Negative’s Files
Chinese Communist Party Stability
Disadvantage - Negative
232
Negative’s Files
233
CCP Collapse Disadvantage
Uniqueness
Staking legitimacy on economic growth has lead the Chinese Communist Party to the
brink of collapse – they are refocusing on nationalism to compensate
Zheng Wang, April 29, 2014, Tiananmen as the Turning Point: China’s Impossible Balancing Act, Time Magazine, Zheng Wang is the
Director of the Center for Peace and Conflict Studies Seton Hall University and a Global Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center. He is the author
of Never Forget National Humiliation: Historical Memory in Chinese Politics and Foreign Relations, which is the winner of the International
Studies Association’s Yale H. Ferguson Award, time.com/73594/china-tiananmen-square-25-years-later/
Many of today’s problems, such as corruption, pollution, and the development gap, can also be traced
back to the government’s 1989 choice. The economic reform and opening up have brought China
unprecedented wealth and power. However, like the recent story of a young Chinese man who sold his kidney to purchase a
new iPad, China has paid a very high price with its environment, morality, and society for its development.
After 25 years of rapid growth, the new administration has noticed that it is in a difficult situation
regarding new sources of economic growth. Following the significant increase of Chinese labor wages, China is losing its
competiveness as the world’s factory. The rapid growth of the real estate market has significantly contributed to China’s GDP
growth. However, it is clearer that this path is unsustainable. It has already created a large housing bubble
and become a source of social unrest. Moreover, the government has tried to separate domestic politics
and foreign policy. So the CCP is embracing nationalism in its domestic politics and using nationalism and
patriotic education in order to strengthen the party’s legitimacy as the ruling party and to increase social
cohesion. In terms of foreign relations, China has embraced globalism in the past 25 years. The government
follows an open door policy, and joined the World Trade Organization. In recent years, however, we can see that this separation has created
many problems. For example, the rise of nationalism has influenced China’s foreign policy-making more and more. Influenced
by
patriotic education and nationalist narratives, the younger Chinese generations have grown more
nationalistic, and they strongly criticize the government for being soft in dealing with issues, such as the
South China Sea and Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. The government has already found itself in such a dilemma that it
has very little flexibility to deal with external disputes with rising nationalism at home.
Negative’s Files
234
CCP Collapse Disadvantage
Uniqueness
Chinese Communist Party stability is on the brink of collapse – CCP distracting the
public by refocusing on nationalism
Pei MinXin, November 12, 2015, The Twilight of Communist Party Rule in China, The American Interest, Pei Minxin is is an expert on
governance in the People's Republic of China, U.S.-Asia relations, and democratization in developing nations. He currently serves as the director
of the Keck Center for International and Strategic Studies at Claremont McKenna Collegewww.the-american-interest.com/2015/11/12/thetwilight-of-communist-party-rule-in-china/
Unfortunately for proponents of the theory of “authoritarian resilience”, their assumptions, evidence, and conclusions have become harder to
defend in light of recent developments in China. Signs
of intense elite power struggle, endemic corruption, loss of
economic dynamism, and an assertive, high-risk foreign policy are all in evidence. As a result, even some of the
scholars whose research has been associated with the authoritarian resilience thesis of have been forced to reconsider.2 It has become
increasingly clear that the recent developments that have changed perceptions of the CPC’s durability
are not cyclical but structural. They are symptomatic of the exhaustion of the regime’s post-Tiananmen
survival strategy. Several critical pillars of this strategy—such as elite unity, performance-based
legitimacy, co-optation of social elites, and strategic restraint in foreign policy—have either collapsed or
become hollow, forcing the CPC to resort increasingly to repression and appeals to nationalism to cling to
power.
Negative’s Files
235
CCP Collapse Disadvantage
General Links
Conflict with US leads to authoritarianism and collapse
Pei MinXin, November 12, 2015, The Twilight of Communist Party Rule in China, The American Interest, Pei Minxin is is an expert on
governance in the People's Republic of China, U.S.-Asia relations, and democratization in developing nations. He currently serves as the director
of the Keck Center for International and Strategic Studies at Claremont McKenna Collegewww.the-american-interest.com/2015/11/12/thetwilight-of-communist-party-rule-in-china/
Manipulating nationalism and muscle-flexing may deliver short-term political benefits, but only at the
cost of the CPC’s long-term security. One of the wisest strategic choices made by Deng Xiaoping was to develop friendly ties with
the U.S.-led West to accelerate China’s modernization program. In the post-Deng era, Xi’s two predecessors, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao, also
learned a key lesson from the collapse of the Soviet Union: a strategic conflict
with the United States would imperil the
very survival of the CPC. The costs of a new arms race would be unbearable, and outright hostility in
Sino-U.S. relations would destroy the bilateral economic relationship. It is unclear whether the CPC
leadership understands the risks of its new and still-evolving survival strategy. If its members are
convinced that only this strategy could save CPC rule, now threatened by the collapse of the key pillars
of the post-Tiananmen model, they are likely to continue on the present course. Ironically, such a course, if the above analysis is
right, is more certain to accelerate the CPC’s demise than to prevent it.
Negative’s Files
236
CCP Collapse Disadvantage
General Links
Showing weakness to foreign powers undermines governmental legitimacy
Dr. Jessica Chen-Weiss, , March 4, 2013, Assistant Professor, Political Science, Yale University, “China’s Maritime Disputes in the East
and South China Seas,” Testimony in a Hearing Before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, p. 64.
Popular nationalism is both a liability and a potential advantage in Chinese diplomacy. Just as the President can
point to Congress and say his hands are tied in diplomatic negotiations, so can Chinese leaders point to nationalist sentiment
and popular protests. As Deng Xiaoping told Japanese officials in 1987, “In regard to China-Japan relations, reactions among youths,
especially students, are strong. If difficult problems were to appear still further, it will become impossible to
explain them to the people. It will become impossible to control them [the people]. I want you to understand this
position which we are in.” Two years later, the government faced its gravest crisis of legitimacy. Protests against Japan in the fall of 1985 had
given way to accusations of government corruption and calls for democracy in 1986 and 1989. For
the Chinese leadership,
nationalism is both a vulnerability and a source of strength: undermining the government’s legitimacy if
seen as weak against foreign insults and provocations, and strengthening its legitimacy if seen as a
staunch defender of the nation’s interests.
Negative’s Files
237
CCP Collapse Disadvantage
Cyber Links
Sanctions kill CCP legitimacy and stability
Leon Whyte, July 25, 2015, China’s Elegant, Flawed, Grand Strategy, The Diplomat, Leon Whyte is a graduate of the Fletcher School of
Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University as well as the Senior Editor for the Current Affairs section of the Fletcher Security Review. His research
interests include transnational security and U.S. alliances in East Asia, thediplomat.com/2015/07/chinas-elegant-flawed-grand-strategy/
In a sterile environment, this strategy is elegant and comprehensive, but in reality the other side always gets a vote and often does not act as
planners predict or prefer. American strategic thinker Edward Luttwak describes this problem as the paradoxical logic of strategy. According to
the logic of strategy, as China grows economically, it will spend more on military capabilities, as it develops more
military capabilities other states will fear China’s rise and will counter-balance against China and seek to constrain China through economic and
strategic means. For China, pursuing its current grand strategy has not resulted in increased moral legitimacy and attractive power; instead it is
triggering an Asian security dilemma, encouraging increased military spending by other powers in the region like Japan and South Korea while
driving countries like Vietnam and Singapore to closer alignment with the United States. In addition, even if China can deter the United States
from using forcing through its anti-access strategy, the
U.S. and others can respond through geo-economic means, such
as targeted financial sanctions, trade barriers for sensitive technology, or even restrictions on trading raw materials. Any of
these geo-economic strategies has the potential to undercut China’s economic growth and threaten the
CCP’s legitimacy, undermining the original goal of long-term regime survival.
Negative’s Files
238
CCP Collapse Disadvantage
South China Sea Links
Successful SCS expansion key to CCP legitimacy
Jihyun Kim, Summer 2015, Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea, Strategic Studies Quarterly, Jihyun Kim is an assistant professor in
the Institute of International Studies at Bradley University, IL, where she teaches US-East Asian relations and problems on contemporary Asia.
Dr. Kim holds a PhD in political science from the University of South Carolina, where she specialized in international relations and comparative
politics. Her major research interests include regional security and major power interactions in East Asia, Chinese and Korean politics and
foreign policy, and nuclear security and nonproliferation, www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/digital/pdf/Summer_2015/kim.pdf
In addition, Beijing
has resorted to the promise of building a more prosperous economic future together
with appeals to Chinese nationalism so as to compensate for increasingly irrelevant communist tenets
and to enhance public support for the regime. Yet, this could be a dangerous mixture, given that if
Chinese leaders fail to deliver the promise of economic growth, they would be under pressure to
depend “even more heavily on nationalist appeals as its sole remaining source of support.”7 In fact,
nationalism can be one of the most powerful domestic sources of territorial expansion, which could be
exploited by Chinese leaders to bolster political security at home through uniting the public and diverting their
frustrations outward. There are several reasons why nationalism and territory are closely intertwined
and can easily provide a justification for the state to take a diversionary action through belligerent
expansion.8 In the case of China, such incentives are particularly strong because of its historical
memories of territorial loss and its aspiration to regain the status of a great power after its century of
humiliation. In this light, a key aspect of Beijing’s legitimacy stems from protecting national dignity and
never again letting China to be bullied. What is more, China’s growing social instability and public
discontent, engendered by decades of rapid economic reforms at any cost, have made nationalism even
more essential as a substitute for the governing ideology and as a mechanism to unify the country and sustain the
legitimacy of the state. Consequently, leaders in Beijing fear that if they show flexibility regarding China’s
foreign relations, including its maritime claims in the South China Sea, it could be taken as a sign of
disgraceful appeasement and weakness at home. In this view, China’s muscle-flexing foreign policy,
including its southward push into the western Pacific, can be seen as a diversionary maneuver to
preserve domestic cohesion and unity as well as regime legitimacy.
Negative’s Files
239
CCP Collapse Disadvantage
Consequentialist Impact Scenario – Internal Links
CCP collapse leads to loose nukes
Ryan Kuhns, May 11, 2015, The Communist Party of China and Nuclear Weapons, The Sunday Sentinel, Ryan Kuhns is a Research
Associate at PAXsims (strategy simulation company) and former editor at the Patterson School of International Affairs' magazine ExPatt - his
focuses are in security, strategy, defense economy, international relations, politics, and futurism, thesundaysentinel.com/communist-partychina-nuclear-weapons/#.VzD5K0wrKM9
If the CCP’s long slide into the woodchip heap of irrelevance has begun, then the status of a China’s
nuclear arsenal, post-CCP, must be considered. There are two broad possibilities. One is that the CCP, through a peaceful
transition or a tense downfall, leaves the Chinese national political stage and is replaced by singular power (maybe democratic) which inherits
the CCP’s monopoly on force. In this case, the status of China’s nuclear weapons may not be a cause of much anxiety for the nations of the
world. That possibility would make this a short blog entry. Let’s
consider the disintegration of the Chinese state into
multiple factions (as has happened many times in China’s long history), which may be at war with each
other. In this scenario, the issue of “loose nukes” would be of great concern to Washington. In order to frame the
magnitude of the issue, a short consideration of a situation considered more plausible by the US defense establishment and international
relations scholars is necessary. North Korea and Pakistan are often considered to be the two states that are the most likely to collapse and
present the international community with a high stakes game of hide and seek. The size of the Pakistani arsenal (100-120 nuclear warheads),
and the close proximity of non-state groups that wish to harm the US, makes its case particularly alarming and interesting to see a US response.
In Andrew F. Krepinievich’s 2009 book “7 Deadly Scenarios“, he considers the difficulties, for Washington and its allies, of rounding up or
destroying nuclear weapons in the case of a collapse of Pakistan. Krepinievich believed, in 2009, that the US military lacks the capabilities to
simultaneously snatch and grab all of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in the event of a collapse. At most, Special Operations forces may be able to
carry out 3 simultaneous raids at a time, and this is only if they are deployed in Afghanistan and India with the proper transport. In order to
carry out the raids, the military must first know where the nuclear weapons are. This will be the biggest obstacle to recovery and destruction
operations in a fractured Pakistan. Even if the US intelligence community is able to utilize existing relationships with the ISI and Pakistani army,
and form new ones on an ad hoc basis, the ability of US aircraft to carry out strikes on hardened weapons locations will be hampered by a lack
of ordinance (outside of nuclear tipped varieties) able to eliminate all positions. Krepinievich also estimates that stability operations in Pakistan
would require “three to four times the size” of the peak US forces deployed to Afghanistan and Pakistan and “some $200 to $400 billion”
dollars a year, based on calculations related to the costs of propping up Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, take these issues and apply them to similar
operations in a destabilized China. The
US would be contending with a modernized military as a significant barrier
to its access to secure nuclear weapons. Although, this problem could vary in its intensity based on the coherence of a post-CCP
People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Add in the complex (and not fully cooperative) relationship between the PLA and US
military. Then, consider the size of China itself, which has 9,326,410 sq km of land to Pakistan’s 770,875 sq km. Even removing
the swathes of land that would be unable to host nuclear forces (mobile or otherwise), the level of accurate intelligence
required to comb 9.3 million sq km of land for around 250 nuclear warheads is intimidating. Even in the event
of perfect intelligence, the ability to deploy Special Operation Forces and Aircraft would be heavily affected by the ability of the US military to
move those forces into positions were they could do their jobs. This would be undoubtedly complicated by the nature of the US deployments in
the region at the time of a collapse. If
issue.
the event was sudden and unexpected, this would significantly magnify the
Negative’s Files
240
CCP Collapse Disadvantage
Consequentialist Impact Scenario – Impact
Loose nukes are the largest security threat – just one attack tanks the economy and
causes hundreds of thousands of deaths
Greg Terryn, October 23, 2015, Hillary Was Right: Rogue Nukes Are a Serious Threat, The National Interest, Greg Terryn is a Scoville
Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, nationalinterest.org/feature/hillary-was-right-rogue-nukes-are-serious-threat14152
What is the greatest threat to national security? According to Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton in the first Democratic
debate of the 2016 election season, it is the threat of nuclear weapons and material falling into the wrong hands.
Former President George W. Bush said the same thing in a previous presidential debate. No matter your opinion of their politics, they are right.
Both terrorists and smugglers have expressed interest in such a transfer, and we should consider
ourselves lucky that one has yet to occur. How might a terrorist acquire a nuclear bomb or enough nuclear material to create a
crude weapon? The most likely scenario involves a terrorist group purchasing or stealing highly enriched uranium (HEU) and developing an
improvised nuclear device. With
just 25 kilograms of HEU, which could easily fit in a shoebox or backpack,
terrorists could make a nuclear weapon capable of inflicting the same devastation as the bombs used at
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With less nuclear material, terrorists could lace conventional explosives with
radiological material to create a dirty bomb that would disperse radiological material upon detonation.
The results would be devastating: in addition to casualties from the explosion, concerns of radiological
fallout would create panic and economic disruption.
Negative’s Files
241
CCP Collapse Disadvantage
Consequentialist Impact Scenario - Framing
Any use of nuclear weapons will escalate and cause extinction – we have an obligation
to prevent nuclear omnicide
Larry Ross, December 10 2003, “RACING TOWARD EXTINCTION,” Larry Ross is founder of NZ Nuclear-Free Peacemaking Association,
http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/racing.html
We have greatly changed our environment with our new destructive tools - nuclear
weapons. They have given us a quantum
leap in our ability to destroy ourselves and world. Given present trends, we will not adapt, but will continue on the present
path to nuclear extinction. However, our brains provide the vital difference between extinct species and us. They can tell us what we have
created, and the probable results if we keep repeating our historically destructive behaviour - the thousands of wars in our history. Our
unique insight allows us to change our behaviour so we don't repeat our traditional pattern of
destruction with our new earth-destroying tools. We have even recognised the extreme risks to ourselves, by creating
treaties committing us to vigorously pursue disarmament steps to abolish nuclear weapons before they abolish us. Unfortunately, we have not
observed these treaties. The essential question is: Will we use our brains constructively to solve this problem in time to save ourselves? It
seems unlikely. We
are using our brains to deny the terrifying reality, pretend there is no risk, or that it is
insignificant. Many believe that nuclear weapons have been proven over 50 years to give us security. We tend to venerate our leaders,
believe and obey them. Like the Germans did with Adolph Hitler, or Italians with Mussolini. Leaders are respected as rational, sensible, honest,
moral Christians who could never do anything crazy. However President Bush - the world's most powerful man, and his allies and staff, have
lowered the barriers against using nuclear weapons. They have developed new doctrines that allow them to use nuclear weapons in many
more war situations and against non-nuclear states - not just in retaliation for a massive attack. The U.S. Congress and mass media have skirted
this issue, so you may not know about this 'seismic' change in U.S. policy and its implications. People have forgot, or never learned, how nuclear
weapons can destroy our world. Here is a chart with 6,000 dots divided into 100 squares. The one dot in the centre represents all the explosive
power of allied bombs dropped in WWII - equal to 3,000,000 tons of TNT or 3 megatons. Millions were killed. We have enough for about 6,000
WWII's. The dots in just one of the 100 squares represent the firepower to kill all life on earth. We have made enough weapons to kill everyone
on earth many times over. That is our dire situation today. We are not adapting to change our behaviour, but reinforcing old behaviour that
leads to war? The nuclear arms race, accelerated by the vested interests of the military-industrial-political complex, and the phantom threats
we invent to sustain it, is the major occupation of many top brains and huge resources today. It has huge momentum and power. It is
embedded in U.S. society and some others. It is an accepted part of the culture. This weapons culture and the new doctrines mean that
nuclear weapons are no longer treated as a last resort. They can be used in addition to conventional weapons to achieve
military goals. . The culture has programmed itself for self-destruction and now has the ideology to continue
until they precipitate a nuclear holocaust which kills all life. The quantum leap in destructive power has now been
matched by this new will, or self-permission, to use these weapons. Laws, fears and reservations have been swept aside. Humanity seems to
have accepted the new doctrines. Few seem concerned that any
usage can kill millions, and quickly expand beyond any
countries control, leading to a global nuclear war which ends humanity. We have radically altered our
environment in so many other ways as well, that also threaten our existence in the longer term. Population growth and our economic growth
ideology augment the trends of climate change - global warming - pollution - dwindling natural resources - deforestation etc. To emphasise
again, the
biggest change we have made in our environment is the quantum leap in our ability to destroy
ourselves. Our psychological and social climate makes it more probable. Most people are not aware of this huge change in our
environment. Others just accept it. We have learned to live with and treat nuclear weapons as a normal part of the environment. Many feel
that to question or oppose this situation is silly, disloyal or threatens the security we think nuclear weapons give us. Nine countries are
dedicated to constantly developing their nuclear arsenals. That makes accidental or intentional usage more likely. That the U.S. has said the
nuclear barriers are down adds to the likelihood of nuclear weapons use by some other state. A probable escalation would follow.
Negative’s Files
242
CCP Collapse Disadvantage
Deontology Impact Scenario – Impact
Collapse bad – would lead to massive instability and more oppressive successor
Dan Blumenthal & William Inboden, May 8, 2015, Toward a free and democratic China, American Enterprise Institute, Dan
Blumenthal is the director of Asian Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. William Inboden is executive director of the Clements Center
for History, Strategy, and Statecraft and associate professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas-Austin,
https://www.aei.org/publication/toward-a-free-and-democratic-china/
In short, China’s
ruling structures are brittle, costly, and strained by the corrosive effects of corruption,
environmental calamities, and lack of popular consent. The fact that China spends more on internal surveillance and
policing than on its military only confirms that the CCP’s greatest fear is of its own citizens, not an external rival like
the United States. The real threat to Chinese stability comes from possible state collapse or revolution,
without a peaceful civil society to step in and help manage the subsequent vacuum. Adding a freedom prong to
the engage and hedge strategy is the most prudent course for dealing with this possibility. It helps answer the question “Then what?” If,
through whatever course of events, the CCP were to lose its monopoly on power, what political authorities would emerge to take its place?
Right now the CCP is successfully repressing all vestiges of civil society; Burke’s “little platoons” of civic organizations and religious groups that
mediate between the individual and the state are nowhere to be found. This does not mean that China’s collapse is imminent. The CCP is
resilient and acutely aware of the demise of past authoritarian regimes such as the Soviet Union. That said, when have we ever correctly
predicted a massive political change in a major country? Those
who fear change in China fear—with justification—an Arab
Spring scenario from which something much worse than the current leadership would emerge. But
American policy does little to mitigate this scenario. A freedom prong would cultivate and support alternatives in
anticipation of the day when the CCP as currently constituted might no longer be in control. How might a greater American effort to support
freedom in China affect the overall U.S.-China relationship? Probably less than one might think in the short term, and certainly less than the
profound disruption some China experts fear. Beijing can always be counted on to act in its own perceived interest, and the CCP still prioritizes
a stable bilateral relationship with the United States. Increased U.S. support for human rights and rule of law programs, and more meetings
with dissidents, would doubtless provoke some annoyed démarches from Beijing and the usual grumblings about “meddling in China’s internal
affairs,” but little more. The CCP is nothing if not ruthlessly pragmatic. It might note the continued existence of the KMT in Taiwanese politics
and prepare itself to compete in real elections. A new China strategy with a freedom prong is a high-risk and high-reward proposition. Before
President Obama, all post-Cold War U.S. presidents favored encouraging China’s peaceful evolution. Their
mistake was a misreading
of past Asian transitions to democracy, which they believed were inevitable. They were not. Instead,
American presidents mixed sound political judgment with carrot and stick policies that sometimes risked far worse outcomes. But the reward
for their successes is self-evident in our vibrant alliances today with Asian democracies. With China, the United States may be reaching an
inflection point. Our
present path is likely to lead to a high-risk, volatile rivalry with an increasingly unstable
regime. The alternative path holds out the hope of leading gradually to Sino-American comity and an enduring peace. It begins with
supporting those Chinese people who seek more freedom and a better future for their country.
Negative’s Files
243
CCP Collapse Disadvantage
Deontology Impact Scenario - Framing
Maintaining peace and conditions for harmony is a moral obligation
Gerard F. Powers & Drew Christiansen, 1994, Peacemaking: Moral and Policy Challenges for a New World, United States
Catholic Conference, Georgetown University Press, pages 45-46, Gerard Powers is professor of the practice of Catholic peacebuilding at the
Kroc Institute. He also coordinates the Catholic Peacebuilding Network; Drew Christiansen, S.J., is Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Global
Development in Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and co-director of the Program on the Church and the World at the Berkley
Center, where he is a senior research fellow,
https://books.google.com/books?id=xp6JwmU4IXUC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=%22create+peace%22+%22moral+obligation%22&source=bl&o
ts=01kMwHsxT7&sig=xpfCVRYdFyW83v6N0AZF6u6zIQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjLlOTuhrXOAhVLIMAKHbWMDxkQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=%22create%20peace%22%
20%22moral%20obligation%22&f=false
Even in the context of condemning war in the strongest possible terms, these texts do not refer to peace as a residual category. "Peace
is
not merely the absence of war." 6 This point deserves emphasis because we automatically associate "the
end of war" with "peace." Recall, for example, powerful images ln the collective American memory of the explosion of joy in Times
Square, August 1945, at the end of World War ll. Certainly, the moral obligation to end war commands the highest
urgency. However, ending war does not automatically create peace. It may afford a particularly
promising opportunity to construct peace -- one we may choose either to act upon or to squander. The obligation to act
upon – not squander - such an opportunity also commands the highest moral urgency. For that matter, the
obligation to make peace has urgent priority even when there is no obvious opportunity to do so.
Negative’s Files
244
Elections Disadvantage
Negative’s Files
245
Elections Disadvantage
Uniqueness
Hillary has a 86% chance to win
The Upshot, UPDATED August 22, 2016, The Upshot is a data aggregating and election predicting venture headed by David
Leonhardt (the Times' former Washington Bureau chief), it has a dedicated staff of 15 journalists and data specialists,,
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-pollsforecast.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fupshot&action=click&contentCollection=upshot&region=rank&module=package&version
=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront
Hillary Clinton has an 86% chance of winning the presidency. CHANCE OF WINNING 86% Hillary Clinton 14% Donald J.
Trump The Upshot’s elections model suggests that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, based on the latest
state and national polls. A victory by Mr. Trump remains quite possible: Mrs. Clinton’s chance of losing is about the same as the
probability that an N.F.L. kicker misses a field goal from the 20-yard line.
Negative’s Files
246
Elections Disadvantage
Uniqueness
Hillary has a 84% chance to win
Five-Thirty-Eight, updated August 22, 2016, Who will win the presidency?, Five-Thirty-Eight is a data aggregation and statistic
prediction website founded by Nate Silver - it has been incredibly accurate in the past and uses many national polls, state polls, and historical
trends as data to feed statistical models to predict events. It’s staff includes several statisticians and journalists,
projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Who will win the presidency? Chance of winning Hillary Clinton 84.3% Donald Trump 15.7%
Negative’s Files
247
Elections Disadvantage
Uniqueness Defense
History proves current polls are predictive
Sam Wang, May 1, 2016, “What head-to-head election polls tell us about November,” Princeton Election Consortium, Sam Wang is Cofounder of the Princeton election Consortium, Ph.D.in Neuroscience at Stanford University, http://election.princeton.edu/2016/05/01/whatdo-head-to-head-general-election-polls-tell-us-about-november/, Accessed 7-21-16)
General-election matchup polls (e.g. Clinton v. Trump) started to become informative in February. In May,
they tell us quite a lot – and give a way to estimate the probability of a Hillary Clinton victory. First, let us
examine the primary evidence. Wlezien and Erikson have gathered presidential preference polls from 19522008: These graphs show that during the year of the general election, polls gradually converge to a point
that is close to the actual November outcome. Wlezien and Erikson expressed their findings in terms of correlation
coefficients. In early February (about 280 days from the election), the correlation between polls and November outcomes is +0.2, where 0.0
corresponds to no relationship and +1.0 indicates a perfect relationship. The correlation rises to +0.9 by October. However, this measure is not
easily used by consumers of polls. Instead, a more intuitive measure is how far polls tend to move over time. To calculate this box-and-whisker
plot I also included 2012 data (spreadsheet here). Positive values indicate that the Democratic candidate did worse in November than in polls.
The box indicates the interquartile range, i.e. the middle 50%, and the whiskers indicate the range. The red points indicate two outliers: the
elections of 1964 (Johnson v. Goldwater) and 1980 (Carter v. Reagan v. Anderson). In May, polls overestimated support for the Democratic
candidate by over 10 percentage points. For obvious reasons, Republican-leaning pundits like to write about 1980. But that is one case out of
16 elections. Instead of such cherrypicking, it is more accurate to include them as part of an analysis of all 16 elections. The full range and
estimated standard deviation of poll-outcome differences looks like this: On
average, polls have little or no bias relative to
November, but have some variation, which is what we care about. That variation is quantified by the standard deviation (SD). I estimated
SD using median absolute deviation (MAD), and verified this approach using interquartile range divided by 1.35. For March and April,
the standard deviation is around 4 percentage points.
