***WAVE 2***
Aff
Nieto
Nieto Education Reform Scenario
Nieto’s education reform policy is necessary—Mexico’s education system
right now sucks
Bolton ’13 Gene Bolton is a Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, (Gene, “Off and Running—Pena Nieto’s Reform
Agenda”, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 3/12, http://www.coha.org/21851/)//RS
With education reform shaping up to be the staple of his first few months in office, it appeared as though Peña Nieto was taking the
necessary steps to make good on one of the reforms as outlined in the Pacto por México (Pact for Mexico)—the top-down legislation
signed by opposition parties PAN and PRD in December of 2012. [7] Whether Peña Nieto’s actions were to
obtain political capital or a sincere interest in the country’s schools, Mexico’s
education system is in desperate need of reform; the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) ranks it as the worst performing system
among member countries. [8] As an example of how dysfunctional the situation
has become in recent years, the government is unaware of how many children and
teachers actually exist in this fragmented system. [9]¶ In an effort to correct these problems, Peña
Nieto’s education reform is designed to weaken the grasp of the union’s ability to
hire and fire teachers. According to The Economist, “the government has promised that from
now on teachers’ jobs will no longer be for sale, or inherited. Teachers who fail
assessments will face the sack.” [10] Additionally, the education reform aims to
increase the percentage of students graduating from middle and high school to 80
and 40 percent respectively, as well as extending learning hours in approximately 40,000 public
schools.
Education Reform requires a strong commitment by Nieto—he will need
momentum in order to break up corrupt teacher unions
Garcia ‘13Denisse Garcia is a contributing writer for the Harvard Political Review, (Denisse, “Peña Nieto and the Unions”, Harvard
Political Review, 5/28, http://harvardpolitics.com/world/pena-nieto-and-the-unions/)//RS
Though the political motivations surrounding these changes in Mexico’s education
system are concerning, questionable motivations do not imply inadequate
reforms. The end result of a better education system could be a positive byproduct of the antagonism between Gordillo and the
SNTE, and Peña Nieto and the PRI. But the PRI should avoid recreating the past relationship it had with the SNTE in order to
implement lasting change. Peña Nieto has repeatedly stated that he wishes to further
economic growth in Mexico, and improving the education system is a key factor in
making Mexico more competitive. But resorting to tactics of the past in order to enact change
may prove problematic, as it can potentially discredit the claims of a new, democratic
PRI. Mexico has a varying history in committing itself to reforms, often abandoning them once they no longer provide political
capital. But there is no repudiating that these education reforms are necessary for the inefficient system in place today. If Peña
Nieto truly wishes to signal the return of a strong, centralized PRI government,
then it could be in his best interest to sincerely enforce these reforms and commit
himself to rooting out the deeply entrenched problems of education system’s
infrastructure and its relationship with the teachers’ union in order to create a
more efficient education sector.
Education Reform solves problems such as the Mexican Economy,
Immigration, and the Drug War and Nieto’s plan is a step in the right
direction
Robberson ‘13Tod Roberson is an editorial writer for the Dallas Morning News, (Tod, “Mexican education reform is a major
advance, including for this country”, Dallas Morning News, 2/27,
http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2013/02/mexican-education-reform-is-a-major-advance-including-for-thiscountry.html/)//RS
When Mexican children start getting the educations they need and deserve, their
parents will no longer be overwhelmed with hopelessness over their children’s
futures. They will no longer feel that they have to bribe teachers so their kids can get an education. They won’t feel
that the only hope for their children is to flee to the United States.¶ Breaking this
union’s grip on Mexico’s education system is absolutely key to the nation’s
survival, key to its economic development, key to the fight against drug trafficking,
and key to fixing the illegal immigration problem. And you can’t break the union
unless you start enforcing the law when it comes to the top union bosses. During seven
decades of one-party rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, the teachers union joined others,
such as the petroleum workers union, in manipulating the political system behind
the scenes. Nothing happened without their approval. All attempts at reforming
Mexico’s economic and political system were blocked by the union bosses. They were
the very symbols of corruption that gave Mexico the bad image that it is trying to shake off even today.¶ Even after the PRI lost
power in 2000, these unions continued to block meaningful reforms, which is why the PRI really
never stopped running Mexico even when it lost the presidency. With Gordillo’s arrest, things might actually start to change. The
great irony about this is that it is occurring under a PRI president, Enrique Pena Nieto, after successive administrations run by the
conservative National Action Party failed to yield results.¶ Earlier this week, Pena Nieto also announced a series
of education reforms that mark the most significant effort on this front in decades.
Teachers will be required to undergo regular assessments. That’s never happened before.
Imagine holding a job where you never had to answer for your performance. Your power is absolute. What an invitation for
corruption. Imagine an education system in which nobody checks to verify the education-attainment level of the teacher being hired
Pushing for education reform is key for Nieto to pass other controversial
issues
Fox News Latino ‘13Fox News Latino reports about current events regarding the politics and the economy of Latino countries,
(“Mexico's Enrique Peña Nieto Faces Backlash Over Education Reform”, Fox News Latino, 4/14,
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/04/14/mexico-enrique-pena-nieto-faces-backlash-over-education-reform/)//RS
The fight is dominating headlines in Mexico and freezing progress on a national
education reform that Peña Nieto hoped would build momentum toward more
controversial changes. Those include opening the state-owned oil company to foreign and private
investment and broadening Mexico's tax base, potentially with the first-ever sales tax on food and
medicine.¶ Peña Nieto's first major legislative victory after taking office in December
was a constitutional amendment eliminating Mexico's decades-old practice of
buying and selling teaching jobs, and replacing it with a standardized national teaching test. That's heresy
to a radical splinter union of elementary and high-school teachers in Guerrero, one
of the country's poorest and worst-educated states. The teachers claim the test is a plot to fire them in mass as a step toward
privatizing education, although there is little evidence the government plans that.
Breaking the corrupt teachers’ union solves for all offense
Corpart ‘13Guillaume Corpart is the Managing Director of Americas Market Intelligence and a veteran of Latin American
competitive intelligence and strategy consulting. (Guillaume, “President Peña Nieto's Reforms and What They Mean for Business in
Mexico”, America’s Market Intelligence, 2013, http://americasmi.com/en_US/expertise/articles-trends/page/president-penanietos-reforms-and-what-they-mean-for-bussiness-in-mexico)//RS
The education reform, passed by Congress in February 2013, has major
implications for the future of Mexico’s economy. Mexico’s dismal education
system has long acted as a brake on economic development. Mexican students’ test scores are
amongst the lowest of the OECD’s Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). 2¶ The primary obstacle to
improvements in education has been the tight control wielded by the National Union of
Education Workers (SNTE) over education policy, staffing, and funding. Indeed, the SNTE was in
control of all teachers’ hiring and firing; the union repeatedly blocked any attempts to administer
any evaluations of teachers’ performance; and all too often teaching posts became
hereditary or could be bought from union power brokers. The might of the SNTE
was such that the government had no official records of the number of teachers in
Mexico.
I/L to Nieto Reform
Reforms by Nieto cannot be enacted if the Pacto por Mexico falls apart
Graham and Martinez ‘13Dave Graham and Ana Isabel Martinez are reporters for Reuters, a website specializing in domestic
and foreign economic and political affairs. (Dave, Ana Isabel, “No talks on key Mexico reforms until spat resolved: opposition”,
Reuters, 4/30, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/30/us-mexico-reforms-opposition-idUSBRE93T15L20130430)//RS
The opposition has accused the PRI of using Social Development Ministry funds earmarked to fight extreme poverty to buy votes,
and Zambrano urged Veracruz's PRI Governor Javier Duarte and Social Development Minister Rosario Robles to resign.¶ But he
stopped short of making their resignations a condition of the PRD continuing in the pact, saying the party would make its decision
based on the government's response.¶ "The country needs the pact, that's why we called it 'for Mexico.' Pena
Nieto needs the pact," Zambrano said.¶ The PAN has said officials involved in the scandal should be "properly
sanctioned" if the pact is to retain credibility, and the party identified 57 people at fault. Robles herself dismissed seven officials but
denied any wrongdoing.¶ TIME TO ACT¶ Pena Nieto has already had to suspend the presentation
of a major banking reform due to opposition protests over Veracruz, and Zambrano said the pact's
support for that initiative was also on ice until the government resolved the dispute.¶ If the pact does unravel, it
could seriously threaten the most hotly anticipated reforms Pena Nieto is drawing
up to boost growth in Latin America's second-biggest economy.
Border Security
Inherency
Collaborating with other groups – the Zetas will multiply their strength
Wasler 11(Ray Walser, Ph.D. is a Senior Policy Analyst at The Heritage Foundation, “Iran, Mexican Zetas, and the Southern
Terror Express” October 12, 2011 http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/12/iran-mexican-zetas-and-the-southern-terror-express/, RLA)
A persistent threat scenario against the U.S. has been foreign terrorist organizations—
acting independently or in cooperation with violent transnational criminal
organizations, and perhaps backed by anti-American regimes in the region—launching a terrorist attack from across our
southern border.¶ It is a scenario the Obama Administration has recognized but generally minimized. For example, the U.S. State
Department’s 2010 Country Reports on Terrorism reported:¶ The threat of a transnational terrorist attack remained low for most
countries in the Western Hemisphere. There were no known operational cells of either al-Qa’ida- or Hizballah-related groups in the
hemisphere, although ideological sympathizers in South America and the Caribbean
continued to provide financial and moral support to these and other terrorist
groups in the Middle East and South Asia.¶ The continued unfolding of the Iran plot to
assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the U.S. is also a reason to revisit the terror
threat in the Americas. In the indictment and yesterday’s press conference, it became clear that co-defendant Manssor
Arbabsiar, a naturalized Iranian living in Texas, traveled repeatedly to Mexico in search of hired assassins willing to work for Iranian
payoffs.¶ There Arbabsiar thought he was enlisting the services of Mexico’s deadliest, most ruthless criminal organization, the Zetas,
to carry out the contract assassination in exchange for $1.5 million in Iranian cash. The Zetas, with their
paramilitary tactics and ruthless disregard for human life, would make a perfect
fit with terror-minded Iranians.¶ Little wonder Tehran would seek to enlist them as hired executioners to conduct
assassinations and wreak havoc in Washington, D.C.¶ The uncovering of the Iran plot is a wake-up call here in the U.S. but also in
the Western Hemisphere. It compels us take an even tougher stance against those who
eagerly embrace Iran and act as an Iranian conduit into the Western Hemisphere.
Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela—followed by nations like Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Cuba—certainly head the list and require everincreasing scrutiny.¶ The growing Hezbollah threat has been well-documented by Ambassador Roger F. Noriega and Jose R.
Cardenas in “The Mounting Hezbollah Threat in Latin America” and by investigative journalist Douglas Farah. Hezbollah works
closely with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and Qods Force, whose operative, Gholam Shakuri, was indicted along with Arbabsiar in the
plot.¶ U.S. law enforcement is to be applauded for foiling yet another terrorist plot. The Obama Administration should now follow up
the unraveling of the conspiracy with strong international actions against Iran. In the Western Hemisphere, Iran’s allies—who open
their doors to Iranian intelligence and terror operatives—should also feel more U.S. and international heat.
Auto industry
Impacts
--Air/Naval Power
Auto Industry Key To Heg – Air Power And Naval Power
Ronis, Director Of Mba Programs At Walsh College, 7/17/2006 [SHEILA R,
http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2006hearings/written_testimonies/06_07_17wrts/ronis_statement.pdf]
The DMSMS database is an example of how badly the industrial base is deteriorating. According to the Government Industry Data Exchange Program
(GIDEP), in 2002, “1,523 manufacturers reported 253,832 DMSMS parts. According to the Air Force DMSMS Guide, “ In
today’s high-tech
Air Force, the ultimate performance of aircraft, missiles, and numerous other weapon systems depends on a multitude
of important and often complex components. When one of these components (e.g. a microcircuit) becomes
obsolete or unavailable, the impact can extend throughout the weapon system affecting cost and
system readiness.” The services are all trying to “lessen or eliminate the risks caused by parts non-availability before the weapon system is
adversely affected.” The commercial manufacturers increasingly lose interest in supporting the military
market because it is so small. Many manufacturing companies find that it is not economically
feasible to support very small volumes over long periods of time. All the services have DMSMS issues. As an
example for the DMSMS effort at the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB, “DMSMS impacts every weapon system in the inventory
– past, present and future….” The Air Force has said that DMSMS is driven by many factors but one reason is the extended weapon system’s life in the
Air Force inventory. For example, B-52s may be used more than 94 years, C-130s, more than 79 years, C-135s, more than 86 years and the F-15, more
than 51 years. None of these planes was designed to fly that long. So, mission capable systems and readiness are put at risk if DMSMS issues are left
unresolved. What
is not always understood is the reality that the auto industry affects DMSMS at
DoD because the industrial infrastructure that supports the Department of Defense is shared
by the auto industry. When a tier supplier to the automobile industry goes under whether it is
a machine tool company or in micro-electronics, it reduces DoD’s ability to function and solve
its DMSMS problems. When government R&D investment in an industry deteriorates, it is only a
matter of time before an industry is in trouble. Manufacturing R&D by the federal government is declining. According to
Manufacturing News, “in the mid 1990s, the government was spending $1.5 billion on manufacturing related R&D, including such programs as
Technologies Enabling Agile Manufacturing at the Energy Department and $500 million in electronics manufacturing programs at DARPA. Both of
those programs have been discontinued.” In May 2001, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, in
partnership with the Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, completed a three-year national security assessment of the U.S.
shipbuilding and repair industry. Some of the findings were disconcerting though related to both DMSMS and the auto industry. According to the
study, employment in the industry has “dropped sharply since the early 1980s, when total private employment was close to 180,000 workers. Survey
estimates indicated that employment would decline to about 83,500 in 2000.” In addition, “orders for U.S. warships have declined 60 percent during
the 10 years since the end of the Cold War.” Young people no longer view working in a shipyard as a viable way to make a living. Consequently,
according to DOC, “survey responses indicate that labor shortages have reduced profits, impacted construction costs, and delayed project completion
for most shipyards.” According to the study, the basis for U.S. ship-building superiority has been the research and development expertise that currently
resides in Navy’s laboratories, acquisition commands, and certain shipbuilders and universities. “Collectively, these organizations have conceived and
designed most of the state-of-the-art hull, mechanical, electrical, power projection, air defense and undersea warfare capabilities that are operational
today. With reduced research and development budgets, some of that capability now is becoming fragmented.” Many
lower tier
companies supply to both the auto industry and shipbuilding, but the auto industry is much
larger. This situation in shipbuilding also exists in other industries, such as machine tools, the
high performance explosives and explosive components industry, cartridge and propellant
actuated device sector and welding and all of these industries share the bottom of the base with the
auto industry. We need to maintain a capability to be globally competitive in product and
process innovation – we must regain our manufacturing prowess and leadership. We cannot become a
country that manufactures little. We need to reinvigorate the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology. We need to prioritize those technologies that are critical to regaining and then maintaining leadership and competitive advantage in the
overall industrial base so China does not become the world’s leader in technologies we need to be a superpower. China is becoming the manufacturing
capital of the world. A small example is that Chinese officials have publicly stated they want to become the foundry capital of the world to have a worldwide monopoly on cast parts. The Casting Emissions Reduction Program (CERP) of the U.S. Army is an excellent example of ways that Congress can
provide mechanisms for industry and the military to work together to stem the erosion of the industrial base to everyone’s benefit. We need to increase
our investment in R&D to produce the leading edge knowledge, capabilities and patents the country must have to remain an economic and military
superpower. This means we must increase funding to the national laboratories not only from Energy, Commerce and Defense but across the board. We
also need to rethink our trade, offset and CFIUS policies to encourage the maintenance of high value-added jobs inside the country and we need to
reform those national systems that are keeping our industry uncompetitive including pension and health care, particularly in the auto industry. The
bankruptcy of Delphi is only the first of many dominos to fall if we don’t do something dramatic about this situation. CFIUS must be completely
rethought. Having General Motors under the control of foreigners is not the answer. Many foreign entities buy U.S. assets not to use them, but to
dismantle them. Even Daimler’s takeover of Chrysler removed serious capabilities to Germany, though no one will go on the record with specifics.
The Department of Defense regularly implies that the U.S. industrial base is healthy. DoD does not take
into consideration all the systems that compose their piece of the industrial base, nor how their
systems interact with others such as autos. Cooperation between government and industry is essential because there are
elements of the U.S. industrial base that are disintegrating, and are putting the national security of the United States at risk. Unless we look at the
industrial base as a system, we do not even see the problem or the possible military implications. We also are not even asking whether or not a U.S.
“owned” industrial base matters, and we must explore this issue as a nation. The White House, Congress and the entire spectrum of the agencies and
departments of the federal government need to understand these issues. At the moment they do not. Unless something changes, the
cease to be a superpower.
U.S. may
And, Flexible rapid reaction of US airpower is crucial to averting and deescalating WMD conflicts in the Persian Gulf, Koreas, South China Seas and
between India and Pakistan
Zalmay Khalizad and Ian Lesser, Senior Analysts at RAND. Sources of Conflict in the 21 st Century, 1998,
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR897/MR897.chap3.pdf
This subsection attempts to synthesize some of the key operational implications distilled from the analyses relating to the rise of Asia and the potential
for conflict in each of its constituent regions. The first key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that American
air and
will continue to remain critical for conventional and unconventional deterrence in Asia. This argument is
justified by the fact that several subregions of the continent still harbor the potential for full-scale conventional war. This potential is
most conspicuous on the Korean peninsula and, to a lesser degree, in South Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the
South China Sea. In some of these areas, such as Korea and the Persian Gulf, the United States has clear treaty obligations and, therefore, has
space power
preplanned the use of air power should contingencies arise. U.S. Air Force assets could also be called upon for operations in some of these other areas.
In almost all these cases, U.S.
air power would be at the forefront of an American politico-military response
because (a) of the vast distances on the Asian continent; (b) the diverse range of operational platforms available to the U.S. Air Force, a
capability unmatched by any other country or service; (c) the possible unavailability of naval assets in close proximity, particularly in
the context of surprise contingencies; and (d) the heavy payload that can be carried by U.S. Air Force platforms. These
platforms can exploit speed, reach, and high operating tempos to sustain continual operations until the political objectives are secured. The entire
range of warfighting capability—fighters, bombers, electronic warfare (EW), suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), combat
support platforms such as AWACS and J-STARS, and tankers—are relevant in the Asia-Pacific region, because many of the regional
contingencies will involve armed operations against large, fairly modern, conventional forces, most of which are built around large land armies, as is
the case in Korea, China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan, and the Persian Gulf. In addition to conventional combat, the demands of unconventional deterrence
will increasingly confront the U.S. Air Force in Asia. The Korean peninsula, China,
and the Indian subcontinent are already
arenas of WMD proliferation. While emergent nuclear capabilities continue to receive the most public attention, chemical
and biological warfare threats will progressively become future problems. The delivery systems in the region are
increasing in range and diversity. China already targets the continental United States with ballistic missiles. North Korea can threaten northeast Asia
with existing Scud-class theater ballistic missiles. India will acquire the capability to produce ICBM-class delivery vehicles, and both China and India
will acquire long-range cruise missiles during the time frames examined in this report. The second key implication derived from the analysis of trends
in Asia suggests that air and space power will function as a vital rapid reaction force in a breaking crisis. Current
guidance tasks the Air Force to prepare for two major regional conflicts that could break out in the Persian Gulf and on the Korean peninsula. In other
areas of Asia, however, such as the Indian subcontinent, the South China Sea, Southeast Asia, and Myanmar, the United States has no treaty obligations
requiring it to commit the use of its military forces. But as past experience has shown, American policymakers have regularly displayed the
disconcerting habit of discovering strategic interests in parts of the world previously neglected after conflicts have already broken out. Mindful of this
trend, it would behoove U.S. Air Force planners to prudently plan for regional contingencies in nontraditional areas of interest, because naval and air
power will of necessity be the primary instruments constituting the American response. Such responses would be necessitated by
three general classes of contingencies. The first involves the politico-military collapse of a key regional actor, as might occur in the case of North Korea,
Myanmar, Indonesia, or Pakistan. The second involves acute politicalmilitary crises that have a potential for rapid escalation, as may occur in the
Taiwan Strait, the Spratlys, the Indian subcontinent, or on the Korean peninsula. The third involves cases of prolonged domestic instability that may
have either spillover or contagion effects, as in China, Indonesia, Myanmar, or North Korea.
--XT: Naval Power
Key to the Navy
Ronis 06 Prepared Statement of Dr. Sheila Ronis, Director, MBA/MS Programs, Walsh College; Vice President, National Defense University
Foundation, Troy, Michigan CHINA’S IMPACT ON THE U.S. AUTO AND AUTO PARTS INDUSTRIES HEARING BEFORE THE U.S.­CHINA
ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION _________ July 17, 2006
http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2006hearings/transcripts/july_17/06_07_17_trans.pdf
In May 2001, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, in partnership with the Carderock Division of
the Naval Surface Warfare Center, completed a three-year national security assessment of the U.S. shipbuilding and repair industry. Some of the
findings were disconcerting though related to both DMSMS and the auto industry. According to the study, employment in the industry has “dropped
sharply since the early 1980s, when total private employment was close to 180,000 workers. Survey estimates indicated that employment would decline
to about 83,500 in 2000.” In addition, “orders for U.S. warships have declined 60 percent during the 10 years since the end of the Cold War.” Young
people no longer view working in a shipyard as a viable way to make a living. Consequently, according to
DOC, “survey responses indicate that labor shortages have reduced profits, impacted construction costs, and delayed project completion for most
shipyards.” According
to the study, the basis for U.S. ship-building superiority has been the research
and development expertise that currently resides in Navy’s laboratories, acquisition commands,
and certain shipbuilders and universities. “Collectively, these organizations have conceived and
designed most of the state-of-the-108 art hull, mechanical, electrical, power projection, air
defense and undersea warfare capabilities that are operational today. With reduced research and development
budgets, some of that capability now is becoming fragmented.” Many lower tier companies supply to both the auto
industry and shipbuilding, but the auto industry is much larger. This situation in shipbuilding
also exists in other industries, such as machine tools, the high performance explosives and explosive components industry,
cartridge and propellant actuated device sector and welding and all of these industries share the bottom of the
base with the auto industry.
Solves great power wars
Conway et al 7 [James T., General, U.S. Marine Corps, Gary Roughead, Admiral, U.S. Navy, Thad W. Allen, Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, “A
Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower,” October, http://www.navy.mil/maritime/MaritimeStrategy.pdf]
Deter major power war.
No other disruption is as potentially disastrous to global stability as war among
major powers. Maintenance and extension of this Nation’s comparative seapower advantage is a
key component of deterring major power war. While war with another great power strikes many as improbable, the
near-certainty of its ruinous effects demands that it be actively deterred using all elements of
national power. The expeditionary character of maritime forces—our lethality, global reach,
speed, endurance, ability to overcome barriers to access, and operational agility—provide the
joint commander with a range of deterrent options. We will pursue an approach to deterrence that includes a credible and
scalable ability to retaliate against aggressors conventionally, unconventionally, and with nuclear forces. Win our Nation’s wars. In
times of war, our ability to impose local sea control, overcome challenges to access, force entry,
and project and sustain power ashore, makes our maritime forces an indispensable element
of the joint or combined force. This expeditionary advantage must be maintained because it provides joint and combined force
commanders with freedom of maneuver. Reinforced by a robust sealift capability that can concentrate and
sustain forces, sea control and power projection enable extended campaigns ashore.
--Econ
And, Auto Recovery is essential to U.S. Economic recovery – the auto
industry will drive other sectors and ensure job growth
U.S. News 2k12 (“Is the U.S. Auto Industry on Track for a Comeback?,” pg online @
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/01/09/is-the-us-auto-industry-on-track-for-a-comeback //um-ef)
More than three years after bad management, a swooning global economy, and foreign
competition gutted the U.S. auto industry, car makers are revving up for a comeback at
what's likely to be one of the snazziest auto industry shows in years. The North American International Auto Show opened in Detroit this weekend for a
nine-day run, and many eyes are on the annual pow-wow for clues about what's in store for 2012. The initial signs look good. The past two
months have seen decent sales numbers, a trend that's likely to continue as the jobs outlook strengthens and
Americans feel more financially secure, experts say. December was a good month for Nissan and especially the "Big Three"—Chevrolet,
Chrysler and GM—all of which posted sales increases for the month and year. [Read: New Economic Data Points to Hope in 2012.] "The economy is
such that people are feeling a little more comfortable about their job outlook and where they're going," says Bruce Belzowski, research scientist at
Economists forecast U.S. auto sales will jump to
about 13.5 million in 2012, up from 12.8 million last year. While 13 or 14 million units sold certainly isn't bad, Belzowski says it's
not the 15 or 16 million units auto makers used to enjoy several years ago. Still, the auto industry's recovery is
playing a significant role in bolstering the broader economic recovery in the U nited
S tates, primarily because automotive manufacturing touches so many other areas of
the economy , from manufacturing gas caps to keeping the diner next to the plant open, says Aaron
Bragman, senior analyst at IHS Global Insight. The resurgence in demand also bodes well for the job
market. Auto makers have already re-hired nearly everyone they laid off during the recession,
Bragman says, and if demand remains elevated, companies are likely to hire more to keep up with
production needs. [See today's best photos.] Demand is likely to stay elevated, too. The average age of vehicles in the United States is the
University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute.
oldest it's ever been at more than 10 years old. While buying a new car might be a fun upgrade for some, for others it's becoming a necessity. "In some
cases people are looking at [their cars] and saying, 'It's just time, I need to turn the car in,' as opposed to previous cycles where it was largely desirebased and not necessarily need-based," Bragman says. Auto makers are also releasing some new smaller-scale products, which wasn't entirely
unexpected. Americans have been downsizing from mega-sized monster trucks for awhile, and car makers are responding by broadening their selection
of mid-sized cars and even sprucing up smaller cars with luxury items that used to be only available on larger models. "Everyone has kind of stepped
down a notch," Bragman says. Partly due to the earthquake and tsunami that ravaged Japan last year, it's
difficult to say whether
U.S. brands can hold onto the market share they captured over the past year .
Furthermore, the landscape of the auto industry has changed dramatically over the past couple of years as carmakers have restructured and cut their
losses on underperforming brands. [Read: Unemployment Falls to 8.5 Percent.] "GM canceled four of its eight brands and part of Chevrolet's growth is
coming from the fact that the Saturn brand is no longer here," Bragman says. The
big question remains whether Japanese
brands can make up the market share they lost due to last year's natural disasters and the
increased competitiveness of U.S. brands. "Everyone is just so much more competitive than they used to be,"
Bragman says, especially when it comes to U.S. brands, which have completely revamped their business models in some cases. "They've got fully
competitive product, they've got fully competitive profitability, and now they've got people actually interested in what they're selling. That's going to be
hard for the Japanese."
Auto industry is key to the economy- consumer goods and multiplier effect
Hill et al 10-
Sustainable Transportation and Communities Group and Project Lead, Project Manager of the center for automotive research,
Research Associate at the center for automotive research, (Kim, Debbie Menk, Adam Cooper, “Contribution of the Automotive Industry to the
Economics of All Fifty States and the Unites States”, http://www.oesa.org/Doc-Vault/Industry-Information-Analysis/CAR-Economic-SignificanceReport.pdf0.
The auto industry is one of the most important industries in the United States. It historically has
contributed 3 – 3.5 percent to the overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The industry directly
employs over 1.7 million people engaged in designing, engineering, manufacturing, and
supplying parts and components to assemble, sell and service new motor vehicles. In addition, the
industry is a huge consumer of goods and services from many other sectors, including raw
materials, construction, machinery, legal, computers and semi-conductors, financial,
advertising, and healthcare. The auto industry spends $16 to $18 billion every year on research and product development – 99
percent of which is funded by the industry itself. Due to the industry’s consumption of products from many other
manufacturing sectors, it
is a major driver of the 11.5% manufacturing contribution to GDP. Without the
auto sector, it is difficult to imagine manufacturing surviving in this country.
Auto manufacturing key to econ- vital to job growth
Hill et al 10- Sustainable Transportation and Communities Group and Project Lead,
Project Manager of the center for automotive research,
Research Associate at the center for automotive research, (Kim, Debbie Menk, Adam Cooper, “Contribution of the Automotive Industry to the
Economics of All Fifty States and the Unites States”, http://www.oesa.org/Doc-Vault/Industry-Information-Analysis/CAR-Economic-SignificanceReport.pdf0.
The economic performance of the automotive sector, and the broader manufacturing sector, is extremely
important for the continued development and growth of the national and regional economies , as it
comprises a large share of total U.S. output (see Figures 1.2 and 1.3). At the end of 2008, U.S. automotive output was 2.2% of
GDP, and overall manufacturing contributed 11.5% to GDP. The sizeable contribution to
economic output by the manufacturing industry is attributable to several factors, including
international trade opportunities that allow for the export of highly specialized manufactured
products. Many of these products are high value-added goods that are made through the use of skilled laborers and advanced equipment. The
complexity of making these products contributes to the large job-creating multiplier effect of
manufacturing within the U.S.
Automotive industry is vital to the econ and manufacturing.
Hill et al 10- Sustainable Transportation and Communities Group and Project Lead, Project Manager of the center for automotive research,
Research Associate at the center for automotive research, (Kim, Debbie Menk, Adam Cooper, “Contribution of the Automotive Industry to the
Economics of All Fifty States and the Unites States”, http://www.oesa.org/Doc-Vault/Industry-Information-Analysis/CAR-Economic-SignificanceReport.pdf0.
The automotive industry is a very important industry in the U.S. economy; no other single industry links as
closely to the U.S. manufacturing sector or directly generates as much retail business and overall employment. Manufacturing has been
the backbone of the American economy, and the automotive industry is its heart . A look at the entire
production and supply chain provides a rich narrative of how a strong automotive industry historically supports the
growth and stability of many other industries, such as basic materials suppliers of steel, plastic,
rubber and glass, which are used for making bodies, interiors and trim, tires, gaskets and
windows. Figure 1.4 provides a comparison of the value added per employee (measured in thousands of dollars per year) across several
manufacturing industries. The value added per employee can be thought of as the difference between the cost of materials and the sale price of the
good. Effective deployment of land, labor, and capital create value; in
2006, each employee in the motor vehicle
assembly industry created $321,000 of value in the final products shipped; fourth highest
amongst manufacturing industries. An economy is reinforced by the size and job creating
capability of its manufacturing base. Within the broad manufacturing landscape of the U.S., few industries are as
large or provide so many indirect and ancillary opportunities for job creation as the motor
vehicle industry. Figure 1.5 highlights the sheer size of the motor vehicle assembly and parts manufacturing industry which is the second
largest employer within the subset of manufacturing. Some industries inherently create more jobs than other industries. A high jobs
creation multiplier tends to be associated with industries that require large amounts of inputs
from other industries, source inputs from industries that have a high regional purchase
coefficient, or pay above average wages.
