Neg Politics- TPP
1nc Shell
TPP will pass by the end of the year because of strong executive lobbying
Vicki Needham - 07/01/15- Trade chief: Congress could get Pacific deal by year's end, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/trade/246655-trade-chief-congress-could-get-pacific-trade-deal-byyears-end
U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said Wednesday he is confident Congress will approve a massive transPacific trade agreement, possibly by year’s end. Froman said the “likelihood is very high that Congress will
pass” the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), because it will be a strong agreement reflecting the “enormous input by
Congress.” “This process, going through the [trade promotion authority] process, has been enormously useful from the perspective of
making absolutely clear what Congress expects from us in terms of bringing back high-standard agreements,” Froman said at a Politico
Playbook breakfast. With trade promotion authority (TPA), or fast-track, in
the books, Froman said the first order of
business is to complete the TPP negotiations and bring that agreement to Congress for approval.
Negotiators are still working out a final batch of tricky issues, Froman said, but he predicted Congress could pass the AsiaPacific pact by the end of the year. Negotiators of the developing 12-nation agreement are aiming to
complete a deal this summer. A key meeting between the countries’ leaders could happen by the end of the month. Froman
said he is taking lessons from the fast-track fight to pave the way for passage. “I think the main lesson I
learned over the past couple of years of working on this is just how proactive we need to be in addressing concerns.
There’s a lot of myths, a lot of misinformation out there about trade and there are legitimate concerns underneath some of
those myths and misinformation,” he said.
<INSERT SPECIFIC LINK HERE>
Political capital key to TPP – empirics prove
Miller and Goodman 15 [Scott, senior adviser and holds the William M. Scholl Chair in International
Business at CSIS, Matthew, William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at CSIS, "Conclude the TransPacific Partnership" CSIS -- January -- csis.org/files/publication/141223_Green_Pivot_Web.pdf]
What is needed to conclude TPP in 2015?∂ For the United States, trade agreements enter into effect once the U.S.
Congress passes∂ legislation to implement the provisions negotiated by the executive branch. That∂
action is the end of a process that begins with building domestic political support for∂ the policy. Advocates in
the business community and elsewhere have a role, but if∂ history is any guide presidential leadership is fundamental to
making the case to the∂ public and managing the political conflicts that are always a part of trade policy.∂
Immediately following the November midterm elections, incoming Senate Majority∂ Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Speaker John
Boehner (R-OH) made it clear that∂ trade agreements like TPP were an area of potential cooperation with
the president.∂ During President Obama’s first term, the implementing bills for free-trade agreements∂ (FTAs) with Colombia, Panama,
and South Korea passed the Republican-controlled∂ House by comfortable margins, with over 200 Republicans and 30–60 Democrats∂ voting in
favor. This 2011 success gave TPP talks momentum, with Canada, Mexico,∂ and Japan deciding to join the talks shortly after the FTAs passed.
Voting patterns indicate that trade policy remains an issue that divides Democrats and∂ unites Republicans. The
president must
actively manage his party’s politics while∂ cooperating with Republican majorities in Congress who will
provide the majority of∂ the votes. It’s never easy to advance an issue that divides your usual allies and unites∂ your usual
opponents, but there is no alternative scenario. In short, the next step belongs to the president. He must engage the public on
the∂ issue, underscoring its importance to the economy and, more broadly, the U.S. role in∂ the world. And he must manage the
delicate relations with Congress, navigating past∂ areas of conflict to form a durable base of support for
his agreements. Presidential∂ leadership will resonate in other capitals, especially Tokyo, where trading
partners∂ are looking for evidence of an adequate political consensus in the United States.
TPP solidifies US leadership in Asia – solves regional stability
Michele Flournoy, Chief Executive, Center for a New American Security and former Undersecretary for
Defense and Ely Ratner, senior fellow, CNAS, “A Trade Deal with a Bonus for National Security,” WALL
STREET JOURNAL, 3—8—15, www.wsj.com/articles/michele-flournoy-and-ely-ratner-a-trade-deal-witha-bonus-for-national-security-1425854510.
On the Big Island of Hawaii beginning Monday, U.S. officials will host trade negotiators from 11 nations spanning Asia and the Americas to work toward completing
what could be the most significant trade deal in a generation. Five years in the making, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
would cover 40% of
global gross domestic product and a third of world trade. Any such deal ultimately will have to make it through the U.S. Congress. In order to
prevent lawmakers from amending the agreement and undoing years of international negotiations, Congress will first have to provide President Obama with trade
promotion authority, also known as “fast-track,” that allows a yes-or-no vote on the package. This is the time for advocates on both sides to move beyond the usual
economic arguments and consider the extraordinary geopolitical
stakes involved. Not every trade agreement puts America’s prestige,
influence and leadership on the line, but the TPP does. Much of the history of the 21st century will be written in Asia,
and no region will affect U.S. prosperity and security more in the coming decades. Few in the region doubt the
foundations of American power—favorable geography, abundant energy and resources, healthy demographics, diversity and immigration,
cutting-edge technology and education, and a penchant for innovation. But it’s less clear that Washington can govern effectively
and sustain America’s traditional global role. Bipartisan congressional action on fast-track authority would
provide a welcome counter to skeptics who question the U.S. commitment to the Asia-Pacific. By opening new
opportunities for trade and leveling the playing field for American businesses and workers, the TPP would further fuel America’s economic
recovery and support long-term growth. A healthier fiscal environment would in turn help Washington
reverse defense cuts that threaten to undermine the U.S. military’s readiness and technological edge when we need
them more than ever. Deeper economic engagement in Asia would also help strengthen America’s security ties, which are
a unique and central feature of U.S. global power. These critical partnerships are at their strongest and most durable
when military cooperation rests on a foundation of shared economic interests. Wealthier partners benefiting from a
more open regional trading system would be able to devote greater resources to helping the U.S. address global and
regional security challenges, from counterterrorism and maritime security to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. The TPP also
represents an unprecedented opportunity—and one that may not return for decades—to establish widespread trade
rules in Asia that advance U.S. values and interests. The agreement would lock in stronger labor and environmental protections, while
establishing new rules on intellectual property rights and curbing unfair government subsidies to state-owned enterprises. Ensuring that countries like Japan,
Malaysia and Vietnam elevate their practices to meet these higher standards would yield economic and social reforms that the U.S. has long sought to advance in
Asia. This wave of reform would continue as other countries line up to join the pact in future rounds. Critics of free trade in general, and the TPP in particular, claim
these standards don't go far enough. Perhaps, but the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Given the painstaking negotiations and the diversity of
countries involved, disrupting
the deal now would likely lead to no deal at all. In that event the leadership vacuum left
by the U.S. would quickly be filled by other powers, most likely China, which would be more than happy to set laxer rules and lower
standards for global trade. How would the U.S. benefit from such a race to the bottom? The good news is that this contest is Washington’s to
lose. Polls show that more than two-thirds of Americans support increased trade ties overseas, and there remains a strong bipartisan consensus for U.S.
engagement in Asia. Now it is up to lawmakers on Capitol Hill to ensure that the U.S. reaps the national security
windfall of the TPP. To fail would be a historic strategic folly.
Asian instability escalates to nuclear armed conflict- major powers will be drawn in
Campbell 8 (Kurt M, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Dr. Campbell served in several capacities in government, including
as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia and the Pacific, Director on theNational Security Council Staff, previously the Chief Executive Officer and cofounder of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), served as Director of the Aspen Strategy Group and the Chairman of the Editorial Board of
the Washington Quarterly, and was the founder and Principal of StratAsia, a strategic advisory company focused on Asia, rior to co-founding CNAS, he served as
Senior Vice President, Director of the International Security Program, and the Henry A. Kissinger Chair in National Security Policy at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, doctorate in International Relation Theory from Oxford, former associate professor of public policy and international relations at the John F.
Kennedy School of Government and Assistant Director of the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, member of Council on Foreign
Relations and International Institute for Strategic Studies, “The Power of Balance: America in iAsia” June 2008,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CampbellPatelSingh_iAsia_June08.pdf)
Asian investment is also at record levels. Asian countries lead the world with unprecedented infrastructure projects. With over $3 trillion in
foreign currency reserves, Asian nations and businesses are starting to shape global economic activity. Indian firms are purchasing industrial
giants such as Arcelor Steel, as well as iconic brands of its once-colonial ruler, such as Jaguar and Range Rover. China’s Lenovo bought IBM’s
personal computer We call the transformations across the Asia-Pacific the emergence of “iAsia” to reflect the adoption by countries across Asia
of fundamentally new strategic approaches to their neighbors and the world. Asian
nations are pursuing their interests with real
power in a period of both tremendous potential and great uncertainty. iAsia is: Integrating: iAsia includes increasing economic
interdependence and a flowering of multinational forums to deal with trade, cultural exchange, and, to some degree, security. Innovating: iAsia
boasts the world’s most successful manufacturing and technology sectors and could start taking the lead in everything from finance to
nanotech to green tech. Investing: Asian nations are developing infrastructure and human capital at unprecedented rates. But the
continent remains plagued by: Insecurity: Great-power rivalry is alive in Asia. Massive military investments along
with historic suspicions and contemporary territorial and other conflicts make war in Asia plausible. Instability: From
environmental degradation to violent extremism to trafficking in drugs, people, and weapons, Asian nations have much to worry about.
Inequality: Within nations and between them, inequality in Asia is more stark than anywhere else in the world. Impoverished minorities in
countries like India and China, and the gap in governance and capacity within countries, whether as backward as Burma or as advanced as
Singapore, present unique challenges. A traditional approach to Asia will not suffice if the United States is to both protect American interests
and help iAsia realize its potential and avoid pitfalls. business and the Chinese government, along with other Asian financial players, injected
billions in capital to help steady U.S. investment banks such as Merrill Lynch as the American subprime mortgage collapse unfolded. Chinese
investment funds regional industrialization, which in turn creates new markets for global products. Asia now accounts for over 40 percent of
global consumption of steel 4 and China is consuming almost half of world’s available concrete. 5 Natural resources from soy to copper to oil
are being used by China and India at astonishing rates, driving up commodity prices and setting off alarm bells in Washington and other
Western capitals. Yet Asia
is not a theater at peace. On average, between 15 and 50 people die every day from causes tied to
rivalry and nationalism run deep. The continent harbors every traditional and nontraditional challenge of our age: it is a cauldron of religious and ethnic tension; a source of terror and extremism; an accelerating driver
conflict, and suspicions rooted in
of the insatiable global appetite for energy; the place where the most people will suffer the adverse effects of global climate change; the
and the most likely theater on Earth for a major conventional confrontation and even a
nuclear conflict. Coexisting with the optimism of iAsia are the ingredients for internal strife, non-traditional threats like
terrorism, and traditional interstate conflict, which are all magnified by the risk of miscalculation or poor decisionprimary source of nuclear proliferation;
making.
Uniqueness
TPP Will Pass
TPP will pass by the end of the year because of strong executive lobbying
Vicki Needham - 07/01/15- Trade chief: Congress could get Pacific deal by year's end, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/trade/246655-trade-chief-congress-could-get-pacific-trade-deal-byyears-end
U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said Wednesday he is confident Congress will approve a massive transPacific trade agreement, possibly by year’s end. Froman said the “likelihood is very high that Congress will
pass” the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), because it will be a strong agreement reflecting the “enormous input by
Congress.” “This process, going through the [trade promotion authority] process, has been enormously useful from the perspective of
making absolutely clear what Congress expects from us in terms of bringing back high-standard agreements,” Froman said at a Politico
Playbook breakfast. With trade promotion authority (TPA), or fast-track, in
the books, Froman said the first order of
business is to complete the TPP negotiations and bring that agreement to Congress for approval.
Negotiators are still working out a final batch of tricky issues, Froman said, but he predicted Congress could pass the AsiaPacific pact by the end of the year. Negotiators of the developing 12-nation agreement are aiming to
complete a deal this summer. A key meeting between the countries’ leaders could happen by the end of the month. Froman
said he is taking lessons from the fast-track fight to pave the way for passage. “I think the main lesson I
learned over the past couple of years of working on this is just how proactive we need to be in addressing concerns.
There’s a lot of myths, a lot of misinformation out there about trade and there are legitimate concerns underneath some of
those myths and misinformation,” he said.
TPP will be completed and approved by congress before the year’s end
Reuters 7/1/2015, U.S. trade representative sees Pacific trade pact before Congress by year-end,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/01/us-trade-tpp-usa-idUSKCN0PB4PJ20150701
U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman
said he hopes to wrap up a trade deal with 11 other Pacific Rim
nations soon and send it to the U.S. Congress for approval before the end of the year. Lawmakers last week
granted the White House authority to close the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade deals and speed them through
Congress, opening the door to a phase of intense negotiations to finalize the pact. The TPP would cover 40
percent of the world economy and is central to President Barack Obama's effort to engage more closely with Asia and balance China's
influence. Froman said the
United States was talking to TPP partners to clear up sticking points and prepare for
a ministerial meeting to finalize the deal. Talks with Japan were nearly done, although issues such as intellectual
property protection, access to Canada's dairy market, Australian sugar exports to the United States and state-owned enterprises still had to be
agreed. "We're going
to be having some conversations over the coming days to make sure we are on track
towards closing," Froman told an event organized by Politico. A source close to the negotiations told Reuters the ministerial meeting is
set for the last week of July. Froman said a date had not been set but he aimed to close the deal "in the near term" and
have the TPP before Congress before the end of the year for approval. "I think the likelihood is pretty
high that Congress will pass it," he said. One stumbling block has been agreeing with Japan on access for U.S. farm
products and autos, but Froman said he did not see that as an "obstacle" to closing the wider deal. There were
many ways to achieve market access without cutting all tariffs to zero: "Our preferred way is tariff elimination but
there are other ways to achieve that as well, tariff reduction, expansion of quotas," he said.
TPP can overcome congressional gridlock for passage- there is bipartisan support in
the Senate
Chris Ellis July 2, 2015, Associate Professor of Political Science at Bucknell University, The
Conversation July 2, 2015,Why fight over free trade confounds partisan divide,
http://theconversation.com/why-fight-over-free-trade-confounds-partisan-divide-44053
This week, President Barack Obama
signed into law a bill giving him trade promotion authority (TPA), intended to
ease the passage of trade pacts with other countries by requiring lawmakers to vote simply yay or nay – no amendments
allowed. During the signing ceremony, the president praised the measure as a result of all-too-unusual cooperation among Democrats and
Republicans. While that can’t really be said for the House, which followed a more partisan divide, the
Senate’s decision to give
President Obama so-called fast-track authority stands out as an exceedingly rare moment of bipartisan
compromise. It’s something I’ve seen only a handful of times in my ten years researching public opinion and political representation in
American politics. In all, 13 Senate Democrats joined a majority of Republicans to pass TPA, considered key to
striking a deal on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive trade deal involving a dozen countries, mostly in the Pacific
Rim. In an era when Democrats and Republicans are seemingly divided on everything from policy issues to
beer choices to the suitability of potential mates, the pro-trade vote provides evidence that gridlock is
not inevitable in a Washington that’s as polarized as any since Reconstruction.
TPP will pass congress- fast track was the larger hurdle
FIONA ROTHERHAM THURSDAY JULY 2, 2015, TPP too big to fail, says visiting US trade deal
specialist Petri, http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/tpp-too-big-fail-says-visiting-us-trade-deal-specialist-petrib-175060
Too much political capital has been invested in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal for it to fail at
the final hurdle, says Peter Petri, a professor of international finance at Brandeis University and co-author of a study on the economic
benefits of the TPP. Negotiations are about to accelerate this month after US legislators granted US president Barack
Obama's administration fast-track approval, which means he can take a trade deal to Congress for a so-called "up or down" vote that
can only accept or reject the deal, not alter it. Petri said the US president, along with other political leaders, now has a lot at
stake to get an agreement after nearly a decade of negotiations. "In that process much political capital has
been invested. What I see coming out of this is not something that has been thrown together at the last minute to get something signed
but something that has been considered and has had the sharp edges sanded off," Prof Petri said. In his view, getting fast-track
approval for the trade agreement spanning the Pacific Rim and involving 12 countries, was a bigger
hurdle than gaining final Congress approval. "I think the drama is now thankfully mostly over and, once
we get a TPP, which will hopefully happen soon, I think first of all that the terms of the agreement will surprise people
positively, that they are much less extreme than has been represented in much of the popular discussion, and the benefits will become
clearer."
TPP passage likely but holding off opposition is essential
Drum 6/23 (Kevin, political blogger for Mother Jones, “Fast Track Passes. TPP Now Nearly Certain to
Pass Too.,” 2015, http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/06/fast-track-passes-tpp-nownearly-certain-pass-too)
Well, it looks like the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty is
in business. The standalone fast-track bill just passed the
Senate by a hair, 60-37. Several Republicans defected and voted no even though they had voted yes the first time around, but only one
Democrat defected. So now it goes to President Obama's desk, where he'll sign it. Next up is a standalone Trade Adjustment
bill, which Democrats killed the first time around because it was linked to fast track, which meant that voting no killed fast track. This time
around, however, Democrats will presumably go ahead and vote for it since voting no will no longer stop fast track. Mitch McConnell and John
Boehner have both promised to bring it up for a vote and to do their best to whip enough Republican votes for it to pass. If it doesn't,
Democrats will be furious at having been conned, and might take this out by voting no on TPP itself when it comes to the floor. This gives
Boehner and McConnell plenty of motivation to get it passed, and I think they will. This still doesn't guarantee that TPP itself will have smooth
sailing. However, it
takes only a simple majority to pass, so there would have to be quite a few defections to
kill it. Still, there's time. Once the full text finally becomes public, I expect a full-court press from anti-TPP forces
in both parties. I'd give it a 90 percent chance of passage at this point, but there's still a glimmer of
hope for opponents.
Internals
Obama PC is up now
Obama has built up political capital due to recent policy and court wins
Ed Pilkington June 29, 2015, The Guardian, Obama triumphant? President turns gaze to progress on
guns, race and votes, http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/29/obama-triumphantpresident-guns-race-votes
With the winds of change behind him, a newly confident president has been visible. In contrast to the muted, cautious
politician who hunkered down in the Oval Office through much of the past six years, to the dismay of many of his liberal supporters, a fullthroated progressive firebrand has reemerged, reminiscent of the Barack Obama of 2008 who wowed the country during his first presidential
campaign. That
new-found fire in the belly was evident when the White House was bathed in rainbow
colors on the night of the supreme court ruling on gay marriage – a symbolic gesture approved by Obama less than four
years after he publicly opposed same-sex marriages. Last Friday, it was again on display at the funeral of Reverend
Clementa Pinckney, one of nine victims of the Charleston church shooting. Delivering the eulogy, Obama both metaphorically and
literally found his voice – he memorably sang Amazing Grace to a dazzled crowd of largely black mourners. But after an extraordinary
week, one so rarely enjoyed by presidents of either political colour, what will Obama do with this unexpected boost
to his political capital? As Professor Bruce Buchanan, a specialist in presidential politics at the University of Texas
at Austin, put it: “I think the president has won back some credibility from the vindication of his policy
stances and moral authority from his powerful statement following the Charleston killings. “It remains to be seen if he can use
either as leverage to press his remaining policy ambitions.”