Negative’s Files
248
Elections Disadvantage
Uniqueness Defense
Polls are super accurate – their authors overhype the errors
Andre Tartar & Ben Brody, May 3, 2016, The 2016 Guide to Political Predictions, Bloomberg Politics, Andre Tartar is Economic
Data Editor at Bloomberg News; Ben Brody is a contributor to Bloomberg Politics with a focus on Washington DC;
www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-03/the-2016-guide-to-political-predictions-which-matter-and-who-was-most-underestimated
For political junkies, polls and predictions are almost irresistible. But they can also overload us with information that's at
best confusing and at worst wrong. Recent high-profile polling misses—from Israel and the U.K. to Michigan—have prompted concerns that
election results can no longer accurately be forecast by surveying the electorate and that technological change is causing an irreversible decline
in the industry. That's why Bloomberg
Politics undertook an analysis of hundreds of polls, as well as several common prediction
models, at use in the 2016 presidential race. The analysis examined 258 final projections covering 78 state primaries or
caucuses—excluding the District of Columbia and overseas territories—from four predictors: RealClearPolitics, an aggregator of statewide
polls; PredictWise, an aggregator of betting-market data; FiveThirtyEight, whose "poll-plus" prediction model considers statewide polls,
national polls, and endorsements; and Bing Predicts, which combines prediction market data, polling, Internet queries, and social media posts.
The analysis showed how often readers can trust polls and other predictions, when they're most reliable (hint: later in the primary calendar),
and which specific candidates have been most discounted this cycle. Turns
Out, the 2016 Polls Haven’t Been That Bad There's
good news for those still looking to polls for insight: In our study, polls, particularly when taken in aggregate, remain a very accurate
way to predict elections, and big discrepancies between polls and results are more the exception than
the rule. Of the 524 individual poll predictions collected by RealClearPolitics and HuffPost Pollster conducted within one
month of a state primary or caucus, 450 of them (86 percent) correctly forecast the eventual winner. When we
strip out the two biggest misses for polling this cycle, the Iowa Republican caucuses and the Michigan Democratic primary,
where 33 out of 38 poll predictions missed the mark, this increases the overall accuracy rate to 92 percent.
Negative’s Files
249
Elections Disadvantage
General Links
Trump will use plan for China bashing to stoke populist sentiments and sway voters in
the election
He Yafei, , 1-25-2016, U.S. Election and Its Impact on China, CHINA-US Focus, Yafei He is Former Vice Minister at the State Council Office Of
Overseas Chinese Affairs, http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/u-s-election-and-its-impact-on-china/
The United States presidential election is now in full swing, with both parties going all out in a feverish effort to gain the
upper hand. The 2016 vote is watched very closely all over the world, because whoever occupies the White House next January is going to face
a fast-changing world with multiple challenges crying out for active American involvement and a more isolationist and inward-looking America
unwilling to take on the role of “world policeman”. Before we delve deeper into the impact of the election on China and US-China relations for
the coming years,
there is a need to offer a brief analysis of what insight this election process has brought us
into the American psyche. First and foremost, it has laid bare the rising populist sentiments that are oozing
out every pore of American politics both domestic and international. One example is the Republican candidate
Donald Trump whose fiery words on immigration and Muslims has won him high approval ratings even though
those words are obviously on the extreme end of populism. Three Republican candidates, Trump, Cruz and Carlson, are
considered politically extreme but have consistently won as a group over 50% support among Republican voters based on recent polls. It shows
that voters are
rejecting traditional candidates. What it reveals is that men-on-the-street in America are
simply tired of traditional politics and politicians. The fact that Jeb Bush falls behind Trump therefore comes as no surprise.
Populist sentiments reflect the unhappiness ordinary people have harbored against status quo where
American economy is still under the shadow of financial crisis and slow recovery as well as enfeebled responses of the American government in
the face of global challenges. To put it in perspective, they
represent the frustration and anxiety of American people
feel about the changed and still fast changing world they live in. The American supremacy and sense of safety both
physical and economic is threatened. That’s the essence of what people fear. Here comes China, whose economic growth and
military modernization in recent years represents, to American people, a world that undergoes rapid
changes and evolves to a multipolar one where the US is no longer being able to call shot on everything.
The resentment against globalization is on the rise. Overall strategic retrenchment and an emphatic shift to focus more on
China are taking place simultaneously. “Scapegoating” China is inevitable. “China has taken jobs away from American workers”.
“China is manipulating its currency to gain advantage in trade”. “China is being aggressive in the South China Sea and trying to drive the US out
of the Western Pacific”. The list of complaints can go on and on. It
doesn’t matter whether those accusations and
complaints are true or not to American politicians and voters as long as they have “election value”. For
instance, the renminbi has appreciated against the US dollar to the tune of 30% since 2008, but voices are still strong in America calling for the
RMB to appreciate further. We all know from experience that China-bashing is common and “cost-free” in US elections.
This time around is no different. What is different is that while without agreeing to the concept of “G2”, there is a broad recognition that the US
and China are the two major powers in today’s world. It is no hyperbole to say that nothing gets done without close cooperation between the
two nations, be it climate change, energy security, non-proliferation of WMD, etc. In this connection the US election does have an impact on
China and US-China relations as noted by Robert Manning, who said the US-China relationship enters “dangerous waters” in 2016.
Negative’s Files
250
Elections Disadvantage
General Links
Voters PERCEIVE plan as appeasement, weak on china, and ineffective – electorate
favors isolationism
Donald Gross, 2013, “The China Fallacy”, Bloomsbury Academic Publishing, Donald Gross is a lawyer, business strategist and policy
expert who also serves as an adjunct fellow of Pacific Forum CSIS, a non-profit research institute affiliated with the Center for Strategic and
International Studies. A former State Department official, he developed and implemented U.S. policy on strategic trade, national security and
foreign relations. Earlier, he was Director of Legislative Affairs at the National Security Council in the White House and Counselor of the U.S.
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, http://www.donaldgross.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/The-China-Fallacy-Excerpts.pdf
The difficulty of moving beyond current policy Despite
the questionable premises underlying much of prevailing U.S.
policy toward China, policymakers and commentators find it difficult to move beyond existing views. There are
several reasons why this is so. To begin with, current policy is complex. It stresses preparation for a security threat from China at the
same time as it promotes U.S. business interests there. It protects uncompetitive American companies from the adverse effects of China’s
rapidly growing economy (unintentionally creating a nationalist backlash in Beijing) while largely ignoring China’s domestic political system. The
seemingly contradictory elements of U.S. policy—in the face of real uncertainty about the direction of China’s military, economic and political
development—mask the true dangers and weaknesses of the overall U.S. approach. A second reason why policymakers and commentators find
it difficult to move beyond existing China policy is that groups
with vested interests have a stake in its various components. These
groups attempt to mold public opinion by defining “acceptable” and “mainstream” views of China, which
provide strong support for the existing policy framework. This is especially true of security policy, where
hawks who believe in a coming military clash with China also argue that the U.S. should pursue a military
buildup to prepare for it. Not surprisingly, the military services and defense contractors in the United States
are important members of the political constituency that favors an aggressive security strategy toward
China. The specter of a large and amorphous “China threat” has proved useful as a replacement for the “Soviet threat” to spur the Pentagon’s
acquisition of advanced weapons systems, especially at a time of overall defense budget cuts. Another group with a vested interest in a hard
line security policy is the traditional “China lobby” (originally strong supporters of the anticommunist regime that led Taiwan after the Chinese
revolution in 1949) which has concentrated in recent years on ensuring the U.S. supplies large quantities of high-quality weapons and military
equipment to Taiwan to deter and defend against a possible Chinese attack. Perhaps the overriding reason why many policymakers and
commentators cannot easily move beyond existing views of China is that they do not sufficiently factor into their analysis the major security,
political and economic benefits that the United States and its Asian allies could achieve through improved U.S.-China relations. Many
commentators tend to emphasize worst-case scenarios and pessimistic assessments which are seen by
the media as “sober-minded” and “realistic.” It seems fruitless to these analysts to describe future
benefits from a state of affairs that they believe will likely never come to pass. Influenced by the
“tyranny of the status quo,” policymakers and commentators often feel the best they can do is to propose incremental changes that
could achieve small policy improvements over time. U.S. politicians who attack Beijing for economic practices that lead to “shipping American
jobs to China” also discourage policymakers and experts from highlighting the benefits of improved relations between the two countries. When
these politicians exploit
patriotic feelings and engage in demagogic “China bashing” to attract votes, they
have a chilling effect on policy analysts. In this atmosphere, proposals that could significantly improve relations become
vulnerable to political attacks as “appeasement,” “un-American” or “weak on China.” Conversely, highly
questionable protectionist measures to help uncompetitive companies are seen as “tough” and “pro-American.” The upshot is that the
acceptable bounds of the policy debate on China are far narrower than they ought or need to be.
Negative’s Files
251
Elections Disadvantage
Specific Links – CRC aff
Social issues animate conservative voters but not liberals
Molly Ball, November 4, 2015, Liberals Are Losing the Culture Wars, The Atlantic, Molly Ball is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where she
covers U.S. politics, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/liberals-are-losing-the-culture-war/414175/?utm_source=SFFB
In Tuesday’s elections, voters rejected recreational marijuana, transgender rights, and illegal-immigrant sanctuaries; they reacted equivocally to
gun-control arguments; and they handed a surprise victory to a Republican gubernatorial candidate who emphasized his opposition to gay
marriage. Democrats
have become increasingly assertive in taking liberal social positions in recent years,
believing that they enjoy majority support and even seeking to turn abortion and gay rights into electoral wedges against
Republicans. But Tuesday’s results—and the broader trend of recent elections that have been generally disastrous for Democrats
not named Barack Obama—call that view into question. Indeed, they suggest that the left has misread the electorate’s
enthusiasm for social change, inviting a backlash from mainstream voters invested in the status quo.
Consider these results: Ohio voters rejected a ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana by a 30-point margin. Voters in Houston—a
strongly Democratic city—rejected by a 20-point margin a nondiscrimination ordinance that opponents said would lead to “men in women’s
bathrooms.” The San Francisco sheriff who had defended the city’s sanctuary policy after a sensational murder by an illegal immigrant was
voted out. Two Republican state senate candidates in Virginia were targeted by Every town for Gun Safety, former New York Mayor Mike
Bloomberg’s gun-control group. One won and one lost, leaving the chamber in GOP hands. Matt Bevin, the Republican gubernatorial nominee
in Kentucky, pulled out a resounding victory that defied the polls after emphasizing social issues and championing Kim Davis, the county clerk
who went to jail rather than issue same-sex marriage licenses. Bevin told the Washington Post on the eve of the vote that he’d initially planned
to stress economic issues, but found that “this is what moves people.” There were particular factors in all of these races: The San Francisco
sheriff was scandal-ridden, for example, and the Ohio initiative’s unique provisions divided pro-pot activists. But taken together these results
ought to inspire caution among liberals who believe their cultural views are widely shared and a recipe for electoral victory. Democrats
have increasingly seized the offensive on social issues in recent years, using opposition to abortion rights and gay
marriage to paint Republican candidates as extreme and backward. In some cases, this has been successful: Red-state GOP Senate candidates
Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock lost after making incendiary comments about abortion and rape in 2012, a year when Obama successfully
leaned into cultural issues to galvanize the Democratic base. “The Republican Party from 1968 up to 2008 lived by the wedge, and now they are
politically dying by the wedge,” Democratic consultant Chris Lehane told the New York Times last year, a view echoed by worried Republicans
urging their party to get with the times. But
the Democrats’ culture-war strategy has been less successful when
Obama is not on the ballot. Two campaigns that made abortion rights their centerpiece in 2014, Wendy Davis’s Texas gubernatorial
bid and Mark Udall’s Senate reelection campaign in Colorado, fell far short. In most of the country, particularly between the coasts, it’s far from
clear that regular voters are willing to come to the polls for social change. Gay marriage won four carefully selected blue-state ballot campaigns
in 2012 before the Supreme Court took the issue to the finish line this year. Recreational marijuana has likewise been approved only in three
blue states plus Alaska. Gun-control campaigners have repeatedly failed to outflank the N.R.A. in down-ballot elections that turned on the
issue. Republicans in state offices have liberalized gun laws and restricted abortion, generating little apparent voter backlash. An upcoming
gubernatorial election in Louisiana is turning into a referendum on another hot button issue—crime—with Republican David Vitter charging
that his opponent, John Bel Edwards, wants to release “dangerous thugs, drug dealers, back into our neighborhoods.” The strategy, which has
been criticized for its racial overtones, may or may not work for Vitter, who is dealing with scandals of his own. Yet many liberals angrily
reject the suggestion that the push to reduce incarceration could lead to a political backlash based on anecdotal reports of sensational crimes.
To be sure, Tuesday was an off-off-year election with dismally low voter turnout, waged in just a handful of locales. But liberals who cite this
as an explanation often fail
to take the next step and ask why the most consistent voters are consistently hostile to
their views, or why liberal social positions don’t mobilize infrequent voters. Low turnout alone can’t explain the
extent of Democratic failures in non-presidential elections in the Obama era, which have decimated the party in state legislatures,
governorships, and the House and Senate. Had the 2012 electorate shown up in 2014, Democrats still would have lost most races, according to
Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political scientist, who told me the turnout effect “was worth slightly more than 1 percentage point
to Republican candidates in 2014”—enough to make a difference in a few close races, but not much across the board. Liberals
love to
point out the fractiousness of the GOP, whose dramatic fissures have racked the House of Representatives and tormented party
leaders. But as Matt Yglesias recently pointed out, Republican divisions are actually signs of an ideologically flexible
big-tent party, while Democrats are in lockstep around an agenda whose popularity they too often fail
Negative’s Files
252
to question. Democrats want to believe Americans are on board with their vision of social change—but
they might win more elections if they meet voters where they really are.
Negative’s Files
253
Elections Disadvantage
Specific Links – CRC aff
‘Politically correct’ social policies are perfect punching bags for Trump – they strongly
galvanize his broad base
Victor David Hanson, June 14, 2016, Election 2016: Knows and Unknowns, National Review, Victor Davis Hanson is an American
military historian, columnist, former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. As a National Review Institute fellow, he has been a
commentator on modern warfare and contemporary politics for National Review and other media outlets. He was a professor of classics at
California State University, Fresno, and is currently the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution,
www.nationalreview.com/article/436551/election-2016-trump-vs-hillary
Trump Factor X. Will the so-called “Trump disconnect” continue, an intangible that for over a year has humiliated
pundits who have made serially erroneous forecasts of his demise? In other words, no one has yet been able
to calibrate the degree to which Trump has made politics irrelevant and substituted harsh, politically
incorrect, and often crude expression and rhetoric for any kind of detailed agenda. No one knows quite how the
weird Trump factor that propelled him through the primaries will play in the far wider arena of the
general election, but all of us have met in our own circles the most surprising and unexpected Trump
supporters, who cite no resonant political affinity with Trump other than shared furor over politically
correct and censored speech, and the need for someone — almost anyone will do — to throw a wrecking ball
through the politically correct glass houses of our society. No one knows how many of his supporters
are silent, embarrassed to state publicly their support for one so uncouth; no one knows what he may say or do on
any given day — or the full effect of his outbursts — and no one quite appreciates that what appears outlandish to elites may appear genuine
and earthy to others. Today experts laugh that a supposedly buffoonish Sarah Palin sank the otherwise sober and judicious McCain campaign;
but, in truth, polls at the times suggested that she was either not a factor or perhaps a plus to the ticket. In any case, the McCain–Palin ticket
was ahead of Obama until the Wall Street meltdown in September of 2008. Elites who said they knew no one who liked Palin in truth must have
known very few Americans at all.
Negative’s Files
254
Elections Disadvantage
Specific Links – Space aff
Increased spending brings out the Tea Party coalition – doesn’t matter who it affects
Nella Van Dyke & David S. Meyer, Feb 24, 2016, Understanding the Tea Party Movement, Nella Van Dyke is a professor of
sociology whose research focuses on social movements and hate crime, with an emphasis on how characteristics of the social environment
influence levels of collective action,, David S Meyer is a Professor of sociology at University of California, Irvine who specializes in Social
Movements, Public Policy, Peace & War, Social Justice,
https://books.google.com/books?id=BQCgCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq="economic+stimulus"+"voter+turnout"&source=bl&ots=QZlW7
xjMHF&sig=eVOmHakZ2B_Te_Mv2eOd8br8r8c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPptzhn7fOAhXMC8AKHWMNAfc4FBDoAQhCMAc#v=onepage&q=
%22government%20spending%22&f=true
I see many similarities between the rise of the Tea Party and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the early 1920s. The Tea Party movement emerged
in the midst of the most severe economic recession since the Great Depression of the 19305. Because of the depth of the recession, economic
power devaluation was experienced broadly in the United States. Workers faced declining demand for their labor as unemployment rates
soared. Owners of large corporations faced a global decline in demand for their products. As the economic crisis deepened, demand for
services and commodities provided by middle-class professionals and small-business owners declined sharply. Notably, however, Tea
Party
activists vociferously argue against expanded government aid to benefit those who are feeling the brunt
of the economic decline. As was the in the 1920s, many in the middle class sense that any government
response to the economic crisis would disproportionately benefit other social groups at their expense.
While economic pain resulting from the great recession has been widespread and has undoubtedly
affected some members of the Tea Party, supporters of the movement are not drawn from those who
are in the greatest need of aid. The movement's central message - cut taxes and cut spending resonates most strongly, with those who are doing fairly well in spite of the great recession and do not w
ant to bear the burden of supporting those who have not fared well. Political Power Devaluation While many
Americans experienced economic power devaluation during and after the recent recession, the co-occurrence of political power devaluation for
core Tea Party constituents, I believe, is key to understanding the movement’s rapid growth. As Democrats assumed the leadership of both the
House and the Senate, and with Democrat Barack Obama elected as president, all signs indicated that government would enact progressive
legislation in response to the crisis that began then Republican George W. Bush was president. It should be noted, however, that the Tea Party
anger began brewing before Obama took office, in response to bailouts of endangered financial institutions enacted at the end of the Bush
presidency. In
the early months of the Obama presidency, conservative fears were realized as the Obama
administration pushed through a major economic stimulus bill and launched its effort to enact major health care reform.
Good arguments, of course, can be made for increasing government spending during a severe recession and targeting the spending toward
poor and middle-class individuals who will the most likely to immediately spend any government funds that come their way. Yet much like the
1920s Klan, many
of those who were in the least need of governmental aid-for example those who
remained employed and already had quality health care reacted negatively to the prospects of
government funds being directed toward other social groups.
Negative’s Files
255
Elections Disadvantage
Specific Links – Space aff
New spending is key – increased spending spurs the key suburban Republican vote
Michael Tanner, August 11, 2010, Memo to Republicans: It’s Big Government, Stupid!, National Review, Michael Tanner is a Cato
Institute senior fellow, Michael Tanner heads research into a variety of domestic policies with a particular emphasis on poverty and social
welfare policy, health care reform, and Social Security, www.nationalreview.com/article/243648/memo-republicans-its-big-government-stupidmichael-tanner
No doubt these are important issues to various constituencies. But, the merits of the issues aside, if Republicans believe that the key to victory
the Republican base is fired up, and Democrats are
dispirited. To see how important that is, look no further back than 2008, when overall Republican voter
turnout was down by 1.5 percent. Putting this in perspective, in the crucial swing state of Ohio, Barack
Obama received 40,000 fewer votes in 2008 than did John Kerry in 2004. Yet, Obama carried the state
while Kerry lost it. Despite their repeated threats to stay home if Republicans deviated from a commitment to conservative social issues,
this year is to refight the culture wars, they are mistaken. Today,
it wasn’t the Religious Right that deserted Republicans in 2008 (or 2006, for that matter). Turnout among self-described members of the
Religious Right remained steady from 2004 to 2008, and these voters remained loyally Republican. Roughly 70 percent of white evangelicals
and born-again Christians voted Republican in 2006, and 74 percent in 2008, essentially in line with how they have been voting for the past two
or three decades. It
was suburbanites, independents, and others who were fed up with the Republican drift
toward big government who stayed home — or, worse, voted Democratic in 2008. Republicans carried the suburbs in both
2000 (49 to 47) and 2004 (52 to 47), but in 2008, suburban voters — notably wealthy, college-educated professionals, many of whom consider
themselves moderate on social issues but economically conservative — voted for Barack Obama by a margin of 50 to 48. The
switch
among voters in the suburbs of Columbus, Charlotte, and Indianapolis, for instance, was largely responsible for moving
Ohio, North Carolina, and Indiana into the Democratic column. Democrats also continued their gains in the more
independent, libertarian West. These independent and suburban voters are now regretting their Democratic
flirtation. They didn’t vote for record deficits, the health-care bill, bailouts to banks and auto companies, or cap-and-trade.
Having rejected big-government conservatism, they never realized they were going to get even-biggergovernment liberalism. But these voters are not culture warriors. Polls show that while they are fiscally conservative,
and very upset by excessive government spending and rising deficits, they are socially moderate, tending toward
indifference or even support on issues like gay marriage. It is true that many vulnerable House Democrats this year represent culturally
conservative districts. But those Democrats are likely to share the same positions on social issues as their Republican opponents. One is not
likely to get to the right of, say, Tom Perriello (D., Va.) on social issues. But if cultural issues come to dominate the fall campaign, it could hurt
Republican candidates in more moderate suburban districts — candidates like, say, Keith Fimian, who is challenging Gerry Connolly in northern
Virginia. On the other hand, both Connolly and Perriello voted for the stimulus, the health-care bill, and cap-and-trade. If
one needs a
template for victory, Republicans need look no further than last year’s gubernatorial elections in Virginia
and New Jersey. Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie did not run as culture warriors. Instead they won
their upset victories on issues like jobs, the economy, and a commitment to limited government. The polls are
overwhelming. Those are the issues that voters care about, not whether two men in California get married.
Republicans should focus on creating jobs, reducing spending, repealing Obamacare, and cutting the size of
government — and leave the culture wars for another day.
Negative’s Files
256
Elections Disadvantage
Consequentialist Impact Scenario – Internal Links
Trump presidency leads to allied nuclear proliferation
Gene Gerzhoy & Nick Miller, April 6, 2016, “Donald Trump Thinks More Countries Should Have Nuclear Weapons. Here’s What
the Research Says,” WASHINGTON POST, Gene Gerzhoy is a Congressional Fellow at the American Political Science Association and Nick Miller,
Assistant Professor, Political Science and Public Affairs, Brown University, www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkeycage/wp/2016/04/06/should-more-countries-have-nuclear-weapons-donald-trump-thinks-so/
Although history suggests that proliferation is not inevitable, recent research on nonproliferation
suggests that Trump’s proposed foreign policy might make it so. Trump says he would scale back or
entirely end U.S. alliance commitments unless our allies made major financial concessions. In his interview with the Times,
Trump said that the United States “take[s] tremendous monetary hits on protecting countries” such as Japan, South Korea, Germany and Saudi
Arabia. He also denounced the U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty as “one-sided,” said that the United States doesn’t need to maintain forces in
South Korea and
described the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as “obsolete.” But if those security
institutions and military deployments disappeared, U.S. allies — including Japan and South Korea —
might well pursue nuclear weapons of their own. Recent research shows that alliances are a powerful
tool for preventing proliferation, both because they reassure states that their security will be protected
in case of attack and because they give senior partners the leverage to restrain their allies’ nuclear
ambitions. Research also demonstrates that the type of U.S. troop withdrawals Trump envisions have a
history of prompting allies to consider developing their own nuclear weapons. Consider the last time the United
States had a president who was skeptical about nonproliferation and who tried to reduce U.S. commitments to its allies in Asia. As part of his
Guam Doctrine — a plan to increase Asian allies’ military self-reliance — President Nixon withdrew 20,000 troops from South Korea. Famously,
he also traveled to China to improve Sino-American relations. As a result, South Korea launched a covert nuclear weapons program, and Taiwan
ramped up its own nuclear ambitions. So why didn’t they end up with nuclear weapons? The administrations that followed Nixon’s redoubled
efforts to stop them. Research
does not support the idea that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable. But
isolationist “America First” policies could prompt that spread. Defining U.S. strategic interests primarily in terms of
monetary gain, and curtailing U.S. global engagement toward that end, would boost the probability that our allies
would respond by going nuclear.
Negative’s Files
257
Elections Disadvantage
Consequentialist Impact Scenario – Internal Links
Trump supports nuclear proliferation
Lewis Jacobson, June 6, 2016, Hillary Clinton says Donald Trump argued U.S. should 'encourage' Japan to get nuclear weapons,
Politifact, Louis Jacobson is the senior correspondent for PolitiFact and a staff writer for the Tampa Bay Times. He has served as deputy editor
of Roll Call and as founding editor of its legislative wire service, CongressNow. Earlier, he spent more than a decade covering politics, policy and
lobbying for National Journal magazine, www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/06/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-donaldtrump-argued-us-should/
Clinton took Trump to task for saying that the United States should "encourage" Japan to get nuclear
weapons. Trump used vague and contradictory language, but it’s a fair reading to say his words amounted to
encouragement. On more than one occasion, Trump publicly said that Japan, and the United States,
might be better off if Japan had nuclear weapons, and he declined multiple attempts by interviewers to
backtrack from that view. We rate Clinton’s statement Mostly True.
Negative’s Files
258
Elections Disadvantage
Consequentialist Impact Scenario - Impact
Nuclear proliferation would be disastrous – multiple scenarios for nuclear war
SAM Kleiner, June 3, 2016, With His Finger on the Trigger, The Atlantic, Sam Kleiner is a postdoctoral fellow at Yale Law School. He is
the author of a forthcoming book about the U.S. air war in China during World War II,
www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/06/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons/485504/
A new nuclear-arms race, moreover, could be even riskier than the one Reagan and others worked so hard
to end. In retrospect, the Cold War standoff between two massive, nuclear-armed superpowers offered some stability; among other things,
the fact that the United States and the Soviet Union could destroy each other, or any other challenger, in a nuclear confrontation ended up
preventing either side from using nuclear weapons. Global alliances were structured in a bipolar system, with smaller powers picking one side
or the other, which meant fewer possible avenues for conflict. But that world came to an end when the Cold War finished. We
now live in
a multipolar world that is, in many ways, a more dangerous one. Former Secretaries of State Kissinger and George Shultz,
former Secretary of Defense William Perry, and Senator Sam Nunn warned in 2011 that “the growing number of nations with
nuclear arms and differing motives, aims and ambitions poses very high and unpredictable risks and
increased instability.” One particularly risky and region right now is East Asia, where competing
territorial claims and an unpredictable North Korea threaten to flare into conflict. If Japan, which is
revising its pacifist post-World War II foreign policy toward a more assertive one, or South Korea, where
there is broad popular support for weaponization, go nuclear, the chances grow for a regional arms
race—and for nuclear war. Trump has begun to style himself as a foreign-policy realist. But he’s not a realist—he’s a radical. One
possibility, as Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies noted: “North Korea might be tempted to
launch a preemptive attack at a time when the U.S. defense commitment [to South Korea] might no
longer apply.” But even “short of this worst-case scenario, rather than negotiate disarmament, North Korea more likely would claim the
South’s actions as a justification for stepping up its own nuclear program.” These are by no means the only risks. There is, for example, the
risk of an accidental firing or a rogue officer deciding that he or she wants to launch a nuclear weapon.
There is the risk of “loose nukes” falling into the wrong hands, and the risk that individual scientists will
be willing to transfer nuclear technology to the highest bidder, as Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan did in selling nuclear
technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.
Negative’s Files
259
Elections Disadvantage
Consequentialist Impact Scenario - Impact
Allied proliferation increases the risk of escalation and nuclear war
Rupal N. Mehta, June 9, 2016, “Is a Nuclear-Armed Japan Inconceivable?” WAR ON THE ROCKS, Rupal N. Mehta is an Assistant
Professor of Political Science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, http://warontherocks.com/2016/06/is-a-nuclear-armed-japaninconceivable/, accessed 6-15-16.