Auto sector key to mobility and trade.
Hill et al 10- Sustainable Transportation and Communities Group and Project Lead,
Project Manager of the center for automotive research,
Research Associate at the center for automotive research, (Kim, Debbie Menk, Adam Cooper, “Contribution of the Automotive Industry to the
Economics of All Fifty States and the Unites States”, http://www.oesa.org/Doc-Vault/Industry-Information-Analysis/CAR-Economic-SignificanceReport.pdf0.
While not included in the economic modeling of the impact analysis, the
manufacture of medium and heavy duty trucks
and parts is a key component of the motor vehicle industry, and here we provide an overview of the activity of this
sub-sector of the industry. Medium duty trucks include Classes 3 to 6 (10,000 to 26,000 lbs.) and heavy duty trucks include Classes 6 to 8 (26,001 to
over 33,000 lbs). Currently
there are over 10.6 million medium and heavy trucks registered in the
United States. 2 Together, the medium duty and heavy duty truck markets in the United States
sell 433,263 units annually 3 and have a value of $125.5 billion. 4 Of the total U.S. sales, over
420,000 are domestically produced vehicles and nearly 13,000 are imported vehicles. The
United States is the largest medium and heavy duty truck market in the world, accounting for 43.5% of the
world market, followed by the Asia-Pacific region with 30.8% of the market and Europe with 17.4% of the market. 5 Figure 1.9 illustrates the
distribution of the global medium and heavy truck market. The medium and heavy duty vehicles comprise slightly less than 6.5% of all motor vehicle
sales, with medium duty trucks accounting for over 250,000 sales and heavy duty trucks accounting for over 180,000 sales annually. primarily of class
3 vehicles (over 53% of units sold) while the heavy duty vehicle market consists primarily of on-road interstate trucks in the Class 8 category (over 73%
of units sold). 7 Table 1.1 contains sales data pertaining to the United States truck market. The annual production and sales of this class of vehicle are
highly cyclical. The
heavy duty vehicle sector, similar to that of light duty vehicles, is affected by the
economic forces of the general economy, but its cycles are also affected by governmental regulation. Most recently, Class 8 sales
have been on a downward trend since 2006, when their sales peaked at over 280,000 units. The peak was led by a need to replace the fleet of Class 8
rigs as they aged and by operators who wanted to purchase vehicles before new EPA pollution regulations on diesel engines took effect in that year.
Since 2006, annual sales fell to just over 150,000 in 2007 and continued to decrease to around 133,000 units in 2008, similar to sales numbers from
2001 to 2003. 9 U.S.
production of heavy duty trucks ranges from 200,000 to 300,000 units annually
with assembly facilities employing just over 26,000 in 2009, dropping from approximately 28,700 individuals in
2008, and 36,800 individuals in 2006. 10 In addition to manufacturing heavy duty trucks, over 20,000
individuals were employed manufacturing trailers in 2009 (down from 30,300 in 2008 and 39,700 in 2006). number
of individuals who work as suppliers to the heavy duty truck OEMs. These suppliers, in many cases, supply both heavy duty and light duty motor
vehicle manufacturers. These
vehicles are instrumental in keeping America’s economy going by
transporting goods and products in a timely and cost-effective manner. As of 2007, over 68% of
America’s freight—by gross tonnage — is hauled by truck. When considering the value of shipments, this figure climbs
to around 70%. 12 Between 1965 and the present, use of heavy duty trucks on the highway has
increased by a factor of nearly five ─ from almost 32 billion vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 1965 to over 145 billion VMT in 2007.
13 Meanwhile, medium duty trucks have increased their use by a factor of nearly four ─ from just
over 27 billion VMT in 1970 to almost 82 billion VMT in 2007. Figure 1.10 displays the increases in total VMT for these two vehicle classes.4
The Auto industry increases job growth in every state- even those without
manufacturing plants
Hill et al 10- Sustainable Transportation and Communities Group and Project Lead, Project Manager of the center for automotive research,
Research Associate at the center for automotive research, (Kim, Debbie Menk, Adam Cooper, “Contribution of the Automotive Industry to the
Economics of All Fifty States and the Unites States”, http://www.oesa.org/Doc-Vault/Industry-Information-Analysis/CAR-Economic-SignificanceReport.pdf0.
The motor vehicle industry’s breadth and depth of operations extends into every state economy in the
nation. The industry impacts an unusually large number of individual communities because the supplier network is spread across many states.
Beyond that, motor vehicle dealerships have a presence in nearly every community in the country. The
tables in this section examine the estimated employment and income contributions of the industry to individual state economies. Even for
those states with relatively few direct jobs in the industry, the number of jobs supported by the
industry is significant. In many states, large numbers of jobs are generated due to the state’s proximity
to manufacturing or technical facilities located in a neighboring state. All states see major
additional impact from substantial numbers of spin-off jobs resulting from the spending of direct and indirect
employees of the industry. The automotive industry is a mature industry, with assembly and parts manufacturing plants well
established throughout most of the states east of the Mississippi, as seen in Figure 2.1, which shows the top states for OEM employment, as a
percentage of state population.
Many states in the Midwest are well known for supporting a strong base of
manufacturing. The entire Midwest is connected by a strong and efficient network of road and
rail systems. This transportation integration provides intra-state and inter-state options for
sourcing intermediate goods and supplies to manufacturing operations. It is this broad, efficient network of
suppliers (located across many states) which leads to the dispersion of total employment contributions
from manufacturing operations to all areas of the nation. Figure 2.2 below shows the impact of employment in the
industry for motor vehicle assemblers, parts, systems and components manufacturers, motor vehicle dealerships, and the suppliers to these operations.
This map does not include expenditure-induced employment. It is a portrayal of the direct impacts of employment and suppliers to the industry. As can
be seen, the industry provides significant numbers of jobs to every state in the nation. Each
individual state’s economic impact
is one effect of the total contribution of the industry to the nation. That is, jobs in one state are
not only attributable to investment in that state, but are supported by the auto industry’s
investments and activities in nearby states as well. Therefore, an employment multiplier is not calculated for any individual
state. Employment multipliers apply to the national economy and are not applicable to, nor can be derived
from, any one state’s economy
--Mexico Econ
Auto manufacturing is key to the Mexican economy
Rosas, 12 – Maria Cristina, Professor and researcher in the Political and Social Sciences Faculty, National Autonomous University of Mexico
(“Success in Motion,” Negocios Pro Mexico, May 2012,
http://www.promexico.gob.mx/work/models/promexico/promx_Magazine/21/pdfFile_21_NE0512_WEB_SPREADS.pdf)
The importance of the automotive industry for Mexico’s economy is unquestionable. The sector
contributes 3.6% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), 20.3% of manufacturing GDP and 28.4% of the country’s
manufacturing exports. It is also one of the largest employers with over 550,000 direct and
indirect jobs. The outlook for the Mexican automotive industry in the short term is positive. It is estimated that in 2012, 2.7 million vehicles
will be produced and domestic sales will reach approximately 930,000 units, which means an annual increase of 6.3% and 2.6% respectively. Also,
considering its dynamism, it
is expected that by 2015 the automotive sector will double the number of
direct and indirect jobs it currently generates. For its part, the projected market growth for auto parts
is between seven and 10% by the end of 2012. In 2010, Mexico was the ninth largest car
producer in the world and served as an export platform for many of the major car manufacturers and their suppliers. By 2011,
Mexico stood in eighth place among the top global automotive manufacturers. Innovation is a key factor
for generating new technologies and intelligent solutions to address challenges such as protecting the environment. The training of human capital in
this new scenario is essential to strengthen the sustainability and competitiveness of businesses, the creation of jobs and the improvement of people’s
income and quality of life. In that sense, aware of the opportunities this scenario generates and considering the installed capacity in addition to the
human and material resources that the country possesses, the Mexican authorities are ready to venture into new product development, meeting the
required quality levels to ensure that the
development.
automotive industry remains a backbone of national
--Heg
The auto industry is vital to hegemony and conquering 21st century rivals
Clark, ‘8 - retired Army general and former supreme allied commander of NATO, is a senior fellow at the Burkle Center for International
Relations at the University of California at Los Angeles. (Wesley K., “What’s Good for G.M. Is Good for the Army”, New York Times, November 16,
2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/opinion/16clark.html?_r=3) //CH
AMERICA’S automobile industry is in desperate trouble. Financial instability, the credit squeeze and closed capital markets are hurting domestic
automakers, while decades of competition from foreign producers have eroded market share and consumer loyalty. Some economists question the
wisdom of Washington’s intervening to help the Big Three, arguing that the automakers should pay the price for their own mistakes or that the market
will correct itself. But we must act: aiding
the American automobile industry is not only an economic imperative,
national security imperative. When President Dwight Eisenhower observed that
America’s greatest strength wasn’t its military, but its economy, he must have had
companies like General Motors and Ford in mind. Sitting atop a vast pyramid of tool makers, steel producers, fabricators
and component manufacturers, these companies not only produced the tanks and trucks that
helped win World War II, but also lent their technology to aircraft and ship
manufacturing. The United States truly became the arsenal of democracy. During
the 1950s, advances in aviation, missiles, satellites and electronics made Detroit seem a little old-fashioned in dealing with the threat of the
Soviet Union. The Army’s requests for new trucks and other basic transportation usually came out
a loser in budget battles against missile technology and new modifications for the latest
supersonic jet fighter. Not only were airplanes far sexier but they also counted as part of our military “tooth,” while much of the land
forces’ needs were “tail.” And in those days, “more teeth, less tail” had become a key concept in military spending. But in 1991, the
Persian Gulf War demonstrated the awesome utility of American land power, and
the Humvee (and its civilian version, the Hummer) became a star. Likewise, the ubiquitous
homemade bombs of the current Iraq insurgency have led to the development of innovative armorprotected wheeled vehicles for American forces, as well as improvements in our
fleets of Humvees, tanks, armored fighting vehicles, trucks and cargo carriers. In a
little more than a year, the Army has procured and fielded in Iraq more than a thousand so-called mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles. The
lives of hundreds of soldiers and marines have been saved, and their tasks made
more achievable, by the efforts of the American automotive industry. And unlike in World
War II, America didn’t have to divert much civilian capacity to meet these military
needs. Without a vigorous automotive sector, those needs could not have been
but also a
quickly met. More challenges lie ahead for our military, and to meet them we
need a strong industrial base . For years the military has sought better sources of electric
power in its vehicles — necessary to allow troops to monitor their radios with
diesel engines off, to support increasingly high-powered communications technology, and eventually
to support electric propulsion and innovative armaments like directed-energy weapons.
In sum, this greater use of electricity will increase combat power while reducing our
footprint. Much research and development spending has gone into these programs over the years, but nothing on the manufacturing scale we
really need. Now, though, as Detroit moves to plug-in hybrids and electric-drive technology, the scale problem can be remedied. Automakers
are developing innovative electric motors, many with permanent magnet technology, that
will have immediate military use. And only the auto industry, with its vast purchasing power, is
able to establish a domestic advanced battery industry. Likewise, domestic fuel cell
production — which will undoubtedly have many critical military applications — depends on a vibrant car
industry. To be sure, the public should demand transformation and new standards in the auto industry before paying to keep it alive. And we
should insist that Detroit’s goals include putting America in first place in hybrid and electric automotive technology, reducing the emissions of the
country’s transportation fleet, and strengthening our competitiveness abroad. This should be no giveaway. Instead, it is a historic opportunity to get it
right in Detroit for the good of the country. But Americans
just an economic measure. This
must bear in mind that any federal assistance plan would not be
is, fundamentally, about national security.
--XT: Heg
The auto industry is vital to hegemony for several reasons –
a. Aerospace – the auto industry fuels the industrial base
Ronis, 06 – Ph.D, Large social system behavior, Distinguished Fellow and Vision Working Group leader of the Congressionally mandated
Project on National Security Reform (PNSR), President of The University Group, Inc., a management consulting firm and think tank specializing in
strategic management, visioning, national security, and public policy. (Shelia R., “Erosion of the U.S. Industrial Base and its National Security
Implications”, July 17, 2006, http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2006hearings/written_testimonies/06_07_17wrts/ronis_statement.pdf)//CH
Offshoring the auto industry could make the U.S. military industrial base in the United
States completely unable to comply with American preference legislation because the
erosion of the auto industrial base also erodes defense. General Motors, Ford, Delphi, NorthropGrumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin – they all share the bottom of the industrial base. The United States cannot sustain
the kind of growth it has enjoyed for the last several decades if the industrial base continues to
steadily erode. Increasingly, a number of U.S. companies in specific industries find it impossible
to compete in world markets. This is of particular concern for the industrial base
that supplies the U.S. military, automotive and aerospace. According to Alan Tonelson of the U.S.
Business and Industry Council, import penetration rate data is a critical metric that the U.S. Government needs to track, but does not. According to
most industries producing goods in the
United States have been steadily losing their home market – the world’s biggest, most important and most
competitive – to products from overseas. In other words, numerous U.S. industries are facing the kind of import
tide that has pushed General Motors and Ford dangerously close to receivership. Moreover,
this weakness shows up in so-called smokestack and high-tech industries alike. Unless
this rising import penetration is reversed, the nation’s long-time global industrial leadership
and all the benefits it has generated will be irretrievably lost.”
Tonelson and Peter Kim in a Washington Times article, “in recent years
b. Naval power – the auto industry sustains projects that are vital to warfighting capability
ONR 09 –Executive branch agency within the Department of Defense, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) supports the President's budget. ONR
provides technical advice to the Chief of Naval Operations and the Secretary of the Navy. (Office of Naval Research, “ONR Partners with Car Industry to
Test Energy-Efficient Vehicles”, March 18, 2009, http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=43502)//CH
ARLINGTON (NNS) -- The Office of Naval Research
(ONR) teamed up with an automobile industry
leader to explore energy-efficient, environmentally-friendly viable transportation alternatives; a cuttingedge General Motors (GM) Chevrolet Equinox fuel cell vehicle (FCV) is the result of the partnership. As the
global automobile industry considers alternative energy sources to replace the traditional internal combustion engine, Jessie Pacheco, a mail clerk at
Camp Pendleton, makes his rounds in the FCVs. The Office of Naval Research (ONR) has sponsored the GM FCVs at Camp Pendleton since 2006; two
more scheduled to arrive later this year. "These vehicles are the future," said Pacheco. "It's great to see people drive by me, giving me the thumb's up,
and asking 'Where can I get one?'" "Fuel
cell vehicle research is clearly a case where the Navy and
Marine Corps needs are propelling advanced technology that also has potential benefit to
the public," said Rear Adm. Nevin Carr, chief of naval research. Within the Navy-Marine Corps Team, ONR has researched
power and energy technology for decades. Often the improvements to power generation and fuel
efficiency for ships, aircraft, vehicles and installations have direct civil application for public benefit . "There is not
a drop of oil in it," explained Shad Balch, a GM representative at Camp Pendleton. "The electric motor provides maximum instant torque right from the
get go." The efficiency of a hydrogen-powered fuel cell may prove to be twice that of an internal combustion engine, if not greater, added Balch. From
an operational perspective, the fuel cell vehicle is quiet yet powerful, emits only water vapor, uses fewer moving parts compared to a combustion engine
and offers an alternative to the logistics chain associated with current military vehicles. The
addition of fuel cell vehicles to
a glimpse into the future of advanced transportation technology that
reduces reliance on petroleum and affords environmental stewardship benefits such as reduced air
pollution and a smaller carbon footprint for Navy and Marine Corps bases. "Partnering with the
military gives us critical feedback from a truly unique application. This will help us as we engineer
our next generation of fuel cell vehicles," Balch[, a GM representative,] noted. Technology
underwrites the solutions to both national and naval energy needs. As an ONR program officer
Camp Pendleton provides
in the 1990s, Richard Carlin, Ph.D., recognized the potential of alternative fuel research to help meet the energy challenges of the future. Today, as
ONR's director of power and energy research, Carlin is pleased to see the positive reaction to the fuel cell vehicle research program. "This is an example
of where
the value of investment in science and technology can really pay off," said Carlin.
"Besides the potential energy savings and increased power potential of fuel cell technology, the
research and testing we are doing
will address challenges like hydrogen production and delivery, durability and
reliability, on board hydrogen storage and overall cost." For example, through its testing ONR has
made advances in the storage necessary for achieving greater range in fuel cell automobiles.
Dave Shifler, the program officer managing the alternative fuels initiatives at ONR, emphasizes that partnerships are essential when bringing a new
technology forward.
"With the right partnerships, you can accomplish almost anything,"
"We have teamed with the Army from the beginning on this research, sharing
technical support, contracting support and usage of the GM fuel cell vehicle." ONR
fuel cell research has not been limited to vehicles and spans the operational spectrum: from
ground vehicles to unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), to man-portable power for Marines and
afloat. Hydrogen powered fuel cell technology is one of many programs at ONR in the power and energy research field that is
helping the Navy meet the energy needs of both the warfighter and the public . ONR's
stressed Shifler.
partnerships in fuel cell vehicle research include: Headquarters Marine Corps; the Marine Corps Garrison Mobile Equipment office; Southwest Region
Force Transportation; Naval Facilities Engineering Services Center, Port Hueneme; Department of Energy (Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy),
South Coast Air Quality Management District; California Air Resources Board; California Fuel Cell Partnership; Defense Energy Support Center,
General Motors; Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division; U.S. Fuel Cell Council; U.S. Army TARDEC/NAC, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of
the Navy for Environment. ONR
provides the science and technology (S&T) necessary to maintain the
Navy and Marine Corps' technological warfighting dominance. Through its affiliates, ONR is a
leader in S&T with engagement in 50 states, 70 countries, 1035 institutions of higher learning, and 914 industry partners. ONR employs approximately
1400 people, comprised of uniformed, civilian and contract personnel.
c. Fuel Cells
Clark, 08 - retired Army general and former supreme allied commander of NATO, is a senior fellow at the Burkle Center for International
Relations at the University of California at Los Angeles. (Wesley K., “What’s Good for G.M. Is Good for the Army”, New York Times, November 16,
2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/opinion/16clark.html?_r=3) //CH
Now, though, as Detroit moves to plug-in hybrids and electric-drive technology, the scale problem can be remedied. Automakers
are
developing innovative electric motors, many with permanent magnet technology,
that will have immediate military use. And only the auto industry, with its vast
purchasing power, is able to establish a domestic advanced battery industry.
Likewise, domestic fuel cell production — which will undoubtedly have many critical military applications —
depends on a vibrant car industry. To be sure, the public should demand transformation and new standards in the auto
industry before paying to keep it alive. And we should insist that Detroit’s goals include putting America in first place in hybrid and electric automotive
technology, reducing the emissions of the country’s transportation fleet, and strengthening our competitiveness abroad. This should be no giveaway.
Instead, it is a historic opportunity to get it right in Detroit for the good of the country. But Americans
must bear in mind
that any federal assistance plan would not be just an economic measure. This is,
fundamentally, about national security.
--Semiconductors
The auto sector is vital to semiconductor tech growth
Hill et al 10-
Sustainable Transportation and Communities Group and Project Lead, Project Manager of the center for automotive research,
Research Associate at the center for automotive research, (Kim, Debbie Menk, Adam Cooper, “Contribution of the Automotive Industry to the
Economics of All Fifty States and the Unites States”, http://www.oesa.org/Doc-Vault/Industry-Information-Analysis/CAR-Economic-SignificanceReport.pdf0.
The auto industry is one of the most important industries in the United States. It historically has
contributed 3 – 3.5 percent to the overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The industry directly
employs over 1.7 million people engaged in designing, engineering, manufacturing, and
supplying parts and components to assemble, sell and service new motor vehicles. In addition, the
industry is a huge consumer of goods and services from many other sectors, including
semi-conductors , financial, advertising, and healthcare. The auto
industry spends $16 to $18 billion every year on research and product development – 99 percent
of which is funded by the industry itself. Due to the industry’s consumption of products from many other manufacturing sectors,
it is a major driver of the 11.5% manufacturing contribution to GDP. Without the auto sector,
it is difficult to imagine manufacturing surviving in this country.
raw materials, construction, machinery, legal, computers and
Semiconductors are vital to addressing climate change
Bauer 9 – CEO of Infineon, a leading semiconductor company (Peter, “A change of pace for the semiconductor industry?”,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, November 2009, http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/technology/pdf/change-of-pace-in-the-semiconductor-industry.pdf)//CH
The increasing
global demand for energy, the limited availability of natural resources,
rising energy prices and the threat of climate change require solutions for enabling
energy to be handled more efficiently. In order to meet the requirements of climate policy,
for instance for reducing CO2 emissions, it is necessary to increase efficiency throughout the entire chain of utilisable
energy ñ that is, for the production, transmission and consumption of energy. Innovations from the semiconductor
industry are playing a key role with regard to implementing these objectives. The
requirement for more energy efficiency will have a positive impact particularly on demand for power semiconductors in the course of the next few
years. This
is applicable specifically to renewable energies, as well as for example to motor drives
in industrial applications and in household products. With regard to power semiconductors for renewable
1
energies, market researchers are assuming average annual growth rates of 18% in the course of the next years. Solar and wind power
will continue to be two of the main growth drivers. Power semiconductors are the
core of rectifiers in photovoltaic and wind power installations, and are a key component
for efficiently supplying power to the network.
--XT: Semiconductors
Semiconductors key to solve the environment – hazardous waste control
Hoffman et al. 95 – Hoffman, Professor of Environmental Engineering and Environmental Chemistry; Martin, Professor of
Environmental Chemistry at Harvard; Choi, Ph.D. Professor. School of Environmental Science & Engineering. Pohang University of Science and
Technology; Bahnemann, Head of the Department of Photoelectrochemistry and Material Research at the Institute for Solar Energy Research in
Hannover (Michael R. Hoffmann,* Scot T. Martin, Wonyong Choi, and Detlef W. Bahnemann, “Environmental Applications of Semiconductor
Photocatalysis”, Chemistry Review, 1995, Volume 95, page 69-70)//CH
The civilian, commercial, and defense sectors of most advanced industrialized nations are faced with
a tremendous set of environmental problems related to the remediation of hazardous wastes,
contaminated ground waters, and the control of toxic air contaminants. For example, the
slow pace of hazardous waste remediation at military installations around the world is causing a serious delay in conversion of many of these facilities
to civilian uses. Over
the last 10 years problems related to hazardous waste remediation'
have emerged as a high national and international priority. Problems with hazardous wastes at
military installations are related in part to the disposal of chemical wastes in lagoons,
underground storage tanks, and dump sites. As a consequence of these disposal practices, the
surrounding soil and underlying ground- water aquifers have become
contaminated with a variety of hazardous (i.e., toxic) chemicals. Typical wastes of concern include heavy metals,
aviation fuel, military-vehicle fuel, solvents and degreasing agents, and chemical
byproducts from weapons manufacturing. The projected costs for cleanup at more than
1800 military installations in the United States have been put at $30 billion; the time required for cleanup has
been estimated to be more than 10 years. In the civilian sector, the elimination of toxic and
hazardous chemical substances such as the halogenated hydrocarbons from waste
effluents and previously contaminated sites has become a major concern. More than 540 million
metric tons of hazardous solid and liquid waste are generated annually by more than 14000
installations in the United States. A significant fraction of these wastes are disposed on the land each year.
Some of these wastes eventually contaminate groundwater and surface water. Groundwater
contamination is likely to be the primary source of human contact with toxic chemicals
emanating from more than 70% of the hazardous waste sites in the United States. General classes of compounds of concern include: solvents, volatile
organics, chlorinated volatile organics, dioxins, dibenzofurans, pesticides, PCB's, chlorophenols, asbestos, heavy metals, and arsenic compounds. Some
specific compounds of interest are 4-chlorophenol, pentachlorophenol, trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE), CCL, HCC4, CHZC12,
ethylene dibromide, vinyl chloride, ethylene dichloride, methyl chloroform, p-chlorobenzene, and hexachlorocyclopentadiene. The occurrence of TCE,
PCE, CFC-113 (i.e., Freon-113) and other grease-cutting agents in soils and groundwaters is widespread. In order to address this significant problem,
ex- tensive research is underway to develop advanced analytical, biochemical, and physicochemical methods for the characterization and elimination of
hazardous chemical compounds from air, soil, and water. Advanced
physicochemical processes such as
semiconductor photo catalysis are intended to be both supplementary and
complementary to some of the more conventional approaches to the destruction or
transformation of hazardous chemical wastes such as high-temperature incineration, amended activated sludge digestion, anaerobic
digestion, and conventional physicochemical treatment.'
--Steel
Key to steel industry
Agence France Presse, 09 (“Global steel industry awaits China, US auto turnaround”, April 12, Lexis)
Steel is on edge and the global industry is cutting back hard, hanging on for either a budget blast from China, new credit for vast
Middle Eastern building schemes or resurrection of the US auto industry. Demand has dwindled and
steelmakers, notably the giant of them all, ArcelorMittal, are damping down surplus furnace capacity while waiting for credit to
flow, construction cranes to turn and factories to roll. A decision by ArcelorMittal last week to pursue temporary production cutbacks, slashing
European output by more than half from the end of April according to a union source, dramatises the extraordinary ride and role of steel in the last few
years. In just months the global industry has gone from a boom driven largely by China, emerging markets and a property extravaganza in the Middle
East to a narrow line between excess capacity and the costs of waiting for recovery. " Over
the past six months, demand for
steel has dropped dramatically and, as a result, producers have been cutting production, " analysts at
Barclays Capital said in a study last week. In another report, Morgan Stanley predicted "the current demand shock to lead to
excess steel capacity." Consequently, the bank said, steel plants should operate at rates below 75
percent of capacity until 2012. "The steel market is not very different from base metals as a whole, but steel has reacted more rapidly
and dramatically since September," said commodities analyst Perrine Faye of London-based FastMarkets. She said the future of the
steel industry depended on three factors -- the impact of Chinese economic stimulus efforts, a pick-up in the Middle East construction
sector and a revival of the once mighty US auto industry. "Chinese imports and exports are at a standstill. Everyone is waiting
for the Chinese stimulus package to see if it will revive demand." The Chinese government last month announced a four-trillion-yuan (580-billiondollar) package of measures that it said could contribute 1.5 to 1.9 percent to the country's economic growth. Industry experts have meanwhile spoken
optimistically of China's prospects. Thomas Albanese, chief executive at steel maker Rio Tinto, said earlier this year that the company foresaw "a short,
sharp slowdown in China, with demand rebounding over the course of 2009, as the fundamentals of Chinese economic growth remain sound."
Analysts have said steel inventories are falling in China in anticipation of projects expected to emerge from the country's huge stimulus package. "It is
encouraging that the inventory of steel products, especially long products, which are mostly used in construction projects, have started to fall (since the
end of March), likely suggesting that end-demand is gathering momentum," Frank Gong, a Hong Kong-based economist for JPMorgan, wrote in a
research note. On-the-ground evidence suggested that the Chinese industry had been re-stocking in the first two months of the year, followed by a
pause in March before major infrastructure projects were expected to start in the second quarter, Gong wrote. In the Middle East, according to Faye,
the big problem is a shortage of credit, notably for real estate developers and builders. Construction planners had "counted on a higher price for oil and
on credit to finance their huge projects." In addition, demand for such facilities, especially in the Gulf, has died. "They were hoping that Americans and
Europeans would buy apartments. But property prices have collapsed in the Middle East as well." In the United Arab Emirates more than half the
building projects, worth 582 billion dollars or 45 per cent of the total value of the construction sector, have been put on hold, a study by Dubai-based
market research group Proleads found in February. In Dubai, one of the states of the UAE, prices in the real estate sector have slumped by an average
Faye said the
fate of the steel sector was in addition tied to that of the struggling US auto industry, once a
thriving steel market but one in which two of its giant players, General Motors and Chrysler, are
staring at bankruptcy. The two companies are currently limping along thanks to billions of
dollars in government aid. "We are waiting to see if the auto sector in the US will get out of the
crisis intact," she said.
of 25 percent from their peak in September after rallying 79 percent in the 18 months to July 2008, according to Morgan Stanley.
American steel industry is key to US infrastructure, energy development,
and the military
Price et al, 10 (Alan H., lawyer at Wiley Rein and head of the firm’s international trade practice, *and Timothy C. Brightbill, JD, Adjunct
Professor of Law at Georgetown University and a partner at Wiley Rein LLP, *and Christopher B. Weld, lawyer at Wiley Rein, *and Tessa V. Capeloto,
lawyer at Wiley Rein, October 2010, “The Reform Myth: How China is Using State Power to Create the World’s Dominant Steel Industry,”
http://www.steel.org/~/media/Files/AISI/General%20Docs/reform%20myth.ashx, DJH)
Investments like the Anshan investment also raise national security concerns. The U.S. steel
sector plays a critical role in our national defense, and in building and maintaining the nation's
critical infrastructure. The Anshan transaction could provide the Chinese government with direct
access to, and information concerning, current and future U.S. infrastructure, energy and
defense projects that may be critical to national defense. Moreover, as Anshan itself has acknowledged, the
investment could provide the Chinese government with potential new technologies in the steel
production industry.
Extinction
Kagan, 7 - senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Robert, “End of Dreams, Return of History”, 7/19,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/end_of_dreams_return_of_histor.html)
This is a good thing, and it should continue to be a primary goal of American foreign policy to perpetuate this relatively benign international
configuration of power. The unipolar order with the United States as the predominant power is unavoidably riddled with flaws and contradictions. It
inspires fears and jealousies. The United States is not immune to error, like all other nations, and because of its size and importance in the international
system those errors are magnified and take on greater significance than the errors of less powerful nations. Compared to the ideal Kantian international
order, in which all the world's powers would be peace-loving equals, conducting themselves wisely, prudently, and in strict obeisance to international
law, the
unipolar system is both dangerous and unjust. Compared to any plausible alternative in
the real world, however, it is relatively stable and less likely to produce a major war between
great powers. It is also comparatively benevolent, from a liberal perspective, for it is more conducive to the principles of economic and political
liberalism that Americans and many others value. American predominance does not stand in the way of progress toward a better world,
therefore. It stands in the way of regression toward a more dangerous world. The choice is not
between an American-dominated order and a world that looks like the European Union. The
future international order will be shaped by those who have the power to shape it. The leaders of a post-
American world will not meet in Brussels but in Beijing, Moscow, and Washington. The return of great powers and great games If the world is marked
by the persistence of unipolarity, it is nevertheless also being shaped by the reemergence of competitive national ambitions of the kind that have shaped
human affairs from time immemorial. During the Cold War, this historical tendency of great powers to jostle with one another for status and influence
as well as for wealth and power was largely suppressed by the two superpowers and their rigid bipolar order. Since the end of the Cold War, the United
States has not been powerful enough, and probably could never be powerful enough, to suppress by itself the normal ambitions of nations. This does
not mean the world has returned to multipolarity, since none of the large powers is in range of competing with the superpower for global influence.