Obama Pushes TPP
Obama is going to fight for TPP but faces opposition- democrats and unions
Rampton and Dunsmuir 6/29
Rampton, Roberta, and LINDSAY DUNSMUIR. Rampton covers U.S. energy and environmental policy. "Obama Signs Trade Bills into Law, Says
Tough Battle Still Ahead." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 29 June 2015. Web. 06 July 2015. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/29/us-usatrade-obama-idUSKCN0P92GP20150629
U.S. President Barack Obama on Monday signed into law legislation that gives him "fast-track" power to push ahead on a Pacific Rim trade deal
that has been the subject of intense debate in Congress and across the nation. Flanked by some of the lawmakers who supported the bill
through a six-week congressional battle,
Obama acknowledged that his fight to secure the 12-nation Trans-Pacific
Partnership was far from over. "We still have some tough negotiations that are going to be taking place,"
Obama said at a signing ceremony. He noted that lawmakers and the public will be able to scrutinize the trade
deal before it is finalized. "The debate will not end with this bill signing," he said. The package also included aid for
workers who lose their jobs as a result of trade, and an Africa trade preferences bill. Obama wants the trade deal to be a
central part of his administration's foreign policy pivot to Asia and to help serve as a counterweight to
the economic might of China. He also hopes to complete an ambitious trade deal with the European Union. Republicans, who
traditionally support free trade deals, backed Obama and helped get the legislation through Congress.
But they faced obstacles from skeptical Democrats, who worry the trade deal will hurt American jobs,
and were pressured by unions to vote against the bills. "I think it's fair to say that getting these bills
through Congress has not been easy. They've been declared dead more than once," Obama said, thanking
Republican leaders by name as well as Democratic supporters "who took tough votes" to get the bills passed.
PC key to TPP
Stage is set for TPP competition – Obama has fast-track power but must continue to
hold-off Congressional opposition
Geewax 6/23 (Marilyn, “Senate Votes To Advance The White House Trade Agenda,”
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/23/416854805/senate-votes-to-advance-the-whitehouse-trade-agenda)
The Senate voted 60-37 today to advance President Obama's trade agenda — setting up a big victory for the
White House and a painful loss for labor unions. This latest Senate vote clears away procedural hurdles for legislation granting Trade
Promotion Authority (TPA) to Obama. That power allows the president to negotiate trade pacts and then put them on a so-called fast track
through Congress. With TPA in place, Congress would take a simple yes-or-no vote on any trade deal, with no room for amendments. For
decades, presidents have asked Congress for this power, saying that other countries don't want to approve agreements with the United States
unless they know any package is final. This trade-negotiation power has expired, and Obama wanted it renewed so that he could complete a
deal with 11 Pacific Rim countries. That trade deal, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), is
still being worked out. Its
progress has been slowed by Obama's lack of fast-track authority. But now, Obama is on course to get
that power so he can complete TPP. The Senate still needs to take a final vote on TPA, but passage now requires just a simple
majority. Given today's 60 votes in favor of clearing procedural hurdles, passage seems virtually certain when the Senate votes — probably on
Wednesday. The House has already approved fast-track authority. So barring some amazing turnaround, Congress will send TPA legislation to
Obama shortly, and he will sign it into law. Unions have been putting up a fierce fight to stop TPA, which they say leads to secretive trade deals
that benefit corporations but harm workers. After the vote, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, a union supporter, took to the Senate floor to say the
vote was "shameful" because it would open the door to more trade deals. In contrast, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, praised
the vote, and said, "America is back in the trade business." Even
though TPA seems a virtual certainty, there's still a bit
more drama to play out. It involves trade-related legislation that Democrats support. To win Democratic votes for TPA, Republican
leaders in the House and Senate have pledged to allow votes on legislation renewing Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), a program to help
displaced workers, as well as a bill to extend trade preferences to sub-Saharan African nations. McConnell also promised to move quickly to
complete legislation that would step up enforcement of trade laws. Those bills, supported by the White House and by the great majority of
Democrats, have been stalled amid procedural maneuvering to get TPA done. It now appears they will move forward. Moving
forward
with a full trade agenda has been a key goal for the White House. But the battle to do so has created a lot of hurt
feelings between the Obama administration and trade opponents, who include union members, environmentalists and consumer advocates.
Those opponents are now
regrouping for the next fight. Once fast-track authority is in place, Obama will be
able to compete negotiations for TPP. Then Congress will have to vote on it, likely this fall. Robert Weissman, president
of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, put out a statement saying that once "people see what is actually in the agreement, they are
going to force their representatives in Washington to vote that deal down."
Obama’s trade agenda on track but PC is key to holding together fragile coalition of
Republican and Democratic support
Berman 6/23 (Russell, senior associate editor at The Atlantic, where he covers political news, “Obama
Will Get His Trade Deal After All,” http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/obama-willget-his-trade-deal-after-all/396272/)
A trade package that appeared all-but-dead earlier this month is now on the verge of passage after the
Senate on Tuesday voted to advance a bill giving President Obama “fast-track” authority to negotiate international trade agreements. On a vote
of 60-37, the Senate moved to end debate on Trade Promotion Authority legislation, the core piece of the agenda that Obama has struggled to
push through Congress. A final vote to send the bill to the president’s desk is expected on Wednesday. The breakthrough occurred after House
Democrats initially blocked the trade package by voting down a separate piece providing Trade Adjustment Assistance for displaced workers.
But Obama and Republican leaders then went around Democrats by splitting off the aid bill—traditionally a sweetener for Democrats—and
passing Trade Promotion Authority by itself. To retain the support of pro-trade Democrats, Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell promised to hold a second round of votes on Trade Adjustment Assistance once the fast-track bill passed, when most liberal
Democrats would have little incentive to defeat it. “This has been a long and twisted path to where we are today,” McConnell said after the
vote. Trade
Promotion Authority will allow Obama to complete a pending agreement with 12 Pacific Rim
nations that would be subject only to an up-or-down vote in Congress—without amendments. A second
major agreement with the European Union could follow, although that likely won’t be finished during Obama’s presidency. Shortly before the
House voted on Thursday—for the second time in a week—to deliver President Obama the authority he was seeking to negotiate trade
agreements abroad, Speaker John Boehner was asked if he had learned anything from the dead-one-moment, alive-the-next legislative battle.
Nope, the speaker replied. “I would describe most of what’s gone on the last three weeks as close to bizarre,” he told reporters. “I don’t think
I’ve learned anything from it.” Related Story A Big Win for Big Labor Boehner was certainly correct in the initial part of his reply. Just six days
ago, House Democrats overwhelmingly repudiated Obama’s trade agenda by defeating the one part of that package—Trade Adjustment
Assistance—that was included to garner their support. Led by Republicans, the House then approved the core piece, “fast-track” Trade
Promotion Authority, but because Democrats rejected the aid for displaced workers, the underlying legislation remained stalled. Nancy Pelosi,
the president’s loyal partner for six-and-a-half-years, betrayed him on the House floor, and Obama’s top domestic priority was left for dead—or
so everyone thought. The Democratic revolt was surprising enough, but what’s happened since has been equally unusual. Spurned by his
friends, Obama responded to the setback not by trying to win them over, but by conspiring with Republicans against them. (Yes, the same
Republicans who are simultaneously suing him for abuse of power.) With backing from the administration, the House jettisoned the worker
assistance from the trade package and on Thursday, approved Trade Promotion Authority on its own. The vote, 218-208, was nearly identical to
the one last week, but now the new bill must go back to the Senate before Obama can sign it. To keep pro-trade Democrats on board, the
White House and Republican leaders promised them that they would pass Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA, separately if they can. How do
they hope to do that? By attaching that measure to an even more popular bill—which passed the House and Senate nearly unanimously—that
maintains trading preferences for African nations. In other words, we’ve
reached the peak sausage-making phase of the
trade fight. It’s oddly reminiscent of the biggest legislative lift of Obama’s first term: healthcare reform.
After Scott Brown’s surprise Senate victory in Massachusetts cost Democrats their filibuster-proof majority, then-Speaker Pelosi considered all
sorts of legislative machinations—remember “deem and pass”?—to get Obama’s landmark bill to his desk. When she finally turned to the
obscure budget maneuver known as reconciliation to finish the job, Republicans cried foul. This time, the protesters were Democrats. Rosa
DeLauro, the Connecticut liberal who has led the fight against trade in the House, denounced the move as “a gimmick,” and she noted ruefully
that Obama had ignored his party’s plea for changes to the bill. “The administration,” DeLauro said, “has shown absolutely no interest in
improving this deal or even listening to our concerns.” Union leaders complained about “parliamentary trickery” just days after they used
similar legislative tactics to defeat the trade bill initially. Pelosi, meanwhile, criticized the legislation but held her tongue on the process. “God
knows,” she said, “I know the power of the speaker.” Obama’s
trade agenda may be revived, but it is not yet enacted.
alliance will have to hold on to the
same dozen or so Democratic senators that supported the trade bills last month. Once Trade Promotion Authority
The Senate next week must vote again on both TPA and TAA, and the strange Obama-GOP
passes the Senate again and goes to the Oval Office, the House would vote again on Trade Adjustment Assistance, with the assumption that
Democrats will have no reason to oppose it if doing so won’t stop fast-track trade authority from becoming law. It’s confusing, and, yes, bizarre.
But contrary to Boehner’s take on the whole ordeal, there might be something to learn after all. Republicans
have complained, to
when they don’t give Obama what he wants, he simply goes around
them. The last week has demonstrated that he’s perfectly happy to go around Democrats, too.
the president, the public, and the courts, that
Political capital is uniquely key for trade deals- he has to push both parties
Boustany amd Zoellick 12-28. [Charles, senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Robert, former USTR,
president of the World Bank, "A Trade Opportunity for Obama and the New Congress" Wall Street Journal -- www.wsj.com/articles/charlesboustany-and-robert-b-zoellick-a-trade-opportunity-for-obama-and-the-new-congress-1419811308]
After the midterm elections, political
commentators identified trade policy as one area for cooperation between
and the Republican Congress. We agree. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has authority over
trade. But the active direction and use of that authority depends on an energetic executive, in partnership
with Congress.∂ According to a recent Pew Research survey, 66% of Americans believe greater U.S. involvement in the
global economy is a “good thing,” with only 25% thinking it is bad. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement is a “good
President Obama
thing” in the eyes of 55% of Americans, versus 25% who consider it bad; the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) scores 53%
good and 20% bad. These inclinations offer opportunity.∂ Prof. Richard Neustadt explained to President John F. Kennedy that the
presidency relied on the “power to persuade.” It’s time for Mr. Obama to persuade on trade. He must
make use of the convening power of the executive to bolster his advocacy. His administration must work
closely with Congress—to listen, explain, address problems and cut deals.
TPP Impacts
Economy
TPP will boost the US economy – guarantees strong trading partnerships, and
eliminates manufacturing tariffs
Autor et al ’15(David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon H. Hanson, March 12 2015 “Why Obama’s key
trade deal with Asia would actually be good for American workers”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/03/12/why-obamas-key-trade-deal-withasia-would-actually-be-good-for-american-workers/)
Opponents of giving President Obama fast-track authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) — the pending trade pact between
the United States and 11 countries in Asia and the Americas — cite the job-killing impacts of globalization as a prime reason for their objection.
The free-trade agreement would lower tariffs and remove other barriers to imports from member
countries, which opponents fear would create steep competition for U.S. industries domestically. There is
indeed substantial evidence that import competition from low-wage countries has contributed to the momentous decline in U.S. manufacturing
employment in the last two decades. We even researched and published some of that empirical evidence. Still, we believe blocking
the
TPP on fears of globalization would be a mistake. There are several reasons to support the TPP despite globalization concerns.
First, the TPP — which seeks to govern exchange of not only traditional goods and services, but also intellectual property and foreign
investment — would promote trade in knowledge-intensive services in which U.S. companies exert a strong
comparative advantage. Second, killing the TPP would do little to bring factory work back to America. Third,
and perhaps most important, although China is not part of the TPP, enacting the agreement would raise
regulatory rules and standards for several of China’s key trading partners. That would pressure China to meet some
of those standards and cease its attempts to game global trade to impede foreign multinational companies. Since 2000, America has lost 5
million manufacturing jobs. Regions that specialized in apparel, footwear, furniture, home electronics, toys and sports equipment — industries
in which China achieved explosive growth — have seen factories close and wages for local workers flatten. Our research indicates that rising
import competition from China accounted for 21 percent of the overall decline in U.S. employment in manufacturing industries during the
1990s and 2000s. The wave of automation that replaced middle-class jobs available to workers without a college education added to those
losses. We sympathize with the regions and families that suffered, but halting TPP would not assist U.S. manufacturing or benefit U.S. workers.
The reality is that the globalization of manufacturing is a fait accompli. Those manufacturing jobs are not coming back. Further,
the TPP’s
lower trade barriers would barely affect import competition faced by U.S. manufacturers. The World Trade
Organization counts 160 members, including every major economy and most importantly China, which joined in 2001. According to the World
Bank, WTO members can export manufacturing goods to the U.S. market at an average tariff of just 2 percent.
Within the proposed
TPP, the United States already has bilateral trade deals that have eliminated all manufacturing tariffs
with five of the 11 members: Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, and Singapore. Cutting already rock-bottom U.S.
manufacturing tariffs to zero for the remaining TPP countries would thus have negligible effects on U.S. producers. These countries already
enjoy largely unfettered access to U.S. markets. The results of existing economic analyses on the responsiveness of global trade to
manufacturing tariffs suggest that the consequences of the TPP for U.S. manufacturing employment likely would be slight. But if the TPP has
little downside for the U.S., what’s the upside? Why bother with the deal at all? The reason is that the TPP is about much more than
manufacturing. Most notably, it promises to liberalize trade in services and in agriculture, sectors in which the United States runs large trade
surpluses, but which the World Trade Organization, despite 20 years of trying, has failed to pry open internationally. Successfully exporting
information and computer services, where the U.S. maintains substantial technological leadership, requires more than low tariffs. It also
requires protecting patents against infringement and safeguarding business assets and revenues against expropriation by foreign governments.
To the extent that Obama succeeds in enshrining these guarantees in the TPP, the agreement would
give a substantial boost to U.S. trade. Americans have to take advantage of a new reality: Today, U.S. companies rely
on global production networks for their success. When a trading partner exports a product to the U.S.,
the domestic economy gains because the U.S. often has exported the parts, components, or ideas for
that product to that country. China’s manufacturing growth, for instance, would have been inconceivable without its import of U.S.
technology from multinational companies, which generates income for the domestic economy and gainful employment for engineers,
programmers and other skilled occupations. The phenomenal sales of the iPhone 6, which Apple designs in California, rests on the capability of
Foxconn’s plants in China to assemble handsets at reasonable cost. Rising Chinese consumer affluence also generates a virtuous circle for U.S.
firms. China is poised to surpass the U.S. as the largest consumer market for the iPhone. Apple’s experience is unusual, but not unparalleled.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that 24 percent of U.S. service exports are now accounted for by telecommunications, information
technology, and royalties from licensing intellectual property.
For the U.S. to derive maximum benefit from its advances
in technology-intensive products, such as smartphones, U.S. companies need strong global protection of
intellectual property. The TPP seeks to harmonize such protections across member countries. If passed,
the TPP also would create a powerful template for future trade deals, including with China, which would
move the U.S. closer to resolving conflicts the WTO has been unable to handle. Consider, for example, the case of
Qualcomm, a highly successful San Diego-based maker of chipsets for wireless communications that earns half of its global revenues in China.
The company’s substantial share of the Chinese chip market attracted the attention of the Chinese government, which proceeded to extract $1
billion in fines for alleged anti-competitive practices. In the U.S., where Qualcomm also sells its chipsets, the company has faced no such antitrust penalties. Under current trade law, Qualcomm has little recourse to appeal its treatment by the Chinese government. Under a trade
agreement with China like the TPP, however, Qualcomm and other U.S. companies would have access to an investor-state dispute settlement
mechanism. Contrary to criticism from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), this mechanism would protect U.S. firms against predatory regulatory
interventions by member governments. Anti-competitive asymmetries in the world trade system disproportionately harm U.S. firms at present.
Enactment of the TPP would establish protections against these asymmetries for U.S. companies. Expanding global trade has remade
manufacturing, forcing workers, businesses, and entire regions to endure often painful adjustments. However, much as we might like to return
to 1970 when manufacturing comprised a quarter of U.S. nonfarm employment, that’s impossible without massive protectionist barriers that
would isolate the U.S. economy and lower U.S. living standards. Blocking the TPP because of justified unhappiness over manufacturing’s lost
glory would amount to refighting the last trade war — beggaring the future as retribution for the past.
A responsible trade agenda
should instead seek to provide the supporting policy structure – protections for intellectual property and
freedom from confiscatory regulations – that allows U.S. companies to excel in the sectors where they
are strong.
TPP will spur economic growth in the US – eliminates tariffs and protects small
business interests in foreign markets
Froman ‘15(Michael Froman, May 8, 2015 “Trans-Pacific Partnership reflects global economic
realities” http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/Trans-Pacific-Partnership-reflects-global6252039.php)
Trade is a key driver of California’s economy. Last year,
California exported over $174 billion in made-in-America goods to the
world, more than almost any other state. And those exports support hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs
across the state. For me, a Marin County native, helping to grow the benefits that trade delivers for California is personal — and through
President Obama’s Middle Class Economics strategy, we’re working to do just that. Put simply, America’s trade policy urgently
needs an upgrade. In recent years, the international landscape has been reshaped by technological
change, the rise of emerging markets and globalization. To ensure California’s workers and businesses aren’t
left behind, we need to take three steps forward today. First, we need trade policies that reflect today’s
economic realities. Consider the rise of the digital economy, in which California has been a world leader. In 2002, when Congress last
updated its guidance for negotiating trade agreements, not a single song had been sold through iTunes, Facebook was a figment of the
imagination, and there were fewer than 600 million Internet users. Now, 13 years later, iTunes has sold well over 25 billion songs; if Facebook
were a country, it would be the most populous on Earth; and there are now more than 3 billion Internet users. The untapped gains within these
trends are staggering. According
to the International Trade Commission, removing foreign barriers to digital
trade could add more than $40 billion to the U.S. economy, raise U.S. wages and create as many as
400,000 jobs. The stakes will only grow as advances in technology create new exporters in telemedicine, research and development,
distance education and other fields. As the world’s leader in service exports, the United States is uniquely
positioned to prosper in these areas. Second, we need to open markets to more “made in America”
products. Experience underscores how critical trade is for supporting good jobs, spurring growth and strengthening America’s middle class.
Between 2009 and 2014, exports contributed to nearly one-third of our overall economic growth. Last
year, record-breaking exports supported 11.7 million jobs, including an estimated 775,000 jobs in California. Businesses
that export have important strengths. They tend to hire more, pay workers more, and invest more in innovation and research. With wages
beginning to rise, trade policy can help put more money in middle-class pockets and support more jobs
with a future. But realizing these gains will require addressing some important disparities. The United States is already one of
the most open economies in the world, but our workers and businesses still face high tariffs and a
multitude of changes abroad. Take Amy’s Kitchen in Santa Rosa, which I visited earlier this year. Exporting has helped Amy’s grow
from a mom-and-pop team of two into a world leader in the production of natural and organic prepared foods, with more than 2,000 U.S.
employees. But in important markets like Japan, consumer-ready products — such as soups, pizza, sauces and juice — made in the United
States still face tariffs as high as 30 percent. Burdens
like these fall even more heavily on our small businesses, which
make up nearly 98 percent of all U.S. goods exporters but often lack the resources to navigate complex foreign regulations.