Scholarship also importantly suggests that nuclear
allies present dramatically different risks for the United States
and the world than do non-nuclear allies. The United States often extends security to allies in dangerous
neighborhoods in the hope that this protection can curb conflict, reduce tension, and mitigate the need for
an ally to develop their own nuclear weapons. No doubt regional nuclear proliferation would significantly
change this calculus. More nuclear allies could mean more chances for escalatory conflict, arms-racing
among adversaries, and nuclear accidents that pose significant and unnecessary risks to U.S national and
international security. Given these concerns and the ever-growing threats to international stability and
security that the United States and other countries face every day, it is imperative that the next U.S.
president and her/his foreign policy remain focused on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons as it has
successfully done (notwithstanding a few notable exceptions) for the past 70 years.
Negative’s Files
260
Elections Disadvantage
Consequentialist Impact Scenario - Framing
Any use of nuclear weapons will escalate and cause extinction – we have an obligation
to prevent nuclear omnicide
Larry Ross, December 10 2003, “RACING TOWARD EXTINCTION,” Larry Ross is founder of NZ Nuclear-Free Peacemaking Association,
http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/racing.html
We have greatly changed our environment with our new destructive tools - nuclear
weapons. They have given us a quantum
leap in our ability to destroy ourselves and world. Given present trends, we will not adapt, but will continue on the present
path to nuclear extinction. However, our brains provide the vital difference between extinct species and us. They can tell us what we have
created, and the probable results if we keep repeating our historically destructive behaviour - the thousands of wars in our history. Our
unique insight allows us to change our behaviour so we don't repeat our traditional pattern of
destruction with our new earth-destroying tools. We have even recognised the extreme risks to ourselves, by creating
treaties committing us to vigorously pursue disarmament steps to abolish nuclear weapons before they abolish us. Unfortunately, we have not
observed these treaties. The essential question is: Will we use our brains constructively to solve this problem in time to save ourselves? It
seems unlikely. We
are using our brains to deny the terrifying reality, pretend there is no risk, or that it is
insignificant. Many believe that nuclear weapons have been proven over 50 years to give us security. We tend to venerate our leaders,
believe and obey them. Like the Germans did with Adolph Hitler, or Italians with Mussolini. Leaders are respected as rational, sensible, honest,
moral Christians who could never do anything crazy. However President Bush - the world's most powerful man, and his allies and staff, have
lowered the barriers against using nuclear weapons. They have developed new doctrines that allow them to use nuclear weapons in many
more war situations and against non-nuclear states - not just in retaliation for a massive attack. The U.S. Congress and mass media have skirted
this issue, so you may not know about this 'seismic' change in U.S. policy and its implications. People have forgot, or never learned, how nuclear
weapons can destroy our world. Here is a chart with 6,000 dots divided into 100 squares. The one dot in the centre represents all the explosive
power of allied bombs dropped in WWII - equal to 3,000,000 tons of TNT or 3 megatons. Millions were killed. We have enough for about 6,000
WWII's. The dots in just one of the 100 squares represent the firepower to kill all life on earth. We have made enough weapons to kill everyone
on earth many times over. That is our dire situation today. We are not adapting to change our behaviour, but reinforcing old behaviour that
leads to war? The nuclear arms race, accelerated by the vested interests of the military-industrial-political complex, and the phantom threats
we invent to sustain it, is the major occupation of many top brains and huge resources today. It has huge momentum and power. It is
embedded in U.S. society and some others. It is an accepted part of the culture. This weapons culture and the new doctrines mean that
nuclear weapons are no longer treated as a last resort. They can be used in addition to conventional weapons to achieve
military goals. . The culture has programmed itself for self-destruction and now has the ideology to continue
until they precipitate a nuclear holocaust which kills all life. The quantum leap in destructive power has now been
matched by this new will, or self-permission, to use these weapons. Laws, fears and reservations have been swept aside. Humanity seems to
have accepted the new doctrines. Few seem concerned that any
usage can kill millions, and quickly expand beyond any
countries control, leading to a global nuclear war which ends humanity. We have radically altered our
environment in so many other ways as well, that also threaten our existence in the longer term. Population growth and our economic growth
ideology augment the trends of climate change - global warming - pollution - dwindling natural resources - deforestation etc. To emphasise
again, the
biggest change we have made in our environment is the quantum leap in our ability to destroy
ourselves. Our psychological and social climate makes it more probable. Most people are not aware of this huge change in our
environment. Others just accept it. We have learned to live with and treat nuclear weapons as a normal part of the environment. Many feel
that to question or oppose this situation is silly, disloyal or threatens the security we think nuclear weapons give us. Nine countries are
dedicated to constantly developing their nuclear arsenals. That makes accidental or intentional usage more likely. That the U.S. has said the
nuclear barriers are down adds to the likelihood of nuclear weapons use by some other state. A probable escalation would follow.
Negative’s Files
261
Elections Disadvantage
Deontology Impact Scenario - Impact
Trump would be uniquely bad for minorities
Kevin Drum, February 29, 2016, Super Tuesday Is Looking a Lot Like Super Trumpday, Mother Jones, Kevin Drum is a nationally
recognized political blogger and writer for Mother Jones magazine, www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02
This is an enticing argument, but it's also dangerous. For months, we've been warning that Trump
would be a uniquely dangerous
president. He's a serial liar. He's a demagogue. He's a racist and a xenophobe. He appeals to our worst
natures. He'd blithely enact ruinous policies simply because his vanity makes him immune to advice and policy analysis. He'd
appoint folks who make Michael Brown look like Jeff Bezos. He would deliberately alienate foreign countries for no good reason. He'd
waste money on pet projects like border walls and huge military buildups that would likely have no
appreciable effect. And while that volatile personality of his probably wouldn't cause him to nuke Denmark, you never know, do you? No
liberal wants to see a conservative in the Oval Office. Not Rubio, not any of the others. But there's a difference between accepting an ordinary
member of the opposition party and accepting a fatuous clown like Donald Trump. The former will enact lots of policies we hate, but that's
democracy for you. We've been through it before and we'll go through it again. The latter is a mockery of everything democracy stands for.
Even if you assume that Marco Rubio might be more technically destructive of liberal policies than Trump—an unlikely but admittedly possible
outcome—Trump would be more destructive of the very core of liberalism. If we're willing to accept bigotry and
belligerence and just plain inanity—along with the small but genuine chance of something truly catastrophic taking place on his watch—just for
the sake of maybe getting a slightly better outcome on a few liberal policies, we really ought to just hang it up.
Negative’s Files
262
Elections Disadvantage
Deontology Impact Scenario - Impact
Trump’s policies spur white nationalist fervor
Beth Reinhard, May 17, 2016, White Nationalists See Advancement Through Donald Trump’s Candidacy, Wall Street Journal, Beth
Reinhard covers national politics and the 2016 presidential campaign. She previously worked at National Journal, where she was the lead
political correspondent during the 2012 presidential campaign, www.wsj.com/articles/white-nationalists-see-advancement-through-donaldtrumps-candidacy-1463523858
White nationalists are hailing Donald Trump’s elevation to presumptive Republican presidential
nominee, while also trying to boost their own political profiles and activity. Although Mr. Trump has spurned these
extreme groups’ support, the level of interest within them for the White House candidate rivals that for
segregationist George Wallace, who won five states in the 1968 election, and for conservative Republican Pat Buchanan, who
denounced multiculturalism in the 1990s. Mr. Trump is being heralded by these groups for his proposals to bar
Muslim immigrants, deport millions of people living illegally in the U.S., and build a wall along the
southern border. “White men in America and across the planet are partying like it’s 1999 following Trump’s decisive victory over the evil
enemies of our race,” wrote Holocaust denier Andrew Anglin, who calls Mr. Trump “the Glorious Leader” on his Daily Stormer website, after the
candidate all but sewed up the GOP nomination on May 3. While his policy prescriptions proved popular with GOP primary voters, Mr. Trump is
now the presumptive nominee of a party that has struggled in recent presidential elections to expand its appeal beyond white voters. At the
same time, his hard-line immigration policy and high profile are big lures for extreme groups seeking to elevate their status and views.
Campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks said Mr. Trump “has disavowed and will continue to disavow the support of any such groups associated
with a message of hate.” The businessman isn’t the only candidate who has attracted white supremacists. Ku Klux Klan leader Will Quigg of
California, who last year backed Mr. Trump on Twitter, told the Telegraph newspaper in March that he wants Democrat Hillary Clinton to win.
The Clinton campaign rejected that support. Last year, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz brushed off donations to his presidential campaign from Earl Holt
III, leader of a white supremacist group that authorities allege was cited as an inspiration by Dylann Roof, the man charged with killing nine
people at a historically black church in Charleston, S.C., in June 2015. The campaign said it refunded $2,300 to Mr. Holt and sent $2,700 as a
donation to a fund set up for the families of the church-shooting victims. It also isn’t the first time the KKK tried to align with a nominee in the
modern era. Klan leaders in 1984 tried to throw their support publicly to President Ronald Reagan, who rebuffed their overtures. Mr. Trump
earlier this year drew criticism for his hesitation to disavow the support of David Duke, a former KKK leader and former state representative
from Louisiana. But earlier this month, after Mr. Duke described Mr. Trump’s success as overcoming “these Jewish supremacists who control
our country,” Mr. Trump said, “Anti-Semitism has no place in our society, which needs to be united not divided.” He also returned a $250
contribution in February from white nationalist leader William Johnson, whom the campaign listed among its California GOP convention
delegates before striking him from the list last week. Mr. Trump’s rejections have failed to deter support from leaders of what civil-rights
groups label “right-wing
hate groups.” These groups’ websites, radio shows and podcasts are filled with praise
for Mr. Trump’s views on immigration, appeals to vote for him and calls to volunteer for his campaign.
Some white nationalist leaders have boasted online about attending his rallies, either as supporters or
as journalists, and say the traffic on their websites is increasing since the rise of Mr. Trump. “Trump’s
candidacy has absolutely electrified the radical right,” said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law
Center, a civil-rights organization that tracks extremist groups.
Negative’s Files
263
Elections Disadvantage
Deontology Impact Scenario - Framing
We have a moral obligation to treat individuals with full dignity and respect – anything
less is the road to tyranny and sacrifice
Shue 1989 – Henry Shue is a Professor of Ethics and Public Life at Princeton University, Nuclear Deterrence and Moral Restraint: Critical
Choices for American Strategy, pp. 141-2,
https://books.google.com/books?id=YTVgQAXt_J4C&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=%22Given+the+philosophical+obstacles+to+resolving+moral+
disputes,+there+are+at+least+two+approaches+one+can+take+in+dealing+with+the+issue+of+the+morality+of+nuclear+strategy.+One+approa
ch+is+to+stick+doggedly%22&source=bl&ots=YRaRKiYHq4&sig=98iKuBbznW2QjDt52XpYwwd2h4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizk_vLybzOAhWIDsAKHRalCdEQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22Given%20the%20philosophical%20ob
stacles%20to%20resolving%20moral%20disputes%2C%20there%20are%20at%20least%20two%20approaches%20one%20can%20take%20in%2
0dealing%20with%20the%20issue%20of%20the%20morality%20of%20nuclear%20strategy.%20One%20approach%20is%20to%20stick%20dogg
edly%22&f=false
in dealing with the issue
of the morality of nuclear strategy. One approach is to stick doggedly with one of the established moral theories constructed by
Given the philosophical obstacles to resolving moral disputes, there are at least two approaches one can take
philosophers to “rationalize” or “make sense of” everyday moral intuitions, and to accept the verdict of the theory, whatever it might be, on
the morality of nuclear weapons use. A more pragmatic alternative approach assumes that trade-offs in moral values and principles are
inevitable in response to constantly changing threats, and that the emergence of novel, unforeseen challenges may impel citizens of Western
societies to adjust the way they rank their values and principles to ensure that the moral order survives. Nuclear weapons are putting just such
a strain on our moral beliefs. Before the emergence of a nuclear-armed communist state capable of threatening the existence of Western
civilization, the slaughter of millions of innocent human beings to preserve Western values may have appeared wholly unjustifiable under any
Western democracies, if they are to survive as guardians of
individual freedom, can no longer afford to provide innocent life the full protection demanded by Just
War morality. It might be objected that the freedoms of Western society have value only on the assumption
that human beings are treated with the full dignity and respect assumed by Just War theory. Innocent human life is
possible circumstances. Today, however, it may be that
not just another value to be balanced side by side with others in moral calculations. It is the raison d’etre of Western political, economic, and
social institutions. A
free society based on individual rights that sanctioned mass slaughter of innocent human
beings to save itself from extinction would be “morally corrupt,” no better than soviet society, and not worth
defending. The only morally right and respectable policy for such a society would be to accept destruction
at the hands of tyranny, if need be. This objection is partly right in that a society based on individual rights that casually sacrifices
innocent human lives for the sake of common social goods is a contradiction in terms. On the other hand, even Just War doctrine allows for the
unintentional sacrifice of some innocent human life under certain hard-pressing circumstances. It is essentially a consequentialist moral
doctrine that ascribes extremely high – but not absolute – value to innocent human life. The problem for any nonabsolute moral theory, of
course, is where to draw the line.
Negative’s Files
264
South China Sea Negative
Negative’s Files
265
Inherency Answers - SCS
US already doing a lot in South China Sea
Eric Gomez, APRIL 12, 2016, Calls to “Do More” in the South China Sea Miss Bigger Questions, Cato Institute, Eric Gomez is a Research
Associate for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. His academic and professional research focuses on regional security issues
and U.S military strategy in East Asia, with a focus on maritime territorial disputes and China’s military modernization, www.cato.org/blog/callsdo-more-south-china-sea-miss-bigger-questions
It is difficult to determine what exactly “more” means given the already high level of U.S. activity in the
SCS since the USS Lassen conducted a freedom of navigation operation (FONOP) in late October 2015. Since
then, the U.S. Navy has conducted another FONOP in addition to other patrols involving aircraft carrier
strike groups. Additionally, Philippine-U.S. military cooperation has reached its highest point since American
forces were ejected from the country in 1991. Notable examples of cooperation are the recently finalized
agreement for the U.S. military to set up “permanent logistics facilities” at five Filipino air bases, and
tens of millions of dollars in military aid to improve the Philippines’ maritime patrol and surveillance
capabilities.
Negative’s Files
266
Inherency Answers - SCS
The US is already increasing deployment in the South China Sea
Ely Ratner, MARCH 2, 2015, CHINA’S MENACING SANDCASTLES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA, War on the Rocks, Ely Ratner is a senior
fellow and Deputy Director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security,
warontherocks.com/2015/03/chinas-menacing-sandcastles-in-the-south-china-sea/8/
Efforts by the Obama administration to enhance America’s strategic position in Southeast Asia have
been considerable: expanding and diversifying U.S. force posture, strengthening our alliances, building
partner capacity, engaging regional institutions and providing forward-deployed U.S. forces with the
newest and most advanced capabilities. Accompanying this has been intensive diplomacy in the region,
including with China. And yet none of this has been sufficient to stop or deter China from proceeding apace with its land reclamation
activities.
Negative’s Files
267
Hegemony Advantage Answers - SCS
Uniqueness Answers
Non-Unique: US is in charge and will continue to be
Salvatore Babones June 11, 2015. American Hegemony Is Here to Stay, The National Interest, Salvatore Babones is an associate
professor of sociology and social policy at the University of Sydney and an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies,
nationalinterest.org/feature/american-hegemony-here-stay-13089
When the Soviet Union finally disintegrated in 1991, American hegemony was complete. The United States sat at the top of the international
system, facing no serious rivals for global leadership. This “unipolar moment” lasted a mere decade. September 11, 2001, signaled the
emergence of a new kind of threat to global stability, and the ensuing rise
of China and reemergence of Russia put an end to the era
of unchallenged American leadership. Now, America’s internal politics have deadlocked and the U.S. government shrinks from
playing the role of global policeman. In the second decade of the twenty-first century, American hegemony is
widely perceived to be in terminal decline. Or so the story goes. In fact, reports of the passing of U.S.
hegemony are greatly exaggerated. America’s costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were relatively minor
affairs considered in long-term perspective. The strategic challenge posed by China has also been
exaggerated. Together with its inner circle of unshakable English-speaking allies, the United States
possesses near-total control of the world’s seas, skies, airwaves and cyberspace, while American
universities, think tanks and journals dominate the world of ideas. Put aside all the alarmist punditry. American
hegemony is now as firm as or firmer than it has ever been, and will remain so for a long time to come.
Negative’s Files
268
Hegemony Advantage Answers - SCS
Uniqueness Answers
Non-Unique: China can’t, and doesn’t want to, run Asia
Dingding Chen, January 14, 2015, Relax, China Won't Challenge US Hegemony, The Diplomat, Dingding Chen is an assistant professor of
Government and Public Administration at the University of Macau, Non-Resident Fellow at the Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) Berlin,
Germany. He is also the Founding Director of 海国图智研究院 （Intellisia Institute), a newly established independent think tank focusing on
international affairs in China. His research interests include: Chinese foreign policy, Asian security, Chinese politics, and human rights,
thediplomat.com/2015/01/relax-china-wont-challenge-us-hegemony/
First let us look at China’s capabilities, which need to be especially formidable if China wants to challenge the United States.
Although China’s comprehensive capabilities have been growing rapidly for the past three decades, almost all analysts inside and
outside of China agree that there is still a huge gap between China and the U.S. in terms of
comprehensive capabilities, particularly when the U.S. is far ahead of China in military and technological
realms. China’s economy might have already passed the U.S. economy as the largest one in 2014, but the quality of China’s
economy still remains a major weakness for Beijing. Thus, it would be a serious mistake for China to
challenge the U.S. directly given the wide gap of capabilities between the two. Even if one day China’s
comprehensive capabilities catch up with the United States, it would still be a huge mistake for China to challenge the U.S. because by then the
two economies would be much more closely interconnected, creating a situation of mutual dependence benefiting both countries. Besides
limited capabilities, China also has limited ambitions which have not been properly understood by many
U.S. analysts. It is true that China’s grand strategy is to realize the “China dream” — a dream that will bring wealth,
glory, and power to China again — but this, by no means, suggests that China wants to become a hegemon
in Asia, or to create a Sino-centric tributary system around which all smaller states must obey China’s orders. Perhaps these perceptions exist
in the United States because many U.S. analysts have unconsciously let ultra-realist thinking slip into their minds, thereby believing that states
are constantly engaged in the ruthless pursuit of power and influence. But the
structure of international politics has
fundamentally changed since the end of the Cold War, thus rendering any serious possibility of world
hegemony ineffective or even impossible. In essence, the costs of hegemony outweigh the benefits of
hegemony in this new era of international politics, thanks to rising nationalism, nuclear weapons, and
increasing economic interdependence between major powers. The Chinese leaders understand this new
and changed structure of international politics and based on their assessments, they have decided not
to seek hegemony, which is a losing business in this new era.
Negative’s Files
269
Hegemony Advantage Answers - SCS
Internal Link Answers
Turn: Attempting to maintain US hegemony leads to instability
Christopher Layne, 2012 (International Studies Quarterly 56, "This Time It’s Real: The End of Unipolarity and the Pax Americana")
the deal the United States should propose to China is
for Washington ‘‘to accommodate a rising China by offering it status and position within the regional
order in return for Beijing’s acceptance and accommodation of Washington’s core interests, which include remaining a dominant security
provider within East Asia’’ (Ikenberry 2011:356). It is easy to see why the United States would want to cut such a deal
but it is hard to see what’s in it for China. American hegemony is waning and China is ascending, and there is
zero reason for China to accept this bargain because it aims to be the hegemon in its own region. The
unfolding Sino- American rivalry in East Asia can be seen as an example of Dodge City syndrome (in
Revealingly, Ikenberry makes clear this expectation when he says that
American Western movies, one gunslinger says to the other: ‘‘This town ain’t big enough for both of us’’) or as a geopolitical example of
Newtonian physics (two
hegemons can- not occupy the same region at the same time). From either perspective, the
dangers should be obvious: unless the United States is willing to accept China’s ascendancy in East (and
Southeast) Asia, Washington and Beijing are on a collision course.
Negative’s Files
270
Hegemony Advantage Answers - SCS
Internal Link Answers
Turn: Chinese hegemony is key to Asian stability
Parag Khanna, Winter 2008, The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order, Parag Khanna is an international
relations expert and best-selling author. He is a CNN Global Contributor and Senior Research Fellow in the Centre on Asia and Globalisation at
the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. He is also the Managing Partner of Hybrid Reality, a
geostrategic advisory firm, and Co-Founder & CEO of Factotum, a boutique content strategy agency,
https://books.google.com/books?id=jVsBYQe7GnYC&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq="chinese+hegemony"+"asian+stability"&source=bl&ots=9CGsj
A7Fju&sig=w4v76wV4wKgYfPMImMHuUG0D5Wc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTkuGx4_NAhUSSlIKHbgADrgQ6AEIPDAF#v=onepage&q=%22chinese%20hegemony%22%20%22asian%20stability%22&f=false
"It’s
not just on our maps. It's in our minds: China is the center of all the action here," explained a Singaporean
journalist, pointing to the growing Chinese staff in his office. China sits at the core of the most populous and
economically dynamic pan-region in the world, encompassing Russia's Far East, Japan, the Korean
peninsula, India, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific islands, including Australia and New Zealand. No nation
within the India-Japan-Australia triangle - whether of the first, second, or third world - can withstand China's
economic, demographic, political, and cultural encroachment. Some Americans believe it is their own
preponderance that guarantees Asian stability, but the half of the world population that resides in Asia
increasingly sees its stability as occurring under Chinese hegemony. "America can come and go, but our
fate ultimately hinges on China's decisions and behavior," remarked a Thai diplomat during a conference at a five-star
Bangkok hotel.
Negative’s Files
271
Hegemony Advantage Answers - SCS
Impact Answers
No miscalculation escalation in Asia – precedent for restraint
Steven Stashwick, September 25, 2015, South China Sea: Conflict Escalation and ‘Miscalculation’ Myths, The Diplomat, Steven
Stashwick has a graduate studies in international relations at the University of Chicago, and is a Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy
Reserve, http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/south-china-sea-conflict-escalation-and-miscalculation-myths/
In Asia, there is recent and dramatic precedent for restraint, even after an unambiguously hostile local
event, which belies theoretical arguments about the risk of miscalculation and unintended escalation.
When the South Korean warship Cheonan was sunk in 2010, South Korea determined that North Korea was
responsible. Far from a mere ‘incident’ of the sort worried over in the South China Sea, this was a belligerent act against South Korea’s
armed forces. And yet, there was no miscalculation-fueled conflict spiral, and instead a strategically
calibrated response. It remains unknown whether the sinking of the Cheonan was ordered by the North Koreans (they continue to deny
any responsibility), the act of a renegade, or, perhaps least plausibly, an accident. What is clear is that despite a sunken ship and 46 sailors
killed, the incident did not spiral out of control. This suggests that South Korea’s political
calculus did not view militarily
punishing North Korea worth the risk of a renewed – and potentially nuclear – war, which is to say that an
extraordinary but tactical-level event did not trump strategic preferences. Even so, some take the miscalculation-escalation
dynamic so far as to suggest that incidents between fishing vessels and coast guards in the South China
Sea might lead to war. In view of the Cold War record and the recent Cheonan example, such
propositions are drastically overstated. It is conceivable that a state already resolved to escalate a dispute
militarily might view a local maritime incident as a convenient casus belli. But in that emphatically calculated
case, no institutional impediments to such incidents would prevent the hostility. On the contrary, the
prevalence of coast guards and fishing vessels is actually a sign of restraint. For a front so often considered a
“flashpoint,” it is notable how few incidents in the South China Sea are between naval assets. This is not accident or luck, but instead suggests
that regional players deliberately use lightly armed coast guard and other para-military “white hull” vessels to enforce their claims. Because
these units do not have the ability to escalate force the way warships do, it in fact signals their desire to avoid escalation. And while “gray
hull” naval vessels may be just over the horizon providing an implicit threat of force, they can also provide a further constraint
on potential incidents; their very presence compels parties to consider how far to escalate without
inviting more serious responses.
Negative’s Files
272
Hegemony Advantage Answers - SCS
Impact Answers
Impact Turn: Worst case predictions cause failed policy making, trade off with better
solutions, and risk escalation – we need to prioritize probability
Bruce Schneier March 13, 2010, Worst-Case Thinking, Schneier on Security, Bruce Schneier is an internationally renowned security
technologist and author, MA CS American University, http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/05/worst-case_thin.html
At a security conference recently, the moderator asked the panel of distinguished cybersecurity leaders what their nightmare scenario was. The
answers were the predictable array of large-scale attacks: against our communications infrastructure, against the power grid, against the
financial system, in combination with a physical attack. I didn't get to give my answer until the afternoon, which was: "My
nightmare
scenario is that people keep talking about their nightmare scenarios." There's a certain blindness that
comes from worst-case thinking. An extension of the precautionary principle, it involves imagining the worst possible
outcome and then acting as if it were a certainty. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for
risk analysis, and fear for reason. It fosters powerlessness and vulnerability and magnifies social
paralysis. And it makes us more vulnerable to the effects of terrorism. Worst-case thinking means generally bad decision
making for several reasons. First, it's only half of the cost-benefit equation. Every decision has costs and benefits,
risks and rewards. By speculating about what can possibly go wrong, and then acting as if that is likely to
happen, worst-case thinking focuses only on the extreme but improbable risks and does a poor job at
assessing outcomes. Second, it's based on flawed logic. It begs the question by assuming that a
proponent of an action must prove that the nightmare scenario is impossible. Third, it can be used to
support any position or its opposite. If we build a nuclear power plant, it could melt down. If we don't
build it, we will run short of power and society will collapse into anarchy. If we allow flights near Iceland's volcanic
ash, planes will crash and people will die. If we don't, organs won’t arrive in time for transplant operations and people will die. If we don't
invade Iraq, Saddam Hussein might use the nuclear weapons he might have. If we do, we might destabilize the Middle East, leading to
widespread violence and death. Of course, not all fears are equal. Those that we tend to exaggerate are more easily justified by worst-case
thinking. So terrorism fears trump privacy fears, and almost everything else; technology is hard to understand and therefore scary; nuclear
weapons are worse than conventional weapons; our children need to be protected at all costs; and annihilating the planet is bad. Basically, any
fear that would make a good movie plot is amenable to worst-case thinking. Fourth and finally, worst-case
thinking validates
ignorance. Instead of focusing on what we know, it focuses on what we don't know -- and what we can
imagine. Remember Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's quote? "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me,
because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we
know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." And this: "the
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Ignorance
isn't a cause for doubt; when you can fill that ignorance
with imagination, it can be a call to action. Even worse, it can lead to hasty and dangerous acts. You can't
wait for a smoking gun, so you act as if the gun is about to go off. Rather than making us safer, worst-case thinking has the
potential to cause dangerous escalation. The new undercurrent in this is that our society no longer has the ability
to calculate probabilities. Risk assessment is devalued. Probabilistic thinking is repudiated in favor of
"possibilistic thinking": Since we can't know what's likely to go wrong, let's speculate about what can possibly go wrong. Worst-case
thinking leads to bad decisions, bad systems design, and bad security. And we all have direct experience with its effects: airline security and the
TSA, which we make fun of when we're not appalled that they're harassing 93-year-old women or keeping first graders off airplanes. You can't
be too careful! Actually, you can. You can refuse to fly because of the possibility of plane crashes. You can lock your children in the house
because of the possibility of child predators. You can eschew all contact with people because of the possibility of hurt. Steven Hawking wants to
avoid trying to communicate with aliens because they might be hostile; does he want to turn off all the planet's television broadcasts because
they're radiating into space? It isn't hard to parody worst-case thinking, and at its extreme it's a psychological condition. Frank Furedi, a
sociology professor at the University of Kent, writes: "Worst-case thinking encourages society to adopt fear as one of the dominant principles
around which the public, the government and institutions should organize their life. It institutionalizes insecurity and fosters a mood of
confusion and powerlessness. Through
popularizing the belief that worst cases are normal, it incites people to
Negative’s Files
273
feel defenseless and vulnerable to a wide range of future threats." Even worse, it plays directly into the hands of
terrorists, creating a population that is easily terrorized -- even by failed terrorist attacks like the Christmas Day underwear bomber and the
Times Square SUV bomber. When someone
is proposing a change, the onus should be on them to justify it over
the status quo. But worst-case thinking is a way of looking at the world that exaggerates the rare and
unusual and gives the rare much more credence than it deserves. It isn't really a principle; it's a cheap trick to
justify what you already believe. It lets lazy or biased people make what seem to be cogent arguments
without understanding the whole issue. And when people don't need to refute counterarguments, there's no point in listening to
them.