Nevertheless, several large powers are now competing for regional predominance, both with the United States and with each other. National ambition
drives China's foreign policy today, and although it is tempered by prudence and the desire to appear as unthreatening as possible to the rest of the
world, the
Chinese are powerfully motivated to return their nation to what they regard as its
traditional position as the preeminent power in East Asia. They do not share a European, postmodern view that power
is passé; hence their now two-decades-long military buildup and modernization. Like the Americans, they believe power, including military power, is a
good thing to have and that it is better to have more of it than less. Perhaps more significant is the Chinese perception, also shared by Americans, that
status and honor, and not just wealth and security, are important for a nation. Japan, meanwhile, which in the past could have been counted as an
aspiring postmodern power -- with its pacifist constitution and low defense spending -- now
appears embarked on a more
traditional national course. Partly this is in reaction to the rising power of China and concerns
about North Korea 's nuclear weapons. But it is also driven by Japan's own national ambition to be a leader in East Asia or at least
not to play second fiddle or "little brother" to China. China and Japan are now in a competitive quest with each trying to augment its own status and
power and to prevent the other 's rise to predominance, and this competition has a military and strategic as well as an economic and political
component. Their competition is such that a nation like South Korea, with a long unhappy history as a pawn between the two powers, is once again
worrying both about a "greater China" and about the return of Japanese nationalism. As Aaron Friedberg commented, the East Asian future looks more
like Europe's past than its present. But it also looks like Asia's past. Russian
foreign policy, too, looks more like something from the
nineteenth century. It is being driven by a typical, and typically Russian, blend of national resentment
and ambition. A postmodern Russia simply seeking integration into the new European order, the Russia of Andrei Kozyrev, would not be
troubled by the eastward enlargement of the EU and NATO, would not insist on predominant influence over its "near abroad," and would not use its
natural resources as means of gaining geopolitical leverage and enhancing Russia 's international status in an attempt to regain the lost glories of the
Soviet empire and Peter the Great. But Russia, like China and Japan, is moved by more traditional great-power considerations, including the pursuit of
those valuable if intangible national interests: honor and respect. Although Russian leaders complain about threats to their security from NATO and the
United States, the Russian sense of insecurity has more to do with resentment and national identity than with plausible external military threats. 16
Russia's complaint today is not with this or that weapons system. It is the entire post-Cold War settlement of the 1990s that Russia resents and wants to
revise. But that does not make insecurity less a factor in Russia 's relations with the world; indeed, it makes finding compromise with the Russians all
the more difficult. One could add others to this list of great powers with traditional rather than postmodern aspirations. India
's regional
ambitions are more muted, or are focused most intently on Pakistan, but it is clearly engaged in
competition with China for dominance in the Indian Ocean and sees itself, correctly, as an emerging great power on
the world scene. In the Middle East there is Iran, which mingles religious fervor with a historical sense of superiority and leadership in its region. 17 Its
nuclear program is as much about the desire for regional hegemony as about defending Iranian territory from attack by the United States. Even the
European Union, in its way, expresses a pan-European national ambition to play a significant role in the world, and it has become the vehicle for
channeling German, French, and British ambitions in what Europeans regard as a safe supranational direction. Europeans seek honor and respect, too,
but of a postmodern variety. The honor they seek is to occupy the moral high ground in the world, to exercise moral authority, to wield political and
economic influence as an antidote to militarism, to be the keeper of the global conscience, and to be recognized and admired by others for playing this
role. Islam is not a nation, but many Muslims express a kind of religious nationalism, and the leaders of radical Islam, including al Qaeda, do seek to
establish a theocratic nation or confederation of nations that would encompass a wide swath of the Middle East and beyond. Like national movements
elsewhere, Islamists have a yearning for respect, including self-respect, and a desire for honor. Their national identity has been molded in defiance
against stronger and often oppressive outside powers, and also by memories of ancient superiority over those same powers. China had its "century of
humiliation." Islamists have more than a century of humiliation to look back on, a humiliation of which Israel has become the living symbol, which is
partly why even Muslims who are neither radical nor fundamentalist proffer their sympathy and even their support to violent extremists who can turn
the tables on the dominant liberal West, and particularly on a dominant America which implanted and still feeds the Israeli cancer in their midst.
Finally, there is the United States itself. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations, Democratic and
Republican, liberal and conservative, Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East Asia; the Middle East; the Western
Hemisphere; until recently, Europe; and now, increasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal after the Second World War, and since the end of the Cold
War, beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years, the United States did not retract but expanded its
influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global
power, it is also engaged
in hegemonic competitions in these regions with China in East and Central
Asia, with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia, and with Russia in Eastern Europe, Central
Asia, and the Caucasus. The United States, too, is more of a traditional than a postmodern power, and though Americans are loath to
acknowledge it, they generally prefer their global place as "No. 1" and are equally loath to relinquish it. Once having entered a region, whether for
practical or idealistic reasons, they are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image.
They profess indifference to the world and claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around
the globe. The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold
War international system. Nationalism
in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international
competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these
rivalries from intensifying -- its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States
to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other
nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through
diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One
novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear
weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic. It is easy
but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability.
For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters.
They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access
to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a
more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond.
Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed
embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows
in a way that is now impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation
provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the
European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today
Europe 's stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States
could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar
world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. People who believe greater
equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the
world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of
international order that they like would remain in place. But that 's not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is
shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and
especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United
States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would
have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would
suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no
guarantee against major conflict among the world's great powers. Even
under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional
conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and
draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European
allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains
possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw
in other great powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues.
But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of
regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American
power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of most of China 's neighbors. But even
China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could
unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan. In
Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene -- even if it
be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more
overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its peripher y. Although some realist
remained the world's most powerful nation -- could
theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and
therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without
Soviet communism. If
the United States withdrew from Europe -- if it adopted what some call a strategy of "offshore balancing" - this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors,
which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. It is also optimistic to
imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of
a more passive, "offshore" role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in
access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would
stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more "even-handed" policy toward Israel, which some see as
the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel 's aid if its security became threatened.
That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American
military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but
would simply change the equation. In
the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside
and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism
doesn't change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which
neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The
alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is further
competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of American influence would
not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper
involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of
the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could
shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn 't changed that much. An American withdrawal
from Iraq will not return things to "normal" or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United
States back in again. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. In an era of
burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to
extend American predominance into the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and
global involvement will provide an easier path.
--AT: Auto Industry Bad
Turn – fuel efficiency coming now but certainty in the industry is key
Chappell 6/12/12 Lindsay Chappell, Automotive News, US automotive industry seeks fuel-saving technologies Posted 12 June 2012
http://www.prw.com/subscriber/headlines2.html?cat=1&id=1014
The US auto industry has signed on to proposed federal mandates to dramatically improve
vehicle fuel economy. But for automakers to meet new standards, some technologies will have to be invented. “The
auto industry has agreed to meet targets that we don’t know how we’re going to meet,” said Tom Baloga, vice president of
engineering at BMW of North America. “We’re ready to make commitments to tough goals. What we need is
time and we need certainty.” The Obama administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration have widespread industry support for requiring nominal fleet averages
of 54.5 mpg in 2026. (Because of various exceptions and credits, the real-world average likely will be in the low 40s.) Current rules require a
2012 model year industry average of 29.7 mpg. “To reach those numbers, there is technology that is going to have
to be invented,” Baloga said. Already used extensively are turbochargers, multispeed transmissions and aerodynamic improvements. But
new technologies are in the works, and automakers are betting on a few that seem
plausible.
More fuel efficient
WSJ 6/21/12 Wall Street Journal PRESS RELEASE June 21, 2012, 8:28 a.m. EDT Environmental and Energy Experts Laud New Auto
Enthusiast Website CarsOfChange.com http://www.marketwatch.com/story/environmental-and-energy-experts-laud-new-auto-enthusiast-websitecarsofchangecom-2012-06-21
"The
American public is embracing fuel efficiency and the auto industry is responding with new
technologies and new vehicles that use less gas, or get us there oil-free," says Ann Mesnikoff, director of the
Sierra Club's Green Transportation Campaign. "Cars of Change(TM) is the right resource at the right time to help
Americans understand these changes, and to help navigate these changes and make decisions
about the best vehicles." Roland Hwang, Transportation Program Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), adds: "For
too long the auto industry and environmentalists have been at loggerheads. But today, the U.S. auto industry has become an
agent of change for fuel efficiency and clean cars. We have an unprecedented opportunity to
work together to keep this country moving forward on innovation, jobs, and a cleaner, healthier
environment. CarsOfChange.com(TM) can play an important role in conveying how this process is unfolding through the cars, the technologies,
and the dialogues it features."
Internal link
The Auto industry is interdependent
Wilson 12 [Christopher Wilson, Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson internatiaonal Center for Scholars,
2012, “US competitiveness: the Mexican Connection”, University of Texas at Dallas,
http://www.issues.org/28.4/p_wilson.html]//PP
The massive volume of commerce and investment is important, but the depth of regional
integration is the primary reason why Mexico contributes to U.S. competitiveness. Mexico and the
United States do not just trade products, they build them together. In fact, to understand regional trade, it is
necessary to view imports and exports in a different light. Whereas imports from most of the world are what they appear to be—
foreign products—the same cannot be said of imports from Mexico. During production, materials and parts often
cross the southwest border numerous times while U.S. and Mexican factories each perform the
parts of the manufacturing process they can do most competitively. Because of the
complementary nature of the two economies, close geographic proximity, and NAFTA, which
eliminated most tariff barriers to regional trade, the U.S. and Mexican manufacturing sectors
are deeply integrated. Demonstrating this integration is the fact that 40% of the value of U.S. imports from
Mexico comes from materials and parts produced in the United States. This means that 40 cents
of every dollar the United States spends on Mexican goods actually supports U.S. firms . The only
other major trading partner that comes close to this amount is Canada, the United States’ other NAFTA partner, with 25% U.S.
content. Chinese imports, on the other hand, have an average of only 4% U.S. content, meaning that the purchase of imports from
China does not have the same positive impact on U.S. manufacturers. The regional auto industry is a good example of this
production-sharing phenomenon. The United States, Mexico, and Canada each produce and assemble auto
parts, sending them back and forth as they work together to build cars and trucks. Cars built in
North America are said to have their parts cross the United States borders eight times as they
are being produced, and between 80 and 90% of the U.S. auto industry trade with its North
American partners is intra-industry, both of which signal an extremely high level of vertical specialization. As a
result, Detroit exports more goods to Mexico than any other U.S. city, and the North American auto
industry has proven much more resilient than many expected. Although several of North America’s largest automakers nearly
collapsed during the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, a robust recovery is now under way. Mexico and the United States have each
experienced the sharpest rise in vehicle production of the world’s top 10 auto producers during the past two years, growing 51 and
72%, respectively, between 2009 and 2011.
Supply chains across the border is uniquely key to jobs and competitiveness
specifically in the context of the auto-industry
Figueroa et al 11 [Alejandro Figueroa, Research and Policy Analyst, Erik Lee, Associate Director, Rick Van Schoik, Director,
North American Center for Transborder Studies, New Policy Institute, “Realizing the Full Value of Crossborder Trade with Mexico”,
Arizona State University, http://21stcenturyborder.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/realizing-the-value-of-crossborder-trade-withmexico2.pdf]//PP
The close economic ties between the U.S. and Mexico illustrate the dynamics of a
21st century supply chain as inputs cross the border multiple times, accumulating value
added to the goods being exported and imported through our shared border. The automotive,
electronics and aeronautic industries, among others, are examples of the highly integrated supply chains
between U.S. and Mexican industries that have successfully faced global competition. The North
American auto industry has become highly integrated since the original Auto Pact between Detroit
and Ontario that began cross-border manufacturing in North America. Today, vehicles made in
Mexico have a high U.S. content, while at the same time vehicles manufactured in the U.S. use a
large number of Mexican-made auto parts. Supply chains are critical to businesses’ underlying
value, growth potential, and economic competitiveness. Unfortunately, supply chains often come to a
stop due to border delays, security concerns, and infrastructure constraints. These issues create an
environment of uncertainty in the business community, which deters investment, job creation and economic prosperity. Exports
clearly create jobs, but what is less apparent is that exports rely on imports. When U.S. firms build and
produce things together with firms in Mexico, it is imperative for them to get key components
across the border as fast as possible back into their facilities. The sooner they are in, the sooner
they may continue to move along the supply chain until they reach the consumer and create a profit for the U.S. firm
and the economy. In a just-in-time business environment, the company relies on an efficient
process at the border in order to get numerous key components shipped rapidly from Mexico .
Mexico has increasingly become a strategic supplier to U.S. industry; Mexico’s intermediate exports contribute
to both intermediate and finished goods in the U.S. Capital goods traded between the U.S. and Mexico also play an
important role in increasing regional competitiveness. Last year, $70 billion worth of machinery, tools and
equipment were traded bilaterally to produce other goods that were in turn consumed locally or sold to foreign markets as North
American-made products. The highly complementary nature of this trade illustrates the growing
importance of incorporating value-added every time a product crosses the border for further
processing. The interconnectivity between the supply chains of both countries help U.S.
companies remain competitive in the world marketplace by producing goods for worldwide
consumption at competitive prices. Mexico’s proximity to the U.S. allows production to have a
high degree of U.S. content in the final product which in turn helps create and sustain jobs in
both countries.
Specifically the auto parts cross the border more than 8 times
Wilson 11 [Christopher Wilson, associate with the Mexico Institute, “Working Together: Economic ties between the United
States and Mexico” Woodrow Wilson Center, November 2011,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Working%20Together%20Full%20Document_0.pdf]//PP
The benefits of production sharing are a result of North American economic cooperation and integration. The
regional auto
industry is a good example of the phenomenon of production sharing. The United States, Mexico
and Canada each produce and assemble auto parts, sending them back and forth as they work
together to build complete cars. Cars built in North America are said to have their parts cross the
United States borders eight times as they are being produced, and between 80% and 90% of U.S.
auto-industry trade with its North American partners is intra-industry, both of which signal an extremely
high level of vertical specialization.40 In fact, the Detroit metropolitan area, a hub of the motor vehicle
industry, exports more goods to Mexico than any other U.S. city.41 The Mexican auto and auto parts sectors
experienced major growth over the past two decades as a result of the elimination of tariffs and reduction of non-tariff barriers
afforded to the motor vehicle industry through NAFTA.42
Manufacturing
Inherency
Drug Violence is halting investment in border regions
Villarreal 10 [M. Angeles Villarreal, Specialist in International Trade and Finance, “The Mexican Economy after the Global
Financial Crisis” Congressional Research Service, September 9, 2010 http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41402_20100909.pdf] //PP
Another serious economic challenge in Mexico is related to the violence taking place in some
regions of Mexico after President Calderón’s campaign against organized crime and drug
trafficking. The escalation of violence has resulted in increased risk aversion which has impacted
foreign investment flows, particularly in the manufacturing industry. The costs from the drug
trade far outweigh any of the benefits that drug-trafficking and associated crime might bring in
terms of increased cash flows or positive spill-over effects. Some estimates of the costs associated
with violence, investment losses, drug abuse, and other direct costs are estimated at $4.6 billion per year, or 0.5%
of GDP.64 Costs could be even higher when taking into account the indirect costs of large numbers
of violence-related outward migration, which lowers Mexico’s potential growth rate.65 The city planning department
of Juárez estimates 116,000 homes were abandoned as of early 2010 because of the violence. This could translate into a population
of up to 400,000 people, one-third of the city, that has migrated.66 Violence has also had a severe impact on employment in Juárez,
with the city losing 23.9% (91,940) of it formal jobs.67 Some analysts believe that Mexico must increase
investor confidence to remain competitive because the drug violence is causing anxiety and
uncertainty among investors. Cd. Juárez, which is close to the border with the United States and
where much of the manufacturing industry is located, was, until recently, considered an attractive city
for foreign investors and for doing business. However, the border violence that has erupted since
Mexico’s crackdown on organized crime has changed the business environment and business leaders
have been forced to take steps in increasing security in manufacturing plants such as abolishing overtime so that workers can go
home before sunset. The Asociación de Maquiladoras, a local trade group located in Juárez, states that some
foreign investors have passed on opening plants in Juárez since 2008, but that this was due to the
recession and not to the increase in violence.68
Drug violence is decreasing exports in the squo
Villarreal 10 [M. Angeles Villarreal, Specialist in International Trade and Finance, “The Mexican Economy after the Global
Financial Crisis” Congressional Research Service, September 9, 2010 http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41402_20100909.pdf] //PP
The economic crisis, combined with the increased violence along the U.S.-Mexico border, has hurt the
manufacturing industry and many of Mexico’s export-oriented assembly plants have shut down
in recent years, especially along the U.S.-Mexico border. A majority of these export oriented plants have U.S.
parent companies, though some parent companies are located in Asia and Europe. The border region with the United
States has the highest concentration of assembly plants and workers. Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, the city
with the highest concentration of jobs in export assembly plants, has experienced the highest job
losses, as a result of lower U.S. demand and the drug related violence that has occurred in this
manufacturing city over the past two years. Manufacturing employment in Cd. Juarez decreased from
214,272 in July 2007 to 168,011 in December 2009, a loss of 46,261 jobs (22% decrease). In Tijuana, Baja California,
employment decreased from 174,105 in July 2007 to 136,957 in December 2009, a loss of 37,148 jobs (21% decrease). The total
number of export-oriented manufacturing plants in Mexico increased from 5,083 in July 2007 to 5,245 in December 2009.
However, employment decreased from 1,910,112 in July 2007 to 1,641,465 in December 2009, a loss of 268,647 jobs (14%
decrease).28
Internal link
Squo programs are not sufficient and new infrastructure is needed to spur
the manufacturing sector
Wilson 12 [Christopher Wilson, Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson internatiaonal Center for Scholars,
2012, “US competitiveness: the Mexican Connection”, University of Texas at Dallas,
http://www.issues.org/28.4/p_wilson.html]//PP
The border. With an integrated regional manufacturing sector,
the same goods cross
the U.S.-Mexico border several times as they are being produced. Consequently, the
effects of any barriers to trade, tariff or nontariff, are multiplied by the number of
border crossings that take place during production. In the NAFTA region, tariffs are not
a significant trade barrier, but the importance of having efficient border management and customs procedures
is difficult to overstate. After NAFTA took effect and trade barriers fell, bilateral trade skyrocketed, more
than tripling by 2000. But after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, a new approach to homeland security led to a
“thickening” of the border. Trade and passenger travel ground to a near halt. Although trade has been
moving since then, the new security concerns have meant that there was never a return to the
status quo. Between 2000 and 2010, legal entries of commercial trucks into the United States at the southern border
dropped by 41%. Since then, several studies have attempted to estimate the cost of increased border wait times on the regional
economy, particularly of border communities. The results are varied, but there is widespread agreement that
border-related congestion has had a multibillion-dollar effect on the U.S. and Mexican
economies. Seeking to mitigate these costs, the U.S. and Mexican governments developed the 21st
Century Border initiative, which is based largely on the idea that neither security nor efficiency has to be sacrificed to
improve the other. By expediting the flow of safe and legal border crossers and cargo, officials can focus more of their attention on
seeking dangerous people and goods. This is the concept behind the trusted traveler (SENTRI) and trusted shipper (FAST
and C-TPAT) programs in place at the Mexican border. Frequent border crossers prove they are low risk by undergoing an
extensive background check and interview process. In return, they get to use special lanes to quickly cross the border. There is no
silver bullet in border management, but these programs are the closest thing. They make the border safer while lessening the need
for building more vehicle lanes at entry ports and increasing the number of border staff. They should be expanded and
vigorously promoted. Where they are in place, the United States should work with Mexican officials to ensure that use of the
dedicated express lanes significantly reduces waiting times, so that there is an incentive to join the programs. Moderate
infrastructure investments are also needed, because although trade has quintupled, relatively
few entry ports have seen any major upgrades or expansions. Public/private partnerships are an important
mechanism to bring needed funding to the border area, and the Department of Homeland Security should work with Congress to
create secure and appropriate mechanisms to encourage their use, if it determines that the current legal environment excessively
limits such use. Such partnerships have been successful in some areas, but many border communities and businesses would be
willing to commit more resources to facilitate travel and commerce.
Economic relationship with Mexico is key to manufacturing and jobs
Wilson 11 [Christopher Wilson, associate with the Mexico Institute, “Working Together: Economic ties between the United
States and Mexico” Woodrow Wilson Center, November 2011,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Working%20Together%20Full%20Document_0.pdf]//PP
The integration of the United States and Mexican economies has transformed the nature of the
bilateral relationship from one of competition to partnership. U.S. jobs, competitiveness and economic
growth have all benefited from the nation’s relationship with Mexico. As the second largest
destination for U.S. exports and third largest source of imports, 6 million U.S. jobs depend on
trade with Mexico.1 That means one in every twenty-four workers in the nation depend on U.S.-Mexico trade for their
employment.2 Beyond the $393 billion in bilateral merchandise trade each year is another $35 billion in services trade and an
accumulated total of $103 billion in foreign direct investment holdings.3 As
important as the intensity of U.S.Mexico economic integration is its quality. Most people think of imports and exports as goods made by one country
and then purchased by another, but for the U.S. and Mexico, crossborder trade often occurs in the context of
production sharing. Manufacturers in each nation work together to create goods, and regional
supply chains crisscross the U.S.-Mexico border. Many imports and exports are therefore of a temporary nature as
an item is being produced. Cars built in North America, for example, are said to cross the United States’
borders eight times during production, integrating materials and parts developed in Mexico and Canada. Several
other U.S. industries, including electronics, appliances and machinery, all rely on the assistance
of Mexican manufacturers as well. In fact, a full 40% of the content of U.S. imports from Mexico was originally made in
the United States, and it is likely that the domestic content in Mexican imports from the United States is also very high.4 That
means despite an Hecho en México or “Made in Mexico” label, a large portion of the money U.S.
consumers spend on Mexican imports actually goes to U.S. companies and workers. The same
cannot be said for Chinese imports, which have only 4% U.S. content, or for goods coming from any other
country in the world, with the exception of Canada, where U.S. content is 25%.5 Taken together, goods from Mexico and Canada
represent a full 75% of all the domestic content that returns to the U.S. as imports.6 This is because only Mexico, Canada
and the Caribbean Basin have production processes that are
deeply integrated with the United States The
Southwest Border states are especially integrated with Mexico, and the Mexican market
accounts for a quarter to more than a third of all exports for Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona .7
However, states throughout the country trade intensely with their southern neighbor. Mexico is the top export destination for five
states: California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and New Hampshire, and is the second most important market for another seventeen
states across the country. Several states in the U.S. heartland have particularly close economic ties to Mexico, including Nebraska,
Iowa, Kansas, South Dakota, and Michigan.8 In fact, the Detroit metropolitan area exports more goods to Mexico than other city in
the United States, a sign of the importance of Mexico and Canada to regional motor vehicle manufacturing.9 At the end of this
report, you will find tables and graphs that show how much each state and several metropolitan areas depend on trade with Mexico
and roughly what this means in terms of job-creation.
Border inefficiencies cause a multiplier effect on the manufacturing sector
Lee and Wilson 12 [Christopher Wilson, Associate at the Mexican Institute, Erik Lee, Associate Director at the North
American Center for Transborder Studies at Arizona State University, “Whole nations Waiting”, Site Selection, July 2012,
http://www.siteselection.com/issues/2012/jul/us-mex-border.cfm]//PP
The quantity of U.S.-Mexico trade is impressive, but its quality makes it unique. The United States and
Mexico do not just sell goods to one another,
they actually work together to manufacture them. Through
production sharing, materials and parts often cross back and forth between factories on each
side of the border as a final product is made and assembled. As a result, U.S. imports from Mexico
contain, on average, 40 percent U.S. content, and Mexico's imports from the U.S. also have a
high level of Mexican content. This system of joint production has two important consequences. First, it means that
our economies are profoundly linked. We tend to experience growth and recession together, and productivity
gains or losses on one side of the border generally cause a corresponding gain or loss in
competitiveness on the other side as well. Second, the fact that goods often cross the border several
times as they are being produced creates a multiplier effect for gains and losses in border
efficiency. Whereas goods from China only go through customs and inspection once as they enter the U.S. or Mexico,
products built by regional manufacturers bear the costs of long and unpredictable border wait
times and significant customs requirements each time they cross the U.S.-Mexico border.
Congestion kills competitiveness of Mexico and US
Lee and Wilson 12 [Christopher Wilson, Associate at the Mexican Institute, Erik Lee, Associate Director at the North
American Center for Transborder Studies at Arizona State University, “Whole nations Waiting”, Site Selection, July 2012,
http://www.siteselection.com/issues/2012/jul/us-mex-border.cfm]//PP
Unfortunately, the infrastructure and capacity of the ports of entry to process goods and
individuals entering the United States has not kept pace with the expansion of bilateral trade or
the population growth of the border region. Instead, the need for greater border security following
the terrorist attacks of 9/11 led to a thickening of the border, dividing the twin cities that
characterize the region and adding costly, long and unpredictable wait times for commercial and
personal crossers alike. Congestion acts as a drag on the competitiveness of the region and of the
United States and Mexico in their entirety. Solutions are needed that strengthen both border security and efficiency
at the same time. The integrated nature of the North American manufacturing sector makes
eliminating border congestion an important way to enhance regional competitiveness . The global
economic crisis forced manufacturers to look for ways to cut costs. After taking into consideration factors such as rising fuel costs,
increasing wages in China and the ability to automate an ever greater portion of the production process, many American companies
decided to nearshore factories to Mexico or reshore them to the United States, taking advantage of strong human capital and shorter
supply chains. Bilateral trade dropped significantly during the recession but has since rebounded strongly, growing significantly
faster than trade with China.
Lee and Blank 9 [Stephen Blank, Research Professor of National Security Affairs, Erik Lee, Associate Director at the North
American Center for Transborder Studies at Arizona State University, “The US-Mexico Border: A discussion on Sub-National Policy
Options”, Woodrow Wilson Center Mexico Institute and El Colegio de la Frontera Norte research project, July 1, 2009,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/BLANK%20LEE%20INFRASTRUCTURE.pdf]//PP
At the close of the 20th century, the balance between demand for transport capacity and supply
had deteriorated sharply. North America’s freight transportation infrastructure faced a “perfect
storm” of capacity, congestion and deterioration due to the end of excess capacity, the
emergence of global-manufacturing value chains with vastly greater demand for freighttransportation capacity because of increasing imports from Asia, the continued failure to harmonize regulations and the
accumulated effects of delayed maintenance Many experts now spoke of an emerging crisis in North
America’s freight-transportation system. A review of recent research on North America’s freight
transport system conducted by the North American Transportation Competitiveness Research
Council concluded: “The JIT-lean inventory advanced manufacturing system developed since the 1970s that enables North
America to compete successfully with Asian and European manufacturers is now reaching its capacity limits. The supporting
transportation infrastructure is now inadequate to handle the projected volume growth of North
American supply chains’ freight flows.”2 “The result, observes Professor Mary Brooks, one of Canada’s best known
specialists on freight transportation, “has been to boost buffer stocks, and force just-in-time supply chain
managers to re-examine their sourcing options; it is of concern to Canada that many U.S.
companies will source domestically rather than within NAFTA due to border uncertainty.” Even
before 9/11, the physical infrastructure at critical Canadian and Mexican border crossings was nearly overwhelmed. Border
infrastructure, even before 9/11, had fallen behind the increase in volume of goods crossing
North American borders: "While trade has nearly tripled across both borders since the Canadian-U.S. Free
Trade Agreement (FTA) and NAFTA were implemented, border customs facilities and crossing infrastructure
have not kept pace with this increased demand. Even if 9/11 had not occurred, trade would be choked at the
border." 3 As an example, in 2007, the California Department of Transportation estimated the U.S.- Mexican border transportation
infrastructure deficit at between $860 million and $1.07 billion. Delays at the ports of entry have increased at
some crossings even after expediting pre-cleared and pre-screened crossers.
Economic issues are at the forefront now especially trade
Selee and Wilson 12 [Andrew Selee, Vice President for Programs and Senior Advisor to the Mexico Institute, Christopher
Wilson, associate with the Mexico Institute, “A New Agenda with Mexico”, Wilson Center, November 2012,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/a_new_agenda_with_mexico.pdf]//PP
Nonetheless, the landscape of U.S.-Mexico relations is changing. Illegal immigration
is at the lowest
level in four decades, and organized crime violence, which has driven much of the recent
cooperation, is finally declining. Violence will remain a critical issue, but economic issues—bilateral and global—
have risen to the fore as both countries struggle to emerge from the global slowdown. Trade has
increased dramatically, connecting the manufacturing base of the two countries as never before, so
that gains in one country benefit the other. To keep pace with these changes, U.S. policymakers will need
to deepen the agenda with Mexico to give greater emphasis to economic issues, including ways to spur
job creation, and they will have opportunities to strengthen cooperation on global issues. Security
cooperation will remain critical, and determined but nuanced follow through to dismantle the
operations of criminal groups on both sides of the border will be needed to continue the drop in
violence. With less illegal immigration, it will be easier to address legal migration in new ways. However, economic issues
are likely to dominate the bilateral agenda for the first time in over a decade.
Increasing regional manufacturing inputs supports US economy
Wilson 11 [Christopher Wilson, associate with the Mexico Institute, “Working Together: Economic ties between the United
States and Mexico” Woodrow Wilson Center, November 2011,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Working%20Together%20Full%20Document_0.pdf]//PP
Perhaps the most compelling explanation as to how the United States and Mexico function as economic partners rather than
competitors has to do with the unique nature of bilateral trade. In fact, understanding U.S.-Mexico trade requires
a
new understanding of the idea of imports and exports. Whereas imports from most of the world are what they
appear to be—foreign products—the same cannot be said of imports from Mexico. This is because during the cycle of
production materials and parts often cross the Southwest border numerous times while U.S. and
Mexican factories work together to manufacture a good. As a result, a full 40% of the value of U.S.
imports from Mexico is made of content produced in the United States. Production sharing, also known as
vertical specialization, occurs when two or more countries share in the manufacturing of a
specific good. As shown in the table above, Mexican and Canadian exports to the United States contain several times more U.S.
content than any other major trading partner. U.S. imports from North America are therefore substantively
different than imports from any other region. Since the United States is the supplier of such a large portion of the
materials in imports from Mexico and Canada, an increase in regional imports actually increases U.S.
exports, supporting local jobs and industry.