In a world where 95 percent of consumers live beyond our borders, these challenges are less an inconvenience than an injustice. Third, we
need to write rules for the 21st century global economy that reflect both our interests and our values.
China and others are negotiating trade deals that don’t share our high standards, including our commitment to keeping the Internet free and
open, protecting the environment and upholding labor rights.
To meet all of these challenges, Obama has put forward
the most ambitious trade agenda in history. In the Asia Pacific, our main tool for knocking down
barriers and raising standards is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. When completed, the TPP will cover
nearly 40 percent of the global economy. It will grow our exports by eliminating the tariffs on products
like those made by Amy’s and streamlining the process for doing business beyond our borders. Moreover, 42 percent of all of California’s
exports go to the TPP region, and the agreement will include three of California’s top-five export markets: Mexico, Canada and Japan. We’re
also tackling a number of issues that have never been addressed.
The TPP will include the highest and most enforceable
labor and environmental standards of any trade pact. For the first time in any trade agreement, the
TPP will ensure a free and open Internet and make sure state-owned companies operate fairly when
they compete against our private firms. Across the board, the TPP will help restore the connection
between hard work and rightful reward by giving Americans a fair shot in the world’s fastest-growing
markets. It will protect the 40 million Americans whose jobs are directly or indirectly dependent on innovation, from the inventor in her
garage to the union carpenters I met making Hollywood sets. Thankfully, the finish line for TPP negotiations is in sight, and Congress is
considering bipartisan trade-promotion legislation that would reflect the realities of today’s global economy. To help more Californians and
Americans get ahead, we need to move forward without delay.
TPP will grow the global economy by over $360 billion by 2025
Mirski July 6, 2015
(Sean Mirski; co-editor of Crux of Asia: China, India and the Emerging Global Order, “The Trans-Pacific
Partnership: China, America and the Balance of Power”, Nationalintrest.org, 7/6/15, 3 pgs., Website,
7/6/15, http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-trans-pacific-partnership-china-america-the-balance13264?page=2)
TPP promises to benefit the United States in spades. While economic forecasts necessarily
depend on a number of assumptions, one study from the Peterson Institute for International Economics suggests that if the TPP is
ratified by the twelve countries currently participating in negotiations and South Korea, then the United States can expect to enjoy a net
$77.5 billion increase in its own income gains by 2025. On its own, that number is impressive (even if it constitutes only a
minute share of the American economy). But then factor in the economic benefits to friendly TPP countries aligned
Measured against this standard, the
(implicitly or otherwise) with American objectives in the Asia-Pacific—Australia, Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea,
and Vietnam—and
the initial figure swells by another $259 billion. And that’s not all: China and Hong Kong would lose out $47.5
billion from being excluded from the agreement, since it would divert trade flows away from them and toward TPP countries. Of course, the
costs of exclusion partially cut the other way as well: the TPP excludes India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Thailand, countries that all
the final total still comes to a
$368.9 billion increase in income gains by 2025 for the United States and its friends relative to China. So while the TPP
share geopolitical interests with Washington. But even once these latter costs are subtracted out,
is projected to deliver gains to the American economy of “only” $78 billion, it is predicted to deliver nearly
five times that much to America’s tacit Asia-Pacific coalition (relative to China, anyways). That income boost is weighty in
absolute terms—a third of a trillion dollars—and it will prove even more consequential in practice given the smaller
economies of many of the TPP parties. And if Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand also join the TPP—as they have at least
contemplated doing—then the relative gains soar to a staggering $590.5 billion. All told, then, the TPP has the potential to be a
game-changer for the United States in Asia.
US and partner economies are estimated to increase dramatically through TPP
Petri et al in 2012 (Peter, Visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the
Carl J. Shapiro Professor of International Finance at the Brandeis International Business School, and a
senior fellow at the East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership and AsiaPacific Integration: Policy Implications”, Peterson Institute for International Economics Policy Brief,
http://xxx.iie.com/publications/pb/pb12-16.pdf)
The results offer strong support for US interest in Asia-Pacific free trade. The United States is estimated
to gain $78 billion annually on the TPP track and $267 billion with region wide free trade. These benefits
are driven in part by exports, which would increase by $124 billion (4.4 percent over the baseline). Export gains
would come mainly in advanced sectors including business and financial services and in agriculture and
food. Manufacturing exports would increase, but overall the United States would become more import-dependent in manufacturing to offset
its expanding service export surplus. We estimate that one-third of US gains would be driven by the investment
provisions of the TPP; outward FDI stocks would increase by $169 billion (1.9 percent over the baseline) and
inward FDI stocks would increase by $47 billion (1 percent over the baseline). Even with these large absolute changes, given
the scale of the US economy the benefits would be more modest compared with GDP (0.4 percent on the TPP track and 1.3 percent from
region-wide free trade). Also,
under the phasing and membership assumptions used in this study, the benefits
would build up gradually; the percentage gains in 2015 and 2020 would be about one-tenth and onehalf as large as those estimated for 2025, respectively. Every other economy participating in one or both
tracks can also expect substantial gains. Small economies and those with large initial barriers would gain
the most. The greatest absolute gains on the TPP track are estimated for Japan ($119 billion) and reflect in large part inward foreign
investment afforded by the liberalization of Japan’s service and other investment sectors. The greatest absolute gains on the
Asian track would accrue to China ($233 billion) because it is large relative to Asian partners and because its regional final
goods exports initially face considerable protection. The largest percentage gains on the TPP track are estimated for Vietnam (14 percent),
which would become a much-expanded manufacturing hub in textile, garment, and other industries, and on the Asian track for Hong Kong (11
percent), due to its role as a service and investment center.
New reforms such as TPP can prevent backsliding on economic reforms, ensuring long
term growth
Petri et al in 2012 (Peter, Visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the
Carl J. Shapiro Professor of International Finance at the Brandeis International Business School, and a
senior fellow at the East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership and AsiaPacific Integration: Policy Implications”, Peterson Institute for International Economics Policy Brief,
http://xxx.iie.com/publications/pb/pb12-16.pdf)
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), currently at an advanced stage of negotiation, began as a small
agreement but now has big implications.1 The TPP would strengthen ties between Asia and the
Americas, create a new template for the conduct of international trade and investment, and potentially
lead to a comprehensive free trade area (FTA) in the Asia-Pacific. It could generate large benefits—greater than those
expected from the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) global Doha Development Agenda. This Policy Brief reports on our ongoing quantitative
assessment (with Fan Zhai) of the TPP and other Asia-Pacific integration efforts.2 Since the last major multilateral trade agreements were
concluded nearly two decades ago, the
action on trade rules has shifted from global to bilateral and regional
agreements. In 2000 there were six trade agreements among member economies of the Asia Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum; today there are 47, with more in the works. Groups of “like-minded” partners
appear better able to reach agreements that achieve mutual gains, address wider issues, and mitigate opposition. The WTO reports 319 such
agreements now in force worldwide.3 Renewed
progress on trade and investment rules could prevent backsliding
on existing agreements and generate much-needed engines for global economic growth.4 For now, regional
negotiations offer the best options for making such progress. Against this challenging background, the United States and
eight (potentially 11) partners on both sides of the Pacific are working to shape the TPP into a cuttingedge, 21st century agreement. US participation, first proposed by President George W. Bush, has become a centerpiece of President
Barack Obama’s trade policy. The negotiation is complicated and ambitious in terms of issues and membership.5 If successful, it could
stimulate trade by benefiting the competitive industries of both emerging-market and advanced
economies. And it could yield an innovative model for consolidating the “noodle bowl” of existing trade agreements.6
Economy Impacts
Economic growth is the only way to prevent future global wars
Auslin ‘9
(Michael, Resident Scholar – American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman – Resident Fellow – American Enterprise Institute, “The
Global Economy Unravels”, Forbes, 3-6, http://www.aei.org/article/100187)
What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and
global chaos followed hard
on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible,
economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally
worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems.
The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20
million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a
year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability. The
regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's
neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has
had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in
downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that
devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture
toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external
conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic
stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's
unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the
specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets.
Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer
Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while
nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not
bode well for the rest of Europe. A
prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise
tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved
ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what
they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang .
Economic decline risks global nuclear conflicts – studies confirm.
Ferguson ‘9
(Niall, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University, “The Axis of Upheaval,” Foreign Policy, February 16th,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/02/16/the_axis_of_upheaval)
The Bush years have of course revealed the perils of drawing facile parallels between the challenges of the present day and the great catastrophes of the 20th
century. Nevertheless, there is reason to fear that the
biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression could have
comparable consequences for the international system. For more than a decade, I pondered the question of why the
20th century was characterized by so much brutal upheaval. I pored over primary and secondary literature. I wrote more than 800 pages
on the subject. And ultimately I concluded, in The War of the World, that three factors made the location and timing of lethal organized violence
more or less predictable in the last century. The first factor was ethnic disintegration: Violence was worst in areas of mounting ethnic tension. The second factor
was economic volatility: The
greater the magnitude of economic shocks, the more likely conflict was. And the third factor
was empires in decline: When structures of imperial rule crumbled, battles for political power were most bloody. In at least one of the world’s regions—the greater
Middle East—two of these three factors have been present for some time: Ethnic conflict has been rife there for decades, and following the difficulties and
disappointments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States already seems likely to begin winding down its quasi-imperial presence in the region. It likely still will.
Now the third variable, economic volatility, has returned with a vengeance. U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s “Great Moderation”—the supposed
decline of economic volatility that he hailed in a 2004 lecture—has been obliterated by a financial chain reaction, beginning in the U.S. subprime mortgage market,
spreading through the banking system, reaching into the “shadow” system of credit based on securitization, and now triggering collapses in asset prices and
economic activity around the world. After nearly a decade of unprecedented growth, the global economy will almost certainly sputter along in 2009, though
probably not as much as it did in the early 1930s, because governments worldwide are frantically trying to repress this new depression. But no matter how low
interest rates go or how high deficits rise, there will be a substantial increase in unemployment in most economies this year and a painful decline in incomes. Such
economic pain nearly always has geopolitical consequences. Indeed, we can already see the first symptoms of the coming
upheaval. In the essays that follow, Jeffrey Gettleman describes Somalia’s endless anarchy, Arkady Ostrovsky analyzes Russia’s new brand
of aggression, and Sam Quinones explores Mexico’s drug-war-fueled misery. These, however, are just three case studies out of a possible
nine or more. In Gaza, Israel has engaged in a bloody effort to weaken Hamas. But whatever was achieved militarily must be set
against the damage Israel did to its international image by killing innocent civilians that Hamas fighters use as human shields. Perhaps more importantly, social and
economic conditions in Gaza, which were already bad enough, are now abysmal. This situation is hardly likely to strengthen the forces of moderation among
Palestinians. Worst of all, events
in Gaza have fanned the flames of Islamist radicalism throughout the region—not least in Egypt.
From Cairo to Riyadh, governments will now think twice before committing themselves to any new Middle East peace initiative. Iran, meanwhile, continues
to support both Hamas and its Shiite counterpart in Lebanon, Hezbollah, and to pursue an alleged nuclear weapons program that Israelis legitimately
see as a threat to their very existence. No one can say for sure what will happen next within Tehran’s complex political system, but it is likely that the radical
faction around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be strengthened by the Israeli onslaught in Gaza. Economically,
however, Iran is in a hole that will only deepen as oil prices fall further. Strategically, the country risks disaster by proceeding with its nuclear program, because even
a purely Israeli air offensive would be hugely disruptive. All this risk ought to point in the direction of conciliation, even accommodation, with the United States. But
with presidential elections in June, Ahmadinejad
has little incentive to be moderate. On Iran’s eastern border, in Afghanistan,
upheaval remains the disorder of the day. Fresh from the success of the “surge” in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, the new head of U.S. Central Command, is now
grappling with the much more difficult problem of pacifying Afghanistan. The task is
made especially difficult by the anarchy that
prevails in neighboring Pakistan. India, meanwhile, accuses some in Pakistan of having had a hand in the Mumbai terrorist attacks of last
November, spurring yet another South Asian war scare. Remember: The sabers they are rattling have nuclear tips. The democratic
governments in Kabul and Islamabad are two of the weakest anywhere. Among the biggest risks the world faces this year is that one or both will break down amid
escalating violence. Once again, the economic crisis is playing a crucial role. Pakistan’s small but politically powerful middle class has been slammed by the collapse
of the country’s stock market. Meanwhile, a rising proportion of the country’s huge population of young men are staring unemployment in the face. It is not a recipe
for political stability. This club is anything but exclusive. Candidate members include Indonesia,
Thailand, and Turkey, where there are
already signs that the economic crisis is exacerbating domestic political conflicts. And let us not forget the plague of piracy in
Somalia, the renewed civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the continuing violence in Sudan’s Darfur region, and the heart of darkness that is
Zimbabwe under President Robert Mugabe. The axis of upheaval has many members. And it’s a fairly safe bet that the roster will grow even longer this year. The
problem is that, as in the 1930s, most countries are looking inward, grappling with the domestic consequences of the economic crisis and paying little attention to
the wider world crisis. This is true even of the United States, which is now so preoccupied with its own economic problems that countering global upheaval looks
like an expensive luxury. With the U.S. rate of GDP growth set to contract between 2 and 3 percentage points this year, and with the official unemployment rate
likely to approach 10 percent, all attention in Washington will remain focused on a nearly $1 trillion stimulus package. Caution has been thrown to the wind by both
the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. The projected deficit for 2009 is already soaring above the trillion-dollar mark, more than 8 percent of GDP. Few
commentators are asking what all this means for U.S. foreign policy. The answer is obvious: The resources available for policing the world are certain to be reduced
for the foreseeable future. That will be especially true if foreign investors start demanding higher yields on the bonds they buy from the United States or simply
begin dumping dollars in exchange for other currencies. Economic
volatility, plus ethnic disintegration, plus an empire in
decline: That combination is about the most lethal in geopolitics. We now have all three. The age of upheaval
starts now
Economic collapse causes great power war that goes nuclear
Merlini ‘11
[Cesare Merlini, nonresident senior fellow at the Center on the United States and Europe and chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian
Institute for International Affairs (IAI) in Rome. He served as IAI president from 1979 to 2001. Until 2009, he also occupied the position of
executive vice chairman of the Council for the United States and Italy, which he co-founded in 1983. His areas of expertise include transatlantic
relations, European integration and nuclear non-proliferation, with particular focus on nuclear science and technology. A Post-Secular World?
DOI: 10.1080/00396338.2011.571015 Article Requests: Order Reprints : Request Permissions Published in: journal Survival, Volume 53, Issue 2
April 2011 , pages 117 - 130 Publication Frequency: 6 issues per year Download PDF Download PDF (~357 KB) View Related Articles To cite
this Article: Merlini, Cesare 'A Post-Secular World?', Survival, 53:2, 117 – 130]
Two neatly opposed scenarios
for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit at the risk of
or more of the acute tensions
apparent today evolves into an open and traditional conflict between states, perhaps even involving the use of
oversimplification. The first scenario entails the premature crumbling of the post-Westphalian system. One
nuclear weapons. The crisis might be triggered by a collapse of the global economic and financial system, the
vulnerability of which we have just experienced, and the prospect of a second Great Depression, with consequences for
peace and democracy similar to those of the first. Whatever the trigger, the unlimited exercise of national sovereignty, exclusive
self-interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified, emptying, perhaps entirely, the half-full glass
of multilateralism, including the UN and the European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts, such as between Israel and Iran or India and Pakistan, have
potential religious dimensions. Short of war, tensions such as those related to immigration might become unbearable. Familiar issues of creed and identity could be
exacerbated. One way or another, the secular rational approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes, competing or converging with secular
absolutes such as unbridled nationalism.
Economy/Leadership
TPP is a win all around – increases both the U.S and Asian economies, and perserves
U.S leadership abroad
Monnoo, 6/24 Monnoo, Dr. Kamal. "TPP – Why Obama Is Right." The Nation. NAWAIWAQT GROUP
OF NEWSPAPERS, 24 June 2015. Web. 06 July 2015.
With President Obama’s trade initiative on fast-tracking TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) being in jeopardy in the US (United
States) Congress, the nations of Asia are weighing the potential impact of a failed deal on local jobs and
exports, but also something else: America’s dependability as a trade leader that can help them realise
their respective economic goals. These likely Asian partners, Japan, Singapore, Vietnam, South Korea, and others, unlike the
Americans view trade as a strategy rather than a mere commercial exercise and therefore are naturally upset on what they view as an American
let down. What they are asking the USA today is that does it really want to be a part of their region or not? Over
in Tokyo, the Prime
Minister Abe sees the TPP as necessary to bolster his nation’s economy and has virtually risked his political carrier by
taking on the country’s influential farm lobby, which has long opposed TPP and lowering of barriers. Now failure on part of the US to
reciprocate puts him in a very awkward cum delicate position at home. More importantly, for the US, as its reputation takes a dent the Chinese
reputation instead gains in stature. Not only China has played its publicity card very cleverly by signalling that it favours enhanced global trade,
but has also gone on to practically sign some important FTAs (Free Trade Agreements) in recent period with South Korea and Australia. The
dilemma that the US lawmakers face over the TPP is by no means easy. In the intense debate that took place in the Congress, it was rather
ironic that one town, Galesburg, Illinois, was quoted both by the pro and opposing parties in putting forward their arguments. And this precisely
illustrates the US trade quandary: one story two interpretations. While it is hard to miss the costs of global trade in Galesburg where post
signing of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) almost all factories have shut down (including Maytag, one of the largest American
refrigerator making facility), but at the same time even in this city of abandoned factories, it is easily possible to pinpoint some of the benefits
the US reaps from increased foreign trade. At its rail yard boxcars of bargain-price Asian goods are routed to American consumers; at its
slaughterhouse meat is packaged for the global markets; and at its Knox College, where now about 15% students come from foreign countries.
The question of whether or not to liberalise trade has always been a tricky one for any country. What is making TPP such a difficult call is not
only due its magnitude which dwarfs that of NAFTA in economic size and geopolitical importance – TPP encompasses 12 nations spread on 4
continents – but also because it is set to come into effect at a time of great global change: A prolonged period of slow economic growth in the
United States, China’s re-emergence as a regional power, and a new economic order in which the developing countries of the world produce
more goods and services than North America, Europe and Japan combined. Many of the political left and right of developed economies these
days oppose the liberalisation of trade as a national policy, even more strongly than the NAFTA days (1990s), arguing instead for protectionism
and resurrection of manufacturing at home. However, what they need to realise is that ‘Free Trade’ is not the enemy here and free trade
agreements like the trans pacific partnership will eventually help the US products gain space in the foreign markets, in-turn helping jobs and
wages at home. There
is no path to the US middle-class prosperity without tearing down barriers to
American exports. By 2030, the world-economy is expected to grow by $60 trillion, with almost 90
percent of the growth occurring outside the United States. The US success will depend on how much of
that new wealth is spent on American products. Today out of the 40 largest economies of the world, the United States ranks
39th, based on the share of GDP (gross domestic product) that comes from exports. This is because its products face very high barriers to entry
overseas in the form of tariffs, quotas and outright discrimination. When these barriers will disappear the US as a result will prosper.