Negative’s Files
274
Hegemony Advantage Answers - SCS
Solvency Answers
Turn: US military action in South China Sea leads to Chinese backlash
Doug Bandow and Eric Gomez, October 22, 2015, Further Militarizing the South China Sea May Undermine Freedom of
Navigation, CATO Institute, Doug Bandow is Senior Fellow and Eric Gomez is Research Associate at the Cato Institute,
www.cato.org/publications/commentary/further-militarizing-south-china-sea-may-undermine-freedom-navigation
A FONOP also is likely to spark a Chinese backlash, hindering a peaceful resolution of SCS disputes. As
MIT’s Taylor Fravel observed, a FONOP “gives China an opportunity to assert that the United States is the
country ‘militarizing’ the South China Sea,” providing Beijing with an excuse to respond in kind. It would be
better to instead test Chinese pledges of goodwill. Xi Jinping’s recent promise not to militarize the artificial islands may be insincere, but
conducting a FONOP will create pressure for Xi to respond aggressively, even if his commitment to eschew militarization was genuine. Likewise,
China would appear aggressive, dangerous, and duplicitous if it continued to take provocative actions after promising to not militarize, making
an American response appear reasonable. Additionally, a FONOP plays into Chinese nationalist rhetoric that paints American actions as
hypocritical and one-sided. What about America’s allies and friends? Reassuring Washington’s partners appears to be the true objective of the
upcoming FONOP. To make up for their limited military capabilities, other claimants such as Vietnam and the Philippines have turned to the
United States. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has repeatedly proclaimed that American participation in the SCS dispute is intended to reassure
allies that Washington will not leave them flapping in the wind. For instance, at the Shangri La Dialogue, Carter declared, “There should be no
mistake: the United States will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows.” A FONOP in the SCS would back his rhetoric. However,
if China uses the U.S. action as a rationale for maintaining or increasing the rate of island reclamation
then friendly states likely would feel even more threatened. This would counteract the FONOP’s original
purpose and would likely push the United States and China into a dangerous spiral, requiring more
shows of force to reassure allies against an assertive China acting aggressively in response to American
shows of force. Chinese behavior in the SCS is a legitimate concern for the United States, but Washington should realize that
this dispute is unlikely to be resolved with military power. Indeed, problems will only grow if both
Washington and Beijing keep poking each other in the eye. Maintaining peace in the SCS instead
requires the United States and China to work together to resolve precisely these kinds of contentious
issues.
Negative’s Files
275
Hegemony Advantage Answers - SCS
Solvency Answers
Turn: South China Sea engagement leads to US hegemony decline and Chinese
hegemony increase
Philip Reynolds June 01, 2016, Is China Winning in the South China Sea?, The Diplomat, Phil Reynolds is a Ph.D. candidate at the
University of Hawaii, thediplomat.com/2016/06/is-china-winning-in-the-south-china-sea/
China is using the South China Sea islands as the means of making the 21st century for itself what the
20th century was to the United States. Chinese policies, coldly rational, are meant to illicit a military
response from the United States. As the dominant power, Washington has little incentive to give the
challenger a stage on which it can engage the United States as a peer. On the other hand, China has
everything to gain from a successful challenge. This leads to an interesting hypothesis: The islands
themselves are really not the objective of Chinese expansion. Rather, the goal of China’s grand strategy
may be to successfully challenge the United States in the eyes of the world. If China is correct, any actual
conflict with the United States will not end in an all-out war. Intense pressure from the international community will quickly lead to a
negotiated settlement. This is a win for China, one that it is preparing for in its new Defense White Paper, just released in mid-2015.
China has been preparing its maritime forces for “offshore waters defense” and to “protect is maritime rights and interests.” China’s ability to
deny the United States entry into contested areas is meant to last just long enough for negotiations to begin. Faced with the loss of ships and
sailors, it will be difficult to convince the American public that Chinese hegemony in the western Pacific is an existential threat, especially after
the debacle in Iraq. History
and China have maneuvered the United States into a bleak position with four
alternatives, all of which benefit China: The United States can continue with low-grade military
confrontations that do little to stop Chinese expansion; the United States can go to war and quickly find
itself with heavy losses and a negotiated settlement; it can retreat, leaving its recent partner nations to
develop their own status quo with China; or it can move away from the “pivot to Asia” toward a
more realpolitik approach vis-a-vis China. A fifth outcome, worst of all, is that newly emboldened
partners push back against the Chinese, triggering a shooting war and drawing in the United States. All
five outcomes make China look stronger and closer to making the 21st century a Chinese century.
Negative’s Files
276
International Law Advantage Answers - SCS
Uniqueness Answers
Non-Unique: China’s South China Sea claims are correct and long standing – the
problem is with International law’s ambiguity not China
Zheng Zhihua June 12, 2015, WHY DOES CHINA’S MARITIME CLAIM REMAIN AMBIGUOUS?, Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, Dr.
Zheng Zhihua is director of Joint Institute for Maritime Law and History at East China University of Political Science and Law (ECUPL). He is also
deputy general secretary of Shanghai Law and Society Association. Dr. Zheng works in the fields of oceans law and policy. He is also a research
fellow of Law and Society Center, KoGuan Law School of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, amti.csis.org/why-does-chinas-maritime-claim-remainambiguous/
China
has an unequivocal and consistent territorial claim on the islands and other land features in the
South China Sea. As a matter of fact, it has unequivocally stated its claim in three official documents: the 1947
Location Map of the South China Sea Islands released by the Kuomingtang government in Nanjing, the 1958
Declaration of the Government of New China on the Territorial Sea, and the 1992 Law on Territorial Sea
and Contiguous Zone. These documents state that the Dongsha (Pratas) Islands, Xisha (Paracel) Islands, Zhongsha (Macclesfield
Bank/Scarborough Shoal) Islands, Nansha (Spratly) Islands and other islands are part of the sovereign territory of China. Some countries
view China’s maritime claim in the South China Sea as ambiguous for historical reasons. The first reason is that
the UNCLOS does not properly address the issue of historic rights. Despite the reference to historic title in Articles 15
and 298(1)(a), the provision on historic bays in Article 15(6), and the recognition of traditional fishing rights in Article 51, it does not have any
provision for the definition of historic rights or their specific connotation and denotation. The
second is that no consistent
understanding has been reached in international law on historic rights. For example, Yehuda Z. Blum, an Israeli
professor of law and diplomat, has observed: The term “historic rights” denotes the possession by a state, over certain land or maritime areas,
of rights that would not normally accrue to it under the general rules of international law, such rights having been acquired by that state
through a process of historical consolidation … Historic rights are a product of a lengthy process comprising a long series of acts, omissions and
patterns of behavior which, in their entirety, and through their cumulative effect, bring such rights into being and consolidate them into rights
valid in international law.” A state acquires historic rights through effective exercise of these rights by one or more states, a practice followed
by relevant states. The concept of historic rights is almost equivalent to that of historic water. In this vein, Leo Bouchez, a renowned
international law professor, says the concept of “historic rights” has evolved from the concept of “historic water” and “historic bays”. The
development from “historic bays” to “historic water” and from “historic title” to “historic rights” indicates the evolution of legal concepts with
the development of state practice, and that such concepts have not been finalized. From
the point of view of China, one of the
world’s oldest civilizations, the South China Sea is part of the traditional Asian order and, hence, it would be
inappropriate to comprehend the Nine-Dash Line by relying solely on the Westphalian nation-state system. As Keyuan Zou, Harris professor of
International Law at the University of Central has observed, the
South China Sea Nine-Dash Line map was officially
released by the Chinese Kuomingtang government half a century before the UNCLOS, and one decade before the
1958 Four Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea. Thus, China’s historic rights within the Nine-Dash
Line cannot be ignored. The Nine-Dash Line drawn by the Chinese government in 1947, at approximately the median position between
China’s South China Sea islands and reefs and the coastlines of bordering states, reflects the scope of China’s claims. The consistency of
the claims has been maintained by China after 1949, and the claims have been recognized or acquiesced
to by bordering states over a long period of time. Therefore, the Nine-Dash Line has probative force and
weight under international law. The so-called ambiguity in China’s Nine-Dash Line map and its claim on
the waters within that line mainly stems from the imperfection of the UNCLOS. To some extent, international
law on historic rights is defective in theory and doctrine and lacks a unified standard. China has been striving to clarify its claim in
the South China Sea. But the joint efforts of the international community are also needed to complement and improve the UNCLOS by agreeing
to a new international convention or protocol in order to clarify the understanding of historic rights.
Negative’s Files
277
International Law Advantage Answers - SCS
Uniqueness Answers
Non-Unique: Chinese island building in the South China Sea is legal
GARY Leupp, NOVEMBER 4, 2015, Fishing in Troubled Waters: the U.S. “Pushback” Against China’s Claims in the South China Sea, Gary
Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion,
www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/04/fishing-in-troubled-waters-the-u-s-pushback-against-chinas-claims-in-the-south-china-sea/
But there is in fact nothing illegal about building up maritime possessions you claim as your own. Another
nation may challenge you, as when PRC warships clashed with Vietnamese transport ships in the Spratlys in 1988. (Right was established by
might; 70 Vietnamese died and some reefs changed hands.) But if
them with as much concrete as you want.
you can acquire control over reefs you can surround
Negative’s Files
278
International Law Advantage Answers - SCS
Impact Answers
Turn: International law is used as a cover for US imperialism
James Petras, December 03, 2012, “Legal Imperialism and the international Law: Legal Foundations for War Crimes, Debt Collection
and Colonization”, Global Research, James Petras is a writer at Global Research, http://www.globalresearch.ca/legal-imperialism-andinternational-law-legal-foundations-for-war-crimes-debt-collection-and-colonization/5313891
Introduction By now we are familiar with imperial states using their military power to attack, destroy and occupy independent countries.
Boatloads of important studies have documented how imperial countries have seized and pillaged the resources of mineral-rich and
agriculturally productive countries, in consort with multi-national corporations. Financial critics have provided abundant data on the ways in
which imperial creditors have extracted onerous rents, royalties and debt payments from indebted countries and their taxpayers, workers,
employees and productive sectors. What has not been examined fully is the over-arching legal architecture which informs, justifies and
facilitates imperial wars, pillage and debt collection. The Centrality of Imperial Law While
force and violence, especially through
military intervention, have always been an essential part of empire-building, it does not
operate in a legal vacuum: Judicial institutions, rulings and legal precedents precede, accompany and
follow the process of empire building. The legality of imperial activity is based largely on the imperial state’s judicial system and
overt and covert
its own legal experts. Their legal theories and opinions are always presented as over-ruling international law as well as the laws of the countries
targeted for imperial intervention. Imperial
law supersedes international law simply because imperial law is
backed by brute force; it possesses imperial/colonial air, ground and naval armed forces to ensure the supremacy of imperial law. In
contrast, international law lacks an effective enforcement mechanism. Moreover, international law, to the
extent that it is effective, is applied only to the weaker powers and to regimes designated by the imperial powers as ‘violators’. The very judicial
processes, including
the appointment of judges and prosecutors who interpret international law,
investigate international crime and arrest, sentence and punish ‘guilty’ parties are under to the influence of the reigning
imperial powers. In other words, the application and jurisdiction of international law is selective and subject to constraints imposed by the
configurations of imperial and national power. International
law, at best, can provide a ‘moral’ judgment, a not insignificant basis for
strengthening the political claims of countries, regimes and people seeking redress from imperial war crimes and economic pillage. To
counter the claims and judgments pertaining to international law, especially in the area of the Geneva protocols such
as war crimes and crimes against humanity, imperial legal experts, scholars and judges have elaborated a legal framework to justify or exempt
The Uses of Imperial Law Empire-building throughout history is the result of conquest –
the use or threat of superior military force. The US global empire is no exception. Where compliant rulers ‘invite’
imperial-state activity.
or ‘submit’ to imperial domination, such acts of treason on the part of ‘puppet’ or ‘client’ rulers usually precipitate popular rebellions, which are
then suppressed by joint imperial and collaborator armies. They cite imperial legal doctrine to justify their intervention to repress a subject
people in revolt. While empires arose through the direct or indirect use of unbridled force, the
maintenance and consolidation
of empires requires a legal framework. Legal doctrines precede, accompany and follow the expansion and consolidation of
empire for several reasons. Legality is really an extension of imperial conquest by other means. A state of constant warfare raises the cost of
imperial maintenance. Force, especially in imperial democracies undermines the sense of civic virtue, which the rulers and citizens claim to
uphold. Maintaining
‘law and order’ in the conquered nations requires a legal system and doctrine to
uphold imperial rule, giving the facade of legitimacy to the outside world , attracting collaborator classes and individuals and providing
the basis for the recruitment of local military, judicial and police officials. Imperial legal pronouncements, whether issued directly by executive,
judicial, military or administrative bodies, are
deemed the ‘supreme law of the universe’, superior to international
law and protocols fashioned by non-imperial authorities and legal experts. This does not imply that
imperial rulers totally discard international law: they just apply it selectively to their adversaries, especially
against independent nations and rulers, in order to justify imperial intervention and aggression – Hence the ‘legal bases’ for dismantling
Yugoslavia or invading Iraq and assassinating its rulers. Legal rulings are issued by the imperial judiciary to force states to comply with the
economic demands of multi-national corporations, banks, creditors and speculators, even after the local or national courts have ruled such
claims unlawful.
Negative’s Files
279
International Law Advantage Answers - SCS
Impact Answers
Turn: US international policy cloaked in mindset of superiority – leads to violence and
destruction
Glenn Greenwald, February 18, 2013, “The premises and purposes of American exceptionalism”, The Guardian, Glenn Greenwald is a
former columnist on civil liberties and US national security issues for the Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/18/american-exceptionalism-north-korea-nukes
This belief in America's unparalleled greatness has immense impact. It is not hyperbole to say that the sentiment
expressed by Cooke is the overarching belief system of the US political and media class, the primary premise shaping political discourse.
Politicians of all types routinely recite the same claim, and Cooke's tweet was quickly re-tweeted by a variety of commentators and selfproclaimed foreign policy experts from across the spectrum. Note that Cooke did not merely declare America's
superiority, but rather
affirm a principle: as a result of its objective superiority, the US has the right to do things that
other nations do not. This self-affirming belief - I can do X because I'm Good and you are barred from X
because you are Bad - is the universally invoked justification for all aggression. It's the crux of hypocrisy.
And most significantly of all, it is the violent enemy of law: the idea that everyone is bound by the same set of
rules and restraints. This eagerness to declare oneself exempt from the rules to which others are bound,
on the grounds of one's own objective superiority, is always the animating sentiment behind
nationalistic criminality. Here's what Orwell said about that in Notes on Nationalism: "All nationalists have the power of not seeing
used it to
resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of
inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of
outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of
civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by 'our' side . . . The nationalist not only does not disapprove of
atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." Preserving
this warped
morality, this nationalistic prerogative, is, far and away, the primary objective of America's foreign policy
community, composed of its political offices, media outlets, and (especially) think tanks. What Cooke expressed here - that the US, due to its
objective superiority, is not bound by the same rules as others - is the most cherished and aggressively guarded principle in that circle.
Conversely, the notion that the US should be bound by the same rules as everyone else is the most scorned and marginalized. Last week, the
Princeton professor Cornel West denounced Presidents Nixon, Bush and Obama as "war criminals", saying that "they have killed innocent
people in the name of the struggle for freedom, but they're
suspending the law, very much like Wall Street criminals".
West specifically cited Obama's covert drone wars and killing of innocent people, including children. What
West was doing there was rather straightforward: applying the same legal and moral rules to US aggression
that he has applied to other countries and which the US applies to non-friendly, disobedient regimes. In other words, West did
exactly that which is most scorned and taboo in DC policy circles.
Negative’s Files
280
International Law Advantage Answers - SCS
Impact Answers
Positive peace is an uncritical, empty moral framework – looking at actual scenarios is
more important
Peter Lawler, March 2002, Peace Review; Mar2002, Vol. 14 Issue 1, p7, Peter Lawler is Senior lecturer in international relations,
University of Manchester https://www.academia.edu/6093860/Peace_Research_War_and_the_Problem_of_Focus?auto=download
My principal concern at the time was with the growing preoccupation of much of peace research (or peace
studies) with the issue of “structural violence” and the pursuit of such goals as justice, human fulfilment,
or a more just world order—in short, the realization of positive peace. As laudable and important as such
objectives clearly are, I was unconvinced at the time that peace research brought anything distinctive to
them. Such concerns now lay at the heart of a wide range of social scientific disciplines. Furthermore, the rapid expansion of post-positivist
theorizing across the social sciences, perhaps most importantly in the fields of international relations and security studies, had eroded the
normative distinctiveness of peace research to a significant extent. I went on to suggest that peace research might reacquire focus by selfconsciously serving as a conduit between theoretical and conceptual developments across the social sciences and the continuing problem of
direct violence within and between states. By this I did not mean that peace research should simply reduce itself to conflict analysis or return to
the quasi-scientism of its foundational years. Rather, I envisaged a normatively informed peace research engaging critically with orthodox
discourses (in the Foucauldian sense) of security and strategy. In more practical terms, I
envisaged peace research as a site for
cutting-edge research into the resolution of the various extremely violent conflicts that have marked the
post-Cold-War era. Although such an engagement clearly requires consideration of the structural
impetuses to the outbreak of violence, I did not see the analysis of the origins and development of such
things as exploitation and poverty as the appropriate primary focus of peace research. Why? Because I
felt this contributed to the dissipation of peace research’s impact. This would continue the problem of peace research
being perceived as the conceptually impoverished cousin of various other disciplines, such as political economy, sociology and so on, where
research into such issues is vastly more diverse and developed. My book hardly • ew off the shelves in vast numbers, nor did my observations
cause much of a ripple in peace research circles. Galtung’s own response was confined to a couple of dismissive sentences in the introduction
to one of his recent books. Most reactions to my argument arose in the context of presentations by myself at conferences, seminars and such.
Of those who did comment, in writing or to me personally, a minority supported my sentiments but the majority took the view that I was
arguing for peace research effectively to shift back to a focus on negative peace and this could hardly be a forward step. Some accused me of
being conservative, reactionary even. I now teach and research primarily in the fi eld of international relations and here, by contrast, the
perception that I am a critic of peace research, and Galtung in particular, has generally met with either approval or acute disinterest. This is in
spite of the fact that many, although by no means all, of my disciplinary colleagues apparently share the normative sentiments of many peace
researchers. In other words, for many international relations scholars, peace research continues to have an image problem. True, the crassest
form of an international relations critique of peace research still falls back on the tired dualism of realism versus idealism, with peace research
firmly and pejoratively located within the latter. A more serious
critique, however, revolves around three common
perceptions of peace research: the absence of a substantial theoretical or conceptual core, a tendency
to deploy uncritically key terms such as “structural violence” or “positive peace,” and an unclear
standpoint with regard to direct violence, particularly the use of violence in the pursuit of justice or
other values. These themes, threaded through my own analysis of Galtungian peace research, led me to the conclusion
that, in spite of an overt value orientation, peace research could not provide an adequate account of its
own normative nature.
Negative’s Files
281
International Law Advantage Answers - SCS
Solvency Answers
Turn: FONOPS hurt International law and expose US hypocrisy
Xinhua, January 31, 2016, Commentary: The international-law irony of U.S. provocations in South China Sea, Xinhua News Service,
Xinhua is one of the major international and Chinese news providers, news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-01/31/c_135061532.htm
Washington has long claimed that the so-called freedom of navigation operations by the U.S. military
aims to safeguard public access to waters and airspace as allowed by the international law. However,
citing seemingly lofty motives will not obscure the fact that the U.S. maneuvers in South China Sea
threaten China's sovereignty and security interests, endanger regional peace and stability and constitute
a grave violation of the international law. As ironic as it is, Washington has always defended its arbitrary
move by referring to international law, but it has so far not approved the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea, which establishes legal order and regulations on international waters. The calculation
behind such a move is crystal clear: The United States is unwilling to be bound by an international treaty, which it
claims as severely flawed, because the sole superpower has already controlled such maritime resources as oil and gas deposits
through military power. Another irony is that Uncle Sam asserts that it maintains freedom of navigation in the
South China Sea on the legal basis of international law, but it applies standards unilaterally defined by
itself. In a document issued in 2015 regarding the so-called freedom of navigation program, the U.S.
government said the foremost target of the U.S. action is "excessive maritime claims that are defined by
the U.S. side." The document reveals that Washington substitutes its own standard for international law
and attempts to unilaterally impose its own idea upon other countries. Moreover, the U.S. action itself
to maintain so-called freedom of navigation under international law is a threat to the principles of
international law.
Negative’s Files
282
International Law Advantage Answers - SCS
Solvency Answers
Turn: FONOPS hurt International law – 3 reasons
Hu Bo, November 17, 2015, The Hypocrisy of US Freedom of Navigation Operations in the South China Sea, The Diplomat, Hu Bo is a
Research Fellow at the Institute of Ocean Research of Peking University, thediplomat.com/2015/11/the-hypocrisy-of-us-freedom-of-navigationoperations-in-the-south-china-sea/
The truth is, however, these two accusations are both unfounded and inconsistent with the long-standing U.S. policy on the South China Sea
issue. On
the one hand, the U.S. declares that it holds no position on the sovereignty issue in the South
China Sea, but on the other, it openly challenges China’s sovereignty claims in the area. The mismatch of
its words and deeds is a violation of the principle of estoppel in international law. The U.S. accuses China of
endangering freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, but instead of providing evidence to prove its point, it only keeps clamoring that
China’s island and reef construction in Nansha is “too quick, too much.” The Lassen’s operations
in Nansha constitute a grave
violation of many principles of international law and norms that the United States has supported over
the years, mainly in the following three aspects. First, the U.S. act was an abuse of the rules on freedom
of navigation. The U.S. intrusion within 12 nautical miles of China’s Nansha Islands was a typical act of
“hazardous passage.” To avoid escalation of conflicts, China has remained restrained on the South China Sea disputes, refraining from
publishing the base points and baselines of territorial sea of the Nansha Islands. But China is entitled to its territorial sovereignty and maritime
rights and interests, whether the base points and baselines are published or not. Even if we endorse the U.S. claim that Zhubi Reef, as a lowtide elevation, does not enjoy the right of 12-nautical-mile territorial limits, Zhongye [Thitu] Island near Zhubi obviously does, and that island is
also part of China’s territory. The United States repeatedly drew an analogy between the U.S. intrusion in the waters close to the Nansha
Islands and a Chinese naval vessel’s passage within 12 nautical miles of the Aleutian Islands in September, claiming that its activity was
“innocent passage.” The fact is, under international law, the Tanaga Pass of the Aleutian Islands is open to international navigation, so “transit
passage” rather than “innocent passage” applied to the Chinese warship. The
12 nautical miles of the Nansha Islands, on the
not part of international pathways. Why did the U.S. vessel choose to take this detour when the international
waterway was wide enough for its passage? The U.S. act was obviously an abuse of the rules on freedom of
navigation under international law. Second, the U.S. show of force was a breach of its international
obligations concerning no use or threat of force. Due to the complicated hydrological regime around the Nansha Islands and
other hand, are
diversity of the naval strengths of different countries, China has all along been tolerant to vessels that mistakenly entered waters close to the
Nansha Islands. The United States itself also recognizes that it once entered within 12 nautical miles of the Nansha Islands before 2012. But this
time, the United States identified a 12-nautical-mile line before declaring its challenge. Its action was intended to negate China’s territorial
sovereignty and maritime rights and interests over the islands and reefs in the area, and no doubt posed a blatant military threat to China. It
is
natural that China and the United States have disputes when it comes to the rules of maritime
navigation, but the differences should be resolved through negotiations and consultations. This is the
normal international practice for dispute settlement. The U.S. use of force apparently ran counter to the
principle of resolving international disputes by peaceful means and its obligations under international
treaties, and constituted a gross infringement of the purposes and principles of the United Nations
Charter and other international rules and norms. Third, the U.S. act violated China’s territorial
sovereignty and eroded the basic principles of international law. Sovereign states are main players in
today’s international system, and respect for sovereignty is the basic principle of international law.
Previously, the United States had repeatedly emphasized that it held no position on the sovereignty of the Nansha islands and reefs. But this
time, by conducting the so-called freedom-of-navigation operations, the United States intended to negate China’s sovereignty and maritime
interests over its long-garrisoned islands and reefs where extension projects were carried out recently. This was a direct provocation against
China’s sovereignty. If countries were allowed to willfully challenge the sovereignty claims of other countries, wouldn’t the entire international
system be pushed to the verge of collapse? The U.S. act was not only a violation of the principle of estoppel in international law, but also a
grave challenge to the sovereignty principle of the international system. In
a nutshell, the United States was actually
engaged in hegemony and power politics, a prevailing pursuit in the world in the 19th century, under the
cloak of the 21st century endeavor of safeguarding freedom of navigation and international justice. This
Negative’s Files
283
is sheer hypocrisy. The United States might as well make clear its real intention to the world that it does
not want to see any increase of Chinese power in the South China Sea.
Negative’s Files
284
Counterplan to SCS Aff (Consult ASEAN)
Counterplan Text
The United States Federal Government should engaging in binding consultation with
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations before substantially increasing its air and
sea deployment and increasing its freedom of navigation operations in the East China
Sea and South China Sea
Negative’s Files
285
Counterplan to SCS Aff (Consult ASEAN)
Solvency
ASEAN says yes – scared of china
DAN De Luce & KEITH Johnson, FEBRUARY 17, 2016, Crunch Time for Washington and Beijing in the South China Sea, Foreigh
policy, Dan De Luce is Foreign Policy’s chief national security correspondent; Keith Johnson is a senior reporter covering energy for Foreign
Policy, foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/17/crunch-time-for-washington-and-beijing-in-the-south-china-sea/
Tellingly, Beijing deployed the advanced weaponry to the South China Sea just as President Obama hosted the 10 countries of the Association
of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, at a two-day summit in California — the first to be held in the United States. As in
recent years,
dueling claims and provocative actions in the South China Sea dominated the talks. ASEAN members
danced around an explicit condemnation of China’s behavior, but in a joint statement at the end of the
summit the Southeast Asian leaders specifically and unanimously agreed to uphold the international,
rules-based order; eschew militarization of disputes; and respect freedom of navigation. China is not one of the 10 ASEAN
member nations. To date, China’s claims and land reclamation activities have driven many Asian nations closer
to the United States. Tokyo and Washington revised their joint defense guidelines, and Japan has largely
jettisoned its post-World War II pacifist stance. The Philippines is asking U.S. military forces to come
back 25 years after kicking them out. Even Vietnam, a communist country with close trade ties with
China, is moving closer to Washington and seeking to buy U.S. weaponry to push back against Beijing.