Manufacturing is key to regional competitiveness and relations
Wilson 11 [Christopher Wilson, associate with the Mexico Institute, “Working Together: Economic ties between the United
States and Mexico” Woodrow Wilson Center, November 2011,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Working%20Together%20Full%20Document_0.pdf]//PP
While the growth of the Mexican auto industry is a largely recent phenomenon, in several sectors Mexico and the United State have a
long history of production sharing through the Maquiladora Program. Instituted in 1965 in an attempt to provide domestic
opportunities to returning migrants that had worked in the U.S. as a part of the Bracero program, which ended in 1964, the Border
Industrialization Program allowed maquiladoras, or export processing plants, to import their manufacturing inputs and machinery
tariff free into Mexico and only pay U.S. duties on the Mexican and other foreign value-added when the finished products were
shipped back to the United States.43 Since then, the program has been expanded to include production
facilities throughout Mexico, not just in the border region, and to allow exports to countries
other than the United States. The most recent iteration, known as IMMEX, the Maquiladora and Export Services
Program, was created in 2006 and offered incentives to some 5,087 participating firms in 2011.44 The long tradition of
economic cooperation between the United States and Mexico, exemplified in NAFTA and the
Bracero, Maquiladora, and IMMEX programs, has not only increased U.S.-Mexico trade but also
substantively changed the nature of the economic relationship. Whereas at one point each country worked
relatively independently to manufacture goods and then export them, now Mexico and the U.S. work together to
produce goods that are sold on the global market. In this new paradigm, characterized by production
sharing, Mexico and the U.S. can each specialize in different stages of production, thereby
pooling comparative advantages to increase regional competitiveness vis-à-vis the rest of the
world.
Inefficiencies at the border hurt the US manufacturing industry
Wilson 11 [Christopher Wilson, associate with the Mexico Institute, “Working Together: Economic ties between the United
States and Mexico” Woodrow Wilson Center, November 2011,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Working%20Together%20Full%20Document_0.pdf]//PP
Unfortunately, in the past decade increased attention to border security appears to
have come at a
cost. Analysts have identified what they describe as a “thickening” of the border since the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001.83 After experiencing a significant increase in the 1990s, the number of
individuals crossing the Southwest Border has plummeted.84 Legal crossings reached a record-setting 295
million entries from Mexico in 2000, but since then they have steadily declined to only 190 million entries
in 2009. While the complete causes and effects of this change are unclear, it seems that Mexicans living in border
cities, who make up the vast majority of the daily cross-border traffic, have reduced the number
of trips they make into the U.S. for shopping, education, business and recreation. Thankfully, the
number of trucks crossing the border to deliver goods has not experienced the same level of
decline, although many of the same pressures that deter and disrupt the crossing of individuals
also apply to commercial flows. Cross-border production sharing operations have come to
depend on what is known as just-in-time delivery, a technique that allows nimble production and
minimizes the amount of capital invested in inventory. If the delivery of a part from a Mexican subsidiary
or partner is unexpectedly delayed, a U.S. manufacturer may be forced to temporarily shut down
production to wait for parts. Or, if such delays are common, manufacturers may simply be forced to maintain more inventory
than would otherwise be necessary. The benefits of just-in-time supply chain management, production
sharing, and even U.S.- Mexico trade more generally, are therefore put at risk by unpredictable
and long wait times at the border. But increased security measures are hardly the only cause of thickening U.S. borders,
and certainly no one wants his or her personal safety sacrificed in the name of trade facilitation. Both the growth in U.S.Mexico trade and the increasingly complex security situation instead demand investment and
creative problem solving to simultaneously improve security and promote economic growth .
While significant investments in border infrastructure have been made in recent years, including the opening of three new border
crossings in 2010, still more are demanded. The San Diego Association of Governments estimated that in 2007, inadequate
border infrastructure caused congestion and delays that cost the California-Baja California
region $7.2 billion and more than 62,000 jobs.85 El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, a Tijuana-based university,
performed a similar study that focused specifically on the costs of extended border wait times to Mexican border cities. While the
economic impact on the United States in not calculated, one must assume that a portion of the costs are passed on to U.S. buyers.
Trade with Mexico is declining because of diversification
Wilson 11 [Christopher Wilson, associate with the Mexico Institute, “Working Together: Economic ties between the United
States and Mexico” Woodrow Wilson Center, November 2011,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Working%20Together%20Full%20Document_0.pdf]//PP
Despite ongoing tariff preferences granted under NAFTA, the U.S. share of Mexico’s
imports for
processing exports (those given favorable tariff treatment through the programs designed to facilitate production sharing)
declined from 81% in 2000 to just 51% in 2006.46 This occurred even while the United States
continued to purchase nearly all of Mexico’s processing exports, buying 92% in 2000 and 89% in 2006.47
China, Japan and other Asian countries increased their role in providing materials for Mexican
manufacturing, thus lowering the portion of U.S. value added in Mexico’s exports to the United
States. Economic development in several Asian countries was surely one contributing factor, as
were the signing of the Mexico-Japan free trade agreement (2004) and China’s accession into the
WTO in 2000. That is, the growth in non-U.S. Mexican imports represented both a natural process of globalization
and Mexico’s deliberate policy of diversification.48
**Inefficiencies at the border hurts manufacturing
Wilson 11 [Christopher Wilson, associate with the Mexico Institute, “Working Together: Economic ties between the United
States and Mexico” Woodrow Wilson Center, November 2011,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Working%20Together%20Full%20Document_0.pdf]//PP
In order to protect the U.S. jobs that depend on supplying Mexican manufacturers, it is
important that businesses and policymakers work to improve the competitiveness of U.S.Mexico supply chains. Businesses might also look for ways to take advantage of Mexico’s 12 free
trade agreements with 44 countries to increase jointly produced exports to the rest of the world. Within the region,
another set of challenges has emerged in the new millennium. The United States, and
consequently Mexico, experienced two recessions that slowed trade and investment while
threatening to fuel a return to protectionism. Differences in regional regulatory frameworks, complicated rules of
origin, and transportation inefficiencies all erode the natural comparative advantages of the North
American region. Key to solving these and other challenges is an understanding on the part of
policymakers, industry, and labor that the U.S. relationship with Mexico is not being fully leveraged to
maximize North American competitiveness vis-à-vis other economic regions such as Europe or East and Southeast
Asia.21 Many argue the border has become more difficult and costly to cross as a result of
inadequate infrastructure investment and the increased security measures put in place after
September 11, 2001. Extended and unpredictable wait times at the border create a disincentive
to bilateral trade and production sharing, disrupting production chains and disproportionately
hurting small and medium sized businesses. Nearly 80% of trade with Mexico is land trade,
meaning it enters or exits the U.S. through one of the ports of entry along the Southwest border.22 The
enhanced use of techniques, such as pre-inspection clearance, that facilitate the secure flow of goods across the
border can help lower the costs of trade and encourage production sharing.23 Recognizing the need to
prioritize both security and the economy, the U.S. and Mexican governments developed the 21st Century Border Initiative to expedite
secure, legal traffic by trusted parties and thereby free up capacity for border security personnel to investigate potentially dangerous
goods and individuals. Strong cooperation at the border allowed the United States and Mexico to open
three new border crossings in 2010, two in Texas and one in Arizona. There is no doubt that the
economies of the United States and Mexico are facing serious challenges. While much of the risk is due to
external pressures, whether the rise of Asian competition or fears of crisis in Europe, much of the solution lies in strengthening
regional competitiveness. Efforts to improve border management, harmonize regional regulation, and simplify
rules of origin are a good starting point, but improving policy requires surmounting certain
political challenges. The path forward, then, must be based in a clear understanding that enhanced cooperation with Mexico
strengthens the economy of the United States. The solution begins with a vision of the United States and Mexico as partners rather
than competitors.
Manufacturing is key to both economies and can be improved by
infrastructure
Selee and Wilson 12 [Andrew Selee, Vice President for Programs and Senior Advisor to the Mexico Institute, Christopher
Wilson, associate with the Mexico Institute, “A New Agenda with Mexico”, Wilson Center, November 2012,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/a_new_agenda_with_mexico.pdf]//PP
In most trading relationships, the U.S. simply buys or sells finished goods to another country. However, with its neighbors,
Mexico and Canada, the U.S. actually co-manufactures products. Indeed, roughly 40 percent of all
content in Mexican exports to the United States originates in the United States. The comparable
figures with China, Brazil, and India are four, three, and two percent respectively. Only Canada, at 25 percent, is similar. With the
economies of North America deeply linked, growth in one country benefits the others, and
lowering the transaction costs of goods crossing the common borders among these three
countries helps put money in the pockets of both workers and consumers. Improving border
ports of entry is critical to achieving this and will require moderate investments in infrastructure
and staffing, as well as the use of new risk management techniques and the expansion of pre-inspection and trusted shipper
programs to speed up border crossing times. Transportation costs could be further lowered — and
competitiveness further strengthened — by pursuing an Open Skies agreement and making permanent the crossborder trucking pilot program. While these are generally seen as border issues, the benefits accrue to all
U.S. states that depend on exports and joint manufacturing with Mexico, including Michigan, Ohio,
Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota, New Hampshire, and Georgia, to name just a few. Mexico also has both abundant oil
reserves and one of the largest stocks of shale gas in the world. The country will probably pursue
a major energy reform over the next couple years that could spur oil and gas production, which has
been declining over the past decade. If that happens, it is certain to detonate a cycle of investment in the
Mexican economy, could significantly contribute to North American energy security, and may open a
space for North American discussions about deepened energy cooperation
Manufacturing sector is key to business and consumer confidence
Villarreal 10 [M. Angeles Villarreal, Specialist in International Trade and Finance, “The Mexican Economy after the Global
Financial Crisis” Congressional Research Service, September 9, 2010 http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41402_20100909.pdf] //PP
Manufacturing industries have been severely affected by the decline in external demand, particularly
in high-value added industries. The sharp drop in exports to the United States led to a large drop in
industrial production. As a result, business and consumer confidence has weakened to record
lows and subsequently has put downward pressure on consumption and investment. 26 Job losses in Mexico increased in 2008 and 2009, with
possibilities of further job losses in export-oriented assembly plants as they cut capacity due to the downturn in demand.
Drug crackdown is currently harming the manufacturing industries at the
border
Villarreal 10 [M. Angeles Villarreal, Specialist in International Trade and Finance, “The Mexican Economy after the Global
Financial Crisis” Congressional Research Service, September 9, 2010 http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41402_20100909.pdf]//PP
In addition to the adverse effects from the global financial crisis and the U.S. economic
contraction, Mexico’s economy is experiencing numerous other challenges. The
escalation of violence since the government’s crackdown on organized crime and
drug trafficking has led to investor uncertainty in some regions of the country and,
subsequently, a sharp decline in foreign direct investment flows. The impact has been
the most severe on the manufacturing industry, which is mostly located along the
U.S.-Mexico border and has experienced significant job losses. Increasing unemployment
throughout the country has led to a growing trend towards informality and self-employment. This may present a long-term problem
for the government because growth in the informal sector can lead to increased poverty levels, diminished productivity, and lower
prospects for sustained economic growth. Another issue is the 16% drop in remittances to Mexico in 2009, which have mostly
affected the poor. Remittance inflows, which are largely from the United States, are Mexico’s second-highest source of foreign
currency after oil.
Impacts
--Deterrence
Manufacturing capabilities key to technology necessary for U.S. deterrence
O’Hanlon et al 12 (Mackenzie Eaglen, American Enterprise Institute Rebecca Grant, IRIS Research Robert P. Haffa, Haffa
Defense Consulting Michael O'Hanlon, The Brookings Institution Peter W. Singer, The Brookings Institution Martin Sullivan,
Commonwealth Consulting Barry Watts, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments “The Arsenal of Democracy and How to
Preserve
It:
Key
Issues
in
Defense
Industrial
Policy
January
2012,”
pg
online
@
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/1/26%20defense%20industrial%20base/0126_defense_industria
l_base_ohanlon //um-ef)
The current wave of defense cuts is also different than past defense budget reductions in their likely industrial impact, as the
U.S. defense industrial base is in a much different place than it was in the past.
Defense industrial issues are too often viewed through the lens of jobs and pet projects to
protect in congressional districts. But the overall health of the firms that supply the
technologies our armed forces utilize does have national security resonance .
Qualitative superiority in weaponry and other key military technology has become an
essential element of American military power in the modern era— not only for winning wars
but for deterring them . That requires world-class scientific and manufacturing
capabilities—which in turn can also generate civilian and military export opportunities
for the United States in a globalized marketplace.
Defense industrial base deters war with Russia
Watts 2008 (Senior Fellow @ The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (Barry D, “The US Defense Industrial
Base, Past, Present and Future,” CBA,
__http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20081015._The_US_Defense_In/R.20081015._The_US_Defense_In.
pdf__)
the US defense industrial base has been a source of long-term strategic
advantage for the United States, just as it was during World War II. American defense
companies provided the bombers and missiles on which nuclear deterrence
rested and armed the US military with world-class weapons, including lowobservable aircraft, wide-area surveillance and targeting sensors, and reliable
guided munitions cheap enough to be employed in large numbers . They also
Since the 1950s,
contributed to the development of modern digital computers, successfully orbited the first reconnaissance satellites, put a man
on the moon in less than a decade, and played a pivotal role in developing the worldwide web. Critics have long emphasized
President Eisenhower’s warning in his farewell television address that the nation needed to “guard against the acquisition of
undue influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” Usually forgotten or ignored has been an
earlier, equally important, passage in Eisenhower’s January 1961 speech: A vital element in keeping the peace is
our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so
that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction .
Eisenhower’s warning about undue influence, rather than the need to maintain American military strength, tends to dominate
contemporary discussions of the US defense industrial base. While the percentage of US gross domestic product going to
national defense remains low compared to the 1950s and 1960s, there is a growing list of defense programs that have
experienced problems with cost, schedule, and, in a few cases, weapon performance. In fairness, the federal government,
including the Department of Defense and Congress, is at least as much to blame for many of these programmatic difficulties as
US defense firms. Nevertheless, those critical of the defense industry tend to concentrate on these acquisition shortcomings.
The main focus of this report is on a larger question. How prepared is the US defense
industrial base to meet the needs of the US military Services in coming decades? The Cold War
challenge of Soviet power has largely ebbed, but new challenges have emerged. There is the immediate
threat of the violence stemming from SalafiTakfiri and Khomeinist terrorist groups and their state
sponsors, that have consumed so much American blood and treasure in Iraq; the longer-term challenge of authoritarian
capitalist regimes epitomized by the rise of China and a resurgent Russia; and, not least, the
worsening problem of proliferation, particularly of nuclear weapons. In the face of these more
complex and varied challenges, it would surely be premature to begin dismantling the US
defense industry. From a competitive perspective, therefore, the vital question about the defense
industrial base is whether it will be as much a source of long-term advantage in the decades
ahead as it has been since the 1950s.
That’s the only scenario for Extinction
Bostrom, 2002
[Nick, Professor of Philosophy and Global Studies at Yale, "Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related
Hazards," 38, www.transhumanist.com/volume9/risks.html]
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and
the USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and
with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was
a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon
would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.[4]
Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation ,
either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note
however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not
destroy or thwart humankind’s potential permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most
likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to
the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.
--Tech Innovation
All levels of manufacturing and R&D are interconnected – a sustainable
manufacturing base in the U.S. is critical to Advanced Manufacturing and
R&D
Lind 12 (Michael Lind is policy director of New America’s Economic Growth Program and a co-founder of the New America
Foundation. Joshua Freedman is a program associate in New America’s Economic Growth Program. “Value Added: America’s
Manufacturing Future,” pg online @
http://growth.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/Lind,%20Michael%20and%20Freedman,%20Joshua%20%20NAF%20-%20Value%20Added%20America%27s%20Manufacturing%20Future.pdf //um-ef)
Manufacturing, R&D and the U.S. Innovation Ecosystem Perhaps the greatest contribution of
manufacturing to the U.S. economy as a whole involves the disproportionate role of the
manufacturing sector in R&D . The expansion in the global market for high-valueadded services has allowed the U.S. to play to its strengths by expanding its trade surplus in
services, many of them linked to manufacturing, including R&D, engineering, software production and
finance. Of these services, by far the most important is R&D. The United States has long led the world in
R&D. In 1981, U.S. gross domestic expenditure on R&D was more than three times as large as that of any other country in the
world. And the U.S. still leads: in 2009, the most recent year for which there is available data, the United States spent more
than 400 billion dollars. European countries spent just under 300 billion dollars combined, while China spent about 150
billion dollars.14 In the United States, private sector manufacturing is the largest source of R&D. The private sector itself
accounts for 71 percent of total R&D in the United States, and although U.S. manufacturing accounts for only 11.7 percent of
GDP in 2012, the manufacturing sector accounts for 70 percent of all R&D spending by the private sector in
the U.S.15 And R&D and innovation are inextricably connected: a National Science Foundation survey
found that 22 percent of manufacturers had introduced product innovations and the same percentage introduced process
innovations in the period 2006-2008, while only 8 percent of nonmanufacturers reported innovations of either kind.16 Even
as the manufacturing industry in the United States underwent major changes and suffered severe job losses during the last
decade, R&D spending continued to follow a general upward growth path. A disproportionate share of workers
involved in R&D are employed directly or indirectly by manufacturing companies ; for example,
the US manufacturing sector employs more than a third of U.S. engineers. 17 This
means that manufacturing provides much of the demand for the U.S. innovation
ecosystem, supporting large numbers of scientists and engineers who might not
find employment if R&D were offshored along with production. Why America Needs the Industrial
Commons Manufacturing creates an industrial commons, which spurs growth in multiple sectors of the economy through
linked industries. An “industrial commons” is a base of shared physical facilities and intangible
knowledge shared by a number of firms. The term “commons” comes from communallyshared pastures or
fields in premodern Britain. The industrial commons in particular in the manufacturing sector
includes not only large companies but also small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), which
employ 41 percent of the American manufacturing workforce and account for 86 percent of
all manufacturing establishments in the U.S. Suppliers of materials, component parts, tools,
and more are all interconnected ; most of the time, Harvard Business School professors Gary Pisano and
Willy Shih point out, these linkages are geographic because of the ease of interaction and knowledge transfer between firms.18
Examples of industrial commons surrounding manufacturing are evident in the United States, including the I-85 corridor
from Alabama to Virginia and upstate New York.19 Modern economic scholarship emphasizes the
importance of geographic agglomeration effects and co-location synergies. 20 Manufacturers
and researchers alike have long noted the symbiotic relationship that occurs when
manufacturing and R&D are located near each other: the manufacturer benefits from
the innovation, and the researchers are better positioned to understand where
innovation can be found and to test new ideas. While some forms of knowledge can be easily
recorded and transferred, much “know-how” in industry is tacit knowledge. This valuable tacit knowledge base
can be damaged or destroyed by the erosion of geographic linkages, which in turn shrinks
the pool of scientists and engineers in the national innovation ecosystem . If an advanced
manufacturing core is not retained, then the economy stands to lose not only the manufacturing industry itself but also the
geographic synergies of the industrial commons, including R&D. Some have warned that this is already the case: a
growing
share of R&D by U.S. multinational corporations is taking place outside of the United
States.21 In particular, a number of large U.S. manufacturers have opened up or expanded R&D facilities in China over the
last few years.22 Next Generation Manufacturing A dynamic manufacturing sector in the
U.S. is as important as ever . But thanks to advanced manufacturing technology and technology-enabled
integration of manufacturing and services, the very nature of manufacturing is changing, often in radical ways. What will the
next generation of manufacturing look like? In 1942, the economist Joseph Schumpeter declared that “the process of creative
destruction is the essential fact about capitalism.” By creative destruction, Schumpeter did not mean the rise and fall of firms
competing in a technologically-static marketplace. He referred to a “process of industrial mutation— if I may use that
biological term—that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one,
incessantly creating the new one.” He noted that “these revolutions are not strictly incessant; they occurred in discrete rushes
that are separated from each other by spaces of comparative quiet. The process as a whole works incessantly, however, in the
sense that there is always either revolution or absorption of the results of revolution.”23 As Schumpeter and others have
observed, technological innovation tends to be clustered in bursts or waves, each dominated by one or a few transformative
technologies that are sometimes called “general purpose technologies.” Among the most world-transforming general purpose
technologies of recent centuries have been the steam engine, electricity, the internal combustion engine, and information
technology.24 As epochal as these earlier technology-driven innovations in manufacturing processes and business models
proved to be, they are rapidly being superseded by new technologydriven changes as part of the never-ending process of
Schumpeterian industrial mutation. The latest wave of innovation in industrial technology has been
termed “advanced manufacturing.” The National Science and Technology Council of the Executive Office of
the President defines advanced manufacturing as “a family of activities that (a) depend on the use and coordination of
information, automation, computation, software, sensing, and networking, and/or (b) make use of cutting edge materials and
emerging capabilities enabled by the physical and biological sciences, for example, nanotechnology,
chemistry, and biology. It involves both new ways to manufacture existing products and the
manufacture of new products emerging from new advanced technologies.”25 Already computer-
aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) programs, combined with computer numerical control (CNC),
allow precision manufacturing from complex designs, eliminating many wasteful trials and steps in finishing. CNC is now
ubiquitous in the manufacturing sector and much of the employment growth occurring in the sector requires CNC skills or
training. Information technology has allowed for enterprise resource planning (ERP) and other forms of enterprise software to
connect parts of the production process (both between and within a firm), track systems, and limit waste when dealing with
limited resources. Other areas in which advanced manufacturing will play a role in creating new products
are: Supercomputing. America’s global leadership in
technology depends in part on whether the U.S. can compete with Europe and
Asia in the race to develop “exascale computing,” a massive augmentation of computer calculating
and sectors and changing current ones
power that has the potential to revolutionize predictive sci ences from meteorology to economics. According to the Advanced
Scientific Computing Advisory Committee (ASCAC), “If the U.S. chooses to be a follower rather than a
leader in exascale computing, we must be willing to cede leadership” in industries including
aerospace, automobiles, energy, health care, novel material development, and information
technology.26 Robotics: The long-delayed promise of robotics is coming closer to
fulfillment. Google and other firms and research consortiums are testing robotic cars, and Nevada recently amended its
laws to permit autonomous automobiles.27 Amazon is experimenting with the use of robots in its warehouses.28
Nanotechnology may permit manufacturing at extremely small scales including the molecular
and atomic levels.29
Nanotechnology is also a key research component in the semiconductor indusmanutry, as
government funding is sponsoring projects to create a “new switch” capable of supplanting current semiconductor
technology.30 Photonics or optoelectronics, based on the conversion of information carried by electrons to photons and back,
has potential applications in sectors as diverse as telecommunications, data storage, lighting and consumer electronics.
Biomanufacturing is the use of biological processes or living organisms to create inorganic
structures, as well as food, drugs and fuel. Researchers at MIT have genetically modified a virus that generates
cobalt oxide nanowires for silicon chips.31 Innovative materials include artificial “metamaterials” with novel properties.
Carbon nanotubes, for example, have a strength-to-weight ratio that no other material can match.32 Advanced manufacturing
using these and other cuttingedge technologies is not only creating new products and new methods of production but is also
transforming familiar products like automobiles. The rapid growth in electronic and software content in automobiles, in forms
like GPS-based guidance systems, information and entertainment technology, anti-lock brakes and engine control systems,
will continue. According to Ford, around 30 percent of the value of one of its automobiles is comprised by intellectual
property, electronics and software. In the German automobile market, electronic content as a share of production costs is
expected to rise from 20-30 percent in 2007 to 50 percent by 2020.33
Independently, that innovation solves great power wars
Taylor 2k4 (Mark, Professor of Political Science – Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “The Politics of Technological
Change: International Relations versus Domestic Institutions”, 4-1, http://www.scribd.com/doc/46554792/Taylor)
Technological innovation is of central importance to the study of international relations (IR),
affecting almost every aspect of the sub-field. 2 First and foremost, a nation’s technological
capability has a significant effect on its economic growth, industrial might, and military
prowess; therefore relative national technological capabilities necessarily influence the
balance of power between states, and hence have a role in calculations of war and
alliance formation. Second, technology and innovative capacity also determine a nation’s trade profile, affecting which
products it will import and export, as well as where multinational corporations will base their production facilities. 3 Third,
insofar as innovation-driven economic growth both attracts investment and produces surplus capital, a nation’s
technological ability will also affect international financial flows and who has power over them.
4 Thus, in broad theoretical terms, technological change is important to the study of IR because of its overall implications for
history also tells us
that nations on the technological ascent generally experience a corresponding
and dramatic change in their global stature and influence , such as Britain during the first
both the relative and absolute power of states. And if theory alone does not convince, then
industrial revolution, the United States and Germany during the second industrial revolution, and Japan during the twentieth
century. 5 Conversely, great powers which fail to maintain their place at the technological
frontier generally drift and fade from influence on international scene. 6 This is not to suggest that
technological innovation alone determines international politics, but rather that shifts in both relative and
absolute technological capability have a major impact on i nternational r elations, and therefore need to be
better understood by IR scholars. Indeed, the importance of technological innovation to international
relations is seldom disputed by IR theorists. Technology is rarely the sole or overriding causal variable in any
given IR theory, but a broad overview of the major theoretical debates reveals the ubiquity of technological causality. For
example, from Waltz to Posen, almost all Realists have a place for technology in their explanations of international politics. 7
At the very least, they describe it as an essential part of the distribution of material capabilities across nations, or an indirect
source of military doctrine. And for some, like Gilpin quoted above, technology is the very cornerstone of great
power domination, and its transfer the main vehicle by which war and change
occur in world politics . 8 Jervis tells us that the balance of offensive and defensive
military technology affects the incentives for war. 9 Walt agrees, arguing that technological
change can alter a state’s aggregate power, and thereby affect both alliance formation and
the international balance of threats. 10 Liberals are less directly concerned with technological change, but they
must admit that by raising or lowering the costs of using force, technological progress affects the rational attractiveness of
international cooperation and regimes. 11 Technology also lowers information & transactions costs and
thus increases the applicability of international institutions,
a cornerstone of Liberal IR
theory. 12 And in fostering flows of trade, finance, and information, technological change can lead to Keohane’s
interdependence 13 or Thomas Friedman et al’s globalization. 14 Meanwhile, over at the “third debate”, Constructivists
cover the causal spectrum on the issue, from Katzenstein’s “cultural norms” which shape security concerns and
thereby affect technological innovation; 15 to Wendt’s “stripped down technological determinism” in which technology
inevitably drives nations to form a world state. 16 However most Constructivists seem to
favor Wendt, arguing that new technology changes people’s identities within
society, and sometimes even creates new cross-national constituencies, thereby affecting international
politics. 17 Of course, Marxists tend to see technology as determining all social relations and the
entire course of history, though they describe mankind’s major fault lines as running between economic classes rather
than nation-states. 18 Finally, Buzan & Little remind us that without advances in the technologies of transportation,
communication, production, and war, international systems would not exist in the first place
And, advanced manufacturing technology will make war IMPOSSIBLE (This
card is dumb)
Paone 9 (Chuck, 66th Air Base Wing Public Affairs for the US Air Force, 8-10-09, “Technology convergence could prevent war,
futurist says,” http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123162500)
The convergence of "exponentially advancing technologies" will form a "super-intelligence"
so formidable that it could avert war, according to one of the world's leading futurists. Dr.
James Canton, CEO and chairman of the Institute for Global Futures, a San Francisco-based think tank, is author of the
He is
consistently listed among the world's leading speakers and has presented to diverse audiences around the
book "The Extreme Future" and an adviser to leading companies, the military and other government agencies.
globe. He will address the Air Force Command and Control Intelligence, Survelliance and Reconnaissance Symposium, which
will be held Sept. 28 through 30 at the MGM Grand Hotel at Foxwoods in Ledyard, Conn., joining Air Force Chief of Staff Gen.
Norton Schwartz and a bevy of other government and industry speakers. He offered a sneak preview of his symposium
presentation and answered various questions about the future of technology and warfare in early August. " The
superiority of convergent technologies will prevent war," Doctor Canton said, claiming
their power would present an overwhelming deterrent to potential
adversaries . While saying that the U.S. will build these super systems faster and better than other nations, he
acknowledged that a new arms race is already under way. "It will be a new MAD for the 21st century," he said, referring to the
Cold War-era acronym for Mutually Assured Destruction, the idea that a nuclear first strike would trigger an equally deadly
response. It's commonly held that this knowledge has essentially prevented any rational state from launching a nuclear attack.
Likewise, Doctor Canton said he believes rational nation states, considering this imminent technology
explosion, will see the futility of nation-on-nation warfare in the near future.
Plus there's the
"socio-economic linking of the global market system." "The fundamental macroeconomics on the planet favor peace, security,
capitalism and prosperity," he said. Doctor Canton projects that nations, including those not currently allied, will work
together in using these smart technologies to prevent non-state actors from engaging in disruptive and deadly acts. As a
futurist, Doctor Canton and his team study and predict many things, but their main area of expertise -- and the
one in which he's personally most interested -- is
advanced and emerging technology. "I see that as the key
catalyst of strategic change on the planet, and it will be for the next 100 years," he said. He focuses on
six specific technology areas: "nano, bio, IT, neuro, quantum and robotics;"
those he expects to converge in so powerful a way. Within the information technology arena, Doctor Canton
said systems must create "meaningful data," which can be validated and acted upon. "Knowledge engineering for
the analyst and the warfighter is a critical competency that we need to get our arms around ,"
he said. "Having an avalanche of data is not going to be helpful." Having the right data is. "There's no way for the human
operator to look at an infinite number of data streams and extract meaning," he said. "The question then is: How do we
augment the human user with advanced artificial intelligence, better software presentation and better visual frameworks, to
create a system that is situationally aware and can provide decision options for the human operator, faster than the human
being can?" He said he believes the answers can often be found already in what he calls 'edge cultures.' "I would look outside of
the military. What are they doing in video games? What are they doing in healthcare? What about the financial industry?"
Doctor Canton said he believes that more sophisticated artificial intelligence applications will
transform business, warfare and life in general. Many of these are already embedded in systems or products,
he says, even if people don't know it.
--U.S.-China War
Loss of manufacturing Risks a China-Taiwan War
Steven Mosher 2/14/06 (President of the Population Research Institute, CQ Congressional Testimony, “Chinese Influence on
U.S. Foreign Policy” pg lexis)
The ruthless mercantilism practiced by the CCP is thus a form of economic warfare. China's rulers seek to move as
much of the world's manufacturing base to their country as possible,
thus increasing the PRC's
by hollowing out
America's industrial base in general and key defense-related sectors of the economy in particular.