The
nay-sayers should remember that in the 17 trade deals the US has concluded since 2000, its balance of
trade in the blue-collar-goods sector went from minus $3 billion to plus $31 billion. And as for the argument
about eroding of Americans’ wages due to liberalisation of trade, the actual figures on ground do not support it. According to the ITA
(International Trade Administration) body of the United States, export-related jobs pay 18 percent more than similar jobs in the same sector.
Lastly, the TPP also makes a lot of sense for the US from a foreign policy perspective, as it can be crucial
in helping the USA maintain its global influence and leadership mantle. If it does not take the lead today to set the
rules for commerce in the Asia-Pacific region, China will. Since 2000, China has concluded trade agreements with 23 countries, Hong Kong and
Macau and is now drafting its own Asia deal that cuts the US out. The Chinese norms in reality may be more appealing to the developing
economies as they omit any mention of labor rights and environment standard common in modern American-led deals. If this happens then
just like the AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank) in the world of finance, these new rules being proposed by China could become a game
changer in the world of global trade, since the tapered down rules would essentially reflect the inner grouse of emerging nations where they
feel that most American or western led rules have merely been framed to ensure their own dominance rather than due to any larger global
good. Essentially, what this
implies is that in TPP now also lies a submerged question for the US
policymakers on whether they would still like their country to continue to guide a huge section of the
world economy according to their own laid down standards for commerce or not? Their decision in the
negative can have far reaching consequences for their country and ones that spread beyond the ambit
of trade!
US Leadership
TPP key to U.S. regional and global leadership
Petraeus 14 (David Petraeus, chairman of the KKR Global Institute, Steve Okun, director of public
affairs for KKR Asia, and Vance Serchuk, executive director of the KKR Global Institute, a retired U.S.
Army general, previously commanded coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and served as director of
the CIA, “POINT OF VIEW: Success of TPP negotiations is a national security necessity,” 7-3-2014,
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/opinion/AJ201407030001)
The consequences for Washington getting the TPP
right are huge , opening some of the world’s fastest-
growing markets to more U.S. exports, improving American competitiveness, growing the global
middle class, and fostering the prosperous, open and rules-based Asia that is in everyone’s interest. But the fate of
the trade pact is also tied closely to America’s national security. Indeed, a paralyzed or collapsed TPP process would be seen by
our allies, partners and adversaries across Asia as a body blow
but to
not only to the credibility of America’s economic leadership,
our geopolitical position more broadly, deepening doubts about Washington’s staying power
and strength. And this, in turn, would carry spillover effects in the security realm, exacerbating military
tensions and territorial rivalries and ultimately raising the threat of conflict. In this respect, the success of the
TPP should be seen not only as a narrow economic or trade imperative, but a national security necessity.
TPP solidifies US leadership in Asia – solves regional stability
Michele Flournoy, Chief Executive, Center for a New American Security and former Undersecretary for
Defense and Ely Ratner, senior fellow, CNAS, “A Trade Deal with a Bonus for National Security,” WALL
STREET JOURNAL, 3—8—15, www.wsj.com/articles/michele-flournoy-and-ely-ratner-a-trade-deal-witha-bonus-for-national-security-1425854510.
On the Big Island of Hawaii beginning Monday, U.S. officials will host trade negotiators from 11 nations spanning Asia and the Americas to work toward completing
what could be the most significant trade deal in a generation. Five years in the making, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
would cover 40% of
global gross domestic product and a third of world trade. Any such deal ultimately will have to make it through the U.S. Congress. In order to
prevent lawmakers from amending the agreement and undoing years of international negotiations, Congress will first have to provide President Obama with trade
promotion authority, also known as “fast-track,” that allows a yes-or-no vote on the package. This is the time for advocates on both sides to move beyond the usual
economic arguments and consider the extraordinary geopolitical
stakes involved. Not every trade agreement puts America’s prestige,
influence and leadership on the line, but the TPP does. Much of the history of the 21st century will be written in Asia,
and no region will affect U.S. prosperity and security more in the coming decades. Few in the region doubt the
foundations of American power—favorable geography, abundant energy and resources, healthy demographics, diversity and immigration,
cutting-edge technology and education, and a penchant for innovation. But it’s less clear that Washington can govern effectively
and sustain America’s traditional global role. Bipartisan congressional action on fast-track authority would
provide a welcome counter to skeptics who question the U.S. commitment to the Asia-Pacific. By opening new
opportunities for trade and leveling the playing field for American businesses and workers, the TPP would further fuel America’s economic
recovery and support long-term growth. A healthier fiscal environment would in turn help Washington
reverse defense cuts that threaten to undermine the U.S. military’s readiness and technological edge when we need
them more than ever. Deeper economic engagement in Asia would also help strengthen America’s security ties, which are
a unique and central feature of U.S. global power. These critical partnerships are at their strongest and most durable
when military cooperation rests on a foundation of shared economic interests. Wealthier partners benefiting from a
more open regional trading system would be able to devote greater resources to helping the U.S. address global and
regional security challenges, from counterterrorism and maritime security to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. The TPP also
represents an unprecedented opportunity—and one that may not return for decades—to establish widespread trade
rules in Asia that advance U.S. values and interests. The agreement would lock in stronger labor and environmental protections, while
establishing new rules on intellectual property rights and curbing unfair government subsidies to state-owned enterprises. Ensuring that countries like Japan,
Malaysia and Vietnam elevate their practices to meet these higher standards would yield economic and social reforms that the U.S. has long sought to advance in
Asia. This wave of reform would continue as other countries line up to join the pact in future rounds. Critics of free trade in general, and the TPP in particular, claim
these standards don't go far enough. Perhaps, but the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Given the painstaking negotiations and the diversity of
countries involved, disrupting
the deal now would likely lead to no deal at all. In that event the leadership vacuum left
by the U.S. would quickly be filled by other powers, most likely China, which would be more than happy to set laxer rules and lower
standards for global trade. How would the U.S. benefit from such a race to the bottom? The good news is that this contest is Washington’s to
lose. Polls show that more than two-thirds of Americans support increased trade ties overseas, and there remains a strong bipartisan consensus for U.S.
engagement in Asia. Now it is up to lawmakers on Capitol Hill to ensure that the U.S. reaps the national security
windfall of the TPP. To fail would be a historic strategic folly.
Leadership Impact
US Leadership solidifies international peace – Current policies prove retrenchment
incentivizes great power wars
Bresler, 6-24 –[ Robert J. Bresler, Penn State Harrisburg professor emeritus of public policy, 6-242015, Obama-led US withdrawal has destabilized the world, Lancaster Online,
http://lancasteronline.com/opinion/columnists/obama-led-us-withdrawal-has-destabilized-theworld/article_1c73c828-19d4-11e5-ab00-d32898937e9a.html] Jeong
American leadership need not mean involvement in endless wars. Past history gives us examples. The Marshall Plan
allowed worn-torn allied governments to provide their people with political stability and economic
development. NATO was an effort to build Western European unity, end the quarrels that had produced two world wars, and deter Soviet aggression. The
United Nations, disappointing in many ways, was a vehicle for broad international efforts against disease, illiteracy and regional wars. The International Monetary
Fund, World Bank and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs were designed to facilitate international trade, prevent currency wars and assist in economic
development. These
initiatives prevented another great power war, achieved a large degree of European
reconciliation, and eased the transition for post-colonial countries in Africa and Asia. None would have
happened without strong and persistent American leadership. The U.S. negotiated a series of defense
treaties with more than 35 nations, designed to deter aggression, that also eased their burden of selfdefense and allowed them to place more resources into the reconstruction of their economies. In the
Middle East, the Arab States and Israel saw the U.S. as an honest broker, assisting in the negotiation of peace treaties
between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan. During the Obama administration there has been a
steady American retreat from world leadership. NATO is far less effective. Allies such as Israel, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, the
Baltic States and Iraq are no longer confident of American support. Hence, China, Russia and Iran are asserting hegemonic claims. The
world is now torn by devolution and fractionalization. The forces of global and regional cooperation are in disrepair. The United Nations stands
helpless against Russian aggression, civil war in Syria and Libya and atrocities by the Islamic State across
the Middle East and North Africa; the European Union is facing possible revolts and threats of secession by the United Kingdom and Greece and
waning allegiance in much of Europe; and NATO offers Ukraine no more than its good wishes as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s military swallows the country bit
by bit. Our allies are far from steadfast. Their governments are weaker, and vivid world leaders are hard to find among them. Putin, the insane leaders of the Islamic
State and the Iranian mullahs have put fear in the hearts of our allies. Why are these second- and third-rate powers able to intimidate their neighbors far more
effectively than did the far more powerful Soviet Union? Our democratic allies in Europe, lacking a clear sense of direction, are ruled by unstable coalitions. Even
Germany, perhaps the strongest of our European allies, refuses to confront Putin in his efforts to destabilize Ukraine. When
the Obama
administration made concession after concession to the Iranians over its nuclear program, our
negotiating partners in Europe lost any interest in taking serious steps to keep Iran out of the nuclear
club. In the Middle East tribalism and religious fanaticism have left Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen virtually ungovernable. Iraq, left to its won devices by Obama’s
withdrawal after American troops sacrificed so much to establish a nascent democracy, is now falling apart. In Egypt, a military regime is trying to forcibly contain
the boiling pot that is the Muslim Brotherhood. Saudi
Arabia and the Persian Gulf States, feeling abandoned by Obama’s
rush to a nuclear agreement with Iran, are sensing the quicksand beneath their feet. Warlordism and
radical Islam plague the economically depressed countries of sub-Saharan Africa. A combination of devolution and
chaos becomes normal state of affairs absent a strong centripetal leadership. In the last half of the 20th century, America provided that force
with persuasion, assistance, assurance and trust. As the Obama administration allows the U.S. to slip
into the shadows world politics, the danger of war increases.
US Primacy prevents Great Power Wars – Anything else escalates and goes nuclear
Ikenberry, 14 – [Gilford John Ikenberry is a theorist of international relations and United States
foreign policy, and a professor of Politics and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School of
Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution,
May/June 2014, The Illusion of Geopolitics The Enduring Power of the Liberal Order, Foreign Affairs,
https://www.foreignaffairs.org/articles/china/2014-04-17/illusion-geopolitics] Jeong
Mead also mischaracterizes the thrust of U.S. foreign policy. Since
the end of the Cold War, he argues, the United States
has ignored geopolitical issues involving territory and spheres of influence and instead adopted a
Pollyannaish emphasis on building the global order. But this is a false dichotomy. The United States does
not focus on issues of global order, such as arms control and trade, because it assumes that geopolitical conflict is gone forever; it
undertakes such efforts precisely because it wants to manage great-power competition. Order building
is not premised on the end of geopolitics; it is about how to answer the big questions of geopolitics.
Indeed, the construction of a U.S.-led global order did not begin with the end of the Cold War; it won the Cold War. In the nearly 70 years since
World War II, Washington
has undertaken sustained efforts to build a far-flung system of multilateral
institutions, alliances, trade agreements, and political partnerships. This project has helped draw countries into the
United States’ orbit. It has helped strengthen global norms and rules that undercut the legitimacy of nineteenth-century-style spheres of
influence, bids for regional domination, and territorial grabs. And it has given the United States the capacities, partnerships, and principles to
confront today’s great-power spoilers and revisionists, such as they are. Alliances, partnerships, multilateralism, democracy -- these
are
the tools of U.S. leadership, and they are winning, not losing, the twenty-first-century struggles over
geopolitics and the world order. THE GENTLE GIANT In 1904, the English geographer Halford Mackinder wrote that the great power
that controlled the heartland of Eurasia would command “the World-Island” and thus the world itself. For Mead, Eurasia has returned as the
great prize of geopolitics. Across the far reaches of this supercontinent, he argues, China,
Iran, and Russia are seeking to
establish their spheres of influence and challenge U.S. interests, slowly but relentlessly attempting to
dominate Eurasia and thereby threaten the United States and the rest of the world. This vision misses a deeper
reality. In matters of geopolitics (not to mention demographics, politics, and ideas), the United States has a decisive advantage over China, Iran,
and Russia. Although the United States will no doubt come down from the peak of hegemony that it occupied during the unipolar era, its power
is still unrivaled. Its wealth and technological advantages remain far out of the reach of China and Russia, to say nothing of Iran. Its recovering
economy, now bolstered by massive new natural gas resources, allows it to maintain a global military presence and credible security
commitments. Indeed, Washington enjoys a unique ability to win friends and influence states. According
to a study led by the
political scientist Brett Ashley Leeds, the United States boasts military partnerships with more than 60
countries, whereas Russia counts eight formal allies and China has just one (North Korea). As one British diplomat
told me several years ago, “China doesn’t seem to do alliances.” But the United States does, and they pay a double dividend: not
only do alliances provide a global platform for the projection of U.S. power, but they also distribute the burden of providing security. The
military capabilities aggregated in this U.S.-led alliance system outweigh anything China or Russia might generate for decades to come. Then
there are the nuclear weapons. These arms, which the United States, China, and Russia all possess (and
Iran is seeking), help the United States in two ways. First, thanks to the logic of mutual assured
destruction, they radically reduce the likelihood of great-power war. Such upheavals have provided opportunities
for past great powers, including the United States in World War II, to entrench their own international orders. The atomic age has
robbed China and Russia of this opportunity. Second, nuclear weapons also make China and Russia more
secure, giving them assurance that the United States will never invade. That’s a good thing, because it reduces
the likelihood that they will resort to desperate moves, born of insecurity, that risk war and
undermine the liberal order. Geography reinforces the United States’ other advantages. As the only great power not surrounded by
other great powers, the country has appeared less threatening to other states and was able to rise dramatically over the course of the last
century without triggering a war. After the Cold War, when the United States was the world’s sole superpower, other global powers, oceans
away, did not even attempt to balance against it. In fact, the United States’ geographic position has led other countries to worry more about
abandonment than domination. Allies in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East have sought to draw the United States into playing a greater role in
their regions. The result is what the historian Geir Lundestad has called an “empire by invitation.” The United States’ geographic advantage is
on full display in Asia. Most countries there see China as a greater potential danger -- due to its proximity, if nothing else -- than the United
States. Except
for the United States, every major power in the world lives in a crowded geopolitical
neighborhood where shifts in power routinely provoke counterbalancing -- including by one another.
China is discovering this dynamic today as surrounding states react to its rise by modernizing their
militaries and reinforcing their alliances. Russia has known it for decades, and has faced it most recently
in Ukraine, which in recent years has increased its military spending and sought closer ties to the EU.
Geographic isolation has also given the United States reason to champion universal principles that allow it to access various regions of the
world. The country has long promoted the open-door policy and the principle of self-determination and opposed colonialism -- less out of a
sense of idealism than due to the practical realities of keeping Europe, Asia, and the Middle East open for trade and diplomacy. In the late
1930s, the main question facing the United States was how large a geopolitical space, or “grand area,” it would
need to exist as a
great power in a world of empires, regional blocs, and spheres of influence. World War II made the answer clear:
the country’s prosperity and security depended on access to every region. And in the ensuing decades, with some important and damaging
exceptions, such as Vietnam, the United States has embraced postimperial principles.
It was during these postwar years that
geopolitics and order building converged. A liberal international framework was the answer that
statesmen such as Dean Acheson, George Kennan, and George Marshall offered to the challenge of
Soviet expansionism. The system they built strengthened and enriched the United States and its allies,
to the detriment of its illiberal opponents. It also stabilized the world economy and established mechanisms for
tackling global problems. The end of the Cold War has not changed the logic behind this project. Fortunately, the liberal principles that
Washington has pushed enjoy near-universal appeal, because they have tended to be a good fit with the modernizing forces of economic
growth and social advancement. As the historian Charles Maier has put it, the United States surfed the wave of twentieth-century
modernization. But some have argued that this congruence between the American project and the forces of modernity has weakened in recent
years. The 2008 financial crisis, the thinking goes, marked a world-historical turning point, at which the United States lost its vanguard role in
facilitating economic advancement. Yet even if that were true,
it hardly follows that China and Russia have replaced the
United States as the standard-bearers of the global economy. Even Mead does not argue that China, Iran, or Russia
offers the world a new model of modernity. If these illiberal powers really do threaten Washington and the rest of the liberal capitalist world,
then they will need to find and ride the next great wave of modernization. They are unlikely to do that.
Asia Pivot
TPP is key to Asia Pivot
Miller & Nadeau 14 Scott Miller holds the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. Paul Nadeau is program manager and research
associate with the Scholl Chair at CSIS. "TPP Is More than a Trade Agreement," 1-31-14,
http://csis.org/publication/tpp-more-trade-agreement, DOA: 3-6-2015, y2k
Who gains the most now from TPA and the resulting TPP agreement? The White House. This isn’t
because of the immediate economic benefits to the United States, or because it provides a template for
future large-scale, comprehensive trade agreements, or because the President has advanced the most
ambitious trade agenda since the early 1990s. The White House needs TPA because the TPP is the “pivot to Asia.” The
military realignment is important, but the repositioning is mostly relative, driven by drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pivot is a political and
economic realignment that aims to improve cooperation and integration among the United States and
East Asia. Then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton said this explicitly in her Foreign Policy article, “America’s Pacific Century,” when she wrote “[O]pen markets in
Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology. Our economic
recovery at home will depend on exports and the ability of American firms to tap into the vast and
growing consumer base of Asia.” Military presence was only one out of the six courses of action that
Secretary Clinton used to define the Asia Pivot, while the TPP is arguably the key ingredient of three
(deepening America's relationships with rising powers, including China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment). If solving
the financial crisis and passing health care reform were President Obama’s key domestic policy victories, then
the Asia Pivot is primed to be
the area where he beneficially changes the course of U.S. foreign policy (the discussions with Iran are still too nascent to
determine how far reaching they will become). Today, there are tensions among Asia’s large powers, and the United States is likely the single entity that can
influence the situation. The
United States and Asia need each other and TPP is the vehicle that can functionally,
economically, and politically help bind them together. The Members of Congress and staff that have drafted the TPA bill have put admirable effort into legislation.
Trade negotiators working on TPP have been equally tireless. But TPP, and Asia, cannot wait forever. Many
in Asia are already concerned that
the Pivot was only superficial and that United States is already moving on. If TPA and TPP remain framed as
a trade issue, with all of the political baggage that comes with that, the Administration risks putting TPP on ice for 2014.
Alternatively, the Administration can influence perceptions by framing the TPP as a strategic goal that
will be the cornerstone of the Asia Pivot. This would reassure U.S. partners in Asia and answer domestic critics
who argue that the Pivot lacks substance. Moreover, it would give the President an achievable goal in
advance of his April trip to Asia.
Future Trade Deals
TPP is key to success in future trade deals – sets future expectations
JiJi ’15 (JiJi Jan, Janurary 6, 2015 “TPP success key to clinching other free trade deals” Japan Times,
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/01/06/business/economy-business/tpp-success-key-toclinching-other-free-trade-deals/#.VZrehPlViko)
Although Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wants to clinch large-scale free trade agreements with a range of countries to help spur economic growth,
negotiations have stalled over the extent of trade liberalization those countries expect. Abe hopes to leverage anticipated progress in talks on
the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade bloc, where a deal seems possible this spring, to help resolve such deadlocks.