Negative’s Files
286
Counterplan to SCS Aff (Consult ASEAN)
Net Benefit Uniqueness and Link
ASEAN mistrusts the US because we don’t consult them on regional security issues
Sheldon W. Simon & Evelyn Goh, September 21, 2007, China, the United States, and South-East Asia: Contending Perspectives on
Politics, Security, and Economics (Asian Security Studies), SHELDON W. SIMON is Professor of Political Science and Facilty Associate for the
Center for Asian Studies and Program in Southeast Asian Studies at Arizona State University, where he has also served as Chair of Political
Science and Director of the Center for Asian Studies - Evelyn Goh is Shedden Professor of Strategic Policy Studies at Australian National
University College of Asia and the Pacific, she holds an DPhil, MPhil, and MA,https://www.amazon.com/China-United-States-South-EastAsia/dp/0415569508
In contrast, the
United States is often perceived as displaying less commitment, attention, and care. US
failure to consult ASEAN states on matters of Southeast Asian concern is a longstanding complaint but
many in ASEAN nevertheless see it as indicative of the unimportance the United States attaches to
Southeast Asia or a lack of interest in the region. Most recently, the United States has also been criticized for
not paying enough attention to the concerns of Southeast Asian states and East and Southeast Asian
issues. For example, of the major powers, the United States comes across as having the least respect or
patience for ASEAN and ASEAN- derived processes. US officials that work with ASEAN can, in fact, be quite blunt about this.
This leads to Washington's preference for dealing with states bilaterally, as opposed to multilaterally, but ASEAN consequently sees
Washington as being less supportive of ASEAN as an organization. Some also worry about potentially divisive
effects on ASEAN that come from this bilateral approach.
Negative’s Files
287
Counterplan to SCS Aff (Consult ASEAN)
Net Benefit Impact
US-ASEAN partnership accesses all major impacts – 5 reasons
Nina Hachigian, 17 February, 2016, Ambassador Hachigian’s Remarks at the U.S. ASEAN Business Council Conference, San Francisco,
CA, US Mission to ASEAN, Nina Hachigian is US Ambassador to ASEAN, Ambassador Nina Hachigian was previously a Senior Fellow at the Center
for American Progress. She was the editor of Debating China: The U.S. – China Relationship in Ten Conversations and co-author of The Next
American Century: How the U.S. Can Thrive as Other Powers Rise (Simon & Schuster, 2008), as well as many reports on Asia
policy,https://asean.usmission.gov/ambassador-hachigians-remarks-at-the-u-s-asean-business-council-conference-san-francisco-ca/
Now let me take a step back and address a basic question–What motivated President Obama to focus on ASEAN? Why did the US Government
spent a relatively large amount of the most precious resource we have—the President’s time at Sunnylands this week? In other words, why
does ASEAN matter to the United States? The short answer is: We are investing in ASEAN because it is in our clear
national interest to do so. ASEAN unity and integration benefit the United States. Of course there will always be other
parts of the world that also need our attention. But there are many reasons the U.S. will retain a focus on ASEAN, no matter who the next
President is. Let me share five
reasons why I believe ASEAN is important to the U.S., from my vantage point in Jakarta, but it
ASEAN is important to
American prosperity. Trade and investment with ASEAN means jobs and profits at home. American companies
are by far the largest investors in Southeast Asia. U.S. private-sector cumulative investment is larger than China’s,
Japan’s, and South Korea’s combined. ASEAN countries are now returning the favor, directing their
investment towards the United States, and a number of my fellow Ambassadors in the region have led reverse trade missions
boils down to three words: growth, stability and rules. Economics You know the first one well: economics.
here. Investment in the United States by ASEAN countries has increased more than from any other region in the past decade. ASEAN is a rapidly
growing region with an expanding workforce and a growing middle class. The ASEAN Community and, in particular, the ASEAN Economic
Community, is good for U.S. business because many want to take a regional approach. Trade with ASEAN, reaching a quarter of a trillion dollars
in 2014, makes ASEAN America’s fourth largest trading partner. Importantly, this trade accounts for over half a million jobs in the U.S.– jobs in
every single state in the Union. The ASEAN middle class is growing by leaps and bounds, with some reports suggesting that it will more than
double by 2020. Importantly, ASEAN has a plan, a very detailed set of blueprints for the ASEAN Economic Community, to reach its ambitious
goal of a single market and production base. And the plan has strong political will behind it. It won’t happen overnight, but I am confident it
will happen. To support the AEC, the United States government has been helping ASEAN to establish the ASEAN Single Window an electronic
customs system to reduce red tape and customs opportunism in the region. It will launch with five ASEAN countries this year, and one day will
connect all ten, so importers and exporters will only have to fill out paperwork once for the whole region. Transnational
Challenges
The second reason for our engagement is that ASEAN is a strategic partner for the U.S. on key transnational
challenges that face us all— climate change, terrorism, cyber security, human trafficking and wildlife
trafficking, to name a few. In Sunnylands, leaders agreed to work harder together to prevent such attacks as occurred in Jakarta, and
San Bernardino. They also discussed trafficking in persons. ASEAN signed its landmark new Convention in 2015. Two ASEAN nations have
already ratified it and once six have done so, it will go into effect and there will be better tools for combatting what President Obama has called
“modern slavery.” We will work with ASEAN to help implement the Convention. Another challenge that I have focused on during my time in
the region is the degradation of marine and coastal ecosystems. Southeast Asia is home to a greater concentration of marine biodiversity than
anywhere else in the world. The waters there support many thousands of fish species and other marine animals that are vital for maintaining
healthy ecosystems, offering livelihoods for millions of people in Southeast Asia, and providing seafood that they eat and that we in the U.S.
Climate change, the construction of
artificial islands on coral reefs, harvesting of endangered species, and illegal and overfishing are all
happening to an alarming degree. We are partners with ASEAN on all these fronts. Moreover, new regulations that the U.S. will
also consume every day. This marine bounty, and its beauty, is under severe threat.
enact this year to help prevent illegally caught fish from entering our ports will send a powerful market signal to the region and will, I think and
hope, change behavior on the ground. Geopolitics The third reason the United States will have a long-term focus on ASEAN is because an
integrated, unified ASEAN is geopolitically stabilizing. It is stabilizing because ASEAN works to
institutionalize cooperation, threatens no one, dedicates itself to non-violence and seeks strategic
independence. ASEAN forms the stable center of a region with multiple big powers—China, Japan, India
and the United States each have a major stake. Whereas it could be difficult for any one ASEAN country to stand up to a big
power when it takes actions that increase tensions and risks, ASEAN as a group can and has. We want Asia to continue to enjoy the peace that
Negative’s Files
288
has allowed so many to prosper, and ASEAN is a critical part of that. In this sense, ASEAN leads by example. It has
helped preserve
stability among its incredibly diverse member nations for nearly 50 years. If you think about the
tumultuous geopolitical environment in Southeast Asia at the time of ASEAN’s founding in 1967, it is
remarkable that ASEAN managed to forge and keep the peace until today. Further economic integration
will only increase the stabilizing political role ASEAN plays. Convening Power Fourth in my list of why the United
States cares about ASEAN is that ASEAN convenes Asia. No one else can bring all the countries of Asia together at
the East Asia Summit, the ASEAN Regional Forum and other for a every year to discuss difficult strategic questions. At the East Asia
Summit last November in Kuala Lumpur, President Obama and leaders of half the world’s population discussed key political and security issues
facing the region and globe. We believe that it
is vital that officials discuss these issues and not sweep them under
the rug. Rules-Based Order in Asia Finally, but in some ways most important in my list of five reasons why the United States is
focused on ASEAN is this: ASEAN plays a vital role in advancing the rules-based order for the Asia Pacific. What
binds ASEAN together is a shared commitment to a set of principles. Three of them are: the importance
of rule of law, the peaceful resolution of disputes and the upholding of international law. Rules and norms
provide the connective tissue of the ASEAN Community. Common approaches, standards and rules are the currency of ASEAN; it is through
their harmonization that countries are integrating. ASEAN also shares our respect for international law which connects it to outside powers and
defines expectations for our behavior. Rules
and norms create predictability. They create a sense of fairness
because all countries have the same burden of compliance and responsibility. Common rules and norms foster
habits of cooperation. In other words, over time, when countries follow shared rules and norms they can create trust. That is not easy, but in
ASEAN, because the ten countries agree on some basic principles and have built up an infrastructure of rules and norms, they have developed a
baseline of trust. Beyond the five reasons I have discussed, the United States and ASEAN are, of course, connected through personal and
cultural links. The United States is a Pacific nation, and we are bound to Southeast Asia by millions of threads through families, through
educational exchanges, through tourism. These enduring ties bind us in friendship and humanity. For these reasons and more, America will
remain deeply engaged in ASEAN for generations to come. As Secretary Kerry has said: “The
future of ASEAN are absolutely interconnected.”
future of the United States and the
I hope to see you out in the region soon. Thank you.
Negative’s Files
289
Counterplan to SCS Aff (Consult ASEAN)
Permutation
Permutation fails: ASEAN will discover the lie – government will leak the secret
James Q Wilson, John J. DiIulio, & Meena Bose, 2013, American Government: Brief Version, p. 131, James Q Wilson is
Professor of Political Science at UCLA; John J Dilulio is Professor of Political Science at Princeton, Meena Bose is Executive Dean of Hofstra
University’s Peter S. Kalikow School of Government, Public Policy, and International Affairs, and Director of Hofstra’s Peter S. Kalikow Center for
the Study of the American Presidency,
https://books.google.com/books?id=TdI1cDI2MvoC&dq=%22American+government+is+the+leakiest+in+the+world.+The+bureaucracy,+memb
ers+of+Congress,+and+the+White+House+staff+regularly+leak+stories+favorable+to+their+interests.+Of+late+the+leaks+have%22&source=gbs
_navlinks_s
American government is the leakiest in the world. The bureaucracy, members of Congress, and the
White House staff regularly leak stories favorable to their interests. Of late the leaks have become geysers,
gushing forth torrents of insider stories. Many people in and out of government find it depressing that our government
seems unable to keep anything secret for long. Others think that the public has a right to know even more and that there are
still too many secrets. However you view leaks, you should understand why we have so many. The answer is found in the Constitution.
Because we have separate institutions that must share power, each branch of government competes
with the others to get power. One way to compete is to try to use the press to advance your pet projects
and to make the other side look bad. There are far fewer leaks in other democratic nations in party because power is centralized
in the hands of a prime minister, who does not need to leak in order to get the upper hand over the legislature, and because the legislature has
too little information to be a good source of leaks. In addition, we have no Official Secrets Act of the kind that exists in England; except for a few
matters, it is not against the law for the press to receive and print government secrets.
Negative’s Files
290
Topicality to SCS Aff
1. Interpretation: FONOPs are military, not diplomacy
FENG Zhang, Mar. 10, 2016, Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea: A Modus Vivendi between the US and China?, Feng Zhang is
a Fellow in the Department of International Relations at the Australian National University’s Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs and an
Adjunct Professor at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies in Haikou, China,
ippreview.com/index.php/Home/Blog/single/id/43.html
Who defines “excessive maritime claims”; which countries
or international institutions have the right to take
concrete actions to safeguard freedom of navigation; is military force the best instrument—these are all
legitimate questions that can be asked about FONOPs. In conducting FONOPs, the US claims to safeguard the rule-based
liberal international order. But a rule-based international order demands diplomacy and international institutions to solve
disputes in the first instance, not unilateral assertions of military power. The US claims that its failure to ratify UNCLOS does not
undermine its effort to uphold the treaty’s principles in practice since UNCLOS reflects customary international law. But while the
principles it upholds may be true to UNCLOS, its FONOPs approach is rather anti-UNCLOS since UNCLOS
would call for diplomatic rather than military means to safeguard freedom of navigation.
2. Violation: FONOPs do not meet the term ‘diplomatic engagement’ in the resolution
3. Standards:
a. Fairness: The only fair debate is a topical debate. If a case is not topical
then it is unpredictable, moots our resolutional arguments, and shifts the
ground of the debate. An unfair debate skews to the affirmatives
advantage and makes it more difficult to be the negative. When debate
is unfair it makes students want to quit.
b. Education: If the affirmative is allowed to run untopical plans it destroys
our education. We have no incentive to learn about the topic so that we
can challenge their facts. The framer’s intent was for students to learn
about and understand the US’ economic and diplomatic interactions with
China so that we can become better decision makers and citizens – the
plan destroys that.
4. Voters: Topicality is a voting issue because it is a gateway issue. If the affirmative is
untopical then there can be no meaningful debate – you should vote against them
on topicality before evaluating any other positions.
Negative’s Files
291
Topicality to SCS Aff
2nc/1nr Interpretation Extension
Diplomacy and FONOPs are different strategies
GORDON Lubold & JEREMY Page, Sept. 24, 2015, U.S. to Press China on Island Expansions, The Wall Street Journal, Gordon Lubold
is a senior military writer for Defense One. Before that, he was a senior national security writer for Foreign Policy magazine & Jeremy Page is a
reporter in the Wall Street Journal's Beijing bureau, covering domestic politics, international relations and security, www.wsj.com/articles/u-sto-press-china-on-island-expansions-1443141465
Mr. Kerry’s diplomatic maneuvering
is part of an Obama administration “name and shame” strategy,
publicly calling out Beijing for claims that the U.S. says threaten a major trade route and create
instability. The U.S. has opted for the diplomatic course over the one suggested by U.S. military
commanders: more aggressively countering China by sending American aircraft or warships throughout
the islands as a signal that Washington doesn’t recognize Beijing’s claims. Instead, the Obama administration has
turned to what the State Department calls “creative diplomacy” in turning up the heat on China by isolating them on the issue. Mr. Xi’s visit this
week will determine if it will work.
Negative’s Files
292
Space Negative
Negative’s Files
293
Inherency Answers - Space
Repeal will be done anyway without plan
Andrew Jones, October 13, 2013, NASA chief says ban on China space cooperation is ‘temporary’, Journalist following China's space
program, international relations, and more, gbtimes.com/china/nasa-chief-says-ban-china-space-cooperation-temporary
NASA administrator Charles Bolden has said the United States should work with China on human
spaceflight projects or find itself frozen out of future international space exploration.
NASA has been effectively banned by Congress from any bilateral cooperation with China since 2011, and
China has not been allowed to join the 15-nation collaborative International Space Station project.
However Mr Bolden, speaking on a panel of heads of space agencies at the 2015 International Astronautical Congress in Jerusalem on
Monday, believes this state of affairs is temporary. "The reason I think that where we are today is temporary is because
of a practical statement that we will find ourselves on the outside looking in, because everybody...who
has any hope of a human spaceflight program ... will go to whoever will fly their people,” Reuters reported
Bolden as saying. China’s own representative, Xu Dazhe, the head of the body which oversees the country’s space activities, welcomed Bolden’s
words, saying, "China
has no difficulties in our cooperation policies with other agencies.”
Negative’s Files
294
Inherency Answers - Space
US-China dialoguing on space already
Leonard David, August 21, 2015, US-China Cooperation in Space: Is It Possible, and What's in Store?, Leonard Davis is Space.com's Space
Insider Columnist, www.space.com/30337-chinese-experiment-international-space-station.html
As for future U.S.-China space relations, the first "U.S.-China Civil Space Cooperation Dialogue" is slated
to take place in China before the end of October. Last June, the United States and China decided to establish
regular bilateral, government-to-government consultations on civil space cooperation. That agreement
came out of the seventh round of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, held June 22-24 in Washington, D.C, with Secretary of State
John Kerry taking active part in the discussions. The two sides held
in-depth talks on major bilateral, regional and global
issues. More than 70 important outcomes resulted from the dialogue, including a number of space
items. Aside from putting in place a "Civil Space Cooperation Dialogue," the two sides also decided to have exchanges on other space
matters, including satellite-collision avoidance, weather monitoring and climate research.
Negative’s Files
295
Economy Advantage Answers – Space
Uniqueness Answers
The American commercial space sector is booming
Brian Weeden, April 2016 , “U.S.-China Strategic Relations in Space,” U.S.-CHINA RELATIONS IN STRATEGIC DOMAINS, NBR Special
Report n. 57, National Bureau of Asian Research, ed. T.Tanner & W.Dong, p. 67-68. Technical Adviser, Secure World Foundation and Xiao He,
Assistant Research Fellow, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
http://www.nbr.org/publications/specialreport/pdf/Free/06192016/SR57_US-China_April2016.pdf
In the midst of all this, the
commercial space sector in the United States is currently undergoing a significant
boom. Several companies continue to work on developing space tourism services, and three are
competing for contracts from NASA to deliver personnel and cargo to the ISS. Dozens of U.S. companies,
largely funded by private capital, have also announced plans to utilize small satellites to provide a variety of
services, including significantly increased remote sensing of the earth, commercial weather data,
tracking of ships at sea, and broadband Internet for the world.
Negative’s Files
296
Economy Advantage Answers – Space
Uniqueness Answers
US spends way more than other countries in raw and per person calculations
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2014, The Space Economy at a Glance
2014, OECD Publishing, The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is a group of 34 member countries that discuss
and develop economic and social policy. OECD members are democratic countries that support free market economies, www.asaspazio.it/wpcontent/uploads/2014/11/The-Space-Economy-at-a-Glance-2014.pdf
Institutional budgets are critical in starting-up and developing capital-intensive and high technology sectors such as space. Government
Budget Appropriations or Outlays for R&D (GBAORD) data are assembled by national authorities analysing
their budget for R&D content and classifying them by “socio-economic objective”. These diverse objectives represent the intention of the
government at the time of funding commitment, and a special category “exploration and exploitation of space” exists. Although the data
provide only a partial picture of space investments (see note below), the long-term time-series provide useful trends on policy orientations. In
total civil GBAORD for space programmes for all OECD countries amounted to USD 19.2 billion PPP. The
United States had the highest GBAORD for space programmes at USD 10.6 billion PPP, followed by the
Russian Federation (USD 3.3 billion PPP), Japan (USD 2.2 billion PPP) and France (USD 1.7 billion PPP). The United States
was also the country in which space programmes took the highest percentage of total civil GBAORD, at
16.9%, followed by France (10.4%) and Belgium (8.7%). The OECD-wide mean average represented 7.7% in
2013.
2013,
Negative’s Files
297
Economy Advantage Answers – Space
Internal Link Answers
No Internal Link: Diminishing returns – space tech investment isn’t efficient anymore
Amitai Etzioni, August 17, 2012 (Mars can wait. Oceans can't, Amitai Etzioni is professor of international relations and director of the
Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University, http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/09/opinion/etzioni-space-oceans/)
Actually, there
are very good reasons to stop spending billions of dollars on manned space missions, to
and to grant much higher priority to other scientific and
engineering mega-projects, the oceans in particular. The main costs of space exploration arise from the fact
that we are set on sending humans, rather than robots. The reasons such efforts drive up the costs include: A human needs
explore space in ways that are safer and much less costly,
a return ticket, while a robot can go one way. Space vehicles for humans must be made safe, while we can risk a bunch of robots without losing
sleep. Robots are much easier to feed, experience little trouble when subject to prolonged weightlessness, and are much easier to shield from
radiation. And they can do most tasks humans can. British astronomer royal Martin Rees writes, "I think that the practical case (for manned
flights) gets weaker and weaker with every advance in robotics and miniaturization. It's hard to see any particular reason or purpose in going
back to the moon or indeed sending people into space at all." Nobel
Laureate Steven Weinberg calls manned missions
"an incredible waste of money" and argues that "for the cost of putting a few people on a very limited set of locations on Mars we
could have dozens of unmanned, robotic missions roving all over Mars." The main argument for using humans is a public
relations one. As Neil deGrasse Tyson puts it in Foreign Affairs, "China's latest space proclamations could conceivably produce another
'Sputnik moment' for the United States, spurring the country into action after a relatively fallow period in its space efforts." Also, astronauts are
said to inspire our youth to become scientists and explorers. However, it
is far from established that we cannot achieve
the same effects by making other R&D projects our main priority. Take the oceans, about which we
know much less than the dark side of the moon. Ninety percent of the ocean floor has not even been
charted, and while we have been to the moon, the technology to explore the ocean's floors is still being developed. For example, a
permanent partially-submerged sea exploration station, called the SeaOrbiter, is currently in development. The oceans play a major role in
controlling our climate. But we have not learned yet how to use them to cool us off rather than contribute to our overheating. Ocean organisms
are said to hold the promise of cures for an array of diseases. An examination of the unique eyes of skate (ray fish) led to advances in
combating blindness, the horseshoe crab was crucial in developing a test for bacterial contamination, and sea urchins helped in the
development of test-tube fertilization. The toadfish's ability to regenerate its central nervous system is of much interest to neuroscientists. A
recent Japanese study concluded that the drug eribulin, which was derived from sea sponges, is effective in combating breast, colon, and
urinary cancer. Given the looming crisis of water scarcity, we badly need more efficient and less costly methods to desalinate ocean water. By
2025, 1.8 billion people are expected to suffer from severe water scarcity, with that number jumping to 3.9 billion by 2050—well over a third of
the entire global population. If the oceans do not make your heart go pitter-patter, how about engineering a bacteria that eats carbon dioxide - and thus helps protect the world from overheating -- AND excretes fuel which will allow us to drive our cars and machines, without oil? I
cannot find any evidence that people young or old, Americans or citizens of other nations, would be less impressed or less inspired with such a
breakthrough than with one more set of photos of a far away galaxy or a whole Milky Way full of stars. Space
enthusiasts claim that
space exploration has generated major spinoffs for our life right here on Earth. Tyson quotes President Obama
suggesting that the Apollo mission "produced technologies that have improved kidney dialysis and water purification systems; sensors to test
for hazardous gases; energy-saving building materials; and fire-resistant fabrics used by firefighters and soldiers," and adds a few more
innovations to the list: "digital imaging, implantable pacemakers, collision-avoidance systems on aircraft, precision LASIK eye surgery, and
global positioning satellites." Of course, the space environment is radically different from the one on Earth. Materials and technologies that are
suited for a vacuum, zero gravity, and extreme cold and heat are not the ones we typically can use on Earth. Opinion: Gingrich's moon colony
lost in the laughter Elias Carayannis, professor of Science, Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship at The George Washington University,
notes "government
agencies -- particularly those such as the National Space and Aeronautics Administration that are continually
pressured to justify their activities -- tout the spin-off value of their investments in sometimes quite extravagant
claims." Products such as Velcro, Tang, and Teflon that are often cited as spinoffs of space technology
did not actually result from the space program. Space promoters tell us, once every few months, that there are
signs that there might be or has been water on one of the planets that might make "life" possible. I wonder
if some of those who hear these reports interpret them to mean that we expect to find a civilization out there, one that we could ally with, say
Negative’s Files
against the Chinese. What
298
scientists are really talking about is organic material, the kind found in any compost
-- not a reason to spend billions of dollars of public funds.
Negative’s Files
299
Economy Advantage Answers – Space
Internal Link Answers
No Internal Link: NASA spends inefficiently – plan won’t lead to growth
Katherine Rodriguez, October 22, 2014, Sen. Coburn: NASA Wastes More Than $3 Billion on Pork Projects Like Golf Club Testing,
Comic-Con, cnsnews, Katherine Rodriguez is a blogger and video specialist for MRCTV, cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/katherine-rodriguez/sencoburn-nasa-wastes-more-3-billion-pork-projects-golf-club-testing
Of that $25 billion, NASA spent more than $3 billion of taxpayer money out of its $17.7 billion budget on things
from golf-club testing to studies on how humans will react to meeting space aliens. Coburn listed seven instances where NASA wasted taxpayer
money to the tune of $3,086,432,000: Golf
Club Testing, Elementary School Experiments Aboard the Space Station- $3 billion NASA's
A3 Rocket-Testing Tower aka the "Tower of Pork"- $44.5 million NASA Study on How Humans React to Space
Aliens- $392,000 NASA at Comic-Con- $10,000 NASA Study Predicting the Collapse of Human
Civilization- $30,000 NASA's Loss of Electronic Devices- $1.1 million NASA's Near-Earth Object Program- $40.5
million "With no one watching over the vast bureaucracy, the problem is not just what Washington isn’t doing, but what
it is doing." Dr. Coburn said in a press release. "Only someone with too much of someone else’s money and not
enough accountability for how it was being spent could come up with some of these projects." The
Oklahoma Senator has publicly called out his colleagues for force-funding a $350 million NASA launch-pad tower that was supposed to support
a rocket-launch program shuttered four years ago.
Negative’s Files
300
Economy Advantage Answers – Space
Impact Answers
Turn: Economic growth is bad – increases poverty and income inequality and hurts the
environment
Samuel Alexander, September 22, 2015, Sustained economic growth: United Nations mistakes the poison for the cure, The
Conversation news aggregator, Samuel Alexander is a research fellow at the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne,
theconversation.com/sustained-economic-growth-united-nations-mistakes-the-poison-for-the-cure-47691
The defining flaw in the United Nations’ agenda is the naïve assumption that “sustained economic growth” is the
most direct path to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. This faith in the god of growth is
fundamentally misplaced. It has been shown, for example, that for every $100 in global growth merely $0.60
is directed toward resolving global poverty. Not only is this an incredibly inefficient pathway to poverty
alleviation, it is environmentally unsupportable. By championing economic growth, the Sustainable Development
Goals are a barely disguised defence of the market fundamentalism that underpins business-as-usual. But
in an age of planetary limits, sustained economic growth is not the solution to our social and
environmental ills, but their cause.
Negative’s Files
301
Economy Advantage Answers – Space
Impact Answers
Turn: Economic growth is harmful and bad – 3 reasons
Graeme Maxton, April 21, 2015, Economic growth doesn't create jobs, it destroys them, The Guardian, Graeme Maxton is secretary
general of the Club of Rome (The Club of Rome is a global think tank that deals with a variety of international political issues),
www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/apr/21/jobs-economic-growth-inequality-environment-club-of-rome
After so many years of being told the same thing, it is barely surprising that we believe it. Economic
growth is good, we are told, and essential to all we do. Growth creates work. Work creates wealth. Wealth closes the gap
between rich and poor. Once we have a stronger economy, the economists say, we can tackle our environmental problems. The only
trouble is, this is all wrong. 1. Growth does not create jobs: The way the current economic system is
designed, it does the opposite. The constant drive to increase productivity, which is what economic
growth really is, requires manufacturers to steadily reduce input costs. Economic growth destroys
jobs. Before the 1980s this didn’t matter much, because many new manufacturing businesses were established to soak up a rising working
population. Since then, though, this has not happened – growth has increased the number of people without jobs, certainly in the rich world.In
the last 35 years, the world has experienced the fastest economic growth in human history. Yet, according
to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), unemployment went up. Even extreme policy tools
introduced since 2007, such as ultra-low interest rates and quantitative easing, have not achieved much. We were told that these would
generate faster economic growth, yet growth has remained weak and unemployment is
still higher than it was three
decades ago. 2. Economic growth does not reduce inequality: Because the system is designed to reward
those who already have money and assets, the free market economic model takes wealth from the poor
and gives it to the rich. This is especially true since 2008 as government and consumer debts in the rich world have risen and average
incomes have stagnated or fallen. The gap between the rich and poor is bigger today than in 1914. The gap
between rich countries and poor ones is also much greater. The coming wave of new technology will
make these problems worse. A study on the future of employment at Oxford University predicts that almost half of all jobs
are at threat from robotisation in the next 20 years. Many of these are highly skilled jobs, such as those done
by pilots, doctors, accountants and lawyers. The jobs that will be left are those that require a great deal of personal
attention or artistic input – in other words, those that are generally poorly paid. 3. Boosting growth is
not the way to solve environmental problems: Economic growth is the cause of them. It requires a
constant increase in the flow of raw materials extracted from the planet to be turned into goods,
services and waste. The more we grow, certainly using current economic thinking, the more resources we need to
use and the more pollution we create. Rather then pursuing economic growth then, we should tackle
our problems head on. We should develop policies to ensure that everyone has enough money to live on, because it leads to healthier
and more stable societies. We should plan to reduce the gap between rich and poor, and we need to stop prevaricating when it comes to the
environment and actually do something.