China will not lightly abandon this policy, which strengthens China as it weakens the U.S., and is an integral part of
China's drive for Hegemony. China is Acquiring the Means to Project Force Far Beyond Taiwan. Many of
"comprehensive national strength" at the same time that it undermines U.S. national security
China's military modernization efforts supersonic anti- ship cruise missiles, stealthy submarines, theater based missiles with
terminal guidance systems are aimed specifically at U.S. forces and bases. By is acquiring weapons designed to exploit U.S.
vulnerabilities, the PRC is clearly preparing for a contest with the United States. Beijing is interested in deterring,
delaying, or complicating U.S. assistance to Taiwan in the event of an invasion, so as to
force a quick capitulation by the democratically elected Taiwan government. But while the near-
term focus is Taiwan, many of China's new lethal capabilities are applicable to a wide range of potential operations beyond the
Taiwan Strait. As the 2005 Report to Congress of the USCC report notes, "China is in the midst of an extensive force
modernization program aimed at increasing its force projection capabilities and confronting U.S. and allied forces in the
region." The rapid growth in China's military power not only threatens Taiwan and by implication the U.S.
but U.S. allies throughout the Asian Pacific region. China possesses regional, even global ambitions, and is building a first-rate
military to realize those ambitions. It is naive to view the PRC's military build-up as "merely" part of the preparations for an
invasion of Taiwan in which American military assets in the Asian- Pacific will have to be neutralized.
Extinction.
The Strait Times, 2000 [“No one gains in war over Taiwan”, June 25, Lexis]
The high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and
China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes
unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors - raise the
possibility of a nuclear war . Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and
logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea,
Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the
conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With
the US
distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East
may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with
its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war?
According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US
had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a
personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said
that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the
US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of
winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons . The US estimates that China possesses about
20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military
officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General
Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International
Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the
military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a
result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilization.
There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear
Armageddon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it
cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.
---Ext US-China War
More evidence, manufacturing decline = China buildup which causes
Taiwan war
The Augusta Chronicle in ‘5 (“Getting our lunch eaten”, 4-10, L/N)
A few years ago, warnings about America's eroding manufacturing base were met with
dismissive shrugs and charges of "chicken littleism." Not so today. In fact, you can see blue shards of sky all around
on the ground: 1.4 million manufacturing jobs lost - alarmingly - just during the economic recovery of the past
three years; wages stuck at 1972 levels; catastrophic trade deficits, most notably a $168 billion deficit with China alone.
Thankfully, the U.S. Senate, at the urging of South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham and New York Democrat Charles
Schumer, will vote sometime before July 27 to impose a 27.5 percent tariff on Chinese goods unless China stops undervaluing
its currency by pegging it to the dollar. The linkage puts American manufacturers at a huge disadvantage. Such measures
constitutionally must originate in the House - but at least Congress is waking up. It needs to, and quick. China
is not only eating our lunch, but is preparing it, shipping it to us and loaning us money to
buy it. It's not all above-board, either. The American Manufac-turing Trade Action Coalition (AMTAC) calls China "a serial
intellectual property rights violator." So, in essence, China is also stealing some of the ingredients of our lunch that it's eating.
Moreover, China is using the windfall to build its own manufacturing base, including what will
no doubt become a 21st-century military superpower. The communist country's economic
dominance will surely lead to a spread of its military influence - nightmarish news for the
United States, Taiwan and other freedom-loving nations.
--Military Readiness
Manufacturing key to the economy and military readiness
Cooper 7 (Horace Cooper, Senior Fellow and deputy director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, “Making it in
America”, April 04, 2007, http://www.americanmanufacturing.org/articles/making-it-america)
Why should those who support limited government and liberty care about what happens to manufacturing in America?
Because manufacturing is a crucial component of who we are as a country. As far back as Alexander
Hamilton, our founders understood that America’s merchants and industrialists would shape American society directly by
providing jobs and indirectly by enhancing our nation’s economic might. Today, manufacturing continues to play
that role as part of a maturing and stable manufacturing sector. Additionally, this key sector of
the economy continues to provide Americans with better jobs and a greater quality of life.
And despite what you may think, manufacturing today isn’t a small part of our economy. It is the key
engine. If American manufacturing was its own country, it would have the world’s 8thlargest economy. With a manufacturing output nearly as great as the entire GDP of China
and more than the economies of Australia, Belgium and Brazil combined, “made in
America” is more than a slogan, it’s the American way. Yes, America is the world’s No. 1
manufacturer—its activities accounting for a staggering one-quarter of all manufacturing on
the planet as recently as 2004. As significant as it is worldwide, it is its effects on our economy at
home that are more noteworthy. Domestic manufacturing is vital to the rest of our
economy. Nearly 14.5 million Americans work directly in the manufacturing industry and another 8 million do so in related
industries such as wholesaling and finance. A phenomenon economists refer to as the multiplier effect causes the growth and
expansion in the manufacturing sector to generate significant salutary effects on other sectors, resulting in more jobs,
investment and innovation in those sectors as well. Today the manufacturing sector is responsible for 70 percent of all U.S.
private-sector research and development. And more than half of all U.S. exports stem from domestic manufacturing. Much of
America’s energy conservation activity is found here; American manufacturing is the center for a range of innovative
technologies that reduce energy use and promote a cleaner environment. Letting this powerful engine slip away would be
disastrous. But as the attentive reader knows, all is not well with American manufacturing. Although many claim it is the
manufacturing sector itself which is to blame, the evidence rebuts this argument. U.S. companies are not running away from
America. The latest available data indicates that U.S. manufacturers invested about $170 billion in factories and equipment in
the United States in 2005, while their foreign investment to the rest of the world was only $39 billion. That means more than
80 percent of the investment by American firms stayed here at home. The truth is that a combination of recessions in the
United States, strikingly high energy prices along with the predatory trading practices of many other countries have
significantly eroded American manufacturing influence. Reaching a high of 53 percent of the economy in 1965, domestic
manufacturing accounts for only 9 percent of GDP 40 years later. Not since the beginning of the industrial revolution has a
lower percentage of Americans worked in American manufacturing as they do today. Tellingly, just since 2000, the
manufacturing sector has lost nearly 3 million jobs. There can be no doubt, however, the manufacturing sector is under siege.
The losses over time have been quite substantial. Now some in Washington wonder if manufacturing can make it all. Worse,
they openly speculate it wouldn’t be missed. The idea that manufacturing can’t make it here in America is wrong-headed and
dangerous. But perhaps greater than the economic disruption in the lives of the workforce and
their companies is the incalculable loss of a manufacturing base for our nation as a whole.
There are those in Washington who fail to appreciate the attendant decline in our nation’s
security and flexibility in foreign affairs that results from the collapse of this sector. The fall of
the Berlin Wall and the unipolarity that resulted presents the United States far greater responsibilities and concerns than
those that existed during the Cold War. Yet, our failure to sustain our domestic manufacturing base and
instead pursuing a strategy of relying on other countries for military products and
technologies isn’t just short-sided, it’s dangerous. This decline in our country’s
military readiness is a signal to the rest of the world that we may not be
capable of defending our interests or allies. And perhaps one of the greatest lessons of the 20th
century is that weakness at home is provocative. Essentially, we provoke rogue nations into
taking ill-advised actions that must inevitably be countered by America’s
military might. A policy that results in a diminished security for Americans, fewer jobs, a
declining tax base for communities and states and that rejects our nation’s history is a
policy that should be reassessed. Supporters of liberty and freedom recognize that American ingenuity and know-
how is a core ingredient of our manufacturing sector and has led to much of the high standard of living we Americans take for
granted. At our country’s founding and for much of its history, we’ve recognized the benefits of a strong and robust
manufacturing sector. It is the mainstay for our nation’s exports, provides salaries nearly 25 percent higher than other sectors,
supports the tax base in communities across the nation, and is essential to our nation’s security needs. It is a sector that should
be welcomed and encouraged today.
Kills Heg
Spencer 2K Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation
(Jack, “The Facts about military readiness”, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #1394)
Military readiness is vital because declines in America's military readiness
signal to the rest of the world
that the United States is not prepared to defend its interests. Therefore, potentially hostile nations
will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interests, inevitably leading to U.S.
involvement in combat. A high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially
hostile nations from acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest, thereby preserving
peace
--XT: military readiness
Manufacturing losses cause energy independence and undermine military
readiness
BJD 10 (Business Journal Daily, “Senators call for U.S. Manufacturing Policy”, March 2, 2010, http://business-
journal.com/senators-call-for-us-manufacturing-policy-p15849.htm?twindow=Default&smenu=1&mad=No)TJ *Note, this is a letter sent from
Senators (Brown, Graham, Dodd, Snowe, Stabenow, Cochran, Reed, Levin, & Casey) to the President.
The global economic crisis poses new challenges to American manufacturing. The U.S. manufacturing sector is
the world’s largest, but it will not remain so unless our nation acts, and acts now, to reverse
its decline. The loss of manufacturing plants and jobs has stifled economic opportunity for
middle class families and compromised our ability to compete in the 21st century economy.
Indeed, for the last several decades, administrations have passed up critical opportunities to formulate a rational and
comprehensive manufacturing policy. Continued apathy will undermine our country’s ability
to achieve energy independence and place our military readiness at risk . We are
convinced that the recovery and long-term health of our economy depend on a strong,
competitive U.S. industrial manufacturing base. Therefore we appreciate your release late last year of “A
Framework for Revitalizing American Manufacturing.” The framework represents a thoughtful approach to
recognizing manufacturing’s importance to the middle class, our energy security, and our
national defense. In particular, we agree with many of the basic strategies for reinvigorating U.S. manufacturing as
outlined in Section III of the framework. Developing a highly skilled and productive workforce, investing in new and
emerging technologies, ensuring stable capital markets, providing support for communities in
transition, strengthening infrastructure, improving market access for U.S. exports, and
fostering entrepreneurial talent are all significant elements of an integrated policy strategy.
Without an adequate commitment of resources and coordination among every executive branch department, we are afraid
that the tenets of this framework may not be appropriately fulfilled. We would therefore respectfully request additional
information about how the Administration is putting these strategies to work, including specific goals, detailed initiatives
supporting those goals, and performance measures to help ensure continuous progress. We recognize that moving
forward promptly to support manufacturing companies and workers can speed America’s
recovery. Historically, the manufacturing sector has led the American economy out of
recession. For instance, the auto industry contributed significantly to the economic recovery
following the recession of the early 1980s. Today we need a multi-industry strategy to propel job and economic
growth, one that deploys federal resources and private-public partnerships to promote emerging manufacturing opportunities.
Today, nothing is more imperative than putting Americans back to work. We believe it will take a coordinated effort to assist
America’s entrepreneurs, innovators, and workers by advancing policies that enhance U.S. manufacturing, increase U.S.
competitiveness and export opportunities, and protect the quality of life for all Americans. We look forward to working with
you to promote U.S. manufacturing on behalf of working families and the manufacturers who employ them, and in support of
our nation’s continued global leadership.
China’s manufacturing is already hurting our military readiness
AM 2009 (AmericanManufacturing, “The GOP and the G20”, 09/04/2009,
http://americanmanufacturing.org/blog?p=4131)TJ
When leaders of the world’s largest economies meet at the G20 Summit this week in Pittsburg, the massive U.S.-China
imbalance will be at the top of the agenda for the American delegation. Americans have become very aware of
China ’s widespread economic cheating,
substandard manufacturing practices, and the collective damage
it has done to America’s economy, consumer safety and national security. And they’ve had quite
enough of it, thank you. Ten years ago when China acceded to the WTO and was awarded Permanent Normal Trade Status
with the U.S., it agreed to follow the rules of trade as our manufacturers do. Absent a few public displays of adherence, it has
done little to comply with regulations on intellectual property, environmental protections, government subsidies, floating its
currency and providing market access to trade partners. The U.S. has lost five million manufacturing jobs since 2000 – at least
2.3 million directly attributable to our trade imbalance with China. These include not just production workers, but
administrative, information technology, research and development, and management as well. Yet China has reported
an uptick in its manufacturing sector over the past three months and is heading toward its
highest manufacturing output since 2004. For the U.S. to force China to adhere to the trade agreements it
signed will take political will by both of America’s major political parties. But as labor in the manufacturing sector is
overwhelmingly unionized, it has always been considered the purview of Democrats. Free market conservatives who
demonstrate concerns about specific trade issues are reflexively and derisively labeled “protectionist.” I have spent countless
hours on conservative talk radio over the past few years commenting on China’s cheating,
substandard products, the loss of U.S. manufacturing and its effect on our
military readiness – yet no host or caller has ever yelled “protectionist!” at me. Voters are concerned with
consumer safety problems with Chinese goods, that the country holds enough U.S. debt to rattle our financial cage at any time,
and that manufacturing job loss here has hindered domestic sourcing requirements for our military. The positive reaction I’ve
received from grassroots activists, faith and family conservatives and the GOP faithful when discussing China-U.S. issues
demonstrates that their party shouldn’t ignore constituents’ concerns on these topics. The GOP should not abandon
foundational principles about global trade and commerce, but should not use
manufacturing job loss to draw distinctions between their party and the Democrats either , as
the Republican party often gives the impression that they have no empathy for the plight of laid-off workers, struggling
families and devastated communities. Just from the fiscal perspective alone, every lay off is accompanied by a greater burden
on all taxpayers. Republicans should start by acknowledging manufacturing job loss and consumer safety problems as they
relate to China, and develop market-based reforms to turn the ship around. If not, they will stay on the margin in
many states and devastated communities throughout the country.
--Leadership
A. Declining manufacturing competitiveness devastates the US economy
and global leadership
Choate 2002
(Pat Choate, director of the Manufacturing Policy Project and Edward Miller, president of DSI, former
economic treaty negotiator, 2002, http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2000_2003/reports/analysis.htm)
For two centuries, industrial and military self-sufficiency was America’s policy. It succeeded
brilliantly. It protected against European adventurism in the 19th century. It enabled the nation to
become the richest, most industrialized country in the world. And it allowed America to be the arsenal of
democracy in the 20th century. Even when America disarmed following World War I and
again after World War II, it still had the industrial capacity -- the potential -- to re-arm quickly
if a threat emerged. And when one did, America’s factories quickly converted to war production,
allowing the Allied forces to out produce and ultimately overwhelm the Axis powers in the
1940s and hold off the enemy during the Korean War. Following the Korean War, the U.S. defense
industrial base was repeatedly modernized, again enabling the USA to cope with any foreign
threat. And self-sufficiency was taken a step further during the Cold War as the United
States actively led Europe, Japan and others in denying the Soviet Union the technologies,
machinery, skills, and research they needed to keep apace — economically and militarily.
That policy of strength and containment succeeded, too. The Soviet Union could not match the West, its people grew weary,
and that empire broke into pieces. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union, America seems to have quickly
forgotten the older lessons and policies that long served it well. In a very real way, the mood of
America in these first days of the 21st century is akin to that of America in the 1920s . Then, the
"war to end wars" had ended. The threat was gone. America could return to the business of America, which was perceived to
be business. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, America remains the sole super power .
Americans are generally prosperous. And while as recently as the 1980s, the global competitiveness of domestic
industries was a top concern of national leaders, their successors now focus on assuring stockholders higher share prices and
American consumers a steady flow of inexpensively produced goods, regardless of where they are made. Once again, the
business of America seems to be business. Today, a smaller, simpler, more trusting, view dominates. Terrorists are seen
as the principal threat to national security. The emergence of China -- a one-party, repressive, Communist
state — as an economic and military power is mainly seen not as a danger, but as a business opportunity. And global
economics is treated as something analogous to celestial mechanics -- a self-driven, selfcorrecting system in which markets balance supply and demand, assuring ever more growth
and development. But there is also something different about what America is doing now from what it did after World
War I and World War II. Then, the United States shifted military production back to civilian uses and even though military
expenditures were cut, the U.S. industrial base remained in America. The long-held policy of self-sufficiency was not
disturbed. Unlike in the past, however, now that the Cold War is over, the U.S. industrial base is being taken
apart, piece-by-piece, and relocated to other nations. In the process, much of American’s
industrial and military production base is being sold to foreign interests, and more
important a significant portion of it is being physically relocated into other nations,
including our most likely strategic rival — China.
--Nanotech Leadership
A. Manufacturing base key to prevent Chinese Leadership in nanotech and
ensure U.S. Leadership
Manufacturing and Technology News 5 (“Lack of Manufacturing Base Imperils U.S. Lead in Nanotechnology”
pg online @ http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/05/0708/art1.html //um-ef)
Nanotechnology, often touted as a key to maintaining the United States' global lead in
industrial productivity, is far from a sure thing for the U.S., according to the warnings
of experts who last week offered lawmakers varying assessments of the likelihood that the country will be able to capture
nano's economic benefits and varying prescriptions for doing so. "The manufacturing train has already left the
station" in some fields of nanomaterials, Matthew Nordan of New York-based Lux Research Inc. told the House
Science Subcommittee on Research at a June 29 hearing titled "Nanotechnology: Where Does the U.S. Stand?" Any
revitalization of the U.S. manufacturing base through nanotechnology could end up limited
to "pilot-scale manufacturing and manufacturing where specific skills are required," he
testified, characterizing these activities as "generally low volume." When it comes to the production of more basic
nanoproducts, he stated, "the U.S.'s economic opportunity is in coming up with the ideas that may be implemented in
manufacturing plants on other shores." Nordan's fellow witnesses -- venture capitalist Floyd Kvamme, who co-chairs the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), and Sean Murdock, executive director of the
nanotechnology policy and commercialization advocacy group NanoBusiness Alliance -- appeared less "prepared to cede the
manufacturing of nanotechnology-enabled products here in the United States," as Murdock put it. But the three did agree in
their fundamental assessment of the present: All view the United States as the world leader in
nanotechnology up to now, and all regard its lead as imperiled. Kvamme, citing an estimate
contained in the review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) published by PCAST in May, testified that the $1
billion in federal funding for nano R&D in Fiscal Year 2005 "is roughly one-quarter of the current global investment by all
nations." He placed the U.S.'s overall annual nano R&D effort at $3 billion, "one-third of the approximately $9 billion in total
worldwide spending by the public and private sectors." Additionally, the U.S. "leads in the number of start-up
companies based on nanotechnology and in research output as measured by patents and
publications." Still, Kvamme said, the U.S. is coming under "increased competitive
pressure," as "other countries are aggressively chasing [its] leadership
position," both by beefing up coordinated national programs and by focusing investments on
"areas of existing national economic strength." The U.S. lead in patents and publications, he added,
" appears to be slipping ." According to Nordan, whose company's figures were cited repeatedly by PCAST it its
report, even the U.S.'s current R&D spending lead is open to question. On the basis of purchasing-power parity, 2004
government spending on nano R&D in the U.S., at $5.42 per capita, came in below South Korea's $5.62, Japan's $6.30, and
Taiwan's $9.40. "The $130 million in estimated government spending on nanotech last year in
China equaled $611 million at purchasing-power parity, or 38 percent of U.S. expenditure,"
Nordan noted. That nations like China are free to direct "initial capital investments toward the
instrumentation needed for nanotechnology research, without having to maintain
technology infrastructures and skill sets that were cutting-edge 20 years ago" could add to
the comparative bang they're getting for their bucks. A figure cited in Murdock's testimony seems to
corroborate this assumption. In the period January to August 2004, China led the world in research papers on
nanotechnology, presenting 14 percent more than the U.S. And while the U.S., according to the NanoBusiness Alliance's
database, accounted for 613 of 1,175 companies worldwide that are "involved with nanotechnology," Murdock said that "if one
is to believe the announcements made at the ChinaNano2005 trade expo," China now has almost 800 such
companies. Keeping the edge in R&D is critical to Nordan because he believes that, for the U.S., the
economic advantage to be derived from nanotechnology begins and ends with intellectual
property (IP). He pointed to Japan's Frontier Carbon, whose 40-ton-per-year capacity for the manufacture of fullerenes,
based on a process licensed from an MIT spinoff company, surpasses last year's total world demand by more than 25 times.
"It's unlikely," he told the subcommittee, "that you're going to find U.S.-based companies investing that far ahead of demand
in order to attain manufacturing dominance" in basic nanomaterials. The U.S. cannot maintain an edge, he
argued, by
offering "low labor costs or tax advantages for capital investment in manufacturing
facilities" in an attempt to "go toe-to-toe against...countries that have more runway to go
down in terms of economic development based on nanotechnology." Nor, he said, can it prevent the
transfer overseas of research, whether "through a patent process [or] to a country that perhaps does not have the respect for
Instead, the U.S. should seek
"to have an unremitting, relentless flow of novel ideas that take time and keep
us continually two, three, five years ahead of what other countries can attain,"
intellectual property rights that Western European and U.S. nations hold."
Nordan maintained. "The achievement that we can drive toward is to always be ahead and always be first to market with those
novel ideas, and through that I think we'll attain economic rewards." Murdock, while concurring on the importance of
enforcing IP laws, countered that keeping manufacturing in the U.S. is critical to the nation's economic health. "I believe that
we need to endeavor to be more than just IP companies," he stated, in view of a projection by Nordan's firm that "new,
emerging nanotechnology applications will...becom[e] incorporated into 15 percent of global manufacturing output totaling
$2.6 trillion in 2014." "If you look at the total value associated with any product, most of the value tends to accrue to those that
are closest to the customer -- that, in fact, make it. And while IP may have higher margins, ultimately there is a big value pool
out there, and we need to ensure that we're taking steps to capture the value. "Furthermore, IP is not the
only source of intellectual capital," Murdock added. "There is know-how. And
that is the reason for the importance of manufacturing. Ultimately, when we
move from the knowledge or the proof of principle into making the stuff, we
develop process knowledge. That process knowledge helps us to refine and improve
both the quality of the product and the throughput, and it increases the marginal
productivity of the labor. That is what enables us to pay high wages and keep jobs here. "So
while we need to be realistic and understand that this is a global economy, we also need to take steps to do what
we can to ensure that we do commercialize and manufacture the set of technologies that we
can here."
B. Chinese Leadership guarantees extinction
Lev Navrozov 2004 (Winner of the Albert Einstein Prize for Outstanding Intellectual Achievements, “The Center for
Responsible Nanotechnology ‘Plans Ahead’
“We at the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., believe that the West being what it is at
present, there is only one scenario. Two countries could develop nuclear weapons by 1945: the United
States and Germany. The latter did not launch a Manhattan Project, since no one could vouch to Hitler in 1939 that nuclear
weapons were possible within a few years, and he committed all available resources to the conventional war for world
domination. The U.S. Manhattan Project started up, and finally, in 1942, came into its own for fear that Germany would
develop nuclear weapons ahead of the United States. Similarly, two countries can develop molecular nano
assemblers: the United States and China. The latter launched in 1986 Project 863, a Manhattan Project for the
development of post-nuclear superweapons in seven fields, and, at the close of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st,
molecular nano technology became the eighth field. The United States has not launched a Manhattan
Project for the development of any post-nuclear superweapons, and certainly not, of
molecular nanoweapons. In 1969 President Nixon announced the U.S. termination of development of post-nuclear
weapons, and it has been terminated, according to my research, not my benevolence. Just as Lloyd George in England up to
1939 dreamed aloud about having a statesman as great as Hitler at the head of the British government, the Western political
establishment has been in love with the dictatorship of China. So, the United States has no need for molecular nano
assemblers and the defense against them. In 1939 Hitler made a fatal mistake: he grabbed Òthe rump of Czechoslovakia,Ó and
the democratic West woke up. Imagine the dictatorship of China suddenly invading Mexico! But the Chinese strategists regard
such a war as purely Western and old-fashioned (see ÒUnrestricted WarfareÓ). In a modern war (which, ironically, the
United States initiated by using nuclear weapons against Japan in 1945), a
geostrategist confronts the enemy
with annihilation or unconditional surrender. Let us now look at the article ÒResponsible Nanotechnology.Ó
At the CSWD, Inc., we believe that the only responsible molecular nanotechnology is for the U.S.
government to launch a nanotech Manhattan Project on the basis of the Foresight Institute,
with Eric Drexler, the founder of nanotechnology, at the head of the Project. Incidentally, the Advisory Board of the Center for
Responsible Nanotechnology consists of distinguished, gifted individuals who might become the core of the nanotech
Manhattan Project. Great was my shock when I had read the article posted by or on behalf of CRN. Here are its eight
ÒscenariosÓ of the future of mankind (which the article presents out of numerical sequence): Scenario 6. ÒMolecular
manufacturingÓ develops Òquickly enough,Ó but mankind lives happily ever after. But what about the possibility of
a molecular nano attack, launched by the dictatorship of China on the West? What? Don't you
know that China is as peaceful as the democratic West thought Germany was peaceful in 1938? Scenario 5. The same as
Scenario 6 but Òmolecular manufacturing technologyÓ develops slowly, which is even better. Scenario 4. The leading world
powers take a close look at the first three scenarios we've described [the article describes 4 after 6 and 5], decide to avoid them
at all costs, and agree to work together to avoid geopolitical meltdown. We at CRN believe that sovereign nations ultimately
may cooperate in this way, since the alternatives appear to suck! Again, China is no problem even if China gets
molecular manufacturing capability first. Surely China will not annihilate the West even in
this case, but will work together. What about the United States? Even [!] if the United States
gets molecular manufacturing capability first, and certain elements inside the government
intend to oppress the rest of the world with it, we can hope that other powerful entities in
the U.S. will be more sensible and influential. The above suggests that the form of government in the United
States is much more dangerous for the world than that in China, the largest dictatorship in world history. Inside the U.S.
government Òcertain elementsÓ may Òintend to oppress the rest of the world.Ó Not inside the government of China, which
presumably consists of American liberal Democrats and peaceniks only. Scenario 3. Two or more competent nations develop
molecular manufacturing capability at about the same time. Fearing the potential military advantage this could provide for
their adversary, they each begin rapid and massive development of hideously powerful new weaponry. The resulting arms race
is almost certain to be highly unstable, for several reasons. This scenario can be considered an existential risk for the human
race. Can you imagine the dictators of China, hearing of Òexistential risk for the human raceÓ? They will develop a severe
depression, and the American doctors talking depression on TV will have to treat them. Scenario 2 A major Asian nation
achieves robust molecular nanotechnology manufacturing ahead of anyone else, and as a
result the U.S. becomes something of a backwater. As I was reading this, I could imagine only
China in this role. I guessed right! But never mind, for China (if it's them) could turn increasingly
open/democratic as they continue to develop economically and scientifically isn't it? Of course!
Remember how increasingly open/democratic Germany turned as it developed economically and scientifically after 1933? If
one knows nothing about a foreign country, he or she can well daydream about its being
open/democratic. Remember how President Roosevelt's spouse and his ambassador in
Moscow admired and extolled openness and democracy in Stalin's Russia? Scenario 1.
The United States of America is the first to develop molecular technology
manufacturing, and as a result can rule the world. Surely this is better than the
nano annihilation..”
--Econ
Manufacturing key to the U.S. Economy and Global Leadership
Franklin J.
Vargo, 10/01/03, National Association of Manufacturers, FNS, l/n
I would like to begin my statement with a review of why manufacturing is vital to the U.S. economy. Since
manufacturing only represents about 16 percent of the nation's output, who cares? Isn't the United States a postmanufacturing services economy? Who needs manufacturing? The answer in brief is that the United States economy
would collapse without manufacturing, as would our national security and our role in the
world. That is because manufacturing is really the foundation of our economy, both in terms of
innovation and production and in terms of supporting the rest of the economy. For example,
many individuals point out that only about 3 percent of the U.S. workforce is on the farm, but they manage to feed the nation
and export to the rest of the world. But how did this agricultural productivity come to be? It is because of the tractors and
combines and satellite systems and fertilizers and advanced seeds, etc. that came from the genius and productivity of the
manufacturing sector.
Similarly, in services -- can you envision an airline without airplanes? Fast food outlets without
griddles and freezers? Insurance companies or banks without computers? Certainly not. The manufacturing
industry is truly the innovation industry, without which the rest of the economy could not
prosper. Manufacturing performs over 60 percent of the nation's research and development.
Additionally, it also underlies the technological ability of the United States to maintain its national
security and its global leadership. Manufacturing makes a disproportionately large
contribution to productivity, more than twice the rate of the overall economy, and pays
wages that are about 20 percent higher than in other sectors. But its most fundamental importance lies
in the fact that a healthy manufacturing sector truly underlies the entire U.S. standard of living -because it is the principal way
by which the United States pays its way in the world. Manufacturing accounts for over 80 percent of all U.S. exports of
goods. America's farmers will export somewhat over $50 billion this year, but America's manufacturers export almost that
much event month! Even when services are included, manufacturing accounts for two-thirds of all U.S. exports of goods and
services. If the U.S. manufacturing sector were to become seriously impaired, what combination of
farm products together with architectural, travel, insurance, engineering and other services could make up for the missing
two-thirds of our exports represented by manufactures? The answer is "none." What would happen instead is the dollar
would collapse, falling precipitously -- not to the reasonable level of 1997, but far below it -and with this
collapse would come high U.S. inflation, a wrenching economic downturn and a collapse in
the U.S. standard of living and the U.S. leadership role in the world. That, most basically, is why the
United States cannot become a "nation of shopkeepers."
Manufacturing is the foundation of the economy ---- decline collapses the
economy and global leadership
Industrial Paint & Powder in ‘3 (“Study shows importance of strong manufacturing base; News Watch”, 10-1,
"Manufacturing spawns more economic activity and related jobs than does any other
economic sector," says Popkin, president of Joel Popkin and Co. The study, Securing America's Future:
The Case for a Strong Manufacturing Base, which was commissioned by the Council of Manufacturing Associations (CMA),
contends that manufacturing is "the heart of an innovative process that powers the U.S.
economy to global leadership. America's unprecedented wealth and world economic
leadership ate made possible by a critical mass of manufacturing within the geographic confines of the
American common market." "Popkin shows how the unique linkages of manufacturing to the rest of the economy create more
innovation, productivity and good jobs than any other sector of the economy," says Jerry Jasinowski, president of the National
Association of Manufacturers. "Popkin attributes America's high standard of living to the manufacturing innovation process.
Research and development stimulates investment in capital equipment and in workers,
leads to new processes and products, and ultimately leads to higher living standards." Industry
in America, Jasinowski says, is being squeezed between unprecedented foreign competition based on predatory trade practices
that make it impossible to raise prices, and rising health-care costs, soaring litigation and excessive regulation. The result is a
dramatic decline in cash flow that forces firms to cut back on R&D and capital investment, and to reduce employment. "If
the U.S. manufacturing base continues to shrink at the present rate and the critical mass is
lost," Popkins' study concludes, "the manufacturing innovation process will shift to other global
centers. If this happens, a decline in U.S. living standards in the future is virtually assured."