Large-scale FTA
negotiations accelerated in 2013, when Japan joined the TPP talks. The group of 12 countries accounts
for some 40 percent of global nominal gross domestic product. Around the time it joined the TPP talks, Japan also
entered Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) negotiations with 15 other Asia-Pacific countries, which include China, South
Korea and India. Talks on a planned trilateral Japan-China-South Korea free trade agreement also kicked off the same year. Japan initially aimed
for deals in 2015 on the RCEP and the Japan-China-South Korea talks, but both are now stalled. Clashes of opinion were especially notable in
the RCEP negotiations, with China and South Korea starting to insist last month that they wanted the minimum level of trade liberalization to be
set at about half of the originally envisaged 80 percent. Japan locked horns with China and South Korea over trade liberalization rates in
negotiations over the proposed trilateral trade agreement between those countries. China
and South Korea also apparently
teamed up to challenge the Japan-U.S. initiative for high-level trade and investment liberalization within
the TPP framework. “It is now uncertain whether Japan can reach accords in 2015″ in the RCEP and Japan-China-South Korea talks, said
a source with access to the negotiations. The Abe administration has set a goal of lifting the share of Japan’s trade with free trade agreement
partners to 70 percent of the value of its total trade from the current 20 percent. To achieve this goal, “Japan needs something extra besides
the TPP deal,” said a senior Foreign Ministry official. Therefore, Japan hopes that having
high-level trade rules in place from a
TPP deal will give momentum to negotiations on other free trade agreements. In early January, Japan and the
United States will resume their bilateral trade talks, which are widely seen as pivotal to determining the
fate of the overall TPP negotiations. The two countries hope to narrow their differences over tariffs on
agricultural products and vehicles. Apparently mindful of the U.S. presidential election campaign, which gets into full swing this
fall, Akira Amari, minister in charge of TPP talks, said: “On procedural grounds, we’ll be in a tough situation if we don’t reach an overall accord
by early spring.” U.S.
President Barack Obama faces the task of winning trade promotion authority from
Congress before election campaigning begins, giving him full power to negotiate trade agreements with
other countries. This is viewed as essential for early U.S. ratification of a TPP deal. Other participating countries
in the TPP talks are keenly aware of the importance of trade promotion authority, and hope to conclude their negotiations in time for its
enactment in the United States. All eyes are now on the course of TPP negotiations, which are may be in their final stages. Success or
failure is widely expected to provide a marker for the future of other large-scale free trade talks.
The TPP is key to future global trade- it will lead to increased deals with the EU
Korea Joongang Daily July 3 2015, The TPP earthquake,
http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=3006170&cloc=etc%7Cjad%7Cgoogl
enews
Fast-track negotiating authority for international trade agreements was bestowed on U.S. President Barack
Obama after a law renewing the controversial power passed the Senate. With the temporary power called Trade Promotion Authority, which
was last used during the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations with South Korea eight years ago, Obama plans to finalize his
ambitious trade agenda, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), in July. The U.S., which made trade partners of Canada
and Mexico with the North American Free Trade Agreement, can expand its free trade turf to the Pacific Rim nations with the deal, which has
12 founding members. The TPP would eliminate tariffs on products and services and also bring the members together under a uniform set of
rules on intellectual property rights, investments and a number of other areas to help cross-border trade become seamless and efficient. The
TPP offers broader and more comprehensive terms in integrating markets than Korea’s bilateral FTA with the U.S. At the same time, it
augments discrimination against non-member economies. Because
of its protective design, the TPP is likely to draw
more members into the framework to avoid relatively disadvantageous trade positions. As he tried to get
legislative support for his trade promotion authority, Obama emphasized the TPP’s potential as an economic and diplomatic tool to better
position the U.S. against China’s increasing influence. The duel between the two superpowers through their different trade blocs is expected to
get more intense. China has also launched the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to get its own team together for shared investment
opportunities and economic cooperation - minus the U.S. and Japan. Korea has bilateral FTAs with the U.S. and nine other TPP members
excluding Japan and Mexico but it cannot easily jump on the TPP bandwagon. Upon joining the TPP, Korea would enter unilateral trade terms
with Japan and the liberalization and import regulations would be far more unfavorable for Korea compared to the FTA with China. Japan would
likely demand greater liberalization of Korea’s rice market. The government cannot risk further angering farmers having just imposed tariffs on
rice imports from late 2014 after a 20-year grace period. The political implications make it difficult for Korea to join the TPP. Rules of origin
would be applied uniformly on 12 TPP members to deepen in-house industrial supply chains and cooperation. At the same time, it could be
damaging to other exporters and manufacturers of non-finished goods. The Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia are hurrying to get into a trade
framework that already has rival regional exporters like Vietnam and Malaysia. Latin American countries also are keen because Chile and Peru
are already included. More
will get on the wagon when membership increases in order not to be left behind
or excluded from the industrial network. Because a TPP would automatically establish bilateral free
trade between the U.S. and Japan, Japan would soon be able to close a free trade deal with the
European Union. The U.S. then would gain traction in pursuit of a free trade pact with the EU. The TPP
would become the single largest trade bloc led by advanced countries. We must not weigh the TPP
simply within the founding context of 12 members. We must consider a potential impact that could
bring about a sea of change in the global trade order. We should not just figure out the right time to join the deal, but
come up with comprehensive measures to hone the adaptability and resilience of our industrial and business environment in a new global trade
order under the creation of a truly formidable TPP, which could even pose a challenge to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the current
arbiter of the world’s trade rules.
Trade
TPP key to uniting economies and trade
Clinton in 2011 (Hillary, “America's Pacific Century The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not
Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action.“, Foreign Policy,
http://www.us-global-trade.com/Hilary%20Clinton.Asia%20(Foreign%20Policy%20Nov.%202011).pdf)
We are also making progress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which will bring together economies
from across the Pacific -- developed and developing alike -- into a single trading community. Our goal is to create
not just more growth, but better growth. We believe trade agreements need to include strong
protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and innovation. They should also promote the
free flow of information technology and the spread of green technology, as well as the coherence of our regulatory system and the efficiency of
supply chains. Ultimately, our progress
will be measured by the quality of people's lives -- whether men and
women can work in dignity, earn a decent wage, raise healthy families, educate their children, and take
hold of the opportunities to improve their own and the next generation's fortunes. Our hope is that a
TPP agreement with high standards can serve as a benchmark for future agreements -- and grow to
serve as a platform for broader regional interaction and eventually a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific.
TPP offers path for free trade in Asia
Petri et al in 2012 (Peter, Visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the
Carl J. Shapiro Professor of International Finance at the Brandeis International Business School, and a
senior fellow at the East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership and AsiaPacific Integration: Policy Implications”, Peterson Institute for International Economics Policy Brief,
http://xxx.iie.com/publications/pb/pb12-16.pdf)
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, now in negotiation among nine Asia-Pacific countries,
could yield annual global income gains of $295 billion (including $78 billion for the United States) and
officers a pathway to free trade in the Asia-Pacific with potential gains of $1.9 trillion. The TPP’s expected
template promises to be unusually productive because it officers opportunities for the leading sectors of emerging-market and advanced
economies.
An ambitious TPP template would generate greater benefits from integration than less
demanding alternatives, but it will be harder to sell to China and other key regional partners as the TPP evolves toward wider
agreements. The importance of Asia-Pacific integration argues for an early conclusion of the TPP
negotiations, without jeopardizing the prospects for region-wide or even global agreements based on it in the future.
Trade Good- Poverty
Trade restrictions are immoral- free trade helps the poor and is more efficient
Worstall 15
Worstall, Tim. Worstall is a Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London "The Beneficiaries Of TPP and
Free Trade Agreements Are The Poor." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 26 June 2015. Web. 06 July 2015.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/06/26/the-beneficiaries-of-tpp-and-free-tradeagreements-are-the-poor/
And that’s the confusion. That was exactly the point. We’ll
open the trade doors to all those poor people out there and
the reason we’ll do that is that this is how we can help them become rich. And it has worked too: these
past few decades of globalisation have led to the largest fall in absolute poverty in the history of our
entire species. There has thus been a twofold benefit. There has been that significant (and just and righteous)
reduction in global poverty. And consumers everywhere have benefited from the lower costs of the
various things they buy. This is not some mysterious side effect of free trade nor of globalisation. This is
the very point of it. This is always what was intended should happen. So note again the economists’ point about revealed preferences. If
the American consumers, the 320 million or so of them in aggregate, did not want this to happen then it would not matter what the politicians
did about trade agreements or tariffs. If people actually thought that keeping jobs for their fellow Americans was more important than getting
the best deal on their purchases then they would show that with their buying patterns. They would buy American and just suck up those higher
prices. They don’t though, do they? Thus we get the truth which we should be using to direct our public policy. The American people do not
want to protect American jobs at the cost of higher prices to American consumers. If they did then we would need not trade restrictions at all
as no one would buy the cheaper goods at the cost of American jobs. So,
arguing for trade restrictions is obviously and
clearly arguing against the express desires and wishes of the American people. Because it is, equally clearly
and obviously, an attempt to deny them the ability to express those wishes over jobs, prices and the sources
of the goods they buy. Economists have long been insisting that free trade is important for reasons of
economic efficiency. But this above is the argument that it is also the moral policy to be following.
Because it is only complete free trade that allows people to reveal their preferences. And as we can see, when people
are allowed to reveal their preferences they reveal that they want the trade more than they want to protect the
local jobs. Trade restrictions are therefore immoral as well as economically inefficient. Thus we really shouldn’t
be having trade restrictions, should we?
Contains China
The TPP is key to check economic power of china
Economist 15, 4-17-2015, "A step closer," Economist, http://www.economist.com/news/21648778congressional-compromise-boosts-odds-passage-key-global-trade-deals-step-closer
Yet the biggest threat to the most ambitious deals—the TPP and its European cousin, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)—has been the risk
that America's Congress will not grant Mr Obama Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), or "fast track". Fast track guarantees a deal an up-or-down vote in Washington
with no amendments. That gives the president the ability to make credible promises in negotiations which cannot be amended away later by a meddling Congress.
Fast track expired in 2007 and Congress has not rushed to renew it. That may soon change. Yesterday key legislators worked out a deal for a bill to give Mr Obama
TPA. The bill has a hard road ahead; it must be approved by both houses of Congress and will need Democratic votes in the Senate to pass. That is anything but
assured; many of the president's loudest critics on trade are within his own party. The deal is nonetheless heartening news, given the stasis into which negotations
TPP—which would almost certainly be
an ambitious, "next generation" trade agreement that, if sealed, would link many of the
large economies of the Pacific rim: including America and Japan, Australia and Canada, Chile and
Mexico—though notably not China. The potential members combine to produce around 40% of global GDP
and one-third of world trade. Yet the TPP is designed to boost trade where it currently lags: in services, which account for most of rich countries’
on the president's proposed trade deals seemed to have fallen. Those deals would not be any minor step forward for trade.
the first big deal to benefit from fast track—is
GDP but only a small share of trade. Opening up trade in services could help reduce the cost of everything from shipping to banking, education and health care.
Perhaps just as important, if
the countries of the TTIP and the TPP agree on standards for components of services trade
(by agreeing to mutual recognition of certain regulatory approval processes, in medical services, for instance) those rules could effectively
function as global standards, given the large share of world GDP adhering to them. That, in turn, would deny
the large and growing Chinese economy the opportunity to establish its preferred rules as the global benchmark.
TPP key to containing china
Mirski July 6, 2015
(Sean Mirski; co-editor of Crux of Asia: China, India and the Emerging Global Order, “The Trans-Pacific
Partnership: China, America and the Balance of Power”, Nationalintrest.org, 7/6/15, 3 pgs., Website,
7/6/15, http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-trans-pacific-partnership-china-america-the-balance13264?page=2)
to preserve American primacy in the face of a rising China, American strategists seem forced to choose between
two options that are both extremely unpalatable: containment and integration. The United States is too economically
entwined with China to pursue a containment strategy of the sort employed during the Cold War, when the West cordoned off
the Soviet bloc from key international trading networks. Simultaneously, though, the United States is experiencing increasingly
diminishing returns from its strategy of integration, whereby the Nixon administration wired China into the international
economic order on preferential terms in order to split the nation from the Soviet Union. After all, interdependence has not
brought enduring friendship. Rather than integrating “responsibly” into the existing world order, Beijing has adopted a picky approach
In order
to global governance—it has participated in those institutions that benefit it while shirking those that do not. To handle the “unattractive”
aspects of integration,
China is beginning to develop an alternative set of global institutions as well as the hard
power to back them up. And to top it off, China seems caught in a permanent (if protracted) downward spiral in its relationship with the
United States. Hence the geopolitical vise: the United States cannot tear down China, but for its own good, Washington should
not continue building it up either. The TPP offers a third option, one that steers cleanly between the Charybdis of continued
integration and the Scylla of containment. The United States should build up its own strength (as well as the strength of its Asian
allies) in order to maintain a balance of power in the Asia-Pacific that is favorable to continued American
primacy. The objective is simple: adopt policies that accrue economic gains to the United States and its allies relative to
China, then translate that economic advantage into national power through a smart military strategy that
makes the best use of budget dollars. From this perspective, it becomes clear that the TPP is not just about absolute economic
gains for the United States or American workers—although those are certainly important—but rather gains for the United States and its allies
relative to China.
Asia War Likely/Escalates
Asian instability will escalate to nuclear conflict- great powers have strong interests in
the region
Campbell 8 (Kurt M, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Dr. Campbell served in several capacities in government, including
as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia and the Pacific, Director on theNational Security Council Staff, previously the Chief Executive Officer and cofounder of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), served as Director of the Aspen Strategy Group and the Chairman of the Editorial Board of
the Washington Quarterly, and was the founder and Principal of StratAsia, a strategic advisory company focused on Asia, rior to co-founding CNAS, he served as
Senior Vice President, Director of the International Security Program, and the Henry A. Kissinger Chair in National Security Policy at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, doctorate in International Relation Theory from Oxford, former associate professor of public policy and international relations at the John F.
Kennedy School of Government and Assistant Director of the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, member of Council on Foreign
Relations and International Institute for Strategic Studies, “The Power of Balance: America in iAsia” June 2008,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CampbellPatelSingh_iAsia_June08.pdf)
Asian investment is also at record levels. Asian countries lead the world with unprecedented infrastructure projects. With over $3 trillion in
foreign currency reserves, Asian nations and businesses are starting to shape global economic activity. Indian firms are purchasing industrial
giants such as Arcelor Steel, as well as iconic brands of its once-colonial ruler, such as Jaguar and Range Rover. China’s Lenovo bought IBM’s
personal computer We call the transformations across the Asia-Pacific the emergence of “iAsia” to reflect the adoption by countries across Asia
of fundamentally new strategic approaches to their neighbors and the world. Asian
nations are pursuing their interests with real
power in a period of both tremendous potential and great uncertainty. iAsia is: Integrating: iAsia includes increasing economic
interdependence and a flowering of multinational forums to deal with trade, cultural exchange, and, to some degree, security. Innovating: iAsia
boasts the world’s most successful manufacturing and technology sectors and could start taking the lead in everything from finance to
nanotech to green tech. Investing: Asian nations are developing infrastructure and human capital at unprecedented rates. But the
continent remains plagued by: Insecurity: Great-power rivalry is alive in Asia. Massive military investments along
with historic suspicions and contemporary territorial and other conflicts make war in Asia plausible. Instability: From
environmental degradation to violent extremism to trafficking in drugs, people, and weapons, Asian nations have much to worry about.
Inequality: Within nations and between them, inequality in Asia is more stark than anywhere else in the world. Impoverished minorities in
countries like India and China, and the gap in governance and capacity within countries, whether as backward as Burma or as advanced as
Singapore, present unique challenges. A traditional approach to Asia will not suffice if the United States is to both protect American interests
and help iAsia realize its potential and avoid pitfalls. business and the Chinese government, along with other Asian financial players, injected
billions in capital to help steady U.S. investment banks such as Merrill Lynch as the American subprime mortgage collapse unfolded. Chinese
investment funds regional industrialization, which in turn creates new markets for global products. Asia now accounts for over 40 percent of
global consumption of steel 4 and China is consuming almost half of world’s available concrete. 5 Natural resources from soy to copper to oil
are being used by China and India at astonishing rates, driving up commodity prices and setting off alarm bells in Washington and other
Western capitals. Yet Asia
is not a theater at peace. On average, between 15 and 50 people die every day from causes tied to
rivalry and nationalism run deep. The continent harbors every traditional and nontraditional challenge of our age: it is a cauldron of religious and ethnic tension; a source of terror and extremism; an accelerating driver
conflict, and suspicions rooted in
of the insatiable global appetite for energy; the place where the most people will suffer the adverse effects of global climate change; the
and the most likely theater on Earth for a major conventional confrontation and even a
nuclear conflict. Coexisting with the optimism of iAsia are the ingredients for internal strife, non-traditional threats like
terrorism, and traditional interstate conflict, which are all magnified by the risk of miscalculation or poor decisionprimary source of nuclear proliferation;
making.
Asia is the most dangerous continent- long standing conflicts and widespread nuclear
prolif
NAÍM, 2013 MOISÉS. "The Most Dangerous Continent." The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group, 17
Oct. 2013. Web. 6 July 2015.
Some problems travel well. Sometimes too well. Financial crashes have taught us that in some cases what starts as a very local economic
problem quickly escalates and becomes a global crisis. Think Greece—or more recently Cyprus. And we know that terrorism also has a way of
going global in unpredictable and dangerous ways. But what about regions? Which continents are more prone to infect the rest of the world
with their problems? Africa and Latin America's woes, for example, remain mostly insulated. Of course, the mass emigration of Africans to
Europe and Latin Americans to the United States is an example of how one continent’s problems spill over into another, but this contagion has
had much less of an impact than the economic crisis in the U.S. or Europe, for example. Millions of people all over the world, and especially in
Europe, are still paying the consequences for that financial earthquake. The point is that the problems of some continents are more ‘systemic’
than others. This is to say that the agonies of some regions affect the entire world, no matter how far away they are. The question, then, is:
Which of the five continents is bound to spread more unhappiness in the future? One way to answer is to think about which threats travel the
easiest and with no trouble skirt borders, fortifications, or the public policies that we naïvely believe protect us. An economic crash in China, for
example, is bound to be felt everywhere and by everyone. Nor may we be able to dodge the consequences of the nuclear experiments of a
young, inexperienced North Korean tyrant. So, which
continent is the most dangerous? Asia. This may surprise those
who see the ‘Asian economic miracle’ as a model for the rest of the world. Or those who think that conditions in the
Middle East are ripe for a lengthy and rising wave of armed conflicts, religious radicalization and international terrorism. All this is true. But
the problems that originate in Asia will prove more and more complicated, as their already gigantic
economies continue to grow, albeit at a slower pace than in the last several decades. The main threats
to humanity today are: 1) climate change; 2) nuclear proliferation; 3) the outbreak of a disease with no
known cure that spreads across the globe claiming a large number of victims; 4) global economic crises and, of course, 5)
an armed conflict between two or more military powers, such as China and India, for example. Of course, there are
other threats: terrorism, the increased scarcity of water, criminalized governments, structural
unemployment, and the proliferation of failed states. But none of these would generate the colossal consequences of the
five I list. Asia is the region with the most countries that have the potential to create and spread these five
problems. The much celebrated economic success of the ‘Asian tigers’ obscures the fact that this continent is also
home to the principal threats to global stability. According to the Asian Development Bank, Asia is on the path to double its
consumption of oil, triple its use of natural gas, and see an 81 percent increase in its use of high polluting coal, speeding up and doubling its
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2035. Asia alone, then, would be emitting the total amount of CO2 that experts have calculated to be the
maximum sustainable level for the entire planet. Asia
is also the continent with the greatest proliferation of nuclear
weapons. These capabilities are present in high-risk countries like North Korea and Pakistan, which also
happen to be those that have shown no qualms in selling their nuclear technology to the highest bidder.