Negative’s Files
302
Economy Advantage Answers – Space
Impact Framing
Utilitarians agree, growth is immoral
Avram Hiller, Ramona Ilea, Leonard Kahn, Dec 4, 2013, Consequentialism and Environmental Ethics, Routledge, Avram Hiller is
an Associate Professor in the Philosophy Department at Portland State University, Ramona Ilea is professor at Pacific University in Oregon,
Leonard Kahn is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Loyola university in New Orleans,
https://books.google.com/books?id=x1VKAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq="economic+growth"+"consequentialism"&source=bl&ots=a2
38LmgFvM&sig=2EGT1DzYzJUsefcWMHuWZo8xQM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi86cmb8LLOAhUrzIMKHQ2eDV8Q6AEILzAC#v=onepage&q=mill's%20views%20on%20stationary%20growth&f
=false
Mill's views on the stationary growth economy are linked with his ideas that we should focus our attention to improving the Art of Living and
improving the quality of life rather than the quantity of consumer products: It is scarcely necessary to remark that a
stationary state of
capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There would be as much
scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress; as much room for improving
the Art of Living, and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds ceased to be engrossed
by the art of getting on. (CW 3: 756) These claims and statements clearly resonate with the spirit of ecofeminists Maria Mies and
Vandana Shiva's (1993) promotion of a life of voluntary simplicity. Mies and Shiva promote an anti-oppression ideal that they conceive of as a
life that liberates the consumer and unhooks people from what they call the maldevelopment of Western industrialized and technological
society. Maldevelopment is
explained in terms of the existence of an inverse relationship between the
good life and economic growth. In this view, carefully explained by Mics and Shiva and also widely held by environmentalist thinkers
and activists, economic growth and quality of life and well-being are in conflict. The standard view that
economic growth is needed for well-being is rejected as lacking contact with reality. According to Mics and
Shiva, economic growth, increased production, and materialism act as barriers to rather than producers of
well-being. On the contrary, they suggest that well-being depends upon reconceiving the good life and unhooking
it from consumerism and materialism. We should replace this compulsive and addictive view with one
that detaches the good from pursuit of and consumption of material objects. This goes along with a more just
distribution of the economic and material basis of a good life, so that no one is deprived of the basic material goods needed for a decent
standard of living that meets vital needs. This ideal removes the addictive and compulsive pursuit of materialism and replaces it with an ideal of
moderate use of nature to provide for vital human needs. This notably resonates with the sentiments expressed by Mill in his attacks on the
materialism of his day. Mill was prescient in his views, since few nineteenth-century thinkers foresaw that the resources of nature were limited
and under threat by consumerism.
Negative’s Files
303
Economy Advantage Answers – Space
Solvency Answers
Turn: Cooperation only increases China’s advantage in space market – decreases cost
to research, fuels technological advancement, and increases China’s market
competitiveness
Ronald E. Turner, May 6, 2015, Should the United States Cooperate with China in Space?, Dr. Turner is an internationally recognized
expert in radiation risk management for astronauts, particularly in response to solar storms. For the past eight years he served as Principal
Investigator on NASA research grants investigating risk management strategies for solar particle events during human missions to the Moon or
Mars. He is a Participating Scientist on the Mars Odyssey program,, www.anser.org/babrief-us-china-space-coop
The reasons Rep. Wolf gave for imposing the restrictions on NASA, and the reasons Rep. Culberson gives for extending
them, are straightforward and threefold: -China is militarily a threat to the United States: China’s military is
growing more sophisticated and is increasing its reliance on space assets as a force multiplier. In addition, it
is developing counterspace weapons to deny potential adversaries access to their military space assets.
Shutting down the flow of space technology is intended to increase the cost and limit the capability of
Chinese military space systems. -The United States has nothing to gain by cooperating with China:
China’s civil space program is intended to be a source of pride for the Chinese people and evidence to
the international community that China has emerged from its Third World, technologically stunted past.
However, China is just now duplicating what other nations accomplished in the 1960s and 1970s. Limiting cooperation with China
makes it difficult for the Chinese to innovate and make significant advances. Further, cooperation with
China would be a one-way street: the Chinese would gain technology and stature, while the United
States would give up its technical advantage and cede its leadership role. In addition, cooperation would
increase China’s economic competitiveness to the detriment of the U.S. space industry.
Negative’s Files
304
Economy Advantage Answers – Space
Solvency Answers
Wolf amendment is slowing China’s space econ growth
US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Nov 12, 2015, SECTION 2: CHINA’S SPACE AND
COUNTERSPACE PROGRAMS, The U.S.- China Economic and Security Review Commission is a small, fast-paced, nonpartisan, legislative branch
Commission responsible for monitoring, investigating and submitting an annual report to the Congress on the national security implications of
the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China. The Commission conducts its work
and studies in the following areas: China's military buildup, proliferation practices, regional economic and security impacts, U.S.- China bilateral
programs, economic transfers, energy, U.S. capital markets, WTO compliance, and the implication of restrictions on speech and access to
information in China, origin.www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Annual_Report/Chapters/Chapter%202%2C%20Section%202%20%20China%27s%20Space%20and%20Counterspace%20Programs.pdf
An executive for U.S. company SpaceX, which has led a resurgence in U.S. commercial launch market share
after U.S. organizations were priced out of the market until recently, stated in 2013 that the company
views China as its main competition. However, in a July 2015 meeting with the Commission, the China Great Wall Industry
Corporation asserted that it is unable to compete with Western counterparts due to U.S. export controls,
indicating that obstacles remain despite China’s cost advantages.221 Second, China’s designation of the Beidou
satellite navigation system—planned to provide global service by 2020—as ‘‘national infrastructure,’’ and introduction of preferential policies
to promote its place in China’s domestic satellite navigation market, will directly impact the market share of GPS and related products within
China.222 While GPS usage provides no revenues to the United States, Beidou is also intended to foster development in downstream industries
such as mobile internet applications, which may affect U.S. firms’ market share in these industries.223
Negative’s Files
305
Colonization Advantage Answers – Space
Uniqueness Answers
Non-unique: Wolf doesn’t restrict multinational cooperation – including China
HANNAH Kohler, April 2015, The Eagle and the Hare: U.S.–Chinese Relations, the Wolf Amendment, and the Future of International
Cooperation in Space, Georgetown Law, J.D. expected 2015; B.A. Penn State 2012, georgetownlawjournal.org/files/2015/04/KohlerTheEagleandtheHare.pdf
Congressman Wolf himself has not spoken to the wording change, and his statements on the purpose of the Act apparently conflict. In an
April 2014 speech at the Space Policy Institute, Wolf stated: [O]ur subcommittee has had strong oversight of NASA’s security, including a
provision to limit its bilateral
cooperation with the Chinese space program, which is run by the People’s Liberation
that the congressional restriction does provide several venues for
the U.S. to maintain its dialogue with Chinese counterparts as well as opportunities for limited
engagement. For instance, the language only restricts bilateral cooperation, not multilateral venues
where representatives from all countries participate. .... . . . So there is some flexibility for NASA when it
comes to China.120
Army.... .... . . . [However] it is important to note
Negative’s Files
306
Colonization Advantage Answers – Space
Uniqueness Answers
Non-unique: US can work w China multilaterally through Russia or the EU
Leonard David, June 16, 2015, US-China Cooperation in Space: Is It Possible, and What's in Store?, Leonard Davis is Space.com's Space
Insider Columnist, www.space.com/29671-china-nasa-space-station-cooperation.html
Logsdon said ESA, or even the
Russian space agency, could serve as somewhat of a "middleman" to facilitate
Chinese access to the International Space Station. "If China were to fly its Shenzhou spacecraft to the
space station, it would dock to the Russian port … and Putin's Russia has been making friendly noises towards China," Logsdon
said. Dordain has been a strong advocate for incorporating China into mainstream spaceflight activities, Logsdon said. Dordain's term of office
ends June 30. The incoming leader of ESA is Johann-Dietrich Wörner, who is currently chairman of the German Aerospace Center's executive
board. "It is not clear either how much leverage Europe would have on this issue or whether Dordain's successor will share this view, but with
U.S. backing, Europe could serve as an American surrogate," Logsdon said. Logsdon said it is worth remembering that the
U.S. congressional prohibition regarding China is on bilateral U.S.-Chinese cooperation. "Starting the cooperation on the
multilateral International Space Station may offer an escape route from current limitations," Logsdon said.
Negative’s Files
307
Colonization Advantage Answers – Space
Internal Link Answers
No Internal Link: Colonization trades off with sustainability – staying home is better
Liam Heneghan, September 23, 2013, Only Mars Will Save Us Now: Space Exploration and Terrestrial Sustainability as competing
Environmental Strategies, 3 Quarks Daily, Liam Heneghan is Professor and Department Chair PhD Environmental Science and Studies at DePaul
College in Chicago, www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2013/09/only-mars-will-save-us-now-space-exploration-and-terrestrial-sustainabilityas-competing-environment.html
Traditional environmentalists (perhaps, most environmentalists) have
asserted that our solutions need to be exactly of
that type that Bostrom regards unlikely, in a probabilistic sense, for intelligent entities, that is “choosing to stay at home and living
in harmony with nature.” Space advocates, however, do not, of course, have an appetite for curtailing the
human enterprise in this manner. Though sustainability and space advocacy are, in a sense, forms of
environmentalism — sharing apocalyptic visions and responding to similar planetary threats — one
nevertheless expects a degree of tension between them. Robert Zubrin’s latest book Merchants of Despair: Radical
Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism (2012) seems to confirm the suspicion that
sustainability and space exploration are indeed the opposite ends of the solution spectrum. In it Zubrin claims
that radical environmentalists (inspired by the Rev Thomas Malthus 1766 – 1834) promote the idea that “humans are a cancer upon the Earth,
a horde of vermin whose unconstrained aspirations and appetites are endangering the natural order.” Zubrin writes that a properly
conceived environmentalism is “an effort to apply practical solutions to real environmental problems,
for the purpose of making the world a better place for humans to thrive in.” The “anti-humanist” tendencies of
radical environmentalism he claims attempts to suppress human activities “in order to protect a fixed ecological order with interests that stand
above those of humanity.” A centerpiece of this anti-humanist thread is to be found in actions to abate global warming, which, according to
Zubrin at least, has “significantly enhanced the abundance of nature, to the benefit of both agriculture and the wild biosphere alike.” Most
ecologists do not share this assessment. I will not review the substance of Zubrin’s claims here — I think he paints with a rather broad brush
and consequently smears outside the lines at times — but rather I use this to illustrate a claim that those
advocating for the
colonization of space often are examining the same terrestrial problems as environmentalists but come
up with radically different solutions. The differences in approach are mediated, it seems to me, by different
conceptions of the human being. Space enthusiasts, even when mindful of our capacity to wreak havoc
are optimistic sorts. Traditionalist environmentalists, by reputation at least, incline to pessimism. As we reflect
upon our environmental challenges, two poles therefore define our actions. On the one hand is the
ascetic modesty of sustainability, on the other the hubristic desire to colonize the galaxy. In some ways Mars
colonization may seem the more immediately attractive solution as it come with all the thrill of a
technical challenge and the allure of subsequent conquest. This may be the reason why back in August at the Boulder
meeting we all nodded in agreement with Zubrin. The adrenaline rush of sustainability may be a modest one in contrast. The challenge for
sustainability advocates will be to convince us all that staying on Earth and tightening our planetary belt is the most exciting challenge of our
times. In making this an attractive proposition environmentalists have a lot to learn from Mars enthusiasts.
Negative’s Files
308
Colonization Advantage Answers – Space
Internal Link Answers
Internal link turn: Working with China is bad – immoral and no gain
Mike Wall, November 3, 2011, Senior Writer for Space.com, NASA Chief Says US Could Cooperate with China in Space, Space.com,
www.space.com/13492-china-united-states-space-cooperation-nasa.html
Cooperation between NASA and the Chinese space program is currently minimal. A provision inserted into the 2011 budget resolution by Rep.
Frank Wolf (R-Virginia) bars the use of federal funds to conduct bilateral science exchanges with China. Wolf also spoke at yesterday's hearing,
reiterating his support for the ban and the reasoning behind it. It
doesn't make sense for the United States to assist
China's technological development, he said, given Beijing's poor human rights record and its potential
aspirations of global military supremacy. "I have been very troubled by this administration's apparent
eagerness to work with China on its space program and willingness to share other sensitive
technologies," Wolf said. "I want to be clear: The United States has no business cooperating with the People's
Liberation Army to help develop its space program." If the United States wants to be on the right side of
history, Wolf said, it will not aid or encourage the Chinese regime in any way.
Negative’s Files
309
Colonization Advantage Answers – Space
Impact Answers
Earth is ONLY outpost - we can solve challenges through population control,
international cooperation, and pollution reduction
Trevors, 2009, J. (Trevors: University of Guelph and Adjunct Professor, a 28 year record of microbiology research, graduate and
undergraduate teaching, consulting and editing/editorships has been achieved) ’09 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. “The Earth Is the
Best Place to Live” – http://www.springerlink.com/content/p68867688844p083/fulltext.pdf
The already overpopulated Earth with several billion too many people, consuming and polluting and entangled in complex conflicts for limited
resources has no rationale present and future within the current paradigm. There
is no future in conflicts, wars, violations of
basic human rights and needs, competition, discrimination, lack of public infrastructure, hunger and
poverty all entangled within pollution and global climate change. The challenges/ problems that we
currently face can quickly turn into global crises (e.g. global warming, pandemics, overpopulation, food
shortages) if the correct international actions are not implemented. The Earth is our only outpost. We
can not travel quickly to other planetary locations and sustain life as we know it. Our correct choices are
conservation, environmental protection, planned and managed human population control, international
cooperation, evolve modern democracies and stable governments, education, basic human rights and
needs and too all strive for the sanctity of life and humanity. The best way to halt total global pollution and climate
change is to reduce total global pollution and the factors that cause climate change and overpopulation. What a wonderful world it
will be.
Negative’s Files
310
Colonization Advantage Answers – Space
Impact Answers
Existential risks have no probability of happening
Holden Karnofsky, MAY 23, 2013, Possible global catastrophic risks, Give Well philanthropy, Holden Karnofsky is Co-Founder and CoExecutive Director of Give Well. Holden graduated from Harvard University in 2003 with a degree in Social Studies, and spent the next several
years in the hedge fund industry. He co-founded GiveWell in mid-2007, blog.givewell.org/2013/05/23/possible-global-catastrophic-risks/
I consider the following to be the most worrying possibilities I’m aware of for reversing, halting, or
substantially slowing the ongoing global progress in living standards. There are likely many such risks I’m not aware of,
and likely many such risks that essentially no one today is aware of. I hope that readers of this post will mention important possibilities that I’ve
neglected in the comments. In general, I’m trying to list factors that could do not just large damage, but the kind of damage that could create
an unprecedented global challenge. More powerful technology – particularly in areas such as nuclear weapons, biological weapons,
and artificial intelligence – may make wars, terrorist acts, and accidents more dangerous. Further technological progress is likely to lead to
technology with far more potential to do damage. Somewhat offsetting this, technological and economic progress may also lead to improved
security measures and lower risks of war and terrorism. A natural pandemic may cause unprecedented damage, perhaps assisted by the
development of resistance to today’s common antibiotics. On this front I see technological and economic development as mostly risk-reducing,
via the development of better surveillance systems, better antibiotics, better systems for predicting/understanding/responding to pandemics,
etc. Climate change may lead to a major humanitarian crisis (such as unprecedented numbers of refugees due to sea level rise) or to other
unanticipated consequences. Economic development may speed this danger by increasing the global rate of CO2 emissions; economic and
technological development may mitigate this danger via the development of better energy sources (as well as energy storage and grid systems
and other technology for more efficiently using energy), as well as greater wealth leading to more interest in – and perceived ability to afford –
emissions reduction. Technological and economic progress could slow or stop due to a failure to keep innovating at a sufficient
rate. Gradual growth in living standards has been the norm for a long time, and a prolonged stagnation could cause unanticipated problems
(e.g., values could change significantly if people don’t perceive living standards as continuing to rise). Global
economic growth could
become bottlenecked by a scarcity of a particular resource (the most commonly mentioned concern along these lines is “peak oil,” but I
have also heard concerns about supplies of food and of water for irrigation). Technological and economic progress could worsen this risk by
speeding our consumption of a key resource, or could mitigate it by leading to the development of better technologies for finding and
extracting resources and/or effective alternatives to such resources. An asteroid, supervolcano or solar flare could cause
unprecedented damage. Here I largely see economic and technological progress as risk-reducing factors, as they may give us better tools for
predicting, preventing and/or mitigating damage from such natural disasters. An
oppressive government may gain power
over a substantial part of the world. Technological progress could worsen this risk by improving the tools of such a government to
wage war and monitor and control citizens; technological and economic progress could mitigate this risk by strengthening others’ abilities to
defend themselves. I should note that I perceive the
odds of complete human extinction from any of the above
factors, over the next hundred years or so, to be quite low. #1 would require the development of
weapons with destructive potential far in excess of anything that exists today, plus the deployment of
such weapons either by superpowers (which seems unlikely if they hold the potential for destroying the
human race) or by rogue states/individuals (which seems unlikely since rogue states/individuals don’t
have much recent track record of successfully obtaining and deploying the world’s most powerful
weapons). #2 would require a disease to emerge with a historically unusual combination of propensityto-kill and propensity-to-spread. And in either case, the odds of killing all people – taking into account the
protected refuges that many governments likely have in place and the substantial number of people
who live in remote areas – seem substantially less than the odds of killing many people. We have looked
into #3 and and parts of #6 to some degree, and currently believe that there are no particularly likelyseeming scenarios with risk of human extinction.
Negative’s Files
311
Colonization Advantage Answers – Space
Impact Answers
Framing Turn: Risk alarmism is more likely to cause existential risks than solve them
Nikola Danaylov, March 27, 2014, AI Risk Analysts are the Biggest Risk, Singularity Blog, Nikola Danaylov is the head editor and writer
for Singularity Blog, he completed an HBA in Political Science, Philosophy & Economics at the University of Toronto followed by an MA in
Political Science at York University - he is the author of several publications on future tech and ethics including Hacking Destiny: Critical Security
at the Intersection of Human and Machine Intelligence.”,https://www.singularityweblog.com/ai-risk-analysts-are-the-biggest-risk/
People who think AI is an existential risk need to carefully reconsider their beliefs. Ironically the only
futuristic threat to our existence is the fear of AI. Expecting AI to be dangerous in any way is utterly illogical. Fear of AI is
prejudice. Worrying about AI danger is a paranoid fantasy. The fear of AI is xenophobia. Immemorial human fear
of differences is the only problem. Persecution of people based on different gender, sexual orientation,
or skin colour demonstrates how humans fear differences. It is this fear that makes people anxious
about foreigners. People often fear foreign people will steal jobs or resources. Xenophobic people hysterically fear foreigners will murder
innocent people. This is the essence of AI fear. AI is the ultimate foreigner. Surely risk analysts should consider the
possibility they are the risk? Sadly they seem blind to this possibility. They seem unable to imagine how their
response to hypothetical risk could create the risk they were supposedly avoiding. They seem
incapable of recognising their confirmation bias. The problem is a self fulfilling prophecy. A self fulfilling
prophecy can be negative or positive similar to aplacebo or a nocebo. When a person is expecting something to happen
they often act unwittingly to confirm their fears, or hopes. The predicted scenario is actually manifested via
their bias. Expectations can ensure the anticipated situation actually happens. It can be very ironic regarding fears.
I think there’s no rational reason to suspect AI will be dangerous. The only significant risk is the fear of
risk. False assumptions of danger will likely create dangerous AI. Actions based on false suppositions of
danger could be very risky. Humans are the real danger.
Negative’s Files
312
Colonization Advantage Answers – Space
Impact Answers
Framing - It would take at least half a century to minimally colonize space. This means
short term impacts should take priority
NASA 05, “Space Settlement Basics,” http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/Basics/wwwwh.html
How long did it take to build New York? California? France? Even given ample funds the first settlement
will take decades to construct. No one is building a space settlement today, and there are no immediate
prospects for large amounts of money, so the first settlement will be awhile. If Burt Rutan's prediction of affordable
orbital tourism in 25 years is correct, however, it's reasonable to expect the first orbital colony to be built within about 50
years.
Negative’s Files
313
Colonization Advantage Answers – Space
Impact Answers
Turn: Colonization will lead to alien contact - aliens will pillage earth for resources and
kill the humans that remain
Jonathan Leake, April 25, 2010, “Don’t talk to aliens, warns Stephen Hawking”, The Sunday Times, Jonathan Leake is Science &
Environment Editor at The Sunday Times, http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Science/article272392.ece
THE aliens
are out there and Earth had better watch out, at least according to Stephen Hawking. He has
suggested that extraterrestrials are almost certain to exist — but that instead of seeking them out, humanity
should be doing all it that can to avoid any contact. The suggestions come in a new documentary series in which Hawking,
one of the world’s leading scientists, will set out his latest thinking on some of the universe’s greatest mysteries. Alien life, he will suggest, is
almost certain to exist in many other parts of the universe: not just in planets, but perhaps in the centre of stars or even floating in
interplanetary space. Hawking’s
logic on aliens is, for him, unusually simple. The universe, he points out, has 100 billion
galaxies, each containing hundreds of millions of stars. In such a big place, Earth is unlikely to be the only
planet where life has evolved. “To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational,” he
said. “The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.” The answer, he suggests, is that
most of it will be the equivalent of microbes or simple animals — the sort of life that has dominated
Earth for most of its history. One scene in his documentary for the Discovery Channel shows herds of two-legged herbivores browsing
on an alien cliff-face where they are picked off by flying, yellow lizard-like predators. Another shows glowing fluorescent aquatic animals
forming vast shoals in the oceans thought to underlie the thick ice coating Europa, one of the moons of Jupiter. Such scenes are speculative, but
Hawking uses them to lead on to a serious point: that a few life
forms could be intelligent and pose a threat. Hawking
believes that contact with such a species could be devastating for humanity. He suggests that aliens might
simply raid Earth for its resources and then move on: “We only have to look at ourselves to see how
intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet. I imagine they might exist in
massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would
perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonise whatever planets they can reach.” He concludes
that trying to make contact with alien races is “a little too risky”. He said: “If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would
be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the
Native Americans.” The completion of the documentary marks a triumph for Hawking, now 68, who is paralysed by motor neurone
disease and has very limited powers of communication. The project took him and his producers three years, during which he insisted on
rewriting large chunks of the script and checking the filming.
Negative’s Files
314
Colonization Advantage Answers – Space
Solvency Answers
Ongoing cooperation with China is not fruitful – no reason to expect plan will change
Eric R. Sterner, August 6, 2015, China, Talk and Cooperation in Space, Space News, Eric R. Sterner is a Fellow at the George C. Marshall
Institute. He held senior staff positions on the House Armed Services and Science Committees and served in the Department of Defense and
NASA, spacenews.com/op-ed-china-talk-and-cooperation-in-space/
The U.S. and Chinese governments already discuss satellite collision avoidance and conduct joint
research into greenhouse gas monitoring, severe weather monitoring, space weather and climate
science. This cooperation seems to produce little fruit. It certainly has not affected Chinese behavior visà-vis its relationship with the United States. Indeed, last fall, hackers in China attacked a U.S. partner to
these cooperative relationships, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, leading the agency briefly to stop making
satellite weather data available to the public. If this is what it means to cooperate with China in space, the United
States is better off without it.
Negative’s Files
315
Colonization Advantage Answers – Space
Solvency Answers
Turn: Cooperation ends up costing more money – makes cooperation less likely
Michael J. Listner founder of Space Law and Policy Solutions. 2014. http://spacenews.com/41256two-perspectives-on-us-china-spacecooperation/ Commentary | Two Perspectives on U.S.-China Space Cooperation
The same rationale applies to funding. Past cooperative
efforts with geopolitical competitors has left the United
States footing a substantial amount of the bill. Cooperative efforts with the Soviet Union and then the
Russian Federation have been and continue to be funded substantially by the United States with the
other party to the cooperative agreement reaping most of the benefit. Projects such as the Apollo/Soyuz
rendezvous mission during the Cold War and the current engagement with the international space station are
examples where the United States has provided a disproportionate amount of funding. The current
arrangement with the ISS in particular has seen the Russian Federation receiving substantial economic
benefit from funding of modules, revenue generated from commercial activities, including space tourism, and revenue received from
ferrying of NASA astronauts. It is conceivable that China would reap a similar economic benefit to the detriment
of the United States in cooperative outer space activities. The likelihood is great that China would insist
that any arrangement entered into be funded disproportionately by the United States. This in turn
would take away from other programs, inflate the national deficit and even require more borrowing
from China, which would have a cumulative effect on the national and economic security of the United
States with little or no benefit.
Negative’s Files
316
Counterplan to Space Aff (Infrastructure)
Counterplan Text
Counterplan: The United States Federal Government should reallocate funding from
space colonization to infrastructure investment
Negative’s Files
317
Counterplan to Space Aff (Infrastructure)
Solvency
3 to 1 return on investment & necessary for long term growth
David W. Wise, April 01, 2015, The dividend on infrastructure investment, The Hill, Wise, a resident of Annapolis, is a retired business
executive and frequent commentator on public policy. He holds a graduate degree in international business from The Fletcher School of Law
and Diplomacy at Tufts University, thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/237542-the-dividend-on-infrastructure-investment
As is often the case when things make no sense, ideology is involved. In an effort to counter perceived liberal bias for “tossing money out of
helicopters,” conservatives seem to have taken the view that investment in infrastructure is some type of boondoggle. What is required is a
The early roads, trails, canals and railroads that marked
U.S. westward expansion involved the national government in a central and catalyzing role. This was
also true of the Interstate highway system and the Internet. Silicon Valley, the preeminent economic
engine, was based on decades of government investment as part of the Cold War buildup in such things as
pragmatic middle course that focuses on return on investment.
microprocessors that were too big and risky for the private sector. Those first roads built in the United States were the result of fixing a defect
in the Articles of Confederation that called for the government to establish only post offices, which the Framers of the Constitution corrected
by adding for the government to provide “post roads” in Article I Section 8. In truth our history and our future depend on partnership and
cooperation between government and private industry. As American prosperity attests, infrastructure
spending when done well
is not a fiscal cost, but provides a return on investment and is the wellspring of national
prosperity. The Federal Reserve places the return infrastructure as $1.5 to $3 for every dollar invested, a
number supported by the International Monetary Fund. As is often the case Ronald Reagan can be quoted to support
policies opposed by his supposed disciples such as when he argued for increasing the gas tax to reinvest in the highway system.
