middle East Peace Scam marches on. There is a
great deal of preparation for intense rounds of negotiations at which it
will be determined what else Israel must give for there to be no peace.
East Jerusalem will naturally end up on the table soon enough. Meanwhile the entire farce has less legal basis than a
kangaroo court and all the consistency of a drunken liar on the witness stand. Today there are three Palestinian
states. One in Jordan, divided to create an Arab State in the bygone days of the Palestine Mandate; A second state in
Gaza, which is ruled over by Hamas as part of the spoils from their war with Fatah; A third state in the West Bank
ruled over by Abbas and Fatah, even though his term ended and there have been no new elections. Out of this
hodgepodge, Israel is expected to negotiate, even though Hamas refuses to negotiate any permanent peace
You will not, of course, hear
about any of this in the media, which is still busy being outraged by the
thought of Jews living in Jerusalem. When they’re not being outraged by the thought of Israel
agreement, and Fatah has no legal authority to represent anyone.
treating Rachel’s Tomb as a heritage site. After all, the Prime Minister of Turkey has declared that Rachel’s Tomb is
But the world isn’t
paying attention. The world is certain that the rage and violence of a
billion Muslims can be calmed with some Jewish land and Jewish blood.
Just as the rage and violence of Nazism could be calmed with some
Czech land and blood. But why listen to me? Listen instead to the soothing words of Ahmad Bahar, the
not Jewish, but Islamic. Just as all of Israel is Islamic. Just as all of the world is Islamic.
Speaker of the Palestinian Authority Parliament. “Make us victorious over the infidel people… Allah, take hold of the
Jews and their allies, Allah, take hold of the Americans and their allies… Allah, count them and kill them to the last
one and don’t leave even one.” Ah, but you say it’s about “the occupation”. And there will be peace when the terrorists
have all the land they feel they’re entitled to. But… no. “Our enmity with the Jews is a matter of faith, more than an
enmity owing to occupation and the land.”
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
88
Dip Cap DA
(__) Alt causes to instability; Taliban gaining ground in Afghanistan and
Pakistan
Al-Tamimi, intern at the Middle East Forum, 2012
(Ayman, intern at the Middle East Forum. “Rethinking U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan,” Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2012,
accessed through ProQuest, February 18, 2012)
As U. S. military operations in Afghanistan drag on inconclusively, it is
becoming increasingly apparent that the Taliban insurgency is gaining
ground. In the first six months of 2010, for example, there was a 31
percent rise in civilian casualties while the Shari'a was implemented in
areas hitherto inaccessible to the Taliban. 1 Insurgent attacks in the first
quarter of 2011 grew by 51 percent compared with the previous year2
while the Afghan security forces have been increasingly penetrated by
the Taliban.3 It is hardly surprising therefore that President Hamid Karzai has reportedly held several
meetings with the Taliban over the past three years in an attempt to strike a deal .4 In the meantime , Pakistan
is being destabilized still further, especially with the rise of new militant
groups such as the Punj abi Taliban, despite increased attacks against
militant hideouts in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas bordering
Afghanistan.5
(__) Kerry may get the negotiations started, but peace talks won’t be successful
Daily Caller 7/4
[Daily Caller, News paper quoting qualified people, “Middle East experts find Kerry focus on Israeli-Palestinian peace
‘baffling’”, 11:46 PM 07/04/2013, http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/04/middle-east-experts-find-kerry-focus-on-israelipalestinian-peace-baffling/#ixzz2YHteE5Iv, \\wyo-bb]
None of the four scholars who responded to Daily Caller inquiries could understand Kerry’s
emphasis on the conflict, and some were outright dismissive of the idea that he could broker any sort of solution.
“Kerry would have an easier time convincing Greenpeace to dine on whale steak and
spotted owl than in brokering peace between Israel and Palestinians,” Michael Rubin,
resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, told TheDC. What’s more, Rubin said, with all
the fires flaring around the world, it makes little sense that Kerry would devote so much time to a problem that isn’t currently
in a position to be resolved. “Egypt is imploding, and Turkey is going south fast. Antagonism between Europe and America is at
an all-time high. China is bullying U.S. allies in southeast Asia. And what is Kerry doing? Off tilting at windmills,” he said.