Saving the manufacturing sector spills over to the larger economy – solves
your alternate causes
Jack Keough, 5/1/05, Industrial Distribution,
“Manufacturing's Ongoing Challenges; In a new white paper, the Bearing
Specialists Assn. focuses on the problems facing U.S. manufacturers and offers tips for dealing with them” pg lexis
That is the consensus of a special white paper published by the Bearing Specialists Assn., which represents more than
70 companies distributing factory-warranted ball, roller and anti-friction bearings. The paper, entitled, "The Effects on the
U.S. Bearing Industry and Homeland Security of Manufacturers Moving Overseas," identifies the critical challenges facing
manufacturers and recommends steps to help deal with those problems. In the paper, BSA points out the importance of
manufacturing by noting that the manufacturing process leads
to increased economic activity in other
sectors. For every $1 of goods produced, an additional $1.43 worth of additional economic
activity is generated—much more than any other economic sector. In his book, Securing America's
Future: the Case for a Strong U.S. Manufacturing Base , author Joel Popkin points out that, "U.S.
manufacturing is the heart of a significant process that generates economic growth and has
produced the highest standards in history. But today, this complex process faces serious domestic and
international challenges which, if not overcome, will lead to reduced economic growth and, ultimately, a decline in living
standards for future generations of Americans." The white paper adds that it's not just manufactured products
that make Americans prosperous; it's the manufacturing process. This process starts with
an idea that leads to new jobs and equipment and then to increased productivity, new
products and processes. "Prices fall and quality rises. Soon other parts of the economy are
benefiting and, ultimately, living standards rise," BSA notes. The economic impact Jim Berges, president of
Emerson Electric, provides an eye-opening look at manufacturing's economic impact. "If the long-term health of
this economy is threatened, then so are we. Economies whose manufacturing sectors are
not vibrant and not growing are doomed to low overall growth," he says. "Those who call for a
conversion to a service-based economy need only to look at Japan and Germany to get a
glimpse of the consequences of manufacturing's decline—not a pretty picture and not one we want to see
in this country." He went on to say, "U.S. manufacturing has demonstrated the ability to overcome pure wage differentials
with trading partners through innovation, capital investment and productivity. But when the structural cost multipliers are
piled on, the task becomes unmanageable for best-in-class companies. Concerted effort to get our state and federal legislators
to focus on addressing and removing these penalties will yield positive results for the economy."
AT: china CP
Wages have steadily risen in China along with other factors
Wilson 11 [Christopher Wilson, associate with the Mexico Institute, “Working Together: Economic ties between the United
States and Mexico” Woodrow Wilson Center, November 2011,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Working%20Together%20Full%20Document_0.pdf]//PP
Since the early 2000s, Mexican manufacturing has recovered. At the same time, economic
growth in China
has caused wages to rise. China’s hourly compensation costs in manufacturing more than
doubled between 2003 and 2008, rising from 62 cents to $1.36 per hour. Over the same period, Mexico’s
wages rose just 21%, from $5.06 to $6.12 per hour.96 While the dollar amount of the rise in labor costs was actually greater
in Mexico during this period, the rate of growth suggests wages will occupy an ever-greater portion of
production costs in China, a factor that, over time, could erode its competitive advantage. Still, if wages
were the only factor, it would make more sense for U.S.-based companies to offshore their manufacturing to China. Several
additional factors, however, have helped keep Mexico’s factories competitive.
Investment in Mexican imports returns more to the US economy
Wilson 11 [Christopher Wilson, associate with the Mexico Institute, “Working Together: Economic ties between the United
States and Mexico” Woodrow Wilson Center, November 2011,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Working%20Together%20Full%20Document_0.pdf]//PP
Using China as the factory for U.S. goods promotes sourcing parts from abroad, since it is expensive and
time
consuming to ship products back and forth between the U.S. and China. The proximity of
Mexico, on the other hand, promotes the use of U.S. materials and parts, sustaining U.S. jobs
while increasing companies’ competitiveness. While forty cents of every dollar spent on Mexican
imports returns to the U.S., Chinese imports return only four cents per dollar.
NAFTA
Inherency
Current policy fails - NADBank solves infrastructure planning and
regulation
Hufbauer and Schott 05(Gary C. Hufbauer, Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics, USA, AB,
Harvard College; PhD in Economics, King's College, Cambridge University; JD, Georgetown University Law Center, Jeffrey J.
Schott, Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington DC,"Expanding Nafta Energy Production"
October 18, 2005 http://www.piie.com/publications/newsreleases/prnafta3349.pdf, RLA)
Washington, DC—The United States, Canada, and Mexico should upgrade their NAFTA ¶
partnership to deal with fresh challenges to trade and security, according to a new study ¶ by
Institute senior fellows Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott. Their main ¶ proposals are that “NAFTA II” should include¶ • the
adoption of a common external tariff by the three countries, thereby ¶ converting the North American free trade area into a North
American customs ¶ union, to expand trade further and reduce the considerable distortions
generated ¶ by NAFTA’s current rules of origin;¶ • an agreement to use the greatly strengthened dispute
settlement mechanisms in the ¶ World Trade Organization (WTO), which were not available when NAFTA was ¶ instituted, to
address future conflicts over antidumping (AD) and countervailing ¶ duty (CVD) cases;¶ • deeper energy cooperation
in the areas of infrastructure planning and regulation ¶ with Canada and fresh Mexican initiatives
to mitigate severe energy shortfalls, ¶ which are hampering Mexican growth;¶ •
common visa standards for non-NAFTA visitors and immigrants;¶ • updated labor
and environmental provisions in line with other recent US free ¶ trade agreements,
with a spotlight on core labor standards; and¶ • substantial expansion of the capital of the North
American Development Bank to ¶ address environmental and other infrastructure
needs.
AT: turns environment
NAFTA takes several measures to prioritize and protect the environment
Mayrand and Paquin 03(Karel Mayrand ,General Director of the David Suzuki Foundation in the Canadian province
of Québec, Marc R Paquin, Chief Operating Officer at Cambryn Biologics LLC, “The CEC’s Analytic Framework for Assessing the ¶
Environmental Effects of NAFTA” September 2003 http://unisfera.org/IMG/pdf/Unisfera_-_NAFTA_effects.pdf, RLA)
The CEC initiated its work on NAFTA’s effects on the environment in the wake of ¶ NAFTA’s entry into force. The CEC first focused
on the development of a methodology ¶ to analyze the environmental impacts of NAFTA. The analytic framework for assessing ¶ the
environmental effects of NAFTA was published in 1999.2¶ The document ¶ acknowledges the impossibility to provide a conclusive
and comprehensive assessment of ¶ NAFTA’s effects on the environment, given the complexity of issues and the lack of data, ¶ and
“is designed to be applied to issues or sectors that may have strong relationships to ¶ NAFTA and that are important to the
environmental concerns of its members.”3¶ The CEC framework was based on six core hypotheses: ¶ • NAFTA can
reinforce existing patterns of comparative advantage and ¶ specialization, concentrating
production where it is most efficient; ¶ • NAFTA can intensify competitive pressures
throughout the region, which might ¶ lead firms to lower input costs, avoid
assumed sunk costs like regulatory ¶ compliance, or consider moving to areas with
lower regulatory requirements; ¶ • NAFTA could lead to economic growth that
promotes industrial modernization ¶ and reduces environmental stress ; ¶ • NAFTA could
lead to a greater use of imported, environmentally superior ¶ products; ¶ • NAFTA could favor a corporate or government led upward
movement in ¶ environmental standards and regulations; and ¶ • NAFTA could promote upward regulatory
convergence as a result of increased ¶ intergovernmental cooperation.
NAFTA facilitates the spread of green technology
Mayrand and Paquin 03(Karel Mayrand ,General Director of the David Suzuki Foundation in the Canadian province
of Québec, Marc R Paquin, Chief Operating Officer at Cambryn Biologics LLC, “The CEC’s Analytic Framework for Assessing the ¶
Environmental Effects of NAFTA” September 2003 http://unisfera.org/IMG/pdf/Unisfera_-_NAFTA_effects.pdf, RLA)
The de-linking of GDP growth and polluting emissions is in great part the result of ¶
technological improvements which reduce the polluting intensity of industrial
production. ¶ At the time of NAFTA’s signature, expectations were that the agreement would favor the ¶ spread of new
technologies and management techniques across North America, and most ¶ importantly into Mexico. This would not only
allow cleaner economic growth, but some ¶ also hoped that the spread of new technologies would
generate net environmental benefits ¶ by reducing overall air and water emissions. ¶
This hypothesis did not materialize to the extent anticipated. While some technological ¶ improvements were made in Mexico
following trade and investment liberalization, these ¶ transfers were essentially episodic and were not part of a global trend towards
the ¶ upgrading of Mexican industrial facilities. Evidence suggest that most technological ¶ transfers happened in the maquiladoras
industries, which are essentially export-oriented ¶ and not well integrated in Mexico’s industrial structure.12 As a consequence, these
¶ technology transfers did not percolate in other sectors or regions of this country. ¶ On the other hand, recent work
suggests that NAFTA has had a positive impact on the ¶ environmental
performance of firms in Mexico.13 This improvement would be the result ¶ of both a
push coming from the upgrading of Mexico’s environmental regulations and a ¶ pull from
consumers in the United States and Canada who are becoming more and more ¶ sensitive to the environmental
characteristics of products. As a result of this double ¶ pressure, Mexican firms adapt their management approaches to better
anticipate new ¶ market or state requirements that may affect their competitiveness.
Energy
Expanding NAFTA is key to energy production
Hufbauer and Schott 05(Gary C. Hufbauer, Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics, USA, AB,
Harvard College; PhD in Economics, King's College, Cambridge University; JD, Georgetown University Law Center, Jeffrey J.
Schott, Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington DC,"Expanding Nafta Energy Production"
October 18, 2005 http://www.piie.com/publications/newsreleases/prnafta3349.pdf, RLA)
The United States will not achieve energy independence in the foreseeable future, given ¶ existing sources and reserves of
fossil fuel, but it can
strengthen energy security by ¶ working cooperatively with its
immediate neighbors. The United States and Canada ¶ have largely integrated their energy
markets but could deepen cooperation in the areas ¶ of infrastructure planning and
regulation. For its own sake, and for the sake of North ¶ America, Mexico should pursue tax and energy policies that will
generate domestic ¶ revenues that, in turn, are devoted to oil and gas production and electricity generation. ¶ Energy
reforms are needed first and foremost to provide a strong foundation for Mexican ¶
economic growth. In so doing, Mexico would contribute to North American energy ¶ security and thus to the long-term
health of the North American economy—on which ¶ Mexico is so dependent.
Interest in renewable energy is growing – NAFTA satisfies demands
Howse and Bork 06(Robert Howse, special advisor to the firm, the Lloyd C. Nelson Professor of International Law at
NYU School of Law, Petrus van Bork, consultant specialising in information technology, standards and innovation policy
matters,"Opportunities and Barriers for Renewable Energy in NAFTA" Page 15 2006 http://www.cec.org/Storage/59/5137_FinalHowse-T-E-Symposium05-Paper_en.pdf, RLA)
Despite the fact that there is no NAFTA-wide scheme, nor bilateral schemes, nor even ¶ intra-national schemes of certificates62 or
other modes to trade green energy, interest and activity ¶ in cross-border exports of ‘green’
energy is growing. Consumers and their local and subnational¶ governments are
more interested in renewable and ‘green’ energy than ever before and this is ¶ manifest in
many local and subnational efforts. These efforts often include ‘renewable energy ¶ portfolios’ that given subnational jurisdictions
have established. However, these portfolios often¶ do not include all forms of renewable energy and the contents of the portfolios
and definitions of¶ what is renewable vary from one subnational jurisdiction to another. ¶ Despite the current, undefined, situation
actual cross-border trading activities in ¶ renewables are commencing. For example, in 2004
an application was accepted for review by¶ Bonneville Power for a HVDC cable under the Juan de Fuca strait from Vancouver Island,
in¶ B.C. Canada to Port Angeles, Washington State for the purpose of the transmission of wind ¶ generated power. Much further
work has been done since on what is now called the Vancouver ¶ Island Cable Project63. Furthermore, there is discussion,
particularly in California of generating ¶ renewable energy in neighboring Mexico for use in southern California. ¶ It is the authors’
opinion that if there were a more standard NAFTA wide definition of ¶ what constituted
renewable energy and a system of trading such energy64, there would be ¶
considerable potential for business. As many of the best sites for both solar and wind power are ¶ remote from
population centers that may have the greatest demand for renewable energy a green ¶ trading scheme ought to be a renewable energy
industry priority65. Furthermore, geography ¶ often dictates that the country neighboring may
have the resources in surplus supply that are¶ urgently needed just across its
borders – this is particularly true of Mexico and Canada with ¶ resources near the US border.
NAFTA is essential to liberal energy trade
Roff et al 03(Prepared by ¶ Robin Jane Roff, Anita Krajnc, and Stephen Clarkson ¶ ,For ¶ The Second North American
Symposium on Assessing the Environmental ¶ Effects of Trade¶ Commission for Environmental Cooperation,"The Conflicting
Economic and Environmental Logics of North American Governance: NAFTA, Energy Subsidies, and the Environment" Pg 20 May
2003 http://www.cec.org/Storage/49/4102_Roff-final_en.pdf, RLA)
In addition, NAFTA rules for energy trade prohibit the imposition of an export tax ¶ on
energy or a basic petrochemical that exceeds those applicable to domestic ¶
consumption (Article 605b). Shrybman notes (2001, 75): “When coupled with the ¶ quantitative control prohibitions of
GATT Article XI, this ban on export taxation ¶ effectively and entirely removes
government control of energy exports.” NAFTA’s s second major impact on the North American energy
sector stems ¶ from its dramatic alteration of trade conditions. Together, the ban on discriminatory ¶ taxation and
the proportional sharing clause have reinforced the emerging continental ¶ energy market.
From 1986 and 2001, Canadian exports of natural gas to the United States ¶ more than quadrupled, reaching upwards of 100 billion
cubic meters per year; and, since ¶ 1985, crude oil exports almost tripled, rising to about 80 million cubic meters in 2001 ¶ (Plourde
2002). However, unlike other commodities the trade agreement has not ¶ necessarily generated this rise in cross-border flows. As
Plourde notes, the substantial ¶ increases in Canadian exports of oil and natural gas to the United States began in the ¶ early to mid
1980s and can be attributed to deregulatory initiatives in Canada (including ¶ the softening of volume restrictions on cross-border
transactions), increased US demand ¶ related to declining domestic crude oil production, and changes in the two countries’ ¶
objectives (both Canada and the US favored greater trade in fossil fuels by the beginning ¶ of the 1980s) (Plourde, 2002).
Nevertheless, while NAFTA may not have driven an ¶ enormous increases in trade, it did cement an
international framework that promotes the ¶ unrestricted flow of energy
throughout the continent, thus making it more difficult for ¶ future governments to alter their regulatory course
(Clarkson, 2002). ¶ In sum, NAFTA indirectly exacerbates over-consumption by entrenching
neoconservative values favoring the profits of transnational corporations over
conservation ¶ and environmental protection. In particular, it eliminates the ability of Canada to regulate
the extraction and export of its fossil fuels, and encourages governments to subsidize ¶ economically and ecologically wasteful
initiatives. Although supposedly a ‘green’ ¶ agreement nothing in NAFTA’s provisions have stopped jurisdictions from cutting the ¶
funding for established environmental programs, privatizing their administration, or ¶ amending legislation to make it less effective
(Krajnc, 2000).
¶
NAFTA reduces energy subsidies – that’s key to energy cooperation
Roff et al 03(Prepared by ¶ Robin Jane Roff, Anita Krajnc, and Stephen Clarkson ¶ ,For ¶ The Second North American
Symposium on Assessing the Environmental ¶ Effects of Trade¶ Commission for Environmental Cooperation,"The Conflicting
Economic and Environmental Logics of North American Governance: NAFTA, Energy Subsidies, and the Environment" Pg 20 May
2003 http://www.cec.org/Storage/49/4102_Roff-final_en.pdf, RLA)
One of the most important policy changes NAFTA governments can undertake to ¶
mitigate the effects of global climate change and other environmental ills is
a ¶ comprehensive program of
reducing and removing perverse energy subsidies. A recent ¶ UNEP report concluded that the
“reform of energy subsidies – especially those that ¶ encourage fossil fuel consumption – together with rational
taxation structures and other ¶ policy initiatives – could steer development in many countries onto a
more sustainable ¶ path” (UNEP, 2001, 3). Thus, beyond subsidy removal, additional measures need to be ¶ considered,
such as the promotion of renewable sources of energy and energy ¶ conservation programs, instituting a polluter pays principle
through new tax systems, and ¶ the introduction of cross-border energy efficiency standards.
Subsidy removal would cause a transition to renewable energies
Roff et al 03(Stephen Clarkson, Professor of Political Science 15 King's College Circle University of Toronto Toronto, Robin
Jane Roff, Membership Services Officer at UBC Faculty Association¶ Research Associate at Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives,
Anita Krajnc, doccumentary film- maker, writer and editor,"The Conflicting Economic and Environmental Logics of North American
Governance: NAFTA, Energy Subsidies, and the Environment" Pg 20 May 2003 http://www.cec.org/Storage/49/4102_Rofffinal_en.pdf, RLA)
Subsidy removal would reduce the environmental impacts of the energy sector by ¶
decreasing demand. Higher fuel costs increase conservation practices among
consumers. ¶ A joint project by UNEP and the World Bank’s Energy Sector Management Assistance ¶ Program determined
that the elimination of funding to Mexico’s energy sector would ¶ decrease total carbon dioxide emissions by 3.4% relative to 1991
levels (UNEP/ESMAP, ¶ 2001). Subsidy removal in the US would result in a 6% reduction in
total carbon ¶ emissions by 2010 and an 8% reduction by 2035 according to Shelby et al. (1997). ¶
Fuel Switching: ¶ Subsidy reform would encourage fuel switching by both industry and
consumers. The ¶ elimination of perverse subsidies in the energy sector would enhance the
competitive ¶ position of renewable forms of energy in the energy supply market.
Without major policy ¶ reforms, including subsidy removal, the market share of fully renewable energies will not ¶ increase in the
future (UNEP, 2000). Given that demand is inversely related to price, as ¶ the price of fossil
fuels increases relative to other forms of energy, particularly renewable ¶ sources such as wind, solar,
and hydro, demand for alternatives will increase (de Moor ¶ and van Beers, 2001). For example, when the environmental and social
costs of coal ¶ production and consumption are added to the direct costs of coal-generated electricity, its ¶ price would increase by
roughly 2 to 4 cents per kWh in the United States (Jacobson and ¶ Masters, 2001). The price increase takes into
account the health and environmental ¶ effects of emissions of coal combustion,
including the payment of black lung disease ¶ benefits to coal miners which amount to US$35 billion since
1973. By contrast, wind ¶ energy can now be produced for about 3 to 4 cents/kWh. Jacobson and Masters note that ¶ replacing 59%
of current American coal energy use with wind turbines would be enough ¶ to reach the US target for carbon dioxide reductions
originally agreed to (but not ratified) ¶ at Kyoto.
NAFTA is essential - energy subsidies amplify climate change
Clarkson et al 01(Stephen Clarkson, Professor of Political Science 15 King's College Circle University of Toronto Toronto,
Robin Jane Roff, Membership Services Officer at UBC Faculty Association¶ Research Associate at Canadian Centre for Policy
Alternatives, Anita Krajnc, doccumentary film- maker, writer and editor,"The Double Eco-illogic of North American Governance:
NAFTA, Energy Subsidies, and Climate Change" 2001
http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~clarkson/publications/The%20Double%20Ecoillogic%20of%20North%20American%20Governance%20%20NAFTA,%20Energy%20Subsidies,%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf, RLA)
Energy subsidies, which are intended to stabilize or increase energy production and consumption, serve to amplify a
host of environmental
problems. Environmental¶ degradation occurs at every stage of
the fossil fuel cycle, from exploration, extraction,¶ and distribution to
consumption, producing environmental problems related to habitat ¶ destruction
and biodiversity loss; land, water, and air pollution; and resource depletion¶ (see
Figure 1). Global climate change may very well “constitute the number one externality cost to be¶ considered as an implicit subsidy
from society to those sectors that are the main sources¶ of greenhouse gases, namely, fossil fuels and road transportation” (Myers
and Kent,¶ 2001, p. 33). Global climate change, also aptly known as the greenhouse effect, results¶ from
increases in heat trapping gases in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, methane and¶ nitrous oxide trap
radiant solar heat, thereby raising the surface temperature of the planet.¶ The combustion of fossil fuels is the
primary source of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide.¶ North America bears a
disproportionate responsibility for the release of greenhouse¶ gases. Together, Canada,
Mexico, and the United States account for a large portion of¶ global CO2 emissions. As of 1999 the US topped the list of producers,
generating 5.6¶ tons per capita, while Canada was a close third, generating 4.9 tons per capita (EPA,¶ 2002; EIA, 2001). Although
not considered a major source of CO2 globally, Mexico¶ does contribute a significant amount of carbon within North America.
According to the¶ US Department of Energy’s, Energy Information Administration (EIA), Mexico produces¶ approximately 1 metric
ton per person, per year (EIA, 2001). The majority of these¶ emissions result from fossil fuel use. According to Koplow and Dernbach
(2001) 90¶ percent of GHG emissions in the United States are released by burning coal, oil,
and¶ natural gas. In recognition of the dramatic effects of climate change,
governments across¶ the globe have taken steps to reduce their GHG emissions.
However, without a¶ significant reduction in fossil fuel use, international targets such as those of the Kyoto¶ Protocol are unlikely to
be met. Thus, the reduction of energy subsidies provides an¶ 11important tool in the fight to stop global climate change
Free trade
NAFTA creates favorable trade conditions for all investors
DFATDC 13(Department of foreign affairs trade and development canada, “The North American Free Trade Agreement” 2013
http://www.international.gc.ca/yournextmarket-vosprochainsmarches/info/nafta-alena.aspx, RLA)
NAFTA establishes a framework of rules and processes that create favourable
conditions for investors from each of the three countries, ensuring all NAFTA
investors are accorded generally similar treatment throughout the trading bloc.
Under the agreement, investors in each country are protected by reciprocal , legally binding
rights and obligations, as well as an independent tribunal to resolve investment
disputes.¶ “We actually opened our office in 2000... and since then we’ve actually grown our Mexico business five times,” says
Rosalind Wilson, General Director of Canadian Pacific Railway Limited in Mexico and former president of the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce in Mexico. Read the full success story.¶ For more information about new business opportunities or how NAFTA can help
your company in the United States or Mexico, check out market facts and reports for the United States or Mexico on the Trade
Commissioner Service website or contact a trade commissioner.
NAFTA is key to free trade
Amadeo 08(Kimberly Amadeo, M.S., Sloan School of Business, M.I.T. and M.S. Planning, Boston College,"NAFTA Pros and
Cons" April 24, 2008 http://useconomy.about.com/b/2008/04/24/nafta-pros-and-cons.htm, RLA)
NAFTA, or the North American Free Trade Agreement, is the world's largest free trade area. The agreement between Canada, the
U.S. and Mexico links 450 million people and the $19.24 trillion in goods and services produced by the three countries. Trade
has increased from $297 billion in 1993, the year before NAFTA was enacted, to
$1.6 trillion in 2009 (most recent estimates) . Estimates are that NAFTA increases economic output
in the U.S. by as much as .5% a year.¶ Some service industries, such as health care and financial services, see an
increase in exports. Farm products also reap the benefits of NAFTA's lower tariffs. U.S.
consumers also benefit from NAFTA. Mexican oil can be imported for less, lowering the cost of gas
in the U.S. and decreasing reliance on oil from the Middle East. Lower gas prices means food can be
transported more cheaply, as well. For more, see NAFTA Advantages.
NAFTA eliminate barriers and opens up free trade
NAFTANOW.ORG 12(NAFTANOW.ORG, "North American Free Trade Agreement" 2012
http://www.naftanow.org/agreement/, RLA)
The elimination of duties on thousands of goods crossing borders within North
America.¶ Phased-in tariff reductions – now complete – and special rules for
agricultural, automotive, and textile and apparel products.¶ Important rights for NAFTA services
providers and users across a broad spectrum of sectors.¶ Special commitments regarding telecommunications and financial
services.¶ Formal dispute resolution processes that help resolve differences that arise in the interpretation or application of NAFTA’s
rules. Commitment to treat each others’ investors and their investments in the territory of the host NAFTA country no less favorably
than their own domestic investors.¶ Commitment to provide NAFTA investors with the best
treatment given to foreign investors from beyond North America.¶ A transparent and binding
dispute resolution mechanism specially designed to deal with investment. Protection for Intellectual Property¶ Adequate
and effective protection and enforcement of a broad range of intellectual property
rights (including through patents, trademarks, copyrights, and industrial designs), while ensuring that the
measures that enforce these rights do not themselves become barriers to
legitimate trade.¶ Easier Access for Business Travelers¶ Easier access for business professionals
in hundreds of different professions so that they can travel for business
throughout the continent.¶ Access to Government Procurement¶ Access to government procurement opportunities at
the federal levels in Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
NAFTA increases trade in every other sector
Schot 08(Jeffrey J. Schot, Peterson Institute for International Economics,"7TH ANNUAL NORTH AMERICAN REGIONAL
MEETING THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION" November 2008
http://www.trilateral.org/download/file/na_regional/Schott_nafta_paper.pdf, RLA)
NAFTA has contributed to substantial growth in trade among the three countries.
Total trilateral ¶ merchandise trade (both imports and exports) rose more than three-fold since 1993; in 2007 intraNAFTA ¶ merchandise trade exceeded $900 billion and will approach $1 trillion in 2008—up from $300 billion in ¶ 1993. North
America’s two-way merchandise trade with the rest of the world has increased three-fold as ¶ well since 1993. U.S.-Mexico
trade grew particularly rapidly (almost a 300% increase), much faster than ¶ U.S. merchandise
trade with the world (200% increase). The growth burst in U.S.-Canada trade followed ¶ CUSFTA, which entered into force in 1989. ¶
In 2007, the United States ran a large trade deficit with both NAFTA partners. Interestingly, ¶ energy trade accounted for about 2/3
of the combined $145 billion U.S. deficit (which was only about half ¶ the size of the U.S. trade deficit with China). Much of
NAFTA commerce is concentrated in autos and ¶ parts, energy, and agriculture (see
tables 3a and 3b). Together these 3 sectors account for a third of ¶ regional trade. Autos account for 20 percent of U.S.-Canada trade
and 15 percent of U.S.-Mexico trade; ¶ the industry is largely integrated in the region and all three countries are feeling the pain of
the current ¶ sharp decline in North American sales. Canada is the leading supplier of oil and gas to the United States. ¶ Intra-NAFTA
energy trade topped $100 billion in 2007. Oil exports account for 2/3 of Canadian and ¶ almost half of Mexican production—both
primarily directed to the U.S. market. Intra-NAFTA farm trade ¶ has doubled since 1993 and was
valued at almost $70 billion in 2007. Agricultural trade still faces ¶ numerous restrictions and is the focus of
lingering disputes on sugar, fruits and vegetables. ¶ Total FDI inflows to all NAFTA countries grew
rapidly during the 1990s (table 4). Relative to ¶ regional GDP, the FDI stock almost doubled from 8 percent to 15
percent. In Mexico, the FDI stock today ¶ is about 6 times larger than in 1992. From the standpoint of Mexico and Canada, FDI from
the United ¶ States represents a substantial share of each country’s FDI stock. From the U.S. standpoint, however, ¶ intra-NAFTA
flows and stocks are modest. In 2006, Canada and Mexico accounted for less than 10 ¶ percent of the stock of FDI in the United
States; more than 60 percent of FDI in the United States comes ¶ from the EU-15 members
Free trade increases U.S. sale and profits
White 13(Deborah White, journalist and writer specializing in liberal politics, and progressive issues and perspectives, studied
journalism and non-fiction writing as an undergraduate, graduating Cum Laude from University of California, Los Angeles, earned
an M.B.A. from California State University, Long Beach, and has instructed courses at three public universities, "Free Trade
Increases U.S. Sales and Profits" 2013 http://usliberals.about.com/od/theeconomyjobs/i/FreeTradeAgmts_2.htm, RLA)
Removal of costly and delaying trade barriers, such as tariffs, quotas and conditions, inherently
leads to easier and swifter trade of consumer goods.¶ The result is an increased
volume of U.S. sales.¶ Also, use of less expensive materials and labor acquired through free trade leads to a lower cost to
manufacture goods.¶ The result is either increased profit margins (when sales prices are not lowered), or
increased sales caused by lower selling prices.¶ The Peterson Institute for International Economics
estimates that ending all trade barriers would increase U.S. income by a whopping $500
billion annually.
Free trade creates U.S. middle class jobs
White 13(Deborah White, journalist and writer specializing in liberal politics, and progressive issues and perspectives, studied
journalism and non-fiction writing as an undergraduate, graduating Cum Laude from University of California, Los Angeles, earned
an M.B.A. from California State University, Long Beach, and has instructed courses at three public universities, "Free Trade
Increases U.S. Sales and Profits" 2013 http://usliberals.about.com/od/theeconomyjobs/i/FreeTradeAgmts_2.htm, RLA)
The theory is that as U.S. businesses grow from greatly increased sales and profits,
demand will grow for middle-class higher-wage jobs to facilitate the sales
increases.¶ In February, the Democratic Leadership Council, a centrist, pro-business think-tank headed by Clinton ally former
Rep. Harold Ford, Jr., wrote:¶ "Expanded trade was undeniably a key part of the high-growth, low-inflation, high-wage
economic expansion of the 1990s; even now it plays a key role in keeping inflation and
unemployment at historically impressive levels. "¶ The New York Times wrote in 2006:¶ "Economists
can promote the very real benefits of a robustly growing world: when they sell more overseas, American businesses
can employ more people."
Random Internal links
NAFTA is key to free agricultural trade
USDA 08(United States Department of Agriculture, “North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)” 2008
http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/policy/nafta/nafta.asp, RLA)
Under the NAFTA, all non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade between the United
States and Mexico were eliminated. In addition, many tariffs were eliminated
immediately, with others being phased out over periods of 5 to 15 years. This allowed for an orderly adjustment to free trade
with Mexico, with full implementation beginning January 1, 2008. ¶ The agricultural provisions of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade
Agreement, in effect since 1989, were incorporated into the NAFTA. Under these provisions, all tariffs affecting
agricultural trade between the United States and Canada, with a few exceptions for
items covered by tariff-rate quotas, were removed by January 1, 1998.¶ Mexico and Canada reached a
separate bilateral NAFTA agreement on market access for agricultural products. The Mexican-Canadian agreement eliminated most
tariffs either immediately or over 5, 10, or 15 years. Tariffs between the two countries affecting trade in dairy, poultry, eggs, and
sugar are maintained.