Many of the world’s longest-lasting armed conflicts are found in Asia. From Afghanistan to Sri Lanka and from
Kashmir to the unending armed insurgencies in Indonesia and the Philippines, wars are routine. Asia is also marked by the most explosive
borders in the world: China and India, Pakistan and India, and between the two Koreas. From
Asia came the avian bird flu
pandemic. While the mortalities proved lower than feared, the world was alerted to Asia’s potential to rapidly spread disease across the
globe. Are these accidents and Asia-originated problems inevitable? Of course not. But they are
unfortunately more important and urgent than issues that more frequently absorb the world’s
attention.
War in Asia escalates to great power involvement, and goes nuclear
Mead 14 – Walter Russell Mead, Professor of Foreign Affairs and the Humanities at Bard College,
“Obama in Asia”, The American Interest, 11-9, http://www.the-americaninterest.com/2010/11/09/obama-in-asia/
The decision to go to Asia is one that all thinking Americans can and should support regardless of either party or ideological affiliation. East and
South Asia
are the places where the 21st century, for better or for worse, will most likely be shaped; economic
growth, environmental progress, the destiny of democracy and success against terror are all at stake
here. American objectives in this region are clear. While convincing China that its best interests are not served by a rash, Kaiser Wilhelm-like
dash for supremacy in the region, the US does not want either to isolate or contain China. We want a strong, rich, open and free China in an
Asia that is also strong, rich, open and free. Our destiny is inextricably linked with Asia’s; Asian
success will make America
stronger, richer and more secure. Asia’s failures will reverberate over here, threatening our prosperity, our
security and perhaps even our survival. The world’s two most mutually hostile nuclear states, India and
Pakistan, are in Asia. The two states most likely to threaten others with nukes, North Korea and aspiring
rogue nuclear power Iran, are there. The two superpowers with a billion plus people are in Asia as well.
This is where the world’s fastest growing economies are. It is where the worst environmental problems
exist. It is the home of the world’s largest democracy, the world’s most populous Islamic country (Indonesia — which is also among the most
democratic and pluralistic of Islamic countries), and the world’s most rapidly rising non-democratic power as well. Asia holds more oil
resources than any other continent; the world’s most important and most threatened trade routes lie
off its shores. East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia (where American and NATO forces are fighting the Taliban) and West Asia
(home among others to Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and Iraq) are the theaters in the world today that most directly
engage America’s vital interests and where our armed forces are most directly involved. The world’s
most explosive territorial disputes are in Asia as well, with islands (and the surrounding mineral and fishery resources)
bitterly disputed between countries like Russia, the two Koreas, Japan, China (both from Beijing and Taipei), and
Vietnam. From the streets of Jerusalem to the beaches of Taiwan the world’s most intractable political problems are found on the Asian
landmass and its surrounding seas. Whether you view the world in terms of geopolitical security, environmental sustainability,
economic growth or the march of democracy, Asia is at the center of your concerns. That is the overwhelming reality of world
politics today, and that reality is what President Obama’s trip is intended to address.
Aff Politics- TPP
Uniqueness
TPP Won’t Pass
Opposition to TPP is growing- passage not guaranteed
US Official News July 2, 2015 Thursday, Washington: Eighth Anniversary of Signing of the U.S.Korea FTA Shows Failure of Obama’s ‘More Exports, More Jobs’ Free Trade Promises, Further
Endangering Push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Lexis
Today’s eighth anniversary of the signing of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA), implemented by the
Obama administration in March 2012, highlights the devastating impacts of the pact, which served as the U.S.
template for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Government data reveal a near-doubling of the job-displacing
U.S. goods trade deficit with Korea in the FTA’s first three years, casting a dark shadow over President Barack
Obama’s push for the already controversial TPP. “Knowing that the U.S.-Korea FTA was the template of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership causes grave concern. The Obama administration’s history of record-breaking trade deficits and lost jobs tells a very different story
than its promises of ‘more exports and more jobs,’” said Alisa A. Simmons, deputy director for Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. “The
American public is not willing to go on another free trade ride that fills the coffers of multinational
corporations while offshoring good jobs and suppressing our wages.” U.S. government data covering the full first three years of
the U.S.-Korea FTA reveal that: The U.S. goods trade deficit with Korea has swelled 90 percent, or $13.6 billion, in the first three years of the
Korea FTA (comparing the year before the FTA took effect with the third year of implementation). The trade deficit increase equates to the loss
of more than 90,000 American jobs in the first three years of the Korea FTA, counting both exports and imports, according to the trade-jobs
ratio that the Obama administration used to project job gains from the deal. U.S. goods exports to Korea have dropped 7 percent, or $3 billion,
under the Korea FTA’s first three years. U.S. imports of goods from Korea have surged 18 percent, or $10.6 billion in the first three years of the
Korea FTA. Record-breaking U.S. trade deficits with Korea have become the new normal under the FTA – in 35 of the 36 months after the Korea
FTA took effect, the U.S. goods trade deficit with Korea exceeded the average monthly trade deficit in the three years before the deal. In
January 2015, the monthly U.S. goods trade deficit with Korea topped $3 billion – the highest level on record. The 90 percent surge in the U.S.Korea goods trade deficit in the first three years of the FTA starkly contrasts with the 2 percent decrease in the global U.S. goods trade deficit
during the same period. And while the strengthening value of the dollar has inhibited overall U.S. exports recently, U.S. goods exports to the
world have remained level (zero percent change) while U.S. exports to Korea have fallen during the FTA’s first three years. The U.S.
manufacturing trade deficit with Korea has grown 47 percent, or $10.6 billion, since implementation of the Korea FTA. The increase owes to a 1
percent, or $0.5 billion, decline in U.S. exports to Korea of manufactured goods and a 17 percent, or $10.1 billion, increase in imports of
manufactured goods from Korea. U.S. exports to Korea of agricultural goods have fallen 5 percent, or $323 million,in the first three years of the
Korea FTA. U.S. agricultural imports from Korea, meanwhile, have grown 29 percent, or $103 million, under the FTA. As a result, the U.S.
agricultural trade balance with Korea has declined 6 percent, or $426 million, since the FTA’s implementation. The
push to gain
congressional approval for the TPP becomes more politically fraught as 2016 draws nearer, with
presidential contenders from both parties recently adding their voices to the widespread criticism of the
pact. This anniversary of the signing of the U.S.-Korea FTA – a grim reminder of the devastating impacts of the status quo
trade model that the TPP would expand – will only fuel broader opposition to the TPP among members of Congress, the
public and presidential candidates.
Won’t pass – increased scrutiny will shift the debate – both parties abandon ship
Zornick 6/23 (George, “The Fast-Track Fight Is Effectively Over: It’s Happening,”
http://www.thenation.com/blog/210665/fast-track-fight-effectively-over-its-happening)
Once fast track passes tomorrow (there is only a 50-vote requirement post-cloture, which this bill will easily achieve) and Obama signs
fast track, the fight turns to the highly controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership. Sometime in the late summer or early
fall, the Obama administration will finally release the full TPP text, after the president signs it. After 90 days, Congress can vote on it. Without
question, fast track makes the TPP much more likely to pass. No amendments can gum up the process or chase off support, and we already can
easily see there are 50 votes in the Senate based on the fast-track votes. But the
House remains no sure thing for the TPP.
Fast track twice passed by only two votes. When the TPP actually comes out, there will be some really
ugly details that are likely to enrage liberals and solidify opposition among Democrats. For months the
White House has been dodging some criticisms of the TPP by stressing that the text isn’t final, but that will no longer
be an option. The unknown details of the TPP, incidentally, are what Hillary Clinton cites for not yet having an
official position on the trade deal. If the Democrat base gets truly riled up when the details do come out, she
may end up opposing the deal. This would give cover for every congressional Democrat to do the same.
Members of the House will also be in the thick of their reelection campaign this fall, and increased
progressive activism and actual primary challengers will no doubt make a TPP vote even harder. On the
Republican side, Boehner will almost surely have a more difficult time gathering Republican votes for the TPP
than he did for fast track. One argument frequently made by Republicans during the congressional fast-track debate was that it
benefited the GOP, too—that it was also a vote to give a theoretical Republican president in 2017 immense power to shape trade deals without
congressional meddling. That has no application to the TPP debate. And 2016 will no doubt have the same effect on the Republican side, as
incumbents face challenges from opponents to their right who may decide to blast them for supporting Obama’s trade agenda. The presidential
race provides more pressure, and we’re already seeing it: Only weeks ago, Ted Cruz voted to move fast track. Tuesday, he released an op-ed on
Breitbart.com bashing “Obamatrade” and voted against cloture. So while
progressives lost the fast-track battle, the trade
debate isn’t quite over yet. “What [today’s vote] doesn’t mean is that Congress must pass [the TPP],” said
Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen. “When the inexcusable and anti-democratic veil of secrecy surrounding the TPP is finally lifted,
and the
American people see what is actually in the agreement, they are going to force their representatives in
Washington to vote that deal down.”
TPP passage unlikely- multiple hurdles and delay means elections block the vote
Prashanth Parameswaran, The Diplomat, June 24 2015, Finishing the TPP: It’s Not Just About the
US Congress, http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/finishing-the-tpp-its-not-just-about-the-us-congress/
In the United States, too, much work remains to be done with the elections fast approaching. Even given the ideal
scenario where every step of the process is completed at its earliest date – with TPA becoming law by the end of
June, TPP concluded by the end of July, and U.S. President Barack Obama signing the deal after November 1 following necessary procedures –
including notifying Congress and making other preparations – TPP
would only be implemented by December 1, Daniel
Ikenson of the CATO Institute opined in a recent commentary. A more realistic scenario, which adds in time for debates in Congress
and other delays, Ikenson says, is between May and July 2016. The assumption that it will take a month to finalize the TPP is also an
optimistic one, and it could in fact take longer. If it takes too long, that begins to bump up against the 2016 elections in
November, which could affect the vote count once it gets back to Congress. With so much still left to do by so many players, a little
perspective is in order even if we do see further advances on the TPP in Washington in the coming weeks. As Ambassador Castilla aptly put it,
for all the attention on Capitol Hill over the past few weeks on TPA, “this is just round one” on the TPP.
TPP Negotiations Fail
No guarantee a deal can be negotiated- Japan and the US are key and still have major
hurdles
The Japan Times 7/2/2015, Japan, U.S. might resume TPP talks next week,
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/07/02/business/economy-business/japan-u-s-might-resumetpp-talks-next-week/#.VZmHAvlVhBc
The Japanese and U.S. governments are considering resuming working-level talks related to the Trans-Pacific
Partnership negotiations on July 9, according to informed sources. Through the talks, Tokyo and Washington hope to find
common ground on pending issues on the multilateral free trade deal, including how to handle tariffs on
rice and other sensitive farm products, and automobile trade. The two sides want to settle their disagreements because the 12
countries in the TPP negotiations are expected to hold a ministerial meeting later this month as they move to seal the broad trade accord.
While the timing of the Japan-U.S. talks is still fluid, the Japanese side hopes to arrange the bilateral session for next week, the sources said. The
Japanese participants at the meeting in Tokyo will include Hiroshi Oe, acting chief TPP negotiator, and Takeo Mori, ambassador in charge of
economic diplomacy. The U.S. team will be led by Acting Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Wendy Cutler, the sources said. The
overall
negotiations are expected to gain major impetus if Japan and the United States, the two biggest players
in the talks, can sort out their issues. The 12 may hold a meeting of their chief negotiators from around July 23 before the
envisaged ministerial meeting, which might be held in Hawaii, the sources said. But it remains unclear if an agreement will be
reached early in the talks because other difficult hurdles remain, such as rules for protecting intellectual
property rights, the sources said.
Democrats re-grouping to kill passage – and negotiations will fail.
Nakamura 6/24 (David, “Obama poised for a major trade win, burnishing his foreign policy legacy,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-poised-for-a-major-trade-win-burnishing-his-foreignpolicy-legacy/2015/06/24/e940c6fa-1a77-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html)
President Obama was poised Wednesday to win new powers to bring home an extensive Pacific Rim free-trade deal that analysts said could go
down as one of his most important foreign policy legacies, boosting U.S. standing in fast-growing Asia. Obama’s
expected victory on
Capitol Hill to gain fast-track trade authority comes 12 days after House Democrats nearly scuttled
Obama’s plans. It represents a hard-won payoff for a president who was willing to buck a majority of his party in pursuit of a multi-nation
free-trade accord that aides have said will ensure the United States maintains an economic advantage over a rising China. “This looks like a big,
strategic piece,” said Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, a global risk consulting firm. “It’s enormously important. This administration
has had very few foreign policy successes. Even if they get an Iran [nuclear] deal, the TPP is a lot bigger. It’s a global strategy doctrine that will
move the world in a direction that, in the long-term, is useful for the investments of America.” The intense legislative fight — waged for months
by a White House eager to score a rare, bipartisan legislative victory late in Obama’s tenure — appeared to be coming to an end as the Senate
was ready to grant final approval to the fast-track bill Wednesday afternoon. At the same time, House Democrats on Wednesday signaled they
would concede defeat and support related legislation — which they had blocked two weeks ago to stall the trade agenda — that provides
retraining assistance for displaced workers. The results appeared to hand Obama a full-fledged victory, although the acrimony
along the
way has raised questions about the party’s cohesion heading into the 2016 election cycle. Most congressional
Democrats have dismissed the geo-strategic benefits of the trade deal, warning instead that the TPP will cost U.S.
workers jobs in traditional manufacturing industries and exacerbate the nation’s widening income gap. The trade promotion bill would give the
executive branch additional powers for six years, smoothing the path for the Obama administration to complete the 12-nation Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) by the end of this year. Under the legislation, the president would be authorized to present the accord to Congress for a vote
on a specified timeline without lawmakers being able to amend the terms. U.S. officials expect the new authority to jump-start the final rounds
of negotiations by giving other nations confidence that lawmakers will not change the terms of a final agreement. Negotiators
still must
hammer out deals on a number of thorny issues, including new rules on access to Japanese auto and agriculture
markets. In addition to lowering tariffs, the trade pact also aims to expand copyright and intellectual property protections and regulate the
flow of information on the Internet. Once negotiations are complete, the administration will have to get a final
deal through another vote in Congress, where labor unions are certain to renew their fierce opposition
efforts. The whole process could take six months or more and cast the Democratic Party into further political
turmoil.
Passage of TPP unlikely- other countries won’t ratify
Prashanth Parameswaran, The Diplomat, June 24 2015, Finishing the TPP: It’s Not Just About the
US Congress, http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/finishing-the-tpp-its-not-just-about-the-us-congress/
Last but not least, all
12 TPP members will need to get the agreement ratified by their legislatures. This is no small
feat. In some of the negotiating countries, like Malaysia, there is strong opposition to specific issues, as might be
expected in a 29-chapter agreement that takes on sensitive issues like intellectual property and state-owned enterprises. Others, like
Peru, are also at sensitive stages in their electoral cycles as well, just like Washington is with elections coming up next
year in 2016. “Getting the actual TPP once it is finalized through our own congresses is not going to be easy ,”
Peru’s ambassador to the United States, Luis Miguel Castilla, warned at the Atlantic Council event.
Thumper- Cuba
Obama has regained political capital and will spend it on pushing for new relations
with Cuba
Dana Milbank July 1, 2015, Washington Post, In his presidential homestretch, Obama regains the
momentum, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-regains-themomentum/2015/07/01/43a6b932-203c-11e5-aeb9-a411a84c9d55_story.html
“This,” President Obama said in the Rose Garden on Wednesday as he
announced the restoration of diplomatic relations
with Cuba, “is what change looks like.” This echo of his 2008 campaign theme was self-congratulatory but deserved, coming at a time of
unexpected hope late in his presidency. In the space of just over a week, Obama’s tired tenure came back to life. He bested
congressional Democrats and got trade legislation on his desk. The Supreme Court upheld the signature achievement of his
presidency — Obamacare — and thereby cemented his legacy. The high court also made same-sex marriage legal across
the land following a tidal change in public opinion that Obama’s own conversion accelerated. Had the court’s
decisions not dominated the nation’s attention, Obama’s eulogy Friday for those slain in a South Carolina church, and his extraordinary
rendition of “Amazing Grace,” would have itself been one of the most powerful moments of his presidency.It is little surprise, then, that this
lame duck’s job approval rating hit a respectable 50 percent this week for the first time in two years in a CNN poll, and his disapproval rating
dropped to 47. The good tidings of the past week have been arguably more luck than achievement for Obama, but he deserves
credit
for his effort to use the momentum of his victories to revive what had been a moribund presidency.
When you earn political capital, as George W. Bush liked to say, you spend it. This is why it was shrewd of the
surging Obama to be in the Rose Garden on Wednesday morning, demanding new action from Congress on Cuba.
“Americans and Cubans alike are ready to move forward; I believe it’s time for Congress to do the same, ”
he said, renewing his call to lift the travel and trade embargo. “. . . Yes, there are those who want to turn back the clock and
double down on a policy of isolation, but it’s long past time for us to realize that this approach doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked for 50 years. . . .
So I’d ask Congress to listen to the Cuban people, listen to the American people, listen to the words of a proud Cuban American,
[former Bush commerce secretary] Carlos Gutierrez, who recently came out against the policy of the past.” Fifteen minutes later, Obama lifted
off from the South Lawn in Marine One on his way to Nashville, where he tried to use the momentum generated by the Supreme Court
Obamacare victory to spread the program to states where Republican governors have resisted. “What I’m hoping is that with the Supreme
Court case now behind us, what we can do is . . . now focus on how we can make it even better,” he said, adding, “My hope is that on a
bipartisan basis, in places like Tennessee but all across the country, we can now focus on . . . what have we learned? What’s working? What’s
not working?” He said that “because of politics, not all states have taken advantage of the options that are out there. Our hope is, is that more
of them do.” He urged people to “think about this in a practical American way instead of a partisan, political way.” This probably won’t happen,
but it’s refreshing to see Obama, too often passive, regaining vigor as he approaches the final 18 months of his presidency. The energy had, at
least for the moment, returned to the White House, where no fewer than six network correspondents were doing live stand-ups before
Obama’s appearance Wednesday morning. There was a spring in the president’s step, if not a swagger, as he emerged from the Oval Office
trailed by Vice President Biden. Republican presidential candidates were nearly unanimous in denouncing
the plan to open
a U.S. embassy in Havana. But Obama, squinting in the sunlight as he read from his teleprompters, welcomed the fight.
“The progress that we mark today is yet another demonstration that we don’t have to be imprisoned by
the past,” he said. Quoting a Cuban American’s view that “you can’t hold the future of Cuba hostage to what happened in the past,” Obama
added, “That’s what this is about: a choice between the future and the past.” Obama turned to go back inside, ignoring the question shouted by
Bloomberg’s Margaret Talev: “How
will you get an ambassador confirmed?” That will indeed be tricky. But
momentum is everything in politics — and for the moment, Obama has it again.