Nathan Brown, a nonresident senior associate at
the Carnegie Endowment for National Peace, told TheDC he
finds Kerry’s decision to focus on the Israeli-Palestinian peace “baffling.” “He may get
formal negotiations started if he’s lucky. I can’t see him getting any farther,” Brown
said of Kerry’s prospects for success.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
89
Dip Cap DA
(__) Talks fail- Israel Fears Pakistan will abandon the talks at the first moment,
and will pursue other avenues to accomplish goals
EJP 7/2
[EJP- European Jewish Press, “US Secretary of State John Kerry’s latest Israeli-Palestinian shuttle: what are the results ?”,
02/Jul/2013, http://www.ejpress.org/article/66876, \\wyo-bb]
Netanyahu has repeatedly expressed his desire to begin negotiations without
preconditions and has publicly expressed his belief in the desirability of a peace agreement for Israel to head of the
possibility of bi-national state. However, he is reluctant to make highly sensitive and significant
concessions to Palestinian demands, just in order to get talks moving, and without
receiving trade-offs in return. Netanyahu does not want to weaken Israel’s
negotiating position before talks begin, and also faces political pressure from rightwing elements within his coalition. Many Israelis also suspect that Abbas is not serious
about the talks, and will re-enter negotiations only temporarily, in order to avoid getting
blamed internationally for the failure of Kerry’s efforts. They believe he is likely to
abandon talks at the first opportunity and resume efforts to isolate Israel and get
unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood in the UN and other international
forums.
(__) Neither Israel nor Palestine is capable, at the moment, to entertain the
prospect of peace, the Peace process must be put on hold
Staloff, 2007
(“In the wake of the Hamas Coup: Rethinking America’s ‘Grand Strategy’ for the New Palestinian Authority” June 26, Robert
Satloff, executive director of The Washington Institute, D.Phil., St. Antony's College, University of Oxford; M.A., Harvard
University; B.A., Duke University, The Washington Institute on Near East Policy, 2007,
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2628)
neither Israelis nor Palestinians are
actually eager for what it takes to achieve rapid diplomatic movement. On the
one hand, no Israeli government is likely to consider ceding critical assets to a
Palestinian interlocutor so weak that it lost power in the one small piece of
territory once under its total control. (Indeed, press reports suggest that Israeli prime minister Ehud
But, rhetoric to the contrary, there is reason to believe that
Olmert rebuffed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's political horizon proposal during his visit to Washington last week.) On
the other hand,
no rump Palestinian government, still reeling from defeat, is likely
to make concessions on the key issues -- such as refugees -- essential to any
peace deal.
In the current environment, it would be no surprise if leaders on both sides agreed that now is not really the
most propitious time to press for diplomatic progress, though they may want
the illusion of diplomacy for local political purposes. Yet it is unclear why Washington would
want to busy itself with an empty exercise that distracts from the important business of fixing the problems that produced the
current situation.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
90
Dip Cap DA
(__) The peace process won’t solve terrorism – empirically proven
BERES, 1998
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE PEACE PROCESS: AN HISTORICAL ELUCIDATION, April,
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/apr98/beres1.htm
Jewish
supporters of the Middle East Peace Process base their argument on an
altogether unwarranted assumption, that is, that the Oslo Accords hold the prospect of
bringing final resolution to the longstanding "territorial" dispute between Israel
and the Arabs. Yet, these Accords link a terrorist organization whose sole aim of negotiation is to supplant the State of
Israel with a State of Palestine. Moreover, the dispute is not about territory, as the Jewish supporters still
seem to believe, but about God. As any casual reading of the Arab press will disclose, from 1948 to the present, the
entire Islamic world's opposition to Israel - including opposition of the P.L.O.- stems from
doctrinal hatred of a "cancerous" Jewish state in its midst. Indeed, if the
Palestinian opposition to Israel is only about West Bank (Judea/Samaria) and Gaza,
why were there so many Arab terrorist attacks against Jews between 1948 and 1967,
when these disputed territories were in Arab hands?
(__) No solvency for peace process.
Miller, 13
“John Kerry, Lone Ranger of the Middle East: The Secretary of State's Quixotic Bid to Reset the Peace Process” Aaron David
Miller vice president for New Initiatives at the Woodrow Wilson Center. June 26, 2013
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139532/aaron-david-miller/john-kerry-lone-ranger-of-the-middle-east) KH
Moreover, the regional environment has rarely been less conducive to peacemaking. Many
commentators still reference the 2002 Arab League initiative that promised recognition of Israel in exchange for delivery on a
two-state solution.