NAFTA is essential to U.S. credibility, movement of goods, and removal
sanctions
Griswold 11(Daniel Griswold, director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in
Washington,May 4, 2011 http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/pilot-program-nafta-longhaul-truckingprovisions, RLA)
First, U.S. failure to comply has deprived our economy of the efficiencies of moving
goods across our mutual border at lower cost. With the ban in place, trucks approaching
the border are required to unload their cargo into warehouses in so-called commercial zones
within 25 miles of the border, only to have that cargo reloaded onto short-haul vehicles and then onto domestic trucks for final
delivery. This inefficient system causes delays, increased pollution and added costs
at
busy border crossings such as Calexico East; San Ysidro; Nogales, Ariz.; and Laredo, Texas. Because more than 70
percent of U.S. trade with Mexico travels by truck, the ban on cross-border trucking imposes
an additional $200 million to $400 million in transportation costs each year, according to the U.S. Department of
Transportation.¶ Second, failure to comply has exposed U.S. exporters to perfectly legal
sanctions imposed by the Mexican government. Under the provisions of NAFTA, and after waiting
patiently for more than a decade, the Mexican government imposed sanctions in 2009 on more
than $2.4 billion in U.S. exports affect 100 products, from Washington apples to Iowa pork. The
sanctions would be lifted in two stages as the U.S. government implements the proposed program to comply with Annex I.¶ Third,
failure to comply has compromised the U.S. government’s reputation as a good
citizen of the global trading system. Simply put, the U.S. government has failed to keep its word to our Mexican
neighbors. Our government has been in flagrant violation of a major trade agreement for more than 15 years. This breach of
trust has undermined the U.S. government’s standing to challenge other
governments, from Mexico to China to the European Union, who may also be in violation of various trade agreements. The
Obama administration’s promise to more vigorously “enforce” our rights in the World Trade Organization and other
agreements will lack credibility as long as the U.S. government fails to comply with such
clear commitments as the trucking provisions of NAFTA.
Nafta liberalizes auto industry
Canada Border Services Agency 93 (Canada Border Services Agency, "Trilateral Customs Guide to NAFTA" 1993
http://cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/pub/c-124-eng.pdf, RLA)
NAFTA will significantly liberalize access to
the Mexican market in automotive
products, including: ¶ z the immediate reduction by 50% of tariffs on passenger
automobiles, with remaining ¶ tariffs phased out in equal stages over 10 years; ¶ z the immediate reduction
by 50% of tariffs on light trucks, with remaining tariffs phased ¶ out in equal stages over five
years; ¶ z tariffs on all other vehicles phased out in equal steps over 10 years; ¶ z the immediate elimination of tariffs on certain auto
parts, with duties on most other parts ¶ phased out over five years; ¶ z restrictions on the import of used cars into Mexico phased out
between 2009 and 2019.
Nafta liberalizes agriculture
Canada Border Services Agency 93(Canada Border Services Agency, "Trilateral Customs Guide to NAFTA" 1993
http://cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/pub/c-124-eng.pdf, RLA)
Mexico and the United States will gradually liberalize bilateral trade in sugar. Both
countries will ¶ apply tariff-rate quotas of equivalent effect on third-country sugar by the sixth year after the ¶ Agreement enters into
force. All restrictions on trade in sugar between the two countries will be ¶ eliminated
by the end of the 15-year transition period. Details on the special provisions relating to ¶ market access for
sugar during the transition period are provided in Annex 703.2, Sections A and B. 27 ¶ Section B of Annex 703.2 relates to trade
between Canada and Mexico. Both countries will eliminate ¶ all tariff and non-tariff barriers
on their agricultural trade, with the exception of those in the dairy, ¶ poultry, egg,
sugar, and syrup sectors. Canada will immediately exempt Mexico from import restrictions ¶ covering wheat, barley,
and their products, beef and veal, and margarine. Canada and Mexico will ¶ eliminate immediately, or phase out within five years,
tariffs on many fruit and vegetable products, ¶ while tariffs on remaining fruit and vegetable products will be phased out over 10
years.
Solvency
Taylor 12(Guy Taylor, writer for Washington Times, "NAFTA key to economic, social growth in Mexico" May 14, 2012
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/14/nafta-key-to-economic-social-growth-in-mexico/?page=all, RLA)
Before NAFTA, U.S. foreign direct investment in Mexico was roughly $15 billion.
Today it’s more than $90 billion.¶ A growing number of European, Japanese and Chinese
firms also are investing in Mexican manufacturing.¶ Aside from tapping a labor market where unions are
largely irrelevant and worker pay averages $6 per hour, foreign companies are attracted by Mexico’s
proximity to massive auto sales markets in the United States and Canada.¶ Twenty-five
vehicle-assembly factories owned by foreign automakers - Ford, General Motors, Volkswagen, Honda and Nissan - produced more
than 2 million new cars and trucks from Mexico during 2011.¶ “We’re not talking about people putting brake pads on a car in a freetrade zone on the border,” said Christopher Sabatini, senior director of policy at the Americas Society and Council of the Americas in
New York.¶ “The downside [to the United States], and I say this as a dedicated free-trader, is that Mexico is now on the verge of
cutting into the higher-skilled manufacturing, design and engineering jobs,” he added.¶ “That raises the implication
that the U.S. needs to invest in infrastructure, so that … the U.S. higher-skilled
manufacturing and design jobs don’t head south.”
NAFTA allows for more skilled workers and U.S. exports
Marshall 93(Freddie Ray Marshall, Professor Emeritus of the Audre and Bernard Rapoport Centennial Chair in Economics
and Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin,"The Implications of the North American Free Trade Agreement for Workers"
February 1993 http://www.cis.org/NAFTA-EffectOnWorkers, RLA)
NAFTA's supporters generally defend their position on the basis of the theory of
comparative advantage, which postulates that in competitive markets trade
produces "plus sum" or mutually beneficial outcomes. Otherwise, trade would not take place.
Specialization in products for which each country has a comparative advantage will produce higher joint returns. The United
States will lose some low-wage jobs we are told, but will gain more highly paid jobs which Mexican
workers, with lower skills and less high-performance work experience, are unable
to perform. Wages are much lower in Mexico than in the United States according to this argument, mainly because of lower
productivity. So rising productivity will improve Mexican wages and increase their
purchases of U.S. goods. And rising Mexican incomes, it is argued, will provide the resources for Mexico to strengthen
its labor and environmental protections. NAFTA boosters point out that Mexico has strong labor laws (stronger in many ways than
those in the U.S.), but lacks the resources for enforcement.
NAFTA has lead to an increase in GDP growth for all 3 countries
World Savvy Monitor 09(World Savvy Monitor, "NAFTA: A Primer" August 2009
http://worldsavvy.org/monitor/index.php?option=com_content&id=661&Itemid=1130<, RLA)
NAFTA was supported in Mexico because intra-continental free trade, in theory, would allow the country to take better advantage of
its greatest economic asset: its geographical proximity to the largest economy in the world, the United States, as well as to another
economic power, Canada. Facilitating unfettered access to these countries was seen as critical to bringing the benefits of
globalization to Mexico. Goods that could be produced more cheaply in Mexico could be
exported to US and Canadian consumers; American and Canadian technology and
investment would flow to Mexico. Accomplishments:¶ Trade among the three countries did,
in fact, increase dramatically, 227% between 1993 and 2008, according to the World Bank. Trilateral trade
currently accounts for $15.3 trillion in goods and services annually.¶ Mexico’s share of this trade, which had previously been
dominated by US-Canadian trade, also increased dramatically. Mexico’s imports from Canada rose 704%; its exports to Canada rose
by 482%. Mexico’s imports from the US rose by 236%; its exports to the US rose by 440%.¶ Since the implementation
of NAFTA, all three countries have experienced GDP growth. The US and Canadian
economies each grew by 53%; the Mexican economy grew by 51%. (Remembering that
percentage growth of larger economies like the US and Canada yields much greater absolute gains than percentage growth in an
economy like Mexico – they started at dramatically different levels, pre-NAFTA).
AT: brain drain
Mexican manufacturing is crumbling – China is rising
Malkin 08(Elisabeth Malkin, New York Times"Re-examining Nafta in Hopes of Curing U.S. Manufacturing" April 22, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/business/worldbusiness/22nafta.html?pagewanted=all, RLA)
In the first years of Nafta, jobs did leave the United States for Mexico, although
a fastgrowing economy blunted the fallout. But in this decade, American jobs lost to
China have dwarfed those going to Mexico. And Mexico’s own factories are leaving for countries with even
lower wages, especially China, said Enrique Dussel Peters, an economist who heads the Center of China-Mexico Studies at the
National Autonomous University of Mexico.¶ Manufacturing employment fell 10 percent from 2000
to 2007, according to Mexican government statistics, he said. The debate in the United States makes “it seem that the villain is
Mexico that is taking the jobs,” Dr. Dussel said. “I wish that were the case.”¶ At the same time, China and other Asian
countries are eroding the promised surge in American exports to Mexico. Ten years ago,
Mexico bought almost 80 percent of its imports from the United States. Last year, that figure dropped to
just less than 50 percent. “There’s a fourth uninvited guest at the Nafta party,” Dr. Dussel said, alluding to China.
Politics link turns
NAFTA is popular – it improved trade relations
Teslik 09(Lee Hudson Teslik, Council on Foreign Relations, NAFTA's Economic Impact, July 7, 2009
http://www.cfr.org/world/naftas-economic-impact/p15790, RLA)
The 2008 U.S. presidential elections brought new attention to the debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement, or
NAFTA, the free trade bloc uniting Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The Canadian, Mexican, and U.S.
governments all broadly support NAFTA, but while campaigning the leading U.S. Democratic presidential
candidates, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, said they wanted to renegotiate aspects of the deal. However, as president,
Obama has not followed through with his election pledge. In April 2009, U.S. Trade Representative
Ronald Kirk confirmed that President Obama has no plans to reopen or
renegotiate (NYT) NAFTA. Trade relations have broadened substantially among the three
parties to NAFTA since the deal's implementation, and all three have grown economically, Canada at the fastest average rate, Mexico
at the slowest. Yet expert opinion varies on NAFTA's direct impact, given the multitude of other economic factors at play and the
possibility that trade liberalization might have happened even without a trilateral agreement.
Neg
AT: Advantages
AT: manufacturing
Structural linkages are the root cause of economic problems
Villarreal 10 [M. Angeles Villarreal, Specialist in International Trade and Finance, “The
Mexican Economy after the Global Financial Crisis” Congressional Research Service, September
9, 2010 http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41402_20100909.pdf] //PP
The Mexican economy experienced the most serious decline in economic growth in
Latin America after the global financial crisis began in 2008. Mexico’s dependence
on manufacturing exports and strong ties to the U.S. economy have made the country very
vulnerable to external events and changing economic conditions in the United
States. Public sector revenues declined as a result of the crisis and a number of estimates indicate that
Mexico’s gross domestic product (GDP) contracted by 6.6% in 2009. Though GDP is
expected to grow in 2010, some economists predict that Mexico’s economy will not
return to its pre-crisis level for some time. Although Mexico has done much to modify its economic policy over the
last twenty years through trade liberalization, privatization efforts, and a floating exchange rate regime, these policies have not been
enough to protect Mexico from fluctuations in the U.S. economy. Many analysts argue that structural
weaknesses in the Mexican economy have prevented the country from
experiencing higher levels of growth and decreasing its dependence on the U.S.
economy. Mexico’s economy is of interest to U.S. policymakers because of the
strong economic linkages between the two countries, the proximity of Mexico to
the United States, and the implications that economic issues have on political and social
stability in Mexico. The 111th Congress is likely to maintain an active interest in Mexico on issues related to trade,
economic conditions, migration, border issues and counter-narcotics.
The manufacturing industry specifically the auto industry is recovering now
Villarreal 10 [M. Angeles Villarreal, Specialist in International Trade and Finance, “The Mexican Economy after the Global
Financial Crisis” Congressional Research Service, September 9, 2010 http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41402_20100909.pdf] //PP
The global financial crisis, and the subsequent downturn in the U.S. economy,
resulted in the sharpest economic contraction in the Mexican economy in twenty years.
It is estimated to have contracted by 6.6% in 2009, as shown in Table 1, while the Mexican peso
depreciated against the dollar by 25%.4 Mexican merchandise exports to the United States
decreased sharply. Mexico also experienced liquidity problems and a loss in investor
confidence as a result of large losses on corporate foreign exchange positions in 2008, in addition to the uncertainty over the
outbreak of the H1N1 virus in mid-2009.5 Mexico’s policy measures in response to the crisis and
its prior economic performance have helped the economy begin to recover and the
exchange rate to improve. Estimates for 2010 project that the economy will grow
by about 3% to 4% and that domestic demand will also improve, though not significantly. The recovery is also
due to an increase in external demand, which has driven up manufacturing exports, rather than
from internal demand.6 Manufacturing exports increased 34% year-on-year during the first five months of
2010, with much of the growth occurring in automotive exports (78% increase), which go mostly to the United
States. Total exports have risen 38%.7 Sectors of the economy that depend significantly on domestic demand, such as utilities,
construction, and retail, are struggling, though an improvement is expected later this year. The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)
projects GDP growth at 2.7% for 2011.8
AT: energy
Structurally, NAFTA prevents expansion of energy production
Hufbauer and Schott 05(Gary C. Hufbauer, Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics, USA, AB,
Harvard College; PhD in Economics, King's College, Cambridge University; JD, Georgetown University Law Center, Jeffrey J.
Schott, Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington DC,"NAFTA Revisited: Achievements and
Challenges" October 2005 http://www.piie.com/publications/briefs/nafta3349.pdf, RLA)
While NAFTA has substantially advanced economic integration, its footprint has been limited in important ¶ respects. The
trade pact was not designed to limit illegal immigration nor do more than scratch
the surface of ¶ long-standing labor and environmental problems. Key economic and social
issues were deliberately excluded ¶ from the pact. Obstacles to US-Canada agricultural trade and problems related to migration from
Mexico were ¶ overlooked. Attempts to draft common NAFTA rules on subsidies, and on antidumping and countervailing ¶ duties,
were abandoned. Side agreements on labor and the environment saved NAFTA from congressional ¶ defeat but were not backed by
meaningful financial resources or authoritative judicial mechanisms. Energy ¶ policy was included in the pact,
but Mexico was exempted from the most important investment provisions. ¶ Thus,
Mexico missed an opportunity to attract much-needed investment and technology
for expanding energy ¶ production. Important NAFTA institutions—the prime example being the North
American Development Bank ¶ (NADBank)—lack adequate mandates and funding and consequently fell short of aspirations.
Turn - NAFTA only benefits transnational corporations – hurts peasant
agriculture
Portes 06(Alejandro Portes ,Howard Harrison and Gabrielle Snyder Beck Professor of Sociology, director of the Center for
Migration and Development at Princeton University, "NAFTA and Mexican Immigration" July 31, 2006
http://borderbattles.ssrc.org/Portes/, RLA)
For sure, there have been “winners” in the process: large transnational corporations
profit from the
abundant labor, slack regulation, and open borders (open, that is, for industrial goods and capital,
not people). All kinds of trinkets are produced south of the border with few government controls and with wages one-seventh or less
of those on the north side. Meanwhile, Mexico City looks just like Los Angeles, only poorer and more garish, full of Toys R Us, Office
Depots, and TGIFs selling goods that all can see, but that only the upper and middle-class—about one-tenth of the population—can
afford.¶ Peasant agriculture has been eviscerated by the arrival of agri-business and
the lifting of restrictions on the sale of peasant land. Industrial employment has
been eviscerated by the closure of hundreds of plants unable to compete with the
transnationals under the new free-for-all trade regime. The response of peasants and workers thus
displaced has been clear and consistent: they have headed north in ever greater absolute numbers. Before NAFTA, undocumented
Mexican immigration came mainly from four or five Mexican states and a limited number of mostly rural municipalities. Since
NAFTA, migrants have originated in all Mexican states, practically all
municipalities, and cities as well as towns and villages. A number of formerly vibrant places are
now ghost towns, all their able adults having gone abroad; about one-third of all Mexican municipalities
have lost population during the last decade, some by half or more. The counterpart of this
hollowing out of the Mexican countryside is the growth of the Mexican migrant population in the U.S., much of it undocumented.
From a purely regional presence in the west and southwest, it has become a truly national phenomenon. States that had barely a
handful of “Hispanics” in 1990 now count a sizable Hispanic population. In Georgia, for example, the Latin-origin population went
from 1.7 percent in 1990 to 5.3 percent in 2000, a 312 percent increase due to an inflow of 300,000 persons, overwhelmingly from
Mexico. Cities like Charlotte, North Carolina, whose “Hispanics” in 1990 consisted of a few wealthy Cuban and South American
professionals, now have upwards of 80,000, mostly undocumented Mexican laborers.
U.S. and Mexican economies are increasingly interdependent – kills the
environment
Cayeros and Selee 10(Alberto Díaz-Cayeros, University of California, San Diego, Andrew Selee, Woodrow Wilson Center
for International Scholars, "Mexico and the United States: The Possibilities of Partnership" April 21, 2010
http://usmex.ucsd.edu/assets/001/503110.pdf, RLA)
All of these areas of increasing interdependence – trade, migration, and drug ¶
trafficking – come together at the U.S.-Mexico border. Since 1990, the border region itself ¶ has
expanded in population, reaching 15.1 million people in counties along the border and¶ 93.3 million in border states. The
border region, however, has grown even faster in ¶ importance as it serves as the pointof
contact between two economies and two societies that are in the midst of a
dramatic process ¶ of integration. The volume of people and goods passing through
the border is vast: almost $760 ¶ million worth of goods and more than half a
million people each day. This expansion, without ¶ corresponding investments in infrastructure, has often created
significant strains in the border ¶ region, which has been further challenged by the rise in organized crime tied to drug trafficking. ¶
Rising interdependence has also put a strain on the border’s natural resources,
including water ¶ and air, which face challenges from the expanding number of
trucks, cars, and factories in the ¶ border region. While the challenge of managing the border
environment is not itself new, it is ¶ increasingly important given the amount of activity taking place that has an impact on the ¶
quality of air and water and on delicate ecosystems. While the two economies and societies have ¶ become increasingly
interdependent, so too has the shared environment in which they operate.
NAFTA takes zero measures to protect the environment
Mumme 99(STEPHEN P. MUMME (Ph.D. 1982 University of Arizona) is Professor of. Political Science at Colorado State
University, "The North American Free Trade Agreement’s impact on the trinational environment remains controversial." October 1,
1999 http://fpif.org/nafta_and_environment/, RLA)
NAFTA’s trade protections are liable to abuse, threatening deterioration of
environmental standards within the region.¶ Flaws in procedures and programs also impair NAFTA’s
environmental institutions.¶ NAFTA’s environmental institutions are poorly funded by the
three governments.¶ The post-NAFTA environmental regime’s capacity to cope with
trade-related challenges suffers from fundamental impediments. Under NAFTA, for
example, domestic environmental laws should not discriminate against trade; thus various of NAFTA’s dispute settlement provisions
allow firms to challenge environmental regulations. Such mechanisms are liable to abuse, as seen recently in the case of NAFTA’s
Chapter 11.B rules for investor protection. These rules obligate governments to compensate investors
for regulations that expropriate an investor’s future property. Fearing such
penalties, states and provinces may retreat from imposing tough environmental
regulations.¶ Flaws in procedures and programs also impair NAFTA’s environmental
institutions. Restrictions on CEC’s autonomy and problems its citizen submission and government-to-government dispute
resolution processes are hindrances to its effectiveness. At least one government, Mexico, has withheld its support for CEC programs
contingent on external approval of the commission’s projects, a significant limitation on CEC’s ability to discharge its mandate in a
professional and unbiased manner.¶ The citizen submission process—a procedure under NAAEC’s (North American Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation) Articles 14 and 15 designed to trigger investigations of alleged nonenforcement of domestic
environmental laws—may be faulted for its complex requirements and lack of transparency. Citizen-initiated complaints face
numerous procedural hurdles and may be terminated with cause by the commission or withdrawn by the submitters. Transparency
questions also persist—the CEC may still refuse to publish a factual record. A recent and largely governmental initiative to modify
these procedural rules would have imposed even more procedures and requirements on the secretariat, further limiting its
autonomy. Fortunately, concerted lobbying by environmental groups led the CEC to reject most of these proposals.
AT: Border security
Zetas are basing in Guatemala – plan does nothing to solve
Beckhusen 12 (Robert Beckhusen, journalism student from Texas, specializes in Latin American defense news, "Marines vs.
Zetas: U.S. Hunts Drug Cartels in Guatemala" 8/29/12 http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/marinesvszetas/, RLA)
The Ahuas shooting “demonstrates the risks of flooding foreign countries with armed representatives of the U.S. government, to
fight an enemy that is largely indistinguishable from the civilian population on unknown terrain,” wrote Patrick Corcoran of InSight,
a Latin America crime monitor. ”The Ahuas shooting may not have been inevitable, but as Americans take a more hands-on role,
such scandals are likely to be repeated,” he wrote.¶ On the other hand, as Mexico’s drug violence worsened,
cartels like the Zetas began spilling over Mexico’s southern border. Guatemala is
now a base for the Zetas, who use the country’s remote northern region shipment
route for narcotics and weapons. In February, Guatemalan President Otto Pérez Molina said his country is “not
doing what the United States says, we are doing what we have to do” — in other words, decriminalize drugs. But Molina has
also emphasized cracking down on the cartels in a mano dura, or “iron fist,”
approach to crime.¶ Now, on the contrary, the U.S. hasn’t gone anywhere close to suggesting drugs be decriminalized.
Gen. Douglas Fraser, the head of U.S. forces in South and Central America, said last year to the House Armed Sevices Committee
that “the violence continues to increase in Central America, and that’s where and
why we are focusing there.”
Turn - Unrestricted trade makes NAFTA prone to criminal activity
Cottam and Marenin 13(Martha L. Cottam, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Washington State
University Institute for the Study of Intercommunal conflict, Otwin Marenin, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Criminal
Justice and Criminology at Washington State University, "The Management of Border Security in NAFTA Imagery, Nationalism, and
the War on Drugs" 2013 http://icj.sagepub.com/content/15/1/5.abstract, RLA)
As a free trade area, NAFTA requires the relatively unrestricted movement of people, goods, and services across the borders between
the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Although the proponents of NAFTA emphasize positive economic outcomes for the three
partners, the dependence of those outcomes on open borders inevitably brings with it
the prospect of greater opportunities for transnational criminal activities,
generally, and for narcotrafficking, in particular. Managing the free flow of goods and people while
limiting the free flow of illegal substances and criminals is the central dilemma of
the war on drugs in NAFTA. Cooperation between the member states differs
strikingly, with smooth cooperation along the northern border between the United States and Canada and a troubling lack of
cooperation along the U.S.-Mexico border. The different patterns in cooperation among policy makers and law enforcement agencies
are largely attributable to mutual perceptions and nationalism in all three countries.
AT: NAFTA
NAFTA causes dfi in Mexico – trades off with U.S. economy
Blecker 97(Robert A. Blecker, a research associate with the Economic Policy Institute, is also a professor of economics at
American University, "NAFTA AND THE PESO COLLAPSE" March 1, 1997 http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bleck/,
RLA)
There is little dispute that, since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect in 1994, Mexico has endured
one of the worst economic crises in its history. At the same time, a rising U.S. trade deficit with Mexico has meant a net loss of jobs
in the United States, not a net gain, as predicted by NAFTA promoters.¶ Many NAFTA promoters insist that the peso devaluation
and the ensuing depression of the Mexican economy resulted solely from failed Mexican macroeconomic and exchange-rate policies.
Furthermore, they argue that the current U.S. trade deficit with Mexico is merely a consequence of the devalued peso and Mexico’s
internal economic problems, not NAFTA.¶ It is certainly true that Mexico’s macro-economic and
exchange-rate policies were flawed and the peso devaluation was badly managed.
Nevertheless, the peso had to be devalued in order to implement the Mexican
strategy for export-led growth that NAFTA was intended to promote — a strategy that was
pushed on Mexico by the U.S. government and the U.S. corporate interests that stood to profit from this trade agreement. In other
words, Mexico had to devalue the peso in order to attract the direct foreign
investment and export-oriented manufacturing that the NAFTA agreement was
designed to promote.
Foreign Direct Investment in the U.S. solves the economy
EOPCEA 11(EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS, "U.S.INBOUND FOREIGN
DIRECT INVESTMENT" June 2011 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/cea_fdi_report.pdf, RLA)
¶ Inbound foreign direct investment can fund production plants, research and development ¶ (R&D) facilities, sales offices,
warehouses, or service centers. It can take the form of a ¶ “greenfield” establishment that creates something from scratch or a merger
or acquisition of a ¶ sufficiently large stake in an existing enterprise.1¶ U.S. “majority-owned” affiliates of
foreign corporations owned $11.7 trillion in U.S. ¶ assets and had $3.5 trillion in
annual sales in 2008, according to the most recently available data ¶ from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.2 Their
value-added production within the United States ¶ was $670 billion in goods and
services, which accounted for 5.9 percent of total U.S. private ¶ output. These firms
employed 5.7 million U.S. workers, accounting for 5.0 percent of ¶ employment in the U.S. private workforce. ¶ Inbound foreign
direct investment provides a number of benefits to the U.S. economy. ¶ The U.S. affiliates of multinational
companies are typically high-productivity firms that are ¶ major private-sector
contributors to national efforts to innovate and build. Figure 1 indicates that ¶ U.S. affiliates of
foreign multinationals contribute 11.3 percent of total U.S. private investment ¶ and 14.3 percent of total U.S. private R&D. U.S.
affiliates are also well-integrated globally and ¶ are the source of 18.1 percent of
total U.S. goods exports U.S. affiliate firms make substantial investments in capital
equipment and R&D and tend ¶ to hire and train skilled workers and pay excellent wages.
These firms paid out wages and other ¶ forms of compensation that averaged more than $71,000 per U.S. employee in 2008 (as ¶
compared to average earnings of $54,000 for full-time annual workers in the economy as a ¶ whole). ¶ U.S. affiliates of foreign
multinationals are particularly important for the American ¶ manufacturing sector. Over 42 percent of the U.S.
affiliates’ total value-added production was ¶ concentrated in the U.S.
manufacturing sector. Roughly one third of the 5.7 million U.S. ¶ employees of these affiliates worked in the
manufacturing sector. Put differently, the U.S. ¶ affiliates of foreign multinationals employed 13 percent of the entire manufacturing
sector ¶ workforce in the United States.
Cepr 12(cepr, center for economic and policy research,"NAFTA and Free Trade Do Not Belong in the Same Sentence" 17 April
2012 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/nafta-and-free-trade-do-not-belong-in-the-same-sentence, RLA)
First, NAFTA was not about free trade. First and foremost, it was about reducing barriers
that made U.S. companies reluctant to invest in Mexico. This meant prohibiting Mexico from
expropriating factories and outlawing any restrictions on the repatriation of profits to the United States.¶ The
agreement
did little to loosen the obstacles facing highly-educated professionals in Mexico,
like doctors and lawyers, from working in the United States. If the agreement had freed up trade
in this area, it could have led to gains to consumers in the tens of billions of dollars a year.¶ In other areas, like patents and
copyrights, NAFTA increased protection by extending the length and scope of these government granted monopolies. Mexico
was forced to develop a U.S. type patent system for prescription drugs which led to
considerably higher drug prices.¶ It is easy to see why someone who might in general support free trade would
oppose NAFTA. The winners are the businesses that are in a position to take advantage
of access to cheap labor in Mexico. The losers are the manufacturing workers in
the United States who will now have to accept lower wages or lose their job.¶ It is
entirely possible that an economist could agree that NAFTA did lead to net gains to the country as a
whole , even if most people end up as losers (e.g. every worker loses $100 in wages, but Mitt Romney's clique pocketed an
additional $50 billion in profit). In this case, she might say the policy was bad in spite of the net gains. (Several of the economists
questioned raised exactly this concern.)¶ The higher costs imposed by higher prices for drugs and other products in Mexico could
mean that a full assessment of costs would show Mexico to be a net loser from NAFTA. While tariffs are rarely more than 20-30
percent of a product's price, patents can raise the price of a drug by several hundred or even several thousand percent. The cost
to Mexico's consumers in the form of higher drug prices can easily outstrip the
small gains that showed up elsewhere. Of course this will lead to higher profits to U.S. drug companies.¶
Given the predicted distribution of gains, it is entirely possible that a fully informed economist could believe that the losses
from NAFTA to the poor and middle class easily swamp the gains to the rich and
for that reason oppose the policy. This is not bad economics as the discussion seems to imply.¶ Or, to put in
terms that even an economist could understand, suppose there was a trade deal that completely opened up doctors, lawyers, and
economists to international competition, but maintained the protection for everyone else, and hugely increased the protection for
autoworkers. It is entirely possible that many economists would oppose this deal. They certainly would not call it
a "free trade" agreement.¶ There is one final point worth making about this exercise. The line "all economists agree"
carries much less weight these days because almost the entire economics profession somehow failed to see the $8 trillion housing
bubble, the collapse of which wrecked the economy. Tens of millions of people continue to suffer with
the loss of their jobs, their homes, and/or their savings as a result of this
incredible incompetence.¶ In the wake of this momentous failure it is understandable that the public would be
reluctant to take the advice of economists on economic policy. (Best question to ask an economist: when did you stop being wrong
about the economy?) This is unfortunate, since economists really have learned some things from their studies that may not be
apparent to everyone.¶ However, economists will have to earn back the public's trust. As long as economists pay no price in their
careers for even the most disastrous failures, this may prove difficult. After all, if there are no consequences to getting things wrong,
why would the public believe that economists will get things right? That is a point on which all economists should agree.
NAFTA has had a horrible impact on the United States economy
White 13(Deborah White, journalist and writer specializing in liberal politics, and progressive issues and perspectives, studied
journalism and non-fiction writing as an undergraduate, graduating Cum Laude from University of California, Los Angeles, earned
an M.B.A. from California State University, Long Beach, and has instructed courses at three public universities, "Free Trade
Increases U.S. Sales and Profits" 2013 http://usliberals.about.com/od/theeconomyjobs/i/FreeTradeAgmts_2.htm, RLA)
When he signed NAFTA on September 14, 1993, President Bill Clinton exulted, "I believe that NAFTA will create a million jobs in the
first five years of its impact. And I believe that that is many more than will be lost... "¶ But industrialist H. Ross Perot
famously predicted a "giant sucking sound" of U.S. jobs heading to Mexico if
NAFTA was approved.¶ Mr. Perot was correct. Reports the Economic Policy Institute:¶ "Since the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and
Mexico through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported
879,280 U.S. jobs. Most of those lost jobs were high-wage positions in
manufacturing industries.¶ "The loss of these jobs is just the most visible tip of NAFTA's impact on the U.S.
economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real
wages for production workers, weakened workers' collective bargaining powers
and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits."
More evidence – NAFTA caused job losses
Amadeo 08(Kimberly Amadeo, M.S., Sloan School of Business, M.I.T. and M.S. Planning, Boston College,"NAFTA Pros and
Cons" April 24, 2008 http://useconomy.about.com/b/2008/04/24/nafta-pros-and-cons.htm, RLA)
Since labor is cheaper in Mexico, many manufacturing industries
moved part of their
production from high-cost U.S. states. Between 1994 and 2010, the U.S. trade deficits with
Mexico totaled $97.2 billion, displacing 682,900 U.S. jobs. (However, 116,400 occurred after
2007, and could have been a result of the financial crisis.) Nearly 80% of the losses were in manufacturing.