TPP Bad
Tpp bad- laundry
TPP empowers corporations to twist international regulation on trade, energy, food
safety, healthcare, human rights, and the environment to be replaced by profiteering
Wallach 12
Wallach, Lori. (Director of Global Trade Watch, Harvard Lawyer, testified over 30 times to congress and
other nations on NAFTA and other trade agreements), June 27th, 2012, The Nation, “NAFTA on
Steroids”, Accessed 7/6/15 at http://www.thenation.com/article/168627/nafta-steroids#
TPP as a stealthy delivery mechanism for policies that could not survive public scrutiny. Indeed, only two of the twenty-six chapters of this corporate Trojan horse cover
traditional trade matters. The rest embodies the most florid dreams of the 1 percent—grandiose new rights and privileges for
corporations and permanent constraints on government regulation. They includes new investor safeguards to ease job
offshoring and assert control over natural resources, and severely limit the regulation of financial services,
land use, food safety, natural resources, energy, tobacco, healthcare and more. Countries would be obliged
to conform all their domestic laws and regulations to the TPP’s rules—in effect, a corporate coup
d’état. The proposed pact would limit even how governments can spend their tax dollars. Buy America and
other Buy Local procurement preferences that invest in the US economy would be banned, and “sweat-free,” human rights or environmental conditions
on government contracts could be challenged. If the TPP comes to fruition, its retrograde rules could be altered
only if all countries agreed, regardless of domestic election outcomes or changes in public opinion. And unlike much domestic
legislation, the TPP would have no expiration date. Failure to conform domestic laws to the rules would
subject countries to lawsuits before TPP tribunals empowered to authorize trade sanctions against
member countries. The leaked investment chapter also shows that the TPP would expand the parallel legal system included
in NAFTA. Called Investor-State Dispute Resolution, it empowers corporations to sue governments—outside their
domestic court systems—over any action the corporations believe undermines their expected
future profits or rights under the pact. Three-person international tribunals of attorneys from the private sector would
hear these cases. The lawyers rotate between serving as “judges”—empowered to order governments
to pay corporations unlimited amounts in fines—and representing the corporations that use this system
to raid government treasuries. The NAFTA version of this scheme has forced governments to pay more
than $350 million to corporations after suits against toxic bans, land-use policies, [and] forestry rules and more. The
slight mainstream media coverage the TPP has received repeats the usual mantra: it’s a free-trade pact that will expand US exports. But trade is the least of it. The United States
already has free-trade agreements that eliminated tariffs with most TPP countries, which highlights the fact that the TPP
is mainly about new corporate rights, not trade. Besides, under past free-trade agreements, US export growth to partner countries is half as much as to
Think of the
countries with which we do not have such agreements.
TPP Bad- Economy
TPP bad—results in loss of American jobs, trade deficits, and wage reduction
Gautney 2/3 [Heather Gautney, 2/03/15, Huffington Post, “Why the Trans-Pacific Partnership Is Bad for
Workers, and for Democracy”] Accessed Online: 7/06/15 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heathergautney/why-the-transpacific-part_1_b_6598604.html
Free market trade liberalization efforts like the TPP are not new. In the 1970s and 80s, catchphrases like "trickle-down
economics" and the "Washington Consensus" named the series of policy prescriptions pushed by supranationals like the World Bank
and International Monetary Fund (IMF) that combined trade liberalization with privatization and
deregulation schemes, and fiscal austerity, under the rubric of structural adjustment. As economic crisis left much of the
developing world in dire straights, IMF and World Bank debt programs helped pry open their markets for foreign
investment, undermining indigenous industries and placing them in a sisyphean struggle against default.
In some cases, like Chile, it was not the IMF that brought free markets, but the iron fist of dictators like
Augusto Pinochet, in collusion with U.S. corporate and political leadership, and laissez faire economists like Milton
Friedman. Critics of the TPP reference the failures of NAFTA, which was first conceived during this period by the original
champion of trickle-down, Ronald Reagan. Leading up to the 1994 elections, NAFTA garnered bipartisan support, but lone wolf, Independent
candidate Ross Perot warned of the "giant sucking sound" that America would hear if NAFTA passed and American jobs were drawn south.
Global Trade Watch's assessment of NAFTA's "20 year legacy" demonstrates just how right Perot was. An
estimated one million jobs
have been lost to NAFTA. It's put downward pressure on wages, and exacerbated America's income gap.
And while pre-NAFTA, the U.S carried a trade surplus with Mexico, and was just $26 billion in the hole
with Canada--as of 2014, we had a combined trade deficit with both countries of $177 billon. The TPP
repeats many of NAFTA's mistakes, as well as those of other bilateral trade treaties, like the Permanent Normal Trade Relations
with China, which cost some 2.7 million U.S. jobs, and the Korea Free Trade Agreement, which failed to deliver the 70,000 jobs its brokers
promised. The
Economic Policy Institute estimates that under the TPP we stand to lose more than 130,000
jobs to Vietnam and Japan alone, with American workers having to compete with their counterparts in
Vietnam, where the minimum wage is just 56 cents an hour. It's not just jobs and trade deficits,
however. The TPP also threatens Internet freedoms and civil liberties, collective bargaining rights, public
and environmental health, food safety, financial stability--and American democracy. The closed-door
nature of the negotiation process has positioned Congress and the American people as passive
recipients of public policy, rather than agents of it - and left us out of decision-making processes that will have broad
and deep implications in our everyday lives. Meanwhile, 500-plus corporations have been seated at the TPP negotiation table from the start.
TPP is doomed to failure – modeled off the FTA that doubled the rate of job loss
Lendman,7/2/ 2015 Stephen. "Job Losses and Obama's TPP: The Deadly Impacts of Trade
Agreements on Employment." Global Research. Centre for Research of Globalization, 02 July 2015. Web.
06 July 2015.
On Monday, Obama signed regressive Fast Track legislation into law – giving himself diktat power to ram
through Congress anti-populist trade bills like TPP with minimal debate and no amendments. Besides other
provisions benefitting investors at the expense of public welfare, it’s a jobs killer/environment destroyer.
Nothing Obama says is credible. “The Trans-Pacific Partnership includes strong protections for workers and the environment,” he blustered in
remarks before signing what demands rejection. “This agreement will help us level the playing field,” he added – like NAFTA and the US-Korea
Free Trade Agreement among others. On January 1, 1994, NAFTA’s destructive life began. Like ALL US trade bills, it’s anti-labor, antienvironment, anti-consumer, and and anti-government serving everyone fairly and equitably. Its one-size-fits-all rules benefit corporate
interests exclusively. They override domestic laws. NAFTA proponents promised tens of thousands of newly created US jobs in its early years.
Ordinary farmers would export their way to wealth. Mexican living standards would rise. Economic opportunities would reduce regional
immigration to America. NAFTA’s promises never materialized. Reality exposed hype. A decade later, about a million US jobs were lost – many
more annually, part of the process of shifting America’s manufacturing base and numerous other jobs to low-wage countries. TPP
is NAFTA
on steroids. Its destructive provisions are paradise for predatory investors but nightmarish for American
consumers. It’s modeled after the US-Korea FTA. June 30 was the 8th anniversary of its signing –
implemented by Obama in March 2012. Government data show double the rate of US jobs lost to Korea in the
measure’s first three years. It’s prologue for what’s coming in steroids under TPP virtually sure to
become US law and implemented overall if other partnered countries sign on to it – likely at this point, especially
under intense Washington pressure. Since 2011, America’s trade deficit with Korea increased 90% ($13.6 billion). More
than 90,000 US jobs were lost. US exports declined 7% ($3 billion). Korean imports increased 18% ($10.6 billion). In all but one month
since the TFA’s implementation, America’s trade deficit with Korea exceeded the average monthly US loss in trade between the two countries
in the three years before the measure took effect. America’s manufacturing trade deficit with Korea grew 47% ($10.6 billion) since
implementation. US agricultural exports to Korea fell 5% ($323 million) over the same period. Korean imports increased 29% ($103 million).
America has bilateral trade agreements with Canada, Mexico, Israel, Jordan, Australia, Chile, Singapore, Bahrain, Morocco, Oman, Peru, the
Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia and South Korea. Others are proposed
besides TPP and TTIP. US bipartisan trade policy alone is transforming America into a banana republic under a police state apparatus. Millions
of lost jobs to low-wage countries are systematically thirdworldizing the nation destructively – especially plentiful earlier high pay/good
benefits manufacturing jobs when Pittsburgh was steel-town and Detroit Motown. Today’s reality is rotten low-pay, poor or no-benefit often
temp or part-time jobs workers decades ago would have shunned. Now it’s grab what you can or starve. TPP and TTIP promise harder than ever
hard times for Americans seeking work. It bears repeating what other articles stressed. The nation was never beautiful except for its privileged
few. Today it’s increasingly unfit to live in – and getting worse all the time.
Tpp bad- environment
TPP is a step in the wrong direction- back slides environmental protections and
threatens internet free speech
Wofford, 6/12/2015 Wofford, Taylor. "What Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Why Are Critics
Upset by It?" News Week. NEWSWEEK LLC, 12 June 2015. Web. 6 July 2015.
What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP? The short answer: a giant trade agreement between the United States, Australia, Brunei
Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, Canada, Mexico and Japan. The long answer: We don't know exactly what
the TPP is—"we" being the vast majority of the American people. That's because we haven't been allowed to read it, despite the fact that
whatever new rules and regulations it contains will certainly affect the lives and livelihoods of many of us. The TPP has been in the works for
more than a decade, but public interest in the agreement has peaked only recently. Why so clandestine? The Obama administration, like the
other participating governments, has kept drafts of the agreement under lock and key, although some 700 "cleared advisers," most of them
corporate lobbyists, have been able to read it and make suggestions. This, naturally, has led to speculation from a variety of sources about
what's actually in the TPP. For its part, the administration has disclosed an outline of its goals for the agreement. Broadly, it wants to create
favorable conditions for U.S. companies doing business in TPP partner countries. As part of that, the administration hopes to eliminate tariffs on
U.S. goods and services in TPP countries. For example, the administration writes that "certain U.S. auto parts currently face a 27-percent tariff
entering Vietnam. Other countries that have an FTA with Vietnam, such as China, Thailand, and Indonesia, export their auto parts to Vietnam
duty free." The administration hopes that by eliminating tariffs and nontariff barriers to trade, such as fees, subsidies and embargoes) it will
create a favorable environment for U.S. companies operating in TPP partner countries. But thanks
to WikiLeaks, some of the
agreement—two chapters and some associated documents—has leaked online. The two leaked
chapters cover intellectual property and environmental regulations. And what they reveal has many,
including Internet privacy rights advocates, labor unions and environmentalists, worried. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio
calls the agreement "a huge mistake." What's got folks' feathers ruffled? Internet privacy advocates like those at
the Electronic Frontier Foundation say that regulations in the leaked chapter on intellectual property go
too far. For instance, the EFF is concerned that the TPP would require signatories to adopt criminal sanctions for those found guilty of
copyright infringement—in other words, you could end up in prison for sharing music or movies online. The agreement would also
put new demands on Internet service providers (ISPs), requiring them to police what their users access on
the Internet—to enforce copyright law, essentially. "Private ISP enforcement of copyright poses a serious
threat to free speech on the Internet, because it makes offering open platforms for user-generated content economically
untenable," Kurt Opsahl and Carolina Rossini of the EFF write. "For example, on an ad-supported site, the costs of reviewing each post will
generally exceed the pennies of revenue one might get from ads. Even obvious fair uses could become too risky to host, leading to an Internet
with only cautious and conservative content." Environmentalists were
upset at what they saw in the leaked chapter
on environmental regulations. A joint analysis by the Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund and National Resources Defense Council
found the TPP to be a step backward from a 2007 agreement worked out by the George W. Bush
administration. The TPP takes a softer approach on the environment, the groups say, requiring only that
signatories "affirm [their] commitment" to uphold environmental regulations and allowing countries to avoid a more demanding legal standard.
And the TPP does away with the robust system for addressing complaints that a signatory country has violated an environmental rule, replacing
it with a watered-down arbitration system. Though only
two chapters of the agreement have leaked (so far), other
groups have shown concern too. The AFL-CIO, a federation of unions, wants the TPP to include robust
labor protections for U.S. workers and those in other TPP nations. But, it says, "given the secrecy of TPP negotiations, we cannot say
whether what will emerge in the final TPP will improve significantly upon the Bush-era deals."
Impact Defense
No Escalation
Asian conflicts won’t escalate because of strong deterrence by all major powers
Alagappa 12-19-14 (Muthiah Alagappa, Nonresident Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, Washington, D.C., “International Peace in Asia: Will it Endure?,”
http://www.theasanforum.org/international-peace-in-asia-will-it-endure/)
In contrast to those dire warnings, this article makes two claims. First, Asia has witnessed a substantial reduction
in the number of major and minor inter-state wars. After reaching a peak in the 1970s, major inter-state war has
declined in number, frequency, and intensity measured in terms of battle deaths. From 1979 to 2014, there were
only two major inter-state wars compared to 13 in 1945 to 1979. Connected to earlier wars, the nature, purpose, scope, and outcome of these
wars since 1979 reinforce rather than undermine my central claim that Asia
has witnessed substantial decline in major wars.6 It has even
enjoyed a long period of peace, comparable in duration, nature, and complexity to the “long peace” of the Cold War in Europe.7
Second, the long peace in Asia will continue in the foreseeable future. Entrenched conflicts will likely remain unresolved
with a few becoming even more acute. The Asian strategic environment will become more complex with growing economic interdependence,
cross-cutting links, and some new security challenges. And, armed clashes cannot be ruled out. Nevertheless, major
war in Asia is
unlikely in the coming decade or two. I made these claims about a decade ago.8 I am now even more convinced and set them out in this
article to balance the growing chorus—now, also in Asia—of conflict and war in Asia. What explains the substantial decline in the frequency of
major war in Asia and the claim that the inter-state peace that has endured in Asia since 1979 will continue in the foreseeable future? These are
the central questions animating this article, which advances three related arguments: 1. Decline
in the number and intensity of
inter-state wars in Asia since 1979 is due largely to the growing legitimacy of the Asian political map, rising
nationalism, focus on and success in economic growth, and the development of effective deterrence in relevant
dyads. Together, these developments reduced the salience as well as altered the role of force, more specifically war, in the international politics
of Asia. 2. Factors
that underpinned the decreasing frequency of inter-state war will continue to be
salient in the foreseeable future and sustain the long peace in Asia. A development that could substantially alter the
strategic environment would be a shift in military technology and strategy from deterrence to offense. Such a shift would make war more
costly, but also restore it as a rational instrument of policy in pursuit of certain political objectives. 3. The
international peace that
has prevailed in Asia, as in Europe during the Cold War, is of the minimal type (absence of major war but not devoid of
competition, conflict, minor war, and military incidents). That is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Stronger
peace would require resolution of outstanding disputes, which appears unlikely.
There is no risk of war in Asia- strong institutions and interdependence check
Nick Bisley 14, Professor of IR @ La Trobe University (Australia) and Executive Director of La Trobe
Asia, 3/10/14, “It’s not 1914 all over again: Asia is preparing to avoid war,”
http://theconversation.com/its-not-1914-all-over-again-asia-is-preparing-to-avoid-war-22875
Asia is cast as a region as complacent about the risks of war as Europe was in its belle époque. Analogies are an understandable way of trying to make sense of unfamiliar circumstances. In this
case, however, the historical parallel is deeply misleading. Asia is experiencing a period of uncertainty and strategic risk unseen since the US and China reconciled their differences in the mid1970s. Tensions among key powers are at very high levels: Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe recently invoked the 1914 analogy. But there are very good reasons, notwithstanding these
Asia is not about to tumble into a great power war. China is America’s second most important
trading partner. Conversely, the US is by far the most important country with which China trades. Trade and investment’s “golden straitjacket” is a basic reason
to be optimistic. Why should this be seen as being more effective than the high levels of interdependence between Britain and Germany before World War One? Because
Beijing and Washington are not content to rely on markets alone to keep the peace. They are acutely aware of how much they have
at stake. Diplomatic infrastructure for peace The two powers have established a wide range of institutional links to manage
their relations. These are designed to improve the level and quality of their communication, to lower the risks of misunderstanding spiralling out
of control and to manage the trajectory of their relationship. Every year, around 1000 officials from all ministries led by the top political figures in each country meet under the
issues, why
auspices of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue. The dialogue has demonstrably improved US-China relations across the policy spectrum, leading to collaboration in a wide range of areas.
These range from disaster relief to humanitarian aid exercises, from joint training of Afghan diplomats to marine conservation efforts, in which Chinese law enforcement officials are hosted on
Unlike the near total absence of diplomatic engagement by Germany
and Britain in the lead-up to 1914, today’s two would-be combatants have a deep level of interaction and
practical co-operation. Just as the extensive array of common interests has led Beijing and Washington to do a lot of bilateral work, Asian states have been busy
the past 15 years. These nations have created a broad range of multilateral institutions and mechanisms intended to improve
trust, generate a sense of common cause and promote regional prosperity. Some organisations, like the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), have a high profile with its annual
US Coast Guard vessels to enforce maritime legal regimes.
leaders’ meeting involving, as it often does, the common embarrassment of heads of government dressing up in national garb. Others like the ASEAN Regional Forum and the ASEAN Defence
there are more than 15 separate multilateral bodies that have a focus on regional
security concerns. All these organisations are trying to build what might be described as an infrastructure for peace in the
region. While these mechanisms are not flawless, and many have rightly been criticised for being long on dialogue and short on action, they have been
crucial in managing specific crises and allowing countries to clearly state their commitments and priorities.
Ministers’ Meeting Plus Process are less in the public eye. But
At: China impact
No impact to TPP failure- we still act as a counterbalance to Chinese aggression
Kurtlanzick, 6/22/15 Joshua. "TPP’s Failure Wouldn’t Doom Washington’s Asia Strategy." Defense
One. National Journal Group, Inc, 22 June 2015. Web. 6 July 2015
As a new congressional vote looms this week that could decide whether the United States participates in the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
advocates of the deal, both in the United States and in Asia, are arguing that the stakes could not be higher. During a visit to Washington last
week, Singapore foreign minister K. Shanmugam was blunt, telling an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “It’s
absolutely vital to get it [TPP] done [in the U.S.] … If you don’t do this deal, what are your levers of power?” Joshua Kurlantzick is a senior fellow
for Southeast Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Mr. Kurlantzick was most recently a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, where he studied Southeast Asian politics and economics and China's relations with Southeast Asia, ... Full Bio But would
a failure to get TPP past Congress necessarily be a strategic disaster for the United States? (The TPP,
remember, was conceived by Asian nations and could still be concluded even without America.) Failing to move TPP would be a
major setback for U.S. economic leadership in Asia, and for free trade globally, to be sure. With the WTO
round still stalled, regional trade agreements like the TPP have become the main engines of liberalization, at a time when forces of economic
deglobalization are still strong, as they have been since the financial crisis of 2008-9. The TPP could be the largest of those regional engines. It
also would be a particularly enormous boon for those nations in it, like Vietnam, that do not currently have trade deals with the United States.
If the United States does not join the TPP, Vietnam would still benefit greatly from the deal—it would help Vietnamese reformers, who see TPP
as a means to force change, to slash state enterprises and open the economy—but the benefits for Hanoi would be diminished without the
United States. Certain sectors of the U.S. economy also would stand to lose from a failure to adopt TPP. U.S. agriculture, for example, stands to
gain access to Japanese markets, which had been some of the hardest in the world for U.S. growers to penetrate. Japanese Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe stands in perhaps the best position to deliver that access than any prime minister in Japan’s modern history. The Congressional
Research Service estimates that Japan “would absorb seventy percent of the $8.5 billion increase in agricultural trade among TPP countries in
2025.” The TPP also could be the United States’ chance to ensure that it plays a central role in dictating the trade rules for the Pacific Rim, the
engine of the world economy, for the rest of the 21st century. Although it may not be necessarily true, as President Obama has asserted, that
without the United States joining the TPP Asia’s trade rules will be made by China, failing to adopt the TPP certainly would threaten
Washington’s ability to shape Asia’s future trade rules. It also could allow trade agreements to proliferate in Asia that did not have tough
enforcement mechanisms or comprehensive scopes; TPP would allow the United States and other countries to set a standard of comprehensive
and enforceable trade agreements as the norm in Asia. But a
failure to adopt TPP would not necessarily doom the
United States’ strategic relationships in Asia. Over the past five years, as China has become far more
assertive in staking its claims to disputed Asian waters and in positioning itself to dominate regional
security, many countries in Asia—and particularly in Southeast Asia—have sought closer defense relationships
with the United States as a counterbalance. The United States and Vietnam are moving toward joint exercises and lethal arms
sales, the Obama administration has launched a ten year enhanced defense partnership with the Philippines, and the White House has
upgraded defense ties with Japan, Malaysia, and nearly every other Asian nation involved in the TPP as well. These enhanced defense
relationships are part of the rebalance, but the desire for a greater U.S. presence in regional security comes from Asian nations themselves,
worried about being dominated by China. This worry is clearly why nations like Vietnam are not only seeking closer strategic links with the
United States but also modernizing their navies and pursuing strategic ties with other powerful partners, like India and Australia. That
desire for a balance to China is not going to vanish, whether or not Congress approves the TPP. There is no
evidence that Beijing plans to return to its less assertive “charm offensive” strategy of relations with Southeast Asia, a strategy it used
throughout most of the 2000s; even if China did go back to the charm offensive, few Asian countries would believe the shift anyway. If
the
Obama administration and its successor follow through on the military promises of the rebalance, while
altering the pivot to better reflect U.S. interests and values, America will remain a vital strategic actor in
Asia, even if the TPP does not pass Congress.
No Cuba Bill
No chance a bill on Cuba can pass this year
LINDSAY WISE AND CHRIS ADAMS June 10, 2015, Jerry Moran aims to break stalemate in
Congress over Cuba embargo, Wichita Eagle, http://www.kansas.com/news/nationworld/article23705698.html
With efforts to lift the Cuban embargo stalled in Congress, Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran will try to break the
stalemate on Thursday by offering new legislation designed to win over his reluctant Republican colleagues. Moran, a
Republican, along with co-sponsor Angus King, an independent senator from Maine, hope that taxpayer protections included in their bill to end
the embargo will give it a better chance of passing the GOP-controlled Senate than a version introduced earlier this year by Democratic Sen.
Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. “I’m very aware of Sen. Klobuchar’s bill,” Moran said Wednesday. “My view is that the goal is to accomplish
something very similar. This does it in a fashion that is much more likely to be acceptable to Congress, to the American people and much more
likely to become law, and does it in a way that protects taxpayers.” King said he and Moran carefully drafted the legislation “to be a bill that
could get bipartisan support and actually have a chance at passage.” But
the odds that this latest proposal – or any legislation to
undo the embargo or ease travel restrictions – will get through Congress this year is slim, say Cuba experts.
The bill is likely to run into strong resistance from a broad cross-section of Republicans – and
particularly from the Cuban-American delegation from South Florida, where opposition to Cuba’s Castro regime has
long been a defining characteristic. “I think it’s hard for either side to get a Cuba bill through – to roll back what
the president did, or to lift the embargo,” said Phil Peters of the Cuba Research Center in Alexandria, Va.
The GOP will block efforts to reform relations with Cuba
Casa Grande Dispatch July 3, 2015, Senate GOP might not confirm Cuba ambassador,
http://www.trivalleycentral.com/casa_grande_dispatch/national_news/senate-gop-might-not-confirmcuba-ambassador/article_939e5cb6-219e-11e5-9000-631175c7740f.html
Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell said Thursday that his chamber is unlikely to approve an American
ambassador to Cuba, dishing out a quick rebuff to President Barack Obama and his drive to normalize
relations with the U.S. neighbor and longtime Cold War foe. The Kentucky Republican also suggested that the GOP —
which controls Congress — would fight Obama administration efforts to fully lift trade and travel restrictions that
have limited American commerce and tourism with the communist-led island nation. McConnell said the country was led by “a thuggish
regime.” The comments by McConnell came a day after Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro announced that the two nations will open
embassies in Havana and Washington July 20 and resume diplomatic relations severed in 1961, the year Obama was born. McConnell’s remarks
underscored that despite
a push to ease the curbs by U.S. business and agriculture interests and some GOP
lawmakers, Republican leaders remain sympathetic to the party’s more conservative, anti-Castro voices.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and several contenders for the GOP’s 2016 presidential nomination criticized Obama’s moves shortly
after they were announced Wednesday. “You would think that the normalization of relations with Cuba would be accompanied by some
modification of their behavior,” McConnell said Thursday at Commerce Lexington, the chamber of commerce for Lexington, Kentucky. Instead,
he called the country “a police state” and “a haven for criminals” wanted in the U.S. “I don’t see any evidence at all that they are going to
change their behavior. So I doubt if we’ll confirm an ambassador, they probably don’t need one,” McConnell said.
Obama Pushing Embargo Lift
Obama pushing congress to remove the Cuban embargo
Bloomberg Politics July 1 2015, Obama Urges Congress to Take Next Step, Lift Cuba Embargo,
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-01/obama-urges-congress-to-lift-cuba-embargoafter-embassy-opened?cmpid=yhoo
President Barack Obama
urged Congress to follow his decision to reopen the American embassy in Havana by
lifting the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba. “We don’t have to be imprisoned by the past,” Obama said on
Wednesday at the White House. “Americans and Cubans alike are looking to move forward. I believe it’s time for
Congress to do the same.” The embassy will reopen on July 20, when Cuba also will reopen its embassy in Washington.
Secretary of State John Kerry intends to go to Havana to “proudly raise the American flag over our embassy once more,” Obama said.
Cuba Bill Possible- momentum
Momentum is gaining to lift embargo- congress is re-evaluating
Prensa Latina July 2, 2015, Battle in Congress Against Blockade of Cuba Advocated in USA,
http://www.plenglish.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3947081&Itemid=1
Washington, Jul 2 (Prensa Latina) The
former head of the United States Interests Section in Cuba, Wayne Smith, called
today to fight a battle in the US Congress to achieve the lifting of the blockade imposed on the island.
"We need to talk with the Congress to lift the embargo, it will not be easy, but we have to do it," he said in
an interview with Prensa Latina in connection with the announcement on the eve of the restoration of diplomatic relations between Havana
and Washington and the opening of embassies, to from 20 July. According
to Smith, who headed the American section in the years from
can not speak yet of normal ties between the two nations, "because the embargo still
remains." Having become law, it is up to the US Congress to pass a resolution on the end of the economic,
commercial, and financial blockade in effect for more than half a century, but the Republican Party, which
controls both houses, seems intent on using the Cuban issue in its pulse with President Barack Obama, who called
for an end to the blockade. Despite the aggressive discourse of some sectors stuck in the past, especially the
Cuban-American legislators, the former diplomat was optimistic about the future of bilateral scene. In
his view, it will be difficult to jeopardize Obama's decisions to boost the approach, approved by the
majority of Americans and with growing support among businessmen. Regarding the presidential elections next
1979 to 1982, one
year, he predicted a Democratic victory, which would maintain the current line to pursue normal ties with the Caribbean country after decades
of hostility, which also include the blockade and subversive plans to impose a regime change.
Momentum is gaining for a lift of the embargo- recent moves open the door and
legislation is in congress
Jim Spencer Star Tribune July 1, 2015, Embassy reopening could help efforts to end Cuban trade
embargo, Star Tribune, http://www.startribune.com/embassy-reopening-could-help-efforts-to-endcuban-trade-embargo/311225501/
The reopening of the U.S. embassy in Cuba on July 20 pushes the United States a giant step closer to
ending a long-standing trade embargo and travel restrictions that some Minnesota politicians and businesses have
been lobbying hard to remove. “You can’t get rid of a trade embargo without first having an embassy,”
Sen. Amy Klobuchar D-Minn., told the Star Tribune. Klobuchar is lead sponsor of a bill to end the embargo and allow U.S.
businesses to sell products in Cuba for the first time in half a century. Klobuchar spent recent weeks trying to add
cosponsors to her trade embargo bill in anticipation of an embassy announcement President Obama made
Wednesday. She now has 17 cosponsors, including Minnesota Democratic colleague Al Franken and three
Republicans. “I’m supporting legislation to remove trade barriers between our countries, and I’m also pressing
for another bill to lift travel restrictions to Cuba,” Franken said in a statement. In statements to the Star Tribune, House Republicans
Tom Emmer and Erik Paulsen signaled support for new U.S.-Cuba trade.1 “A new embassy needs to focus
on boosting open markets so the Cuban people can access more American goods and services,” Paulsen
said. Emmer said in a statement that he sees “a real opportunity for a positive, open trading partnership between these two countries. The
potential benefits for Minnesota exporters are immense, and what is good for Minnesota is good for our
country.” Cargill, one of Minnesota’s biggest corporations, has taken a leading national role in trying to end the
embargo. Devry Boughner Vorwerk, Cargill’s vice president of government relations, helped organize the U.S. Agriculture Coalition for Cuba.
It includes more than two dozen trade associations representing virtually every crop and meat produced in the U.S. “This is a great day for the
U.S. and Cuban people,” Vorwerk told the Star Tribune Wednesday. “Diplomatic
engagement drives ties.” Cargill and the
agriculture coalition are now pushing for adequate congressional funding for the reopened embassy and fast approval of a new Cuban
ambassador.
Obama PC k 2 Cuba Relations
Political capital will be key to forming total reform of relations.
ERIK ORTIZ, July 1, 2015, NBC News, U.S.-Cuba Relations: From Obama to Castro, Here Are the Key
Players, http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/u-s-cuba-relations/know-key-players-normalizing-u-s-cubarelations-n385011
President Barack Obama formally announced a plan Wednesday for the United States and Cuba to open
embassies in each other's capital cities as early as this month. It wasn't easy getting to this point. It took
months of complex negotiations, diplomatic wrangling and no shortage of political capital for leaders on
both sides. And while the U.S. and Cuba have agreed on some general issues — like restoring economic
trade — other potential roadblocks still stand in the way of a long-lasting partnership.
At: Executive Actions solve impact
Only congressional action can lift the embargo- political climate favors change
CNN WIRE July 1, 2015, U.S.-Cuba relations: 10 questions on the embargo, embassies and cigars,
http://wtvr.com/2015/07/01/us-cuba-relations/
Havana is getting its first U.S. embassy in more than half a century — but don’t pack your bags just yet.
President Barack Obama announced Wednesday that the two countries are formally reestablishing diplomatic ties
with the opening of embassies in each other’s capitals, marking the most momentous step in the diplomatic thaw Obama initiated with Cuba in
December. It puts the U.S. on a path of access to the island that many Americans tourists might like to enjoy, but stops just shy of open travel.
The agreement does, though, mark the most sweeping change in U.S. policy toward the nation that lies just 100 miles off the U.S. coast since
the U.S. embargo on Cuba started in the early 1960s. There’s a lot at play though. Here are 10 things you need to know: When did the U.S. and
Cuba agree to reopen embassies? A public dialogue between the two countries resumed in December, when Obama and Cuban President Raul
Castro announced that they would begin working to normalize relations. That came at the same time as Cuba agreed to release Alan Gross, an
American aid worker imprisoned in Cuba since 2009 — an apparent show of good faith from the Cuban government. Since December, U.S.
and Cuban officials began negotiations to reestablish diplomatic ties and normalize relations between
the two countries, including putting an embassy in each country’s capital. Obama then took a big step in April that led to the removal of
Cuba from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. Cuba had sat on that list since 1982. All of that, though, has yet to fully lift
the U.S. embargo on Cuba, a move that would allow Americans and Cubans to freely travel between the
two countries and engage in any trade. Why did the embargo start in the first place? The U.S. began imposing sanctions against
Cuba after Fidel Castro seized power in 1959 and soon after he nationalized more than $1 billion in American assets on the island. That’s two
years before Obama was even born. The U.S. ratcheted up sanctions on Cuba in 1960 and 1961 with President John F. Kennedy making the
embargo official in 1962. Diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba broke off in 1961, with tensions increasing after Cuba signed
a trade agreement with the Soviet Union. Relations remained mostly frozen throughout the Cold War. Today, Cuba remains an autocratic
regime — Fidel Castro’s brother Raul is president — with a poor record on human rights and a track record of silencing dissent and restricting
the rights of its citizens. What kind of restrictions does the embargo currently impose? The
embargo not only keeps American
companies from doing business in Cuba, but it also prohibits most Americans from traveling directly
there or spending money as tourists. American citizens can face up to a $65,000 fine for spending money in Cuba, according to
the U.S. Treasury. The embargo also limits the amount of individuals can send to family living in Cuba. So what’s changed now? In addition to
reopening embassies in each country, the U.S. will ease travel restrictions, so it will be easier for Americans to travel to Cuba and do business
there. Though the embargo officially blocks such activities, the White House has discretion about the application of certain measures, and
several presidents have found ways to ease the restrictions even as the overall embargo remains in place. U.S. and Cuban banks will be allowed
to start building relationships and that means American travelers will be able to use their credit and debit cards when visiting. Americans
returning from a trip to Cuba can now return with up to $400 in Cuban goods, a quarter of which can be spent on alcohol and tobacco. Think
Cuban cigars. And in return, Cuba freed 53 political prisoners and relaxed its restrictions on Internet access. Gross had been arrested after
delivering satellite phones and other communications equipment to Cuba’s small Jewish population. So why
doesn’t Obama just end
the embargo altogether? He can’t. Only Congress can end a trade embargo, which is enshrined into law.
But according to White House officials, the President can ease certain restrictions under his executive authority. This is the third time Obama
has acted to ease the embargo. But policy changes in 2009 and 2011, which eased travel restrictions for Cuban-Americans and later for
academics and religious groups, didn’t come close to the scope of Wednesday’s landmark agreement. Does the U.S. have international backing
to keep the embargo in place? Barely. Over the last two decades, the United Nations General Assembly has voted each year against the
embargo, calling on the U.S. to reverse its policy. Only Israel has joined the U.S. in voting against the resolution. What’s the
political
climate like in the U.S.? It’s shifting and more political leaders and Cuban-Americans have been calling for
changes in the U.S. policy toward Cuba in recent years. Cuban refugees in America and their descendants have historically
been the most vocal group in calling for a tough U.S. policy against Cuba. But nearly 7 in 10 Cubans now favor reestablishing
diplomatic relations with Cuba and about half want the U.S. to end the embargo, according to a Florida
International University poll this summer. That has changed the climate of politics in the Miami area and
throughout Florida, where most Cuban Americans reside, a shift that is sending ripples throughout the
country.
Impact- must act now
Must act now- every day that we delay lifting the embargo hurts US business access
that is key to trade and economic opportunities
The Hill June 25, 2015, Lifting the embargo on Cuba: Why we need to act now,
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/245997-lifting-the-embargo-on-cuba-why-weneed-to-act-now
The latest survey results are stunning. According to a poll by USF Sarasota-Manatee, slightly
over 91 percent of respondents
want the Cuban embargo lifted. The longer the government takes to comply with this decisive mandate,
the more Americans, as well as Cubans, will suffer the consequences. Virtually every U.S.-Cuban policy
expert and political analyst knows that sooner or later the embargo will be consigned to history. But the
operative words are “sooner or later.” If it’s later, U.S. businesses, both corporations and smaller companies, will continue to
miss out on rich investment opportunities that promise significant returns for themselves, their shareholders,
their employees, and their communities. To be sure, it’s not just corporate behemoths that stand to gain from a
level playing field. As of this writing, family farmers and ranchers have also joined with those demanding an end to
the embargo, especially smaller rural stakeholders that depend on exports to survive. For them, Cuba is
an untapped market, made all the more promising as Cuban spending power, projected to grow at a compound
annual rate of 4.6 percent through 2020, continues to increase. Despite U.S. trade missions to the island
and somewhat looser constraints on trade, the myopia that keeps the embargo in place is costing
everybody money. Everybody, that is, except foreign business interests that, absent American competition, will
invest all the more fruitfully, as long as the embargo tilts the competitive odds in their favor. It’s no accident that France’s President
François Hollande led a large trade mission to Cuba, while representatives from Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, and Russia have likewise paid
visits. “It's impossible to deny that diplomatic detente between Washington and Havana has accelerated the process of normalization between
Cuba and Europe," said Salim Lamrani, a Cuba expert at France's University of La Reunion. While
some in the U.S. nurse old
political wounds, these foreign competitors are already planning investments in real estate, infrastructure
projects, agriculture, Internet technology, telecom, pharmaceutical, automotive, financial services, and more. Each area
represents fertile ground for American interests as well, once the embargo is lifted. And every day
that goes by until then reflects increasingly lost opportunities stateside. Ironically, while the long-overdue thaw in
U.S.-Cuba relations has encouraged and even accelerated foreign investment in Cuba, the vast majority of U.S. businesses, still
shackled by the embargo, cannot compete in that marketplace. This is not about leveling the playing field for American
companies; it is about just letting them onto the field.
Embassy fight coming
Embargo lift is unlikely- President must fight for the embassy first
Andrew Nachemson - The Washington Times - Wednesday, July 1, 2015, Embargo
remains major hurdle in U.S.-Cuba thaw, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/1/cubaembargo-remains-hurdle-in-us-cuba-thaw/?page=1
The embassies may be reopening, but the embargo will take a lot longer to come down. President Obama
paired the announcement of renewed diplomatic ties with Havana at the White House Wednesday with
a call for Congress to end the economic embargo, but U.S. business groups anxious to crack the Cuban
market say it’s already clear the economic track will lag behind the political one for the president. Cuban
President Raul Castro underscored the point himself Wednesday. “There could be no normal relations between Cuba and
the United States as long as the economic, commercial and financial blockade continues to be fully
implemented,” Mr. Castro said. But, without the approval of Congress, Obama cannot lift the economic
embargo currently levied against Cuba. Many in Congress, both Republican and Democrat, are opposed to
restoring diplomatic ties with the Communist island nation. The dissenters cite the Cuban government’s
human rights violations, harboring of American fugitives, and seizure of American-owned property
without compensation. Even the president’s embassy move is in jeopardy, as Congress must approve
any public spending on the American embassy in Havana. Public opinion, on the other hand, seems to be embracing the
changes. According to a survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, two in three Americans support ending the trade embargo.