But that plan was always long on symbolism and short on substance,
and, given the current state of uncertainty in the Arab world, it’s no longer clear
whether all the Arab states can deliver.
Hamas is ensconced in Gaza with a formidable stockpile of high trajectory weapons. The Egyptian-Israeli relationship is cold,
and the Muslim Brotherhood–led government is unlikely to strongly support a two-state solution or Palestinian concessions
on Jerusalem. Syria is imploding, drawing in Iran and Hezbollah ever closer to defend the Assad regime.
None of this augurs well for making big decisions, particularly for an Israeli prime minister deeply suspicious of the Arabs and
focused much more on Iran and its nuclear program. To be sure, a breakthrough on the Palestinian issue would help isolate
Iran. Still, it’s hard to see Netanyahu making big moves on the Palestinian issue until it’s much clearer where Iran stands on the
nuclear issue following the recent presidential elections.
This chicken-and-egg dynamic is likely to
constrain what can be done on the peace process until the Iranian file becomes
clearer.
(__) Can’t solve peace talks: Israelis and Palestinians not ready to come to the
table yet.
Miller, 13
“John Kerry, Lone Ranger of the Middle East: The Secretary of State's Quixotic Bid to Reset the Peace Process” Aaron David
Miller vice president for New Initiatives at the Woodrow Wilson Center. June 26, 2013
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139532/aaron-david-miller/john-kerry-lone-ranger-of-the-middle-east) KH
there is the question of whether the Israelis and the Palestinians feel a real sense
of urgency, which is the prerequisite to their taking the negotiations seriously. Right
now, the answer is absolutely not. Neither Netanyahu nor Abbas is desperate enough
yet; nor do they see sufficient incentives to justify the risk of changing the status quo.
In short, neither Abbas nor Netanyahu is prepared to pay the price of what a conflictending accord would cost.
Then
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
91
Dip Cap DA
Peace Process- Impact turn- nuclear terror
(__) The peace process leads to nuclear terrorism
Beres, 1997
(Louis Rene Beres, Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University, Winter 1997 (Dickinson Journal
of International Law “After the "Peace Process:" Israel, Palestine, and Regional Nuclear War”)
the Peace Process might generate nuclear terrorism against Israel would be
via its ongoing legitimization of various terrorist groups. For example, when the Clinton
One way in which
Administration prodded Jerusalem to enter into the Oslo Process and proceeded to host Israel's formal agreement with the
PLO on September 13, 1993,9" it instantly transformed Yasser Arafat and his terrorist network into a jurisprudentially and
diplomatic actions could give aid and comfort to
terrorist groups, making it easier for- them to ultimately gain access to the
essential implements of nuclear terrorist attack.
Under the terms of the Peace Process, Israel's legitimization of terrorist
groups is paralleling Israel's loss of strategic depth. In this situation, terrorists may draw
politically acceptable organization. Such
encouragement from both the palpable weakening of Israeli power (a weakening that could inspire death-blow forms of
higher-order terrorist attack) and from the idea that their ends justified their means.
The Peace Process is producing a Palestinian state. In this connection, nuclear
terrorist threats against Israel likely will increase because, tactically, the
sanctuary benefits of "Palestine" will make it easier to plan and to carry out a
nuclear terrorist operation, and to regain all "lost territories" (i.e., all of Israel).
(__) The peace process can’t succeed because the Palestinian Authority lacks
the institutional capacity to ratify any agreements
Sergio Yahni, September 9, 2k7 (Alternative Information Center “Can the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process be Renewed?”)
But Mahmoud Abbas attitudes are far from mainstream Palestinian public opinion.
According to an opinion poll conducted by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center (JMCC), most of the Palestinians
oppose an agreement by which settlement blocks will remain on the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, oppose concessions
on Jerusalem and support the right of return of the Palestinian people.http://www.alternativenews.org/news/english/canthe-israeli-palestinian-peace-process-be-renewed-20070909.html - _ftn1
as long as President Abbas is the legal head of state with an
unconstitutional government, he will not be able to sign any agreement that
makes substantial concessions at odds with the Palestinian national
consensus.