California, New York, Michigan and Texas were hit the hardest because they had high concentrations of the industries that moved
plants to Mexico. These industries included motor vehicles, textiles, computers, and
electrical appliances. (Source: Economic Policy Institute, "The High Cost of Free Trade," May 3, 2011)
Amadeo 08(Kimberly Amadeo, M.S., Sloan School of Business, M.I.T. and M.S. Planning, Boston College,"NAFTA Pros and
Cons" April 24, 2008 http://useconomy.about.com/b/2008/04/24/nafta-pros-and-cons.htm, RLA)
Thanks to NAFTA, Mexico lost 1.3 million farm jobs. The 2002 Farm Bill subsidized U.S. agribusiness
by as much as 40% of net farm income. When
NAFTA removed tariffs, corn and other grains were
exported to Mexico below cost. Rural Mexican farmers could not compete. At the same
time, Mexico reduced its subsidies to farmers from 33.2% of total farm income in
1990 to 13.2% in 2001. Most of those subsidies went to Mexico's large farms, anyway.(Source: International Forum on
Globalization, Exposing the Myth of Free Trade, February 25, 2003; The Economist, Tariffs and Tortillas, January 24, 2008)
Agriculture is a major part of the Mexican economy
USCTD 12(United States Conference on Trade and Development "Mexico's Agriculture Development: Perspectives and
Outlook" 2012 http://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=454, RLA)
Agriculture remains a very important sector for Mexico. Despite the declining contribution of the
sector to GDP, and the shrinking of agricultural labour force, about half
of the rural population was
employed in the sector in 2011. Poverty in rural areas in Mexico is high and has
been increasing. In 2008, 61 per cent of the rural population (with an average annual income of 3,800 pesos) was
classified as poor, as compared to a national rate of 45 per cent.¶ In 2007, small farms represented
approximately 73 per cent of total production units. Indeed, small and medium
producers employ a majority of rural population but their potential to provide a decent
livelihood for themselves and to constitute a viable base for expanding economic activity in rural areas
is curtailed by a variety of constraints. These include rising costs of factor inputs,
land possession issues, adverse climatic conditions, increasing competition from
below-cost imports, structural rigidities and some public policies, which although designed to benefit small and
medium holders have not had the intended impact.¶ There is the need for public policy and private action (possibly PublicPrivate-Partnerships) to address the root causes of the continued economic marginalization of small holders, and of agriculture
generally, in order to enhance the sector’s resilience and ensure food security.¶ It is in this context that this diagnosis was
undertaken not only to provide extensive analysis and a comprehensive discussion of the agricultural sector in Mexico but also to
identify realistic policy recommendations that provide workable solutions to enhancing the development impact of the agricultural
sector. It is important, however, that agricultural development is regarded as an
opportunity within the Mexican economy to be exploited to create jobs, reduce
poverty and enhance food security, rather than a problem; and that SAGARPA can, and indeed must, be an
integral part of the rejuvenation and the sustainable development process of Mexican agriculture.
More evidence – NAFTA harms the environment
Amadeo 08(Kimberly Amadeo, M.S., Sloan School of Business, M.I.T. and M.S. Planning, Boston College,"NAFTA Pros and
Cons" April 24, 2008 http://useconomy.about.com/b/2008/04/24/nafta-pros-and-cons.htm, RLA)
In response to NAFTA competitive pressure, Mexico agribusiness used more fertilizers
and other
chemicals, costing $36 billion per year in pollution. Rural farmers expanded into more
marginal land, resulting in deforestation at a rate of 630,000 hectares per year. (Source:
Carnegie Endowment, NAFTA's Promise and Reality, 2004
NAFTA has minimal effects on U.S. trade
Teslik 09(Lee Hudson Teslik, Council on Foreign Relations, NAFTA's Economic Impact, July 7, 2009
http://www.cfr.org/world/naftas-economic-impact/p15790, RLA)
In May 2003, the Congressional Budget Office attempted a full-scale examination of NAFTA's economic consequences to date,
taking care to note the challenges inherent in any effort to assign direct causation to one specific trade agreement. The report came
to three main conclusions:¶ U.S. trade with Mexico was growing before NAFTA's
implementation, and would likely have continued to grow with or without the deal on a scale that "dwarfs the effects" of
NAFTA itself;¶ The direct effect of NAFTA on U.S.-Mexico trade is fairly small, and thus the
direct impact on the U.S. labor market is also small; and¶ Overall, the NAFTA deal has
expanded U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) "very slightly," and has had a similar effect-both
positive and small-on the Canadian and Mexican economies.
NAFTA opens competition to the United States
Teslik 09(Lee Hudson Teslik, Council on Foreign Relations, NAFTA's Economic Impact, July 7, 2009
http://www.cfr.org/world/naftas-economic-impact/p15790, RLA)
But some analysts argue the deal hasn't benefited Mexico much. Alejandro
Portes, a Princeton sociology
professor, notes stagnation in the country's labor market: "Economic growth has been anemic in
Mexico, averaging less than 3.5 percent per year or less than 2 percent on a per
capita basis since 2000," Portes writes. "Unemployment is higher than what it was when the treaty was signed; and
half of the labor force must eke out a living in invented jobs in the informal economy, a figure ten percent higher than in the
pre-NAFTA years." Some critics single out Mexico's farm industry, saying NAFTA has
crippled Mexican farming prospects by opening competition to the heavilysubsidized U.S. farm industry. Economists dispute this assessment as flatly incorrect. The Economist notes that
despite increased competition, Mexican farm exports to the United States have in fact tripled since NAFTA's implementation, in part
because of reduced tariffs on maize.
Turn – NAFTA causes outsourcing of jobs, which wrecks industries
Elkis 13(MARGARET ELKIS, America’s Economic Report Daily, "NAFTA: A Danger To U.S. Jobs, National Security" May 16,
2013 http://economyincrisis.org/content/nafta-a-danger-to-u-s-jobs-national-security, RLA)
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has created detrimental
consequences for
American workers and has destroyed manufacturing in the U.S., prompting some
of our best companies to leave our borders to pursue the lower wage rates, non-existent
environmental standards and “free trade” without restrictions found in other countries like Mexico. This is only one example of the
shady, dangerous implications that can come with “free trade” agreements like NAFTA, a trade agreement between the United
States, Canada, and Mexico. NAFTA is a failed agreement that promised increases in trade, foreign investment and exports. Incomes
and standards of living were supposed to improve. NAFTA was also implemented with the goal of reducing migration, creating
better jobs, and reducing prices for goods. Instead, we’ve lost thousands of U.S. jobs, entire industries
have fled our shores, and our national security has fallen under increased risk at
our borders due to the ever growing presence of drug cartels.¶ NAFTA has been devastating to
the U.S. trade deficit and has resulted in massive job losses—particularly in the manufacturing sector. Between 1994 and 2010, U.S.
trade deficits with Mexico totaled $97.2 billion and displaced an estimated 682,900 U.S. jobs. Nearly all of the losses
were in manufacturing.¶ That is the root problem with our failed “free trade” agreements. It actually encourages
manufacturers to operate outside of the United States, taking their jobs with them. NAFTA uses the prospect of
lower wage rates, non-existent environmental standards, and “free trade” without
restrictions as bait to lure businesses to low-wage countries. As a result, there are
fewer jobs and an American market drowning in foreign-produced goods.¶ It is
imperative that our leaders in Washington either amend the North American Free Trade Agreement to make it work for America or
eliminate it entirely! Let your congressional representative know that we must put an end to NAFTA. Send this article to five of your
friends and ask them to do the same!
Environmental standards, social safety nets, and failure to eliminate all
subsidies
Elkis 13(MARGARET ELKIS, America’s Economic Report Daily, "NAFTA: A Danger To U.S. Jobs, National Security" May 16,
2013 http://economyincrisis.org/content/nafta-a-danger-to-u-s-jobs-national-security, RLA)
Free trade can be painful, as competition eliminates some kinds of jobs. NAFTA
lacks many of the cushioning measures for
safety nets for the displaced and
unemployed, as well as labor standards for workers. ¶ There are few provisions within NAFTA for the
populations which would not benefit from globalization. These include social
mediation of trade disagreements.¶ NAFTA’s focus is on eliminating tariff barriers; it neglects other protectionist measures. For
example, US agricultural subsidies have gone unaddressed and continue to affect the
competitiveness of Mexican exports. ¶ Implementation has been uneven. For example, a provision designed to
allow Mexican trucks to deliver products in the US was rejected by the US Congress in early 2009.¶ Both labor and
environmental standards are largely missing from NAFTA, leading to unsafe
working conditions in factories on both sides of the US-Mexico border and to
environmental degradation in border towns where large populations have settled.
More evidence – NAFTA undermines U.S. manufacturing
Fletcher 11 (Ian Fletcher, the Huffington Post,"More Free Trade Agreements? When NAFTA Failed?" March 20, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/more-free-trade-agreement_b_838196.html, RLA)
NAFTA has eliminated some 766,000 job opportunities--primarily for non-collegeeducated workers in manufacturing. Contrary to what the American promoters of NAFTA promised U.S.
workers, the agreement did not result in an increased trade surplus with Mexico, but the reverse. As manufacturing
jobs disappeared, workers were down-scaled to lower-paying, less-secure services
jobs. Within manufacturing, the threat of employers to move production to Mexico proved
a powerful weapon for undercutting workers' bargaining power.¶ The idea of Mexico as a vast
export market for American products is a sad joke; Mexicans are simply too poor. In the 1997 words of Business Mexico, a proNAFTA publication of the American Chamber of Commerce of Mexico:¶ The reality is that only between 10
and 20 percent of the population are really considered consumers. The extreme unequal
distribution of wealth has created a distorted market, the economy is hamstrung by a work force with a poor level of education, and a
sizable chunk of the gross domestic product in devoted to exports rather than production for home consumption.
U.S. Mexico trade recovering now
Robertson 09(Raymond Robertson, Director of the Latin American Studies program and Professor of Economics at
Macalester College,"Mexico and the great trade collapse" 27 November 2009 http://www.voxeu.org/article/mexico-and-greattrade-collapse, RLA)
This line of analysis suggests that Mexico’s integration into the US supply chain is one reason
Mexico’s trade collapsed so far and so fast when the US manufacturing sector was
hit by the crisis.¶ A final, more subtle point, is evidence of economic recovery (see Figure 2). Preliminary statistics reveal
that Mexico’s exports to the US hit a local minimum of about US$12 billion in
January 2009. They have been generally increasing since then. Mexico’s exports to the US in
September 2009 hit almost US$17 billion – an increase of over 36%.¶ Further evidence can be found in the way Mexico’s trade seems
to be recovering along the same path as the US trade shown in Figure 1. Trade may be recovering and the
adverse shock to Mexican trade during the great trade collapse may be on the
wane, if not over entirely.
Trade is resilient – employment increases during expansions
Robertson 09(Raymond Robertson, Director of the Latin American Studies program and Professor of Economics at
Macalester College,"Mexico and the great trade collapse" 27 November 2009 http://www.voxeu.org/article/mexico-and-greattrade-collapse, RLA)
The great trade collapse may be temporary, but some of the consequences may be permanent and widespread.¶ Quasi-permanent
shifts in production across countries may be linked to the great trade collapse of 2008 because adjusting production is costly. For
example, a simple graph of US manufacturing employment over the last 30 years shows that manufacturing
employment drops sharply in recessions and then levels off during expansions. In
other words, in the presence of adjustment costs, a global recession can provide the shock necessary
to “push” firms to restructure production in ways that may have been less
attractive during expansionary periods. The contraction forces firms to overcome
the fixed costs of shifting production and therefore it is very likely that the great trade collapse will
coincide with a significant change in the location of production worldwide.
Off case
China CP
China’s low wages solves the US-Mexican manufacturing sector
comparatively better
Wilson 11 [Christopher Wilson, associate with the Mexico Institute, “Working Together: Economic ties between the United
States and Mexico” Woodrow Wilson Center, November 2011,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Working%20Together%20Full%20Document_0.pdf]//PP
When China joined the WTO in 2001, it consolidated its position as a popular location for
offshore
production due to extraordinarily low labor costs. Total compensation in the manufacturing
industry, including wages and benefits paid both directly to employees and through taxes, totaled less than a dollar per
hour. In 2003, average hourly compensation in China was just 62 cents, while in Mexico’s
manufacturing sector it was $5.06.94 Many Mexican maquiladoras shut down and relocated to
China. In fact, between October 2000 and March 2002, maquiladora production declined by
30%.95
CP
CP Text: __________ should consult the Commission for Environmental
Cooperation
Consulting the CEC ensures effective funding and implementation
Mumme 99(STEPHEN P. MUMME (Ph.D. 1982 University of Arizona) is Professor of. Political Science at Colorado State
University, "The North American Free Trade Agreement’s impact on the trinational environment remains controversial." October 1,
1999 http://fpif.org/nafta_and_environment/, RLA)
/Five years and counting since the NAFTA accords took effect, there is much to be done to realize its promise of supporting
sustainable development. It is now plain that NAFTA’s rules protecting trade and investment in the
trinational region are an invitation to the private sector to challenge
environmental regulations. These rules and their implementation procedures must be shored up if a gradual
erosion of state and provincial standards is to be avoided. At minimum, NAFTA’s trade officials should be
required to consult with the CEC and national environmental ministries in dealing
with environment-related trade disputes. In the matter of NAFTA Chapter 11 challenges to environmental
rules, the CEC has already proffered its advisory services to the Free Trade Commission, an offer the FTC should accept.¶ NAFTA’s
most constructive policy contribution has been the development of new international institutions and initiatives for environmental
protection in the trinational region. Operating with very limited resources, these institutions have performed judiciously and shown
their value. Thus far, however, the three governments have not allowed these auxiliary bodies to function to their potential.
Neither the CEC, BECC, nor NADBank have been adequately funded, resulting in
staff shortages, fewer programs, and less efficient performance of mandated
functions. The federal governments should augment budgetary support for these institutions and allow them to respond more
effectively to public concerns.
CEC is key to environmental cooperation – other policies fail
Markell and Knox 02(David L. Markell, ¶ Florida State University College of Law¶ John H. Knox ¶ ,Wake Forest
University - School of Law"Greening NAFTA: The Experience and Potential of the North American Commission for Environmental
Cooperation" September 2002 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=327820, RLA)
The North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (the NACEC or CEC) is an innovative international environmental
institution in three important ways. It is the first international organization created to address the environmental aspects of
economic integration. It is a regional environmental institution with powerful tools and
almost unlimited jurisdiction. And it provides unprecedented opportunities for
participation by civil society at the international level . ¶ In each of these respects, the Commission
addresses critical international concerns. The effort to reconcile environmental protection and
economic integration has become one of the flashpoints of international
discourse; although rarely raised before 1990, since then environmental objections to trade and investment agreements have
nearly prevented ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement, contributed to the abandonment of talks aimed at a
Multilateral Agreement on Investment, and helped lead to the 1999 Seattle riots that accompanied the failed effort to begin a new
round of World Trade Organization negotiations. At the same time, the international community has become more aware of the
interdependence of ecological systems and the need for international institutions to protect the environment. Despite the
proliferation of environment policies effectively and the handful of regional
environmental organizations are relatively powerless. With respect to economic integration and
environmental protection, as well as many other areas of international cooperation, nations are struggling to respond to the
demands of their citizens to participate in the development and implementation of international policies that affect them. ¶ The
Commission is important because it provides creative answers to each of these issues. Its
answers may or may not prove satisfactory but, either way, the lessons to be drawn from its experience should be of great value to all
those trying to reconcile environmental protection and economic integration, to promote stronger regional and
global environmental organizations, and to find ways for civil society to participate
in international policy. The agreement creating the CEC has already been used as a model for bilateral agreements
between Canada and Chile and between the United States and Jordan. Surprisingly, however, the Commission has received
relatively little scholarly attention. Although political scientists and lawyers have described its relationship to NAFTA and have
analyzed its submissions procedure, there are few comprehensive analyses of how it is fulfilling, or failing to fulfill, its mandates.
This book is intended to fill that gap.
CEC faces zero opposition during legislation
Kibel 04(Paul Stanton Kibel, ,Policy West's Director, holds an LL.M. from the University of California at Berkeley's Boalt Hall
Law School and a B.A. from Colgate University in New York. Kibel is of counsel to and a former partner with the law firm of
Fitzgerald Abbott & Beardsley, and has practiced law with Pacific Environment, the California State Coastal Conservancy and
Earthjustice , "Greening NAFTA: The North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (review)" May 2004
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/gep/summary/v004/4.2kibel.html, RLA)
The NAFTA-plus agenda initiated by Clinton led to the negotiation of two new agreements—the North American Agreement on
Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement of Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC). The
cornerstone of the NAAEC was the proposed creation of a new trinational agency to be
headquartered in Montreal, Quebec—the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation
(CEC). Some environmentalists withdrew their opposition to NAFTA so long as
NAAEC came with it. Other environmentalists rejected the NAAEC as ineffective green window-dressing to NAFTA.
Politically, however, Clinton's NAFTA-plus strategy did the trick. It swung enough
environmentalists and labor activists to the pro-NAFTA side to secure approval by
the United States Congress in late 1993.¶ This is the political backdrop for Stanford University Press' new
collection of essays, Greening NAFTA: The North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, edited by Professors David
Markell (of Florida State University College of Law) and John Knox (of Pennsylvania State University's Dickinson School of Law).¶
Greening NAFTA consists of 16 essays which are divided into three sections. The first section is entitled Regional Solutions to
Regional Problems, and reviews the CEC's collaborative efforts to develop tri-national approaches to deal with transnational
problems in North America. Greg Block, Director of Programs at the CEC from 1995-2002, begins this section with an account of
how the CEC developed its initial work plan. Block's piece is followed by essays on pollutants, biodiversity conservation and
transboundary pollution. In this section, we learn that the CEC has made much progress in terms of
providing a new forum and serving as a new impetus for information-sharing and
better coordination of national environmental programs in Canada, Mexico and
the United States.¶ As Block (p.35) notes, however, this success also reveals the CEC's hesitancy to insert
itself into environmental areas that might be more thorny for North America's
national governments:¶ Early on, the CEC had to come to terms with the fact that avoiding difficult and polemic issues
might isolate the institution from the most important regional environmental issues of the day. Put another way, if the CEC were to
become more than a mere forum for discussion and coordination—if it sought to do something more than identify some of the
driving forces of environmental pressures in the region—then it would have to buckle up for a turbulent ride.
The counterplan is popular - The public wants to minimize environmental
damage
Vaughan 2k(Scott Vaughan, joined NACEC in September 1998 as head of the Environment, Economy and Trade program,
was a counselor at the World Trade Organization (WTO), where he worked on a range of issues in support of the WTO Committee on
Trade and Environment, has also held a number of positions with the United Nations Environment Program, “Assessing the
environmental effects of free trade” Fall 2000 http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=2414, RLA)
The public is clearly worried that unprecedented rates of global economic
expansion—fuelled partly by trade liberalization—and unprecedented rates of global
environmental degradation are related. Many argue that a possible correlation between
environmental quality and free trade, direct or indirect, is grounds enough to stop any new
trade initiatives until the environmental consequences of existing trade commitments are clearly understood, and
adequate policy responses are put in place to minimize environmental costs and maximize
environmental benefits.¶ Given the public profile of the trade-environment debate, it is surprising that only tentative
or hypothetical observations have thus far been made linking environmental impacts to international trade; this is all the more
surprising in light of recent advances in environmental impact assessments. In the last decade, these assessments have
become more accurate and encompassing, built upon rigorous and comprehensive environmental data sets,
baselines and aggregated indicators. They have become more robust, featuring geographic information systems and various
mapping techniques, as well as ecological, economic and other models. As well as utilizing these and other approaches,
environmental impact assessments are grounded in and legitimized by full
transparency and by the early and regular input of the public.
More evidence the counterplan is popular and public support is key
Johnson 13(Marc Johnson, lawyer and physician, former Premier of the province of Quebec and a member of IUCN (The
World Conservation Union) Council, “Global trade and the environment” 2013
http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=2414)
In addition to shedding light on what is happening to our environment because of NAFTA, the
symposium will begin
pinpointing the policy choices we need to take to ensure a healthy environmental
future. And it will identify who needs to be involved in making these decisions. ¶ While the lessons of Seattle continue to be
disentangled, one message is crystal clear: the public opposes the isolation of trade
policy from social and environmental concerns, and key decisions being made in
secret, behind closed doors. The WTO, as well as the World Bank and IMF, all face similar criticism about their
strictly economic approach and secretive nature. In a pointed criticism of the IMF, Joe Steiglitz?the highly respected former chief
economist of the World Bank, noted that, "Smart people are more likely to do stupid things when they close themselves off from
outside criticism and advice."¶ NACEC remains a unique intergovernmental body founded on principles of transparency and public
participation. The analysis to be presented at the October symposium is not the product of closed committees, but rather the
response of the public to a call for papers issued last year, based on a rigorous framework developed by NACEC for assessing trade
and environment linkages. As chair of the symposium, and someone long-active in public service, it is my strong belief that
public policy can only gain enduring public support when the public itself is
engaged early, and often. This environmental symposium on the effects of free
trade promises to bring valuable lessons to those in civil society, governments, the
private sector and organisations like the WTO and IMF on building new institutions responsive to our postSeattle world.
Politics links
Plan would cause backlash – congress hates NAFTA
Palmer 10(Doug Palmer, writer for Rueters, "U.S. lawmakers launch push to repeal NAFTA” March 4, 2010
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/04/us-usa-congress-nafta-idUSTRE6233MS20100304, RLA)
A small group of U.S. lawmakers unveiled legislation on Thursday to withdraw
from the North American Free Trade Agreement in the latest sign of congressional disillusionment with
free-trade deals.¶ The bill spearheaded by Rep. Gene Taylor, a Mississippi Democrat, would require President Barack Obama to give
Mexico and Canada six months notice that the United States will no longer be part of the 16-year-old trade pact.¶ "At a time when 10
to 12 percent of the American people are unemployed, I think Congress has an obligation to put people
back to work," Taylor said.¶ He argued NAFTA has cost the United States millions of
manufacturing jobs and hurt national security by encouraging companies to move
production to Mexico.¶ The high unemployment rate makes it the "perfect" time to push for repeal even
though past efforts have failed, he said.¶ "You'll see the American people rally behind this, in my humble opinion," said Rep. Walter
Jones, a North Carolina Republican who is one of about 28 co-sponsors of the bill.¶ Business groups like the National Association of
Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly support NAFTA, which they say has spurred U.S. economic growth by
tearing down trade barriers between the three countries.¶ The repeal proposal comes as Obama says he
wants to resolve problems blocking congressional approval of long-delayed trade
deals with South Korea, Panama and Colombia.¶ The strongest opposition to those
agreements comes from Obama's fellow Democrats.¶ The United States also will begin talks later this
month with Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Chile, Peru, Vietnam and Brunei on an Asia-Pacific regional free-trade agreement.¶
Obama criticized NAFTA during the 2008 presidential election campaign but has not followed through on threats to withdraw from
the agreement if Canada and Mexico did not agree to revamp the pact's labor and environmental provisions.¶ But many Democrats
are pushing for that and other changes to existing trade deals before considering any new deals such as the deals with South Korea,
Colombia and Panama.¶ The House of Representatives is expected to vote later this year on whether the United States should remain
a member of the World Trade Organization.¶ U.S. law allows House and Senate members to request a vote on that issue every five
years. In 2005, 86 of the House's 435 members voted to withdraw from the world trade body.
Congress hates NAFTA’s lack of restrictions on Mexican trucking
Amadeo 08(Kimberly Amadeo, M.S., Sloan School of Business, M.I.T. and M.S. Planning, Boston College,"NAFTA Pros and
Cons" April 24, 2008 http://useconomy.about.com/b/2008/04/24/nafta-pros-and-cons.htm, RLA)
Another agreement within NAFTA has not been implemented. NAFTA would have allowed
trucks from
Mexico to travel within the United States beyond the current 20-mile commercial
zone limit. A demonstration project by the Department of Transportation (DoT) was set up to review the practicality of this. In
2008, the House of Representatives terminated this project, and prohibited the DoT from allowing this provision of NAFTA to ever
be implemented without Congressional approval.¶ Congress was concerned that Mexican trucks
would have presented a road hazard. They are not subject to the same safety
standards as U.S. trucks. In addition, this portion of NAFTA was opposed by the
U.S. truckers' organizations and companies, who would have lost business. Currently, Mexican trucks
must stop at the 20-mile limit and have their goods transferred to U.S. trucks.¶ There was also a question of reciprocity. The
NAFTA agreement would also have allowed unlimited access for U.S. trucks
throughout Mexico. A similar agreement works well between the other NAFTA partner, Canada. However, U.S. trucks
are larger and carry heavier loads. This violates size and weight restrictions imposed by the Mexican government.
The GOP despises NAFTA, and seeks to repeal it
Sayani 11(Daniel Sayani, a political contributor for the New American, political news commentary"Real Conservatives Oppose
NAFTA" June 9, 2011 http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/4021-real-conservatives-oppose-nafta, RLA)
One of the most important, but widely unknown bills currently proposed in Congress is legislation that would end American
participation in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The bill, H.R. 4759, calls for America’s withdrawal from the
free trade agreement, and is sponsored by several Democrats and a small cadre of Republicans, including Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)
and Rep. Walter B. Jones (R- N.C.).¶ Introduced back in February, the legislation
seeks to immediately terminate American participation in NAFTA. Rep. Mike McIntyre (DN.C., left), the bill’s chief sponsor, says that “NAFTA has done way too much damage, and we need
to repeal it! NAFTA has cost too many jobs, eroded our industrial base, and
decimated towns and communities. Enough is enough — we need to focus on creating jobs
right here in the United States — not in foreign countries!” McIntyre also says that NAFTA
and similar trade agreements have resulted in a 29-percent decline in U.S. manufacturing
employment since 1993, discouraging investments in U.S. manufacturing facilities while accelerating the erosion of
American industry, and he is supporting a “Make it in America” plan that will help bring back our manufacturing base and create
jobs right here at home.¶ Opposition to free trade agreements, while a minority view in today’s
internationalist-oriented Republican Party, is
in all actuality a robust and important part of the
history of the GOP. Robert Lighthizer, a trade representative in the Reagan administration, rightfully argues that free
trade agreements were a long-standing policy of leftists, including Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton (who led the push for America’s entry
into NAFTA in 1993), and Barack Obama. Lighthizer also says that those considered to be America’s leading conservatives, including
former Senator Jesse Helms (R-.N.C.), former Senator Robert Taft (R-Ohio), Alexander Hamilton (one of our nation’s Founding
Fathers), and even former President Theodore Roosevelt, who wrote that “pernicious indulgence in the doctrine of free trade seems
inevitably to produce fatty degeneration of the moral fiber.” In fact, the first vocal Republican in support of free trade was Dwight
Eisenhower, who was vociferously opposed by conservatives, including supporters of Robert Taft and the then-nascent John Birch
Society (Robert Welch‘s damning investigation, The Politician, discussed much of Eisenhower‘s leftist tendencies). The GOP
would be wise to return to its roots as an anti-free trade agreement, economicallynationalistic party that upholds national sovereignty, prosperity, national defense
capabilities, and enhanced opportunity for the American middle class, and with a burgeoning protectionist stream within the
Tea Party movement and an out-of-control immigration problem rallying the conservative base, now is the time to repeal NAFTA.
NAFTA is unpopular – Democrats and Republicans want trade restrictions
Dickerson 08(Marla Dickerson, Times Staff Writer, "NAFTA has had its trade-offs for the U.S." March 03, 2008
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/03/business/fi-nafta3, RLA)
Whether talk of revamping NAFTA amounts to more than election-year stumping
remains to be seen. Three-way trade has soared and unemployment in the U.S. is substantially lower now than it was 14
years ago -- 4.9% in January 2008 compared with 6.6% in January 1994. American shoppers have benefited from lower prices on
imported goods, and U.S.-based multinational companies have boosted their competitiveness by whittling production costs.¶ Yet
there is growing wariness among the public that the U.S. is giving away more than it's getting. After all, the nation has lost
3.1 million manufacturing jobs since 1994, and its trade deficit with Mexico and
Canada has risen to $138.5 billion last year from $9.1 billion in 1993.¶ Lawmakers who are critical of the Bush
administration's trade policies picked up 37 congressional seats in the 2006 election, according to Global Trade Watch, a
Washington-based advocacy group. Although Congress approved a free trade pact with Peru in December, pending deals with
Colombia, Panama and South Korea are stalled.¶ It's not just Democrats who want a time out. Six
in
10 Republican voters said that free trade had hurt the U.S. and that they would
support tougher import restrictions, according to a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll in October.¶ "We're
seeing the strongest opposition to free trade expansion in recent memory," said Eric Farnsworth, vice president of the Council of the
Americas, a Washington-based business group that promotes open markets in the Western Hemisphere. "NAFTA has
become symbolic of the fears and apprehensions of globalization in general."¶
Despite promises that NAFTA would help keep Mexicans at home, illegal immigration to the U.S. has
accelerated. About two-thirds of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States have arrived since 1995,
according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Many hail from rural Mexico -- casualties, critics say, of a trade deal that pitted highly
subsidized U.S. and Canadian agribusiness against Mexican producers working tiny plots.¶ "The dimensions of the problem are
finally becoming obvious," said Raul Fernandez, a professor of Chicano and Latino studies at UC Irvine. " Policymakers in
the United States realize they have created a monster, and that monster is
devouring them."
More evidence – NAFTA unpopular
Kaptur 13(Congress Woman Kaptur, website that sponsors and follows congress woman Kaptur, "Trade" 7/3/13
http://www.kaptur.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=629, RLA)
In the early 1990s, Congresswoman Kaptur joined House Majority
Whip David Bonior
and freshman Congressman Sherrod Brown in leading the House effort against the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).¶ America today sees the results of this failed policy:
shuttered factories, depleted tax bases, and families out of work. NAFTA promised millions of good jobs for Americans, but we got
the giant sucking sound that H. Ross Perot predicted.¶ NAFTA and similar agreements contributed to
the devastation of our great manufacturing sector, which has lost a third of its workers since 1994 due
in part to unfair trade. Multinational
corporations rushed to low-wage countries to take
advantage of cheap labor. Meanwhile, state-managed trade policy in nations such as Japan, Germany, and South
Korea continued to keep out American-made products.¶ Working together, our businesses and labor organizations built Northern
Ohio into an industrial powerhouse, always standing up for America, whether in war or peace. America's working men
and working women and their families deserve a government that takes their side, not the side of big money. They
deserve fair trade agreements that produce a level economic playing field, not a
race to the bottom.