Negative’s Files
318
Counterplan to Space Aff (Infrastructure)
Solvency
Infrastructure has more relevance on more peoples’ lives and has a greater effect –
should be prioritized
Henderson and Blackwell, 2015 ( Wade Henderson is president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights. Angela Blackwell is founder and CEO of PolicyLink, a research and action institute focused on social and racial equity. “How better
transportation can fight income inequality,” The Hill. June 15, 2015. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/244832-howbetter-transportation-can-fight-income-inequality) CDY
With our nation facing growing income disparities and aging, often inequitable, transportation systems,
long-term investment in transportation couldn’t be more essential to the lives and livelihoods of
Americans. Transportation not only connects us to jobs and economic opportunities, it plays a key role in
access to quality housing, schools, and health care, all of which are crucial for families trying to get
ahead in life. For the 7.5 million households in metropolitan areas without a car, public transit can be a
bridge or a barrier to opportunity, depending on its availability. A fare hike or change in bus route can
determine whether or not someone can get to a doctor’s appointment, job, or grocery store, and
whether they’re able to access child care and juggle going back to school to help improve the odds for
their entire family. Take the case of Shelia Williams, a 38-year-old single mother of five in Memphis, Tenn., who was putting herself
through college when the city cut the only bus route she could take to get to school. Facing the prospect of failing her classes, Williams joined
the Memphis Bus Rider’s Union and with other advocates was able to win back her route, soon after being elected as the first
transit-dependent member on the Memphis Transit Board. Stories like hers, though sadly not uncommon, are a
powerful illustration
of the interaction between transportation and economic opportunity, and how easily the loss of one can
cripple one’s access to the other. But stories like Williams’ are not told – or heard – nearly enough. Though reliable transportation
is an overwhelmingly important factor in helping hard-working Americans move out of poverty, critical decisions about transportation
investments are often made without the input of low-income people, people of color, people with disabilities, and the elderly. This means that
those who are most affected by transportation systems are also those least likely to have any say in them. Equitable
transportation
policy has the potential to foster economic mobility, ensuring that everyone in the community can
participate in and benefit from the local economy. As Congress seeks a long-term funding solution to
reauthorize surface transportation legislation, it is imperative that politicians in DC — and here in Tennessee —
realize and prioritize the vital link between mobility and economic mobility, and recognize the importance of
including the voices of low-income communities and communities of color in the decision-making process.
Negative’s Files
319
Counterplan to Space Aff (Infrastructure)
Permutation Answer
Permutation fails, the politics link is based on new funding which the permutation still
does – the counterplan only shifts funding so the counterplan doesn’t link.
Additionally there is always tradeoff because the US budget is finite, funding for
something always has to be taken from something else.
Negative’s Files
320
Counterplan to Space Aff (Infrastructure)
Politics/Net Benefit Defense
No Link Turns: Republicans dislike creating new funding, not infrastructure investment
– reallocation is bipartisan
Keith Laing, 05/12/15, GOP senator introduces bill to create infrastructure bank, The Hill, Keith Laing is a national government and politics
reporter who works for The Detroit News in their Washington, D.C bureau. At The News he covered auto regulation and lobbying and the
Michigan Congressional delegation. Prior to coming to The News, he covered transportation policy in Congress for The Hill,
thehill.com/policy/transportation/241789-gop-senator-introduces-transportation-bill
Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) has introduced legislation to create a national infrastructure bank as lawmakers
are struggling to come up with a way to pay for an extension of federal transportation funding. The
legislation, which has been dubbed the “Build USA Act,” would create a new infrastructure bank to provide funding
for states to apply for loans at low interest rates. Under the proposal, states would return unused federal
dollars from previous construction projects to provide a pool of funding for other projects. In exchange for
agreeing to a participate in the program for a three-year period, states would receive greater control over their
transportation projects and also have the ability to apply for low-interest federal loans for “core
infrastructure projects.” Fischer said the looming transportation funding deadline showed it was time for
lawmakers to create a new system of addressing the nation’s infrastructure problems. “Our nation’s
infrastructure is in need of repair and expansion,” she said in a statement. “As millions of Americans sit in endless traffic jams and travel over
decaying bridges, our
government continues to waste time and money. It is time to think outside the box and
offer bold solutions that will stop this cycle and provide states with the flexibility to start rebuilding our
core infrastructure.” Fischer’s legislation comes as lawmakers are facing a May 31 deadline for extending the current transportation
funding measure that is scheduled to expire then. Lawmakers in both parties have expressed a desire to pass an
extension of the infrastructure bill, but they are struggling to come up with a way to pay for it. The
traditional source of transportation funding has been revenue from the federal gas tax since its
inception in the 1930’s. The tax has not been increased since 1993, however, and has struggled to keep
pace with construction costs as U.S. cars have become more fuel efficient. The federal government
typically spends about $50 billion per year on transportation projects, but the gas tax only brings in
about $34 billion annually at its current rate. Lawmakers have turned to other areas of the federal budget in recent years to
close the gap, but transportation advocates have complained the resulting temporary patches are preventing states from undertaking badly
needed large construction projects. Transportation advocates have pushed Congress to increase the tax for the first time in two decades to pay
for a long-term infrastructure funding extension, but lawmakers have been reluctant to ask drivers to pay more at the pump.
Fischer said
her bill to create an infrastructure bank would be a more viable solution to the transportation funding shortfall than increasing gas
taxes. “My bill adheres to three important points: reduce regulatory burdens, redirect funding, and provide
states with more authority to manage their highways and bridges,” she said. “Nebraska has gained successful results
with this model and it’s time to bring best practices from our states to the national discussion. By letting our states
manage these projects, we can get America moving safely and securely for decades to come.”
Negative’s Files
321
Counterplan to Space Aff (Infrastructure)
Politics/Net Benefit Defense
No Link Turns: 3 to 1 return on investment and very popular
Jamie Hennigan, September 23, 2014, New Report Shows Status Quo on Infrastructure Hampers Competitiveness, National
Association of Manufacturers, Jamie Hennigan is vice president of strategic communications at the National Association of Manufacturers.
Before joining the NAM, Mr. Hennigan served on the staff of the House Natural Resources Committee under Chairman Doc
Hastings,www.nam.org/Newsroom/Press-Releases/2014/09/New-Report-Shows-Status-Quo-on-Infrastructure-Hampers-Competitiveness/
A new study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and conducted by Inforum at the University
of Maryland offers a view into the economic benefits the U.S. economy would reap with a more
concerted effort to address the nation’s infrastructure needs. In total, the study finds that a targeted
and long-term increase in public infrastructure investments from all public and private sources over the next 15 years
will: Increase jobs by almost 1.3 million at the onset of an initial boost; Grow real GDP 1.3 percent by
2020 and 2.9 percent by 2030; Create a progressively more productive economy, which, due to cumulative
effects through time, will benefit from a $3 return on investment for every $1 invested in infrastructure by
2030; and Provide Americans an increase in take-home pay after taxes—a $1,300 net gain per
household by 2020 and $4,400 per household by 2030 (measured in 2009 dollars). The report also reveals a
decade of troubling trends in infrastructure formation, such as a 3.5 percent drop per year in the volume
of highway, road and bridge investments as well as further sharp decreases in mass transit, aviation and water transportation
infrastructure investment. Last year, the NAM sounded the alarm on this troubling trend by partnering with Building America’s Future to survey
manufacturers about their perspectives on the state of infrastructure in the United States. Some 70
percent responded that
American infrastructure is in fair or poor shape and needs a great deal or quite a bit of improvement.
Negative’s Files
322
Topicality to Space Aff
1. (Interpretation) Diplomatic engagement are negotiations that aim to modify the
behavior of another state
Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, 2014, Ten Principles of Operational Diplomacy: A
Framework, the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training is a non-profit dedicated to the history and theory of diplomatic studies - it's
board and staff are made up of many distinguished lawyers and politicians, adst.org/the-stump/ten-principles-of-operational-diplomacy-aframework/
Diplomacy is defined by the Department of State as “the art and practice of conducting negotiations and
maintaining relations between nations; skill in handling affairs without arousing animosity.” Another recent definition
from Indian General KA Muthanna described diplomacy as “the conduct of international relations by
negotiation and engendering goodwill and mutual trust rather than by force, propaganda, or recourse to
law.” Among these and other classic definitions of diplomacy are a common theme: the essence of
diplomacy is communication between different parties with the goal of reaching agreement on an
issue or on a basis for state interaction. The proposed ten principles are intended to contribute to diplomatic practice and to the
development of effective diplomatic approaches to achieving foreign policy objectives.
2. (Violation) Space cooperation is science engagement – not diplomatic or economic
engagement
Cathy Campbell, June 28, 2012, A Consortium Model for Science Engagement, Science and Diplomacy Magazine, Cathy Campbell is
president and chief executive officer of CRDF Global (independent nonprofit organization that promotes international scientific and technical
collaboration), www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/consortium-model-for-science-engagement
In many ways, the consortium’s approach
builds on the U.S. science engagement with the USSR and the People’s
Republic of China. The most obvious commonality is the underlying recognition of the value of science
engagement during periods of strained official relations between countries. Even at the height of the Cold War, U.S. and
Soviet scientists were meeting through informal venues such as the Pugwash Conferences, begun in 1957, and the interacademy
exchanges that began in 1959. By creating channels of communication and demonstrating models for
engagement, these exchanges set the stage for the government-to-government cooperation that
followed. By the early 1970s science and technology figured prominently in the U.S.-USSR agenda with
new agreements signed in science and technology, environment, space cooperation, and medical sciences and public
health. Similarly, as part of his historic opening to China in 1972, President Richard Nixon included science as one of the main directions for
building a new relationship with China.
3. (Violation) Repeal is not engagement – it only opens the possibility of engagement
David Axe, Oct 23, 2012, A Giant Leap Forward, Pacific Standard, David Axe is an American military correspondent who writes on military
life and aspects of current conflicts. Axe is a prolific blogger and has published several books. Defense IQ ranked David Axe's website, War is
Boring, as one of the top ten defense blogs of 2011, https://psmag.com/a-giant-leap-forward-aa701da31cfa#.62rcy8okv
With more open-minded lawmakers in key positions, two
simple steps could reverse America’s self-defeating blockade of
the Chinese space program: a repeal of most, if not all, of the legal prohibitions in the U.S. against
cooperating with China in space, and a commensurate diplomatic effort by Washington to bring Beijing
into the existing international space program.
Negative’s Files
323
4. Standards:
a. Fairness: All of our evidence is based off the US increasing diplomatic or
economic engagement with the PRC – that means their case avoids all our
best disadvantage and Kritik links and puts us at a severe disadvantage in
this debate. The resolution specifies the types of engagement affs must use
and that is the only predictable standard off which to base our arguments.
b. Education: The resolution framers didn’t intend for us to learn about science
cooperation – they wanted us to learn about diplomatic and economic
engagement. Debate trains us to be effective lawyers, politicians, and
advocates – the only way to be effective change-makers is to learn about
societal factors like diplomacy and economics. Also, an untopical aff moots
all the research we do out of round – it disincentives us to learn more about
economics, diplomacy, and the topic since it won’t be relevant in the
debate.
c. Effects topicality: Their case is not on-face topical, it just removes a barrier
which could lead to a topical action. Effects topicality is bad because it
explodes the limits of debate. In the world of the aff any action between
point A and point Z is acceptable as long as point Z is topical. That means
they could solve world hunger, global warming, and give everyone a coke as
long as they somehow end up engaging with China. That’s a bad model of
debate and you should reject it.
5. Voters: Plans that are untopical destroy the reason we do debate. If debates are
unfair, not educational, or abuse the rules of the game it makes students want to
quit and undercuts all the transformative potential of debate. Vote neg to
maintain the value of debate. Topicality is a gateway issue, if they don’t win it then
it means the debate is tainted and you should not vote on the other positions.
Negative’s Files
324
Cyber Negative
Negative’s Files
325
Inherency Answers - Cyber
US-China are working together on cyber now
White House Office of the Press Secretary, September 25, 2015, FACT SHEET: President Xi Jinping’s State Visit to
the United States, The Office of the Press Secretary coordinates and releases the information about White House affairs,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/25/fact-sheet-president-xi-jinpings-state-visit-united-states
The United States and China agree that timely responses should be provided to requests for information
and assistance concerning malicious cyber activities. Further, both sides agree to cooperate, in a manner
consistent with their respective national laws and relevant international obligations, with requests to
investigate cybercrimes, collect electronic evidence, and mitigate malicious cyber activity emanating
from their territory. Both sides also agree to provide updates on the status and results of those
investigation to the other side, as appropriate. The United States and China agree that neither country’s
government will conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, including trade
secrets or other confidential business information, with the intent of providing competitive advantages to companies or commercial
sectors. Both
sides are committed to making common effort to further identify and promote appropriate
norms of state behavior in cyberspace within the international community. The United States and China welcome
the July 2015 report of the UN Group of Governmental Experts in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of
International security, which addresses norms of behavior and other crucial issues for international security in cyberspace. The two sides also
agree to create a senior experts group for further discussions on this topic. The
United States and China agree to establish a
high-level joint dialogue mechanism on fighting cybercrime and related issues. China will designate an official at
the ministerial level to be the lead and the Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of State Security, Ministry of Justice, and the State Internet and
Information Office will participate in the dialogue. The U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security and the U.S. Attorney General will co-chair the
dialogue, with participation from representatives from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Intelligence Community and other agencies,
for the United States. This mechanism will be used to review the timeliness and quality of responses to requests for information and assistance
with respect to malicious cyber activity of concern identified by either side. As part of this mechanism, both
sides agree to establish
a hotline for the escalation of issues that may arise in the course of responding to such requests. Finally,
both sides agree that the first meeting of this dialogue will be held by the end of 2015, and will occur
twice per year thereafter.
Negative’s Files
326
Inherency Answers - Cyber
Obama can is already planning to use sanctions
Franz-Stefan Gady, January 29, 2016, What Does 2016 Hold for China-US Relations in Cyberspace?, The Diplomat, Franz-Stefan Gady is an
Associate Editor with The Diplomat. His interests include civil-military relations, revolution in military affairs, and cyber diplomacy. He also is a
Senior Fellow with the EastWest Institute where he edits the Policy Innovation Blog. Franz-Stefan has reported from a wide range of countries
and conflict zones including Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. His writing and photos have appeared in The International New York Times, BBC
News, Foreign Affairs Magazine, Foreign Policy Magazine, The National Interest, Vice News, The Middle East Eye, The Christian Science Monitor,
Profil, Der Standard, and Die Presse among other publications, thediplomat.com/2016/01/what-does-2016-hold-for-china-us-relations-incyberspace/
Sino-U.S. relations in cyberspace in 2016 will be defined by three key policies: attribution, sanctions, and
norms. The first two tacks will be used by the United States to contain malicious Chinese activities in
cyberspace (and to assuage the U.S. private sector and U.S. public opinion), whereas the last device will be used for promoting strategic
stability between both nations by deepening the understanding of what is acceptable behavior in the cyber realm. First, while it is true that
attribution, i.e. tracing a cyber attack back to its originator, remains difficult, it is not impossible. Both the U.S. government and the private
sector have repeatedly called out Chinese hackers in so-called “naming and shaming” campaigns. This tactic consists of either leaking classified
intelligence to the press or publishing cyberattack reports by U.S. cyber security firms (which over the years became a clever marketing ploy for
those companies). And while “naming and shaming” sustained a severe setback with the Snowden revelations, we will certainly witness a
number of such cyberattack disclosures in 2016. However, the shock value—and as a consequence its potential negative impact on the SinoU.S. bilateral relationship—will be less severe than in 2014 and 2015, given that, after the recent Office of Personal Management data breach
and the Snowden disclosures, the threshold for disclosures with the potential to severely undermine the Sino-U.S. bilateral relationship has
substantially risen. At the same time “naming and shaming” will at least contain both sides from going overboard when it comes to cyber
espionage activities and aggressive network intrusions. Second, sanctions,
while an imperfect tool, appear to have caught
the attention of the Chinese leadership in 2015 and will likely play a role in Sino-U.S. relations in 2016 as
well. On April 1, 2015, U.S. President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13694, which argues that “the
increasing prevalence and severity of malicious cyber enabled activities originating from, or directed by
persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States constitute an unusual and
extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.” As a
consequence, the Obama White House threatened China with economic sanctions and individual
Chinese citizens with travel restrictions should Beijing not rein in its hacker community. One indication that this
worked has been the arrest of a number of Chinese hackers prior to the September 2015 state visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping, although
there is considerable debate among experts whether there is a genuine connection between the two events. However, the threat of economic
sanctions will have significantly higher impact on the senior Chinese leadership in 2016, primarily due to China’s deteriorating economic
situation, but also due to the international humiliation the country would suffer from being the first nation subject to economic sanctions for
cyber attacks.
Negative’s Files
327
Economy Advantage Answers – Cyber
Uniqueness Answers
Non-unique: China doesn’t hack – they are dedicated to working with the US
Xi Jinping, Sept. 22, 2015, Full Transcript: Interview With Chinese President Xi Jinping, Wall Street Journal, Xi Jinping is the current president
of the People's Republic of China, www.wsj.com/articles/full-transcript-interview-with-chinese-president-xi-jinping-1442894700
China takes cybersecurity very seriously. China
is also a victim of hacking. The Chinese government does not engage
in theft of commercial secrets in any form, nor does it encourage or support Chinese companies to
engage in such practices in any way. Cybertheft of commercial secrets and hacking attacks against
government networks are both illegal; such acts are criminal offenses and should be punished according to law and
relevant international conventions. China and the United States share common concerns on cybersecurity. We are
ready to strengthen cooperation with the U.S. side on this issue. I will have in-depth exchanges of views with President
Obama on bilateral relations and the international developments and engage the American public in order to jointly chart the course for
growing China-U.S. relations. I am sure that this visit will send a positive message to the international community that China
United States will strengthen cooperation and jointly meet global challenges.
and the
Negative’s Files
328
Economy Advantage Answers – Cyber
Uniqueness Answers
Non-Unique: Hacking is too hard to track – US is just guessing its China
Xinhua News Service, June 4, 2015, U.S. allegations about hacking from China "not responsible, counterproductive": embassy,
The Xinhua News Agency is the official press agency of the People's Republic of China. Xinhua is the biggest and most influential media
organization in China, news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-06/05/c_134300516.htm
China on Thursday cautioned the United States against jumping to conclusion in accusing China of hacking
U.S. federal computer networks to steal personnel information, saying such accusation is "not responsible and
counterproductive." The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said in a statement earlier Thursday that massive data from the Office
of Personnel Management and the Interior Department had been compromised in the hacking. Some U.S. media reports, quoting
unnamed U.S. officials, alleged that the hacking was done by hackers based in China, without providing
further proof. "Cyber attacks conducted across countries are hard to track and therefore the source of
attacks is difficult to identify. Jumping to conclusions and making hypothetical accusation is not
responsible and counterproductive," Zhu Haiquan, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in the United States, said in a statement.
He pointed out that Chinese laws prohibit cyber crimes of all forms and China has made great efforts to
combat cyber attacks in accordance with Chinese laws and regulations.
Negative’s Files
329
Economy Advantage Answers – Cyber
Internal Link Answers
No internal link: Aff’s studies are biased – IP just isn’t that important
Eli Dourado and Ian Robinson, 2014, How Many Jobs Does Intellectual Property Create?, Mercatus Research, Eli Dourado is a
research fellow in the Technology Policy Program at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He specializes in Internet governance,
intellectual property, political economy, and the economics of technology & Ian Robinson holds an MA in economics from George Mason
University and is an alumnus of the Mercatus MA Fellowship program, mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Dourado-IP-Jobs.pdf
Perhaps most fundamentally, jobs
are not ends in themselves, and counting the number of jobs created is
therefore not the best way to evaluate a policy. As Bryan Caplan notes, “Economists have been at war with make-work bias
for centuries. [19th-century French economist Frédéric] Bastiat ridicules the equation of prosperity with jobs as ‘Sisyphism,’ after the
mythological fully employed Greek who was eternally condemned to roll a boulder up a hill.”8 Economic progress, Bastiat says, is defined by an
increasing ratio of output to effort—indeed, economic nirvana is achieved when there is high output and zero labor effort. Lawmakers could
create jobs by requiring that construction projects be performed with spoons instead of shovels or tractors. Such a policy, however, would
reduce worker productivity and decrease total economic output. Consequently, this spoon mandate would not promote economic progress.
Likewise, some of the
jobs created by IP may harm the economy instead of helping it. Suppose IP laws
necessitated that every firm hire 10 additional IP lawyers, but otherwise left output unchanged. IP could
be said to create millions of additional jobs, but these would be jobs that reduced real output per
worker, jobs that moved society further away from economic nirvana. They should be reckoned as
economic costs of IP, not economic benefits. If (counterfactually) this were the only effect of IP, then abolition of IP would
mean that the effort of the heretofore unproductively employed IP lawyers could be redirected to more productive uses. Second, an
accounting of the employment created by intellectual property necessarily focuses on what Bastiat called the
“seen,” as opposed to the “unseen,” effects of IP. Consumers ultimately pay the salaries of any newly
employed workers through their (now higher) expenditure on IP-intensive products. But in the absence
of the “new employment,” consumers would have extra money to spend on other products and
services, which would support the creation of different jobs, which of course cannot be observed. Unless
the jobs that intellectual property creates are better for the economy than the ones that are replaced, IP at best moves jobs from this “unseen”
domain to the seen one. Third,
as a matter of basic logic, it is not the case that every job—or even most jobs—in
IP-intensive industries would not exist but for the existence of IP. The fact that an industry is IPintensive, as defined by IPUSE, does not necessarily indicate that an industry’s output or employment is IPdependent.10 As a reductio ad absurdum, consider the blogging “industry.” As a matter of law, all authors are automatically, without
registration or any other formal notice, bestowed with a copyright in their blog posts. Since the entire output of the blogosphere is copyrighted,
under IPUSE’s methodology it would qualify as an IP-intensive industry (if it were considered an industry). Nevertheless, it seems clear that
copyright protection accounts for at best a tiny sliver of bloggers’ output—the vast majority of blogs are accessible without a paid subscription,
and many bloggers do not attempt to monetize their posts (with ads, say) at all. If some industries resemble blogging—for example, if
copyrights are automatically awarded but not relied on, or if patenting is done for primarily defensive purposes, or if trademarks exist but are
rarely relied on by consumers—then IPUSE and the other reports that rely on simplistic counts of IP grossly overstate the number of jobs due to
intellectual property. For these industries, IP intensity is not a reliable indicator of IP dependence. Fourth,
intellectual property is
not the only way to incentivize creation and invention. Prizes and awards can stimulate production of new innovations or
creative works. Assurance contracts, such as those enabled by new online crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo, are another
mechanism by which creation can be rewarded. Governments or wealthy individuals can also commission creative works or fund research
teams. When these studies
estimate the number of jobs created by intellectual property, they typically
make a static comparison to a baseline in which no other policies or institutions adapt to accommodate
the need to incentivize creation. These studies will therefore overcount the number of jobs due to IP.
Negative’s Files
330
Economy Advantage Answers – Cyber
Internal Link Answers
Internal link turn: More IP protection actually hurts the economy
MATT Ridley, June 21, 2013, A Welcome Turn Away From Patents, Wall Street Journal, Matt Ridley, is a British journalist who has written
several popular science books.[1] He is also a businessman and a Conservative member of the House of Lords.[2][3] Ridley is best known for his
writings on science, the environment, and economics, www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324520904578553700647653828
The economist Arthur Laffer is reputed to have drawn his famous curve—showing that beyond a certain point higher taxes generate lower
revenue—on a paper napkin at a dinner with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in the Washington Hotel in 1974. Another economist, Alex
Tabarrok of George Mason University, last year drew a similar curve on a virtual napkin to argue that, beyond a
certain point,
greater protection for intellectual property causes less innovation. He thinks that U.S. patent law is well
beyond that optimal point. Last week the Supreme Court came out against the patenting of genes, on the grounds that they are
discoveries, not inventions, though it did allow that edited copies of the DNA of a breast cancer gene should be seen as invented diagnostic
tools. Dr. Tabarrok thinks that decision and other recent rulings are nudging patent law back in the right direction after a protectionist drift in
the 1980s and '90s. The argument for patents is that, without the monopoly they grant, inventors will not make discoveries, and if they do, they
won't share them. So inventors get 20 years of protection against imitators. The counterargument is that patents
are often used
defensively to deter rival innovators and thus to discourage innovation. America's Semiconductor Chip
Protection Act of 1984 resulted in more patenting but less innovation as firms tried to build up defensive
"war chests" of patents to use in disputes with each other. Many firms use patents as barriers to entry,
suing upstart innovators who trespass on their intellectual property even en route to some other goal. In
the years before World War I, aircraft makers tied each other up in patent lawsuits and slowed down
innovation until the government stepped in. Much the same has happened with smartphones and
biotechnology today. New entrants have to fight their way through "patent thickets" if they are to build on
existing technologies to make new ones. In his 2010 book "The Gridlock Economy," Michael Heller compares this monopolistic use of patents to
a "phantom tollbooth" (a phrase borrowed from Norton Juster's 1961 children's book). Biotech companies that patent molecular techniques act
like medieval barons along the Rhine who stifled trade by taking advantage of weakened imperial authority to extract tolls from passing cargo
boats. The logical next step in the corruption of the patent system was the invention of the patent "troll"—a company that buys up little-used
patents not to develop the product in question but just to prosecute trespassers and extract money from them. The result has been some huge
payouts, including one from BlackBerry. Dr. Tabarrok argued in his 2011 book "Launching the Innovation Renaissance" that patents
cannot encourage innovation if they raise its costs. In fields where innovation is a cumulative process, he
argued, restricting patents would cause firms to lose some of their monopoly rights, but they would gain
the opportunity to use the innovations of others. "The result is greater total innovation." Patents are
supposed to prevent imitation, but in practice, imitation is often more costly than innovation. Most
patent disputes are not about firms copying each other's inventions but about two companies
discovering simultaneously the next step in an innovative process. Yet patent law can't easily handle
that type of situation.
Negative’s Files
331
Economy Advantage Answers – Cyber
Impact Answers
Turn: US Growth bad – hurts the poor and the environment
Samuel Alexander, September 22, 2015, Sustained economic growth: United Nations mistakes the poison for the cure, The
Conversation news aggregator, Samuel Alexander is a research fellow at the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne,
theconversation.com/sustained-economic-growth-united-nations-mistakes-the-poison-for-the-cure-47691
The defining flaw in the United Nations’ agenda is the naïve assumption that “sustained economic growth” is the
most direct path to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. This faith in the god of growth is
fundamentally misplaced. It has been shown, for example, that for every $100 in global growth merely $0.60
is directed toward resolving global poverty. Not only is this an incredibly inefficient pathway to poverty
alleviation, it is environmentally unsupportable. By championing economic growth, the Sustainable Development
Goals are a barely disguised defence of the market fundamentalism that underpins business-as-usual. But
in an age of planetary limits, sustained economic growth is not the solution to our social and
environmental ills, but their cause.
Negative’s Files
332
Economy Advantage Answers – Cyber
Impact Answers
Turn: Economic growth is harmful and bad – 3 reasons
Graeme Maxton, April 21, 2015, Economic growth doesn't create jobs, it destroys them, The Guardian, Graeme Maxton is secretary
general of the Club of Rome (The Club of Rome is a global think tank that deals with a variety of international political issues),
www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/apr/21/jobs-economic-growth-inequality-environment-club-of-rome
After so many years of being told the same thing, it is barely surprising that we believe it. Economic
growth is good, we are told, and essential to all we do. Growth creates work. Work creates wealth. Wealth closes the gap
between rich and poor. Once we have a stronger economy, the economists say, we can tackle our environmental problems. The only
trouble is, this is all wrong. 1. Growth does not create jobs: The way the current economic system is
designed, it does the opposite. The constant drive to increase productivity, which is what economic
growth really is, requires manufacturers to steadily reduce input costs. Economic growth destroys
jobs. Before the 1980s this didn’t matter much, because many new manufacturing businesses were established to soak up a rising working
population. Since then, though, this has not happened – growth has increased the number of people without jobs, certainly in the rich world.In
the last 35 years, the world has experienced the fastest economic growth in human history. Yet, according
to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), unemployment went up. Even extreme policy tools
introduced since 2007, such as ultra-low interest rates and quantitative easing, have not achieved much. We were told that these would
generate faster economic growth, yet growth has remained weak and unemployment is
still higher than it was three
decades ago. 2. Economic growth does not reduce inequality: Because the system is designed to reward
those who already have money and assets, the free market economic model takes wealth from the poor
and gives it to the rich. This is especially true since 2008 as government and consumer debts in the rich world have risen and average
incomes have stagnated or fallen. The gap between the rich and poor is bigger today than in 1914. The gap
between rich countries and poor ones is also much greater. The coming wave of new technology will
make these problems worse. A study on the future of employment at Oxford University predicts that almost half of all jobs
are at threat from robotisation in the next 20 years. Many of these are highly skilled jobs, such as those done
by pilots, doctors, accountants and lawyers. The jobs that will be left are those that require a great deal of personal
attention or artistic input – in other words, those that are generally poorly paid. 3. Boosting growth is
not the way to solve environmental problems: Economic growth is the cause of them. It requires a
constant increase in the flow of raw materials extracted from the planet to be turned into goods,
services and waste. The more we grow, certainly using current economic thinking, the more resources we need to
use and the more pollution we create. Rather then pursuing economic growth then, we should tackle
our problems head on. We should develop policies to ensure that everyone has enough money to live on, because it leads to healthier
and more stable societies. We should plan to reduce the gap between rich and poor, and we need to stop prevaricating when it comes to the
environment and actually do something.
Negative’s Files
333
Economy Advantage Answers – Cyber
Impact Answers
Utilitarians agree, growth is immoral
Avram Hiller, Ramona Ilea, & Leonard Kahn, Dec 4, 2013, Consequentialism and Environmental Ethics, Routledge, Avram Hiller
is an Associate Professor in the Philosophy Department at Portland State University, Ramona Ilea is professor at Pacific University in Oregon,
Leonard Kahn is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Loyola university in New Orleans,
https://books.google.com/books?id=x1VKAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq="economic+growth"+"consequentialism"&source=bl&ots=a2
38LmgFvM&sig=2EGT1DzYzJUsefcWMHuWZo8xQM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi86cmb8LLOAhUrzIMKHQ2eDV8Q6AEILzAC#v=onepage&q=mill's%20views%20on%20stationary%20growth&f
=false
Mill's views on the stationary growth economy are linked with his ideas that we should focus our attention to improving the Art of Living and
improving the quality of life rather than the quantity of consumer products: It is scarcely necessary to remark that a
stationary state of
capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There would be as much
scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress; as much room for improving
the Art of Living, and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds ceased to be engrossed
by the art of getting on. (CW 3: 756) These claims and statements clearly resonate with the spirit of ecofeminists Maria Mies and
Vandana Shiva's (1993) promotion of a life of voluntary simplicity. Mies and Shiva promote an anti-oppression ideal that they conceive of as a
life that liberates the consumer and unhooks people from what they call the maldevelopment of Western industrialized and technological
society. Maldevelopment is
explained in terms of the existence of an inverse relationship between the
good life and economic growth. In this view, carefully explained by Mics and Shiva and also widely held by environmentalist thinkers
and activists, economic growth and quality of life and well-being are in conflict. The standard view that
economic growth is needed for well-being is rejected as lacking contact with reality. According to Mics and
Shiva, economic growth, increased production, and materialism act as barriers to rather than producers of
well-being. On the contrary, they suggest that well-being depends upon reconceiving the good life and unhooking
it from consumerism and materialism. We should replace this compulsive and addictive view with one
that detaches the good from pursuit of and consumption of material objects. This goes along with a more just
distribution of the economic and material basis of a good life, so that no one is deprived of the basic material goods needed for a decent
standard of living that meets vital needs. This ideal removes the addictive and compulsive pursuit of materialism and replaces it with an ideal of
moderate use of nature to provide for vital human needs. This notably resonates with the sentiments expressed by Mill in his attacks on the
materialism of his day. Mill was prescient in his views, since few nineteenth-century thinkers foresaw that the resources of nature were limited
and under threat by consumerism.
Negative’s Files
334
Economy Advantage Answers – Cyber
Solvency Answers
Past actions like plan have failed – US can’t deter Chinese hackers
ELIAS Groll, SEPTEMBER 2, 2015, The U.S. Hoped Indicting 5 Chinese Hackers Would Deter Beijing’s Cyberwarriors. It Hasn’t Worked,
Foreign Policy, Elias Groll is a staff writer at Foreign Policy, covering cybersecurity, privacy, and intelligence, foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/02/theu-s-hoped-indicting-5-chinese-hackers-would-deter-beijings-cyberwarriors-it-hasnt-worked/
On May 19, 2014, Attorney General Eric Holder walked up to a podium at the Justice Department and
accused a group of five hackers with names like UglyGorilla and KandyGoo of carrying out a high-tech campaign of
electronic burglary against prominent American businesses like U.S. Steel and Westinghouse Electric. Despite their
teenage monikers, the 48-pageindictment said the perpetrators were soldiers from Unit 61398 of the People’s Liberation Army, a premier crew
of cyberwarriors within the Chinese military. Going
after the Chinese officers, Holder said, “makes clear that state
actors who engage in economic espionage, even over the Internet from faraway offices in Shanghai, will
be exposed for their criminal conduct and sought for apprehension and prosecution in an American
court of law.” For good measure, the Justice Department even distributed wanted posters with pictures of the hackers in their Chinese
military uniforms. But nearly a year and a half after that indictment was unveiled, the five PLA soldiers named
in the indictment are no closer to seeing the inside of a federal courtroom, and China’s campaign of
economic espionage against U.S. firms continues. With Chinese President Xi Jinping set to arrive in Washington for a highprofile summit with President Barack Obama later this month, the question of how — and, indeed, if — the United States
can deter China from pilfering American corporate secrets remains very much open. The indictment of the PLA
hackers now stands out as a watershed moment in the escalating campaign by the U.S. government to deter China from its aggressive actions in
cyberspace — both as an example of the creative ways in which the United States is trying to fight back and the limits of its ability to actually
influence Chinese behavior. Since
the indictment was announced, cybersecurity experts say China has altered some of
the methods used by its hackers but that its campaign against U.S. firms remains active. “We’ve seen
tactical change but strategic continuity,” said Jen Weedon, a manager for threat intelligence at FireEye, a leading cybersecurity
firm. She added that Chinese hackers have changed some of the malware and infrastructure they used for attacks but were continuing to target
U.S. firms. Government agencies like the Pentagon, meanwhile, say that Chinese hackers attempt to infiltrate their systems hundreds of
thousands of times per day.
Negative’s Files
335
Economy Advantage Answers – Cyber
Solvency Answers
Unilateral retaliation fails
Roy Kamphausen, May 2014, New Collaborative Approaches to IP Protection, The National Bureau of Asian Research, ROY
KAMPHAUSEN is a Senior Advisor for Political and Security Affairs at the National Bureau of Asian Research,
www.nbr.org/downloads/pdfs/eta/New_Collaborative_Approaches_to_IP_Protection.pdf
The IP Commission Report, however, recognized that its recommendations are limited in their applicability;
principally, inputs from countries that are trading partners were not incorporated in the description and
analysis of the problem of IP theft. The ramifications of poor IP protections, however, are felt by more than
just a single country; consequently, solutions are not completely possible if pursued on a purely
unilateral basis. Indeed, multilateral approaches are most likely to be successful over time. This working paper
picks up where the IP Commission Report leaves off, by taking up the issue of how to multilateralize the protection of intellectual property. The
principal challenge in such an approach centers on how to manage the sharing of information in effective and trustworthy ways.
Negative’s Files
336
Cyber/Hacking Advantage Answers - Cyber
Uniqueness Answers
Non-unique: US has the strongest cyber forces – and getting stronger
DANNY Vinik, December 9, 2015, America’s secret arsenal, Politico, Danny Vinik is the assistant editor of The Agenda at Politico. He
previously was a staff writer at The New Republic and his work has appeared in the Washington Monthly and Business Insider. He graduated
from Duke University in 2013 with majors in economics and public policy, www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/defense-departmentcyber-offense-strategy-000331
Stuxnet's origins have never been officially acknowledged, and the extent of American meddling in malware is still unknown. But for
the
past few years there’s been something new developing within the U.S. military that has taken "cyber"
from a theoretical idea to a deliberate—if secretive—part of U.S. policy. The first ripple came in January 2013,
when the Washington Post reported that the Pentagon was significantly expanding its cybersecurity forces across
all the service branches. By that October, the U.S. Army had launched two teams of technical experts dedicated purely to the cyber
realm. Just a year later, the number was up to 10. The growth has been snowballing. Last year, the secretary of the
Army created a new branch for cyber—the first new Army branch since Special Forces was created in 1987. By October of this
year, there were 32 teams, coordinated out of a new joint force headquarters for cyber opened last year in Fort Gordon, Georgia. By next
summer, the Army expects to have 41. What's going on? The
growth points to one of the most cutting-edge, but also
obscure, realms of American military activity: its cyber strategy, and especially its strategy for
cyber offense. The United States already has, most observers believe, the most powerful cyberattack
capabilities in the world. Much less clear is just what its capacities actually are—and when the Department of Defense believes it
should use them.
Negative’s Files
337
Cyber/Hacking Advantage Answers - Cyber
Uniqueness Answers
Non-Unique: Cyber defense good and getting better
Barack Obama, February 2015, NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY, Barack Obama is president of the United States,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy.pdf
In the last 6 years alone, we arrested the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and catalyzed a new era of economic growth. We
increased our competitive edge and leadership in education, energy, science and technology, research and development, and healthcare. We
achieved an energy transformation in North America. We
are fortifying our critical infrastructure against all hazards,
especially cyber espionage and attack. And we are working hard to safeguard our civil liberties while
advancing our security.
Negative’s Files
338
Cyber/Hacking Advantage Answers - Cyber
Impact Answers
Turn: Cyber Deterrence risks more escalation
Lee Hsiang Wei, April 16, 2015, The Challenges of Cyber Deterrence, POINTER, JOURNAL OF THE SINGAPORE ARMED FORCES VOL.41
NO.1, Lee Hsiang Wei is a Major in the Singaporean armed forces,
www.mindef.gov.sg/content/dam/imindef_media_library/graphics/pointer/PDF/2015/Vol.41%20No.1/3)%20V41N1_The%20Challenges%20of
%20Cyber%20Deterrence.pdf
The aftermath of a successful retaliation against an initial cyber-attack is difficult to predict or control. A
mistimed or misinterpreted action could well result in the escalation of the situation, resulting in
more cyber-attacks. The timing, choice, scope and nature of the retaliation would affect the perceived message by the attacker.
Adding to this complexity in messaging, the difficultly in tracing the source of the cyber attacker can take
up to several months. This will result in a delay between the attack and the retaliatory action. The act of
cyber retaliation may itself take months to execute before the effects are felt and noticed by the
attacker. By the time the retaliatory cyber-attack is discovered, the retaliation could possibly seem both
arbitrary and unrelated to the original incident. If the messaging had indeed been misinterpreted, the defending
nation would run the risk of the attacker responding by escalating the matter to an armed conflict. If the
attacker becomes convinced that he would lose the cyber tit-for-tat, the option to counter retaliate in
a different domain becomes an inviting proposition.39 In 1998, it was reported that Russia, being
concerned about their ability to control ‘information warfare,’ was openly declaring that it reserved the
option to react to a strategic cyberattack with the choice of any weapon in its arsenal, which included
their nuclear arsenal.40
Negative’s Files
339
Cyber/Hacking Advantage Answers - Cyber
Impact Answers
Turn: Cyber deterrence leads to an arms race - especially dangerous for the US
Clorinda Trujillo, September 30, 2014, The Limits of Cyberspace Deterrence, Joint Force Quarterly 75, Clorinda Trujillo is a Lieutenant
Colonel in the US Air Force - The essay this exerpt is taken from is an essay which won in the Chairman’s strategic research paper category,
ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/NewsArticleView/tabid/7849/Article/577560/jfq-75-the-limits-of-cyberspace-deterrence.aspx
Third, there
is a risk of asymmetric vulnerability to attack in cyberspace—that is, the threat that the use of a
capability could backfire. As one actor develops offensive and defensive capabilities, other actors will
strive to improve their offensive and defensive skills as well. This continuous endeavor could push a
model that leads to a cyber “arms race.”37 In 1998, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director announced the United States
was developing computer programs to attack the infrastructure of other countries.38 By then, the U.S. Government Accountability Office
estimated over 120 state and nonstate actors had or were developing information warfare systems.39 Information on
exploiting
vulnerabilities and attacking networks is readily available on the Internet,40 and with American
dependency on cyberspace being greater than most, the United States is taking a risk by developing
advanced cyberspace capabilities.
Negative’s Files
340
Cyber/Hacking Advantage Answers - Cyber
Impact Answers
Framing Turn: Worst case predictions cause failed policy making, trade off with better
solutions, and risk escalation – we need to prioritize probability
Bruce Schneier March 13, 2010, Worst-Case Thinking, Schneier on Security, Bruce Schneier is an internationally renowned security
technologist and author, MA CS American University, http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/05/worst-case_thin.html
At a security conference recently, the moderator asked the panel of distinguished cybersecurity leaders what their nightmare scenario was. The
answers were the predictable array of large-scale attacks: against our communications infrastructure, against the power grid, against the
financial system, in combination with a physical attack. I didn't get to give my answer until the afternoon, which was: "My
nightmare
scenario is that people keep talking about their nightmare scenarios." There's a certain blindness that
comes from worst-case thinking. An extension of the precautionary principle, it involves imagining the worst possible
outcome and then acting as if it were a certainty. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for
risk analysis, and fear for reason. It fosters powerlessness and vulnerability and magnifies social
paralysis. And it makes us more vulnerable to the effects of terrorism. Worst-case thinking means generally bad decision
making for several reasons. First, it's only half of the cost-benefit equation. Every decision has costs and benefits,
risks and rewards. By speculating about what can possibly go wrong, and then acting as if that is likely to
happen, worst-case thinking focuses only on the extreme but improbable risks and does a poor job at
assessing outcomes. Second, it's based on flawed logic. It begs the question by assuming that a
proponent of an action must prove that the nightmare scenario is impossible. Third, it can be used to
support any position or its opposite. If we build a nuclear power plant, it could melt down. If we don't
build it, we will run short of power and society will collapse into anarchy. If we allow flights near Iceland's volcanic
ash, planes will crash and people will die. If we don't, organs won’t arrive in time for transplant operations and people will die. If we don't
invade Iraq, Saddam Hussein might use the nuclear weapons he might have. If we do, we might destabilize the Middle East, leading to
widespread violence and death. Of course, not all fears are equal. Those that we tend to exaggerate are more easily justified by worst-case
thinking. So terrorism fears trump privacy fears, and almost everything else; technology is hard to understand and therefore scary; nuclear
weapons are worse than conventional weapons; our children need to be protected at all costs; and annihilating the planet is bad. Basically, any
fear that would make a good movie plot is amenable to worst-case thinking. Fourth and finally, worst-case
thinking validates
ignorance. Instead of focusing on what we know, it focuses on what we don't know -- and what we can
imagine. Remember Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's quote? "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me,
because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we
know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." And this: "the
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Ignorance
isn't a cause for doubt; when you can fill that ignorance
with imagination, it can be a call to action. Even worse, it can lead to hasty and dangerous acts. You can't
wait for a smoking gun, so you act as if the gun is about to go off. Rather than making us safer, worst-case thinking has the
potential to cause dangerous escalation. The new undercurrent in this is that our society no longer has the ability
to calculate probabilities. Risk assessment is devalued. Probabilistic thinking is repudiated in favor of
"possibilistic thinking": Since we can't know what's likely to go wrong, let's speculate about what can possibly go wrong. Worst-case
thinking leads to bad decisions, bad systems design, and bad security. And we all have direct experience with its effects: airline security and the
TSA, which we make fun of when we're not appalled that they're harassing 93-year-old women or keeping first graders off airplanes. You can't
be too careful! Actually, you can. You can refuse to fly because of the possibility of plane crashes. You can lock your children in the house
because of the possibility of child predators. You can eschew all contact with people because of the possibility of hurt. Steven Hawking wants to
avoid trying to communicate with aliens because they might be hostile; does he want to turn off all the planet's television broadcasts because
they're radiating into space? It isn't hard to parody worst-case thinking, and at its extreme it's a psychological condition. Frank Furedi, a
sociology professor at the University of Kent, writes: "Worst-case thinking encourages society to adopt fear as one of the dominant principles
around which the public, the government and institutions should organize their life. It institutionalizes insecurity and fosters a mood of
confusion and powerlessness. Through
popularizing the belief that worst cases are normal, it incites people to
Negative’s Files
341
feel defenseless and vulnerable to a wide range of future threats." Even worse, it plays directly into the hands of
terrorists, creating a population that is easily terrorized -- even by failed terrorist attacks like the Christmas Day underwear bomber and the
Times Square SUV bomber. When someone
is proposing a change, the onus should be on them to justify it over
the status quo. But worst-case thinking is a way of looking at the world that exaggerates the rare and
unusual and gives the rare much more credence than it deserves. It isn't really a principle; it's a cheap trick to
justify what you already believe. It lets lazy or biased people make what seem to be cogent arguments
without understanding the whole issue. And when people don't need to refute counterarguments, there's no point in listening to
them.
Negative’s Files
342
Cyber/Hacking Advantage Answers - Cyber
Solvency Answers
Cyber deterrence doesn’t solve – it’s an outdated way of thinking
P.W. Singer, DECEMBER 18, 2015, How the United States Can Win the Cyberwar of the Future, Foreign Policy, P.W. Singer is director of
the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence at Brookings. Allan Friedman is a visiting scholar at the Cyber Security Policy Research
Institute at George Washington University, foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/18/how-the-united-states-can-win-the-cyberwar-of-the-futuredeterrence-theory-security/
The problem is that the
evidence disproves this link between building up more cyber-offensive capability as
the way to scare off the other side. There is not yet any direct pathway to deterrence the way building up
nuclear capability yielded it back in the day. Unlike concerns over bomber and missile “gaps” during the Cold War (which
notably turned out to be wrong), the United States’ hugely superior position in cyberspace has never been in
question. And for anyone somehow in doubt, there were the series of Washington designed to take credit for Stuxnet, the cyberattack that
successfully slowed Iran’s nuclear program and showed off a whole new class of cyberweapon. Then came Edward Snowden’s dump of
thousands of NSA documents. While Snowden’s disclosures obviously angered his former employers, they also show that the folks at Fort
Meade have much to be proud of. They have
developed unmatched, amazingly exotic capabilities, from a mindboggling
scale of global monitoring devices to new classes of cyberweapons that use radio signals to jump software over the
previously protective physical divides between systems. And the leaks show the capability is not mere lab work, but that the NSA has used them
in operations against targets ranging from Iranian nuclear research facilities to Chinese command networks. Yet despite
this offensive
capability and the demonstration of its potency, attacks on the United States have only grown, in
both number and intensity. In the year after the Snowden leaks proved the United States’ offensive
prowess, there was 55 percent more confirmed data breaches than the year before — and that doesn’t
even include the operations targeting major government sites like OPM or the Pentagon’s Joint
Staff network. The problem is not with deterrence theory, or with cyberweapons’ offensive utility, but
that too many people are trying to peel off the bumper-sticker version of complicated Cold War debates
on deterrence and apply them to a more complicated present and future. So what to do instead? Here are the three
better ways for the United States to draw the right lessons from the Cold War and create better and more obtainable cyber-deterrence goals.
Negative’s Files
343
Cyber/Hacking Advantage Answers - Cyber
Solvency Answers
Turn: Cyber deterrence isn’t like nuclear deterrence – their analysis fails and lulls us
into a false sense of security
Patrick Cirenza, 22 FEBRUARY 2016, The flawed analogy between nuclear and cyber deterrence, Bulliten of the Atomic Scientists,
Patrick Cirenza is a master's student at Cambridge University who studies cyber warfare and cyber espionage. He obtained his bachelor's
degree in political science from Stanford University, where he was a research assistant for professors Condoleezza Rice and Scott Sagan,
General James Mattis (Ret.), and Kori Schake. His undergraduate honors thesis on the nuclear-cyber analogy won the William J. Perry award for
policy-relevant research in international security studies, thebulletin.org/flawed-analogy-between-nuclear-and-cyber-deterrence9179
On the surface, the analogy is compelling. Like nuclear weapons, the most powerful cyber weapons—
malware capable of permanently damaging critical infrastructure and other key assets of society—are potentially catastrophically
destructive, have short delivery times across vast distances, and are nearly impossible to defend against.
Moreover, only the most technically competent of states appear capable of wielding cyber weapons to strategic effect right now, creating the
temporary illusion of an exclusive cyber club. To
some leaders who matured during the nuclear age, these tempting
similarities and the pressing nature of the strategic cyber threat provide firm justification to use nuclear
deterrence strategies in cyberspace. Indeed, Cold War-style cyber is one of the foundational cornerstones
of the 2015 US Department of Defense Cyber Strategy. However, dive a little deeper and the analogy
becomes decidedly less convincing. At the present time, strategic cyber weapons simply do not share the three
main deterrent characteristics of nuclear weapons: the sheer destructiveness of a single weapon, the
assuredness of that destruction, and a broad debate over the use of such weapons. The development of fission
and then fusion nuclear weapons made it possible to inflict truly unacceptable costs upon an adversary. The invention of delivery
technologies—such as secure second-strike capabilities, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and nuclear payloads with multiple independently
targetable reentry vehicles—guaranteed the credibility of the threat. And finally, the vibrant and interconnected debates within government,
academia, and think tanks about the use of nuclear weapons have guided policy and technology toward an outcome of stable deterrence. It
took the combination of these three characteristics to create a truly unacceptable and credible deterrent threat. By contrast, strategic cyber
weapons have not met these criteria. Sheer destructiveness. Despite former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike
Mullen claiming in 2011 that cyber weapons are the “single biggest existential threat that’s out there,” they have actually inflicted very little
physical destruction to date. Stuxnet, the largest known cyber weapon to cross the cyber-physical barrier, only damaged a thousand uranium
enrichment centrifuges. Further, it is generally accepted that not a single person has died as a direct result of a cyber attack. The destructive
power of even the smallest of nuclear devices still greatly eclipses that of the demonstrated destruction of cyber weapons. Even if the
reverential statements of world leaders about the potential destructiveness of strategic cyber weapons are taken at face value, their power still
does not compare to that of nuclear weapons. As Colonel Jamie Wakefield, currently the chief of contingency operations for US Northern
Command, said in an interview for my thesis in April 2015, “Cyber may be able to threaten the way we live or the way we do business, but
nuclear weapons threaten the fact that we live at all.” Simply put, strategic cyber weapons are not currently capable of inflicting the
unacceptable costs necessary for stable deterrence in cyberspace. Assuredness of destruction. Questions about the assured delivery of cyber
“payloads” also weaken strategic cyber weapons’ credibility as a deterrent. While the delivery of a nuclear weapon relies on the vehicle that
carries the weapon’s warhead, the delivery of a strategic cyber weapon is much more dependent on weaknesses in the target’s defenses. If a
network administrator patches vulnerabilities in the target computer code, or an agent is unable to insert a USB drive to cross an air-gapped
system (a system that is physically disconnected from unprotected networks), then a strategic cyber weapon that was deliverable yesterday
might not be today. Even if a strategic cyber weapon makes it past a system’s defenses, there is no guarantee that it will have its intended
effect—it could do nothing at all or cause significant unintended collateral damage. There simply is no analogue in the nuclear world, where a
weapon’s destruction is a predetermined, known quantity. As President Barack Obama observed when I spoke with him at the White House
Summit on Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection in February 2015, “With nuclear weapons there is a binary. Either there are no nuclear
explosions or there are big ones and it is a real problem. In cyberspace, there are all sorts of gradations.” While a state may promise to
massively retaliate against a cyber attack, neither the attacker nor the defender can be entirely sure that this will happen because the state
may not have the capability to fulfill its threat. This problem significantly undermines the feasibility of applying deterrence principles in
cyberspace. A common understanding. Finally, the open-source
debate surrounding the use of strategic cyber
weapons is still very much in its infancy. In the absence of major public demonstrations of strategic
cyber weapons, the debate largely centers on speculation about cyber capabilities. Without a common
understanding of strategic cyber weapons, participants take uncoordinated stabs in the dark over what
Negative’s Files
344
the policy implications of the weapons are. In combination with the limited interaction between the
public debate and its classified counterpart, the result is a rather weak conversation. As former CIA director
Michael Hayden commented when I interviewed him in March 2015, “No one has yet begun to write the On Thermonuclear War [Herman
Kahn’s classic 1959 text on nuclear strategic concepts] for cyber conflict.” Admiral
Jim Ellis, former commander of US
Strategic Command, put it far less charitably in my interview with him, also in March 2015, saying that the debate was
“like the Rio Grande, a mile wide and an inch deep.” The flawed analogy of nuclear and cyber weapons
is dangerous because it creates the illusion of security when potentially there is none. At present, a number
of factors—including other forms of deterrence and economic interdependence—are discouraging use of the strategic cyber weapons that
states around the world are quickly amassing. However, if
the global security situation unexpectedly changes, and the
United States bases its cyber policy on the shaky assumption that it can deter strategic cyber weapons,
then it could be vulnerable to attack by those who do not share its views. Chinese experts, for example,
have espoused skepticism about the feasibility of cyber deterrence. A misjudgment now about strategic
cyber weapons could have catastrophic consequences later.
Negative’s Files
345
Counter Plan to Cyber Aff (Sanctions PIC)
Counterplan text
The United States Congress should implement the medium-term recommendations of
the 2013 Theft of American Intellectual Property of the U.S. International Trade
Commission against the People’s Republic of China excluding sanctions
Negative’s Files
346
Counter Plan to Cyber Aff (Sanctions PIC)
Counterplan Solvency
Sanctions fail – cultural differences
Malena Carollo, SEPTEMBER 16, 2015, Influencers: US should sanction China for economic espionage, The Christian Science Monitor,
Malena Carollo is a reporter at Passcode where she covers surveillance, encryption, and law enforcement. She has written for the Tampa Bay
Times and the Staten Island