At the same time,
According to Article 110 (1) of the Palestinian Basic Law, http://www.alternativenews.org/news/english/can-the-israelipalestinian-peace-process-be-renewed-20070909.html - _ftn2 the president “may declare a state of emergency by a decree”
when there is a threat to national security caused by war, invasion, armed insurrection, or at a time of natural disaster for a
period not exceeding thirty (30) days.” This state of emergency can be extended for additional thirty days only with the
approval of two thirds of the parliament.
Because one third of the Palestinian MPs are in Israeli jails and Israel imposes
restrictions on the movement of the remaining MPs, the Palestinian Legislative
Council (PLC) could only in theory meet to discuss an extension of the state of
emergency for a second time in August or give a vote of confidence for Salam Fayyad’s
appointed government. http://www.alternativenews.org/news/english/can-the-israeli-palestinian-peace-process-berenewed-20070909.html - _ftn3 However, it is unlikely that the current PLC, which has a Hamas majority, will endorse the
state of emergency or Salam Fayyad’s government.
The Palestinian Authority can return to constitutionality either by the release
of the jailed MPs, or, through new elections. Only a government empowered
and legitimized by the Palestinian constitution will be able to negotiate with
Israel. Otherwise, the agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority risk
being deemed illegitimate.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
92
Dip Cap DA
Peace Process- No impact – Arab-Israeli Conflict
(__) Claims of instability and failed leadership are false. The Arab-Israeli
conflict will have no effect on US interests in the region.
ADL, Andi-defamation league, 2010
(Anti-Defamation League, “Gen. Petraeus Wrong To Blame 'Insufficient Progress'
On Arab-Israeli Peace For Hindering U.S. Goals,” March 18 2010,
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/5721_62.htm)
The assumptions Gen. Petraeus presented to the Senate Armed Services
Committee wrongly attribute "insufficient progress" in the IsraeliPalestinian peace process and "a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel"
as significantly impeding the U.S. military mission in Iraq, Afghanistan
and Pakistan and in dealing with the Iranian influences in the region. It
is that much more of a concern to hear this coming from such a great
American patriot and hero. The General's assertions lead to the illusory
conclusion that if only there was a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, the U.S. could successfully complete its mission in the region.
Gen. Petraeus has simply erred in linking the challenges faced by the
U.S. and coalition forces in the region to a solution of the Israeli-Arab
conflict, and blaming extremist activities on the absence of peace and
the perceived U.S. favoritism for Israel. This linkage is dangerous and
counterproductive. Whenever the Israeli-Arab conflict is made a focal point,
Israel comes to be seen as the problem. If only Israel would stop settlements,
if only Israel would talk with Hamas, if only Israel would make concessions on
refugees, if only it would share Jerusalem, everything in the region would then
fall into line.
WFI-Starter Pack
2013-2014
93
Dip Cap DA
Peace process- No impact- Middle East War
(__) Middle East wars don’t escalate – historically & regional armies aren’t
able to mount offensives.
Yglesias, 2007
[Matthew Yglesias is an Associate Editor of The Atlantic Monthly, “Containing
Iraq,” The Atlantic, 12 Sep 2007,
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/containing_iraq.php]
Kevin Drum tries to throw some water on the "Middle East in Flames" theory
holding that American withdrawal from Iraq will lead not only to a short-term
intensification of fighting in Iraq, but also to some kind of broader regional
conflagration. Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay, as usual sensible but several
clicks to my right, also make this point briefly in Democracy: "Talk that Iraq’s
troubles will trigger a regional war is overblown; none of the half-dozen
civil wars the Middle East has witnessed over the past half-century led to a
regional conflagration." Also worth mentioning in this context is the basic point
that the Iranian and Syrian militaries just aren't able to conduct meaningful
offensive military operations. The Saudi, Kuwait, and Jordanian militaries
are even worse. The IDF has plenty of Arabs to fight closer to home. What
you're looking at, realistically, is that our allies in Kurdistan might provide safe
harbor to PKK guerillas, thus prompting our allies in Turkey to mount some
cross-border military strikes against the PKK or possibly retaliatory ones against
other Kurdish targets. This is a real problem, but it's obviously not a problem
that's mitigated by having the US Army try to act as the Baghdad Police
Department or sending US Marines to wander around the desert hunting a
possibly mythical terrorist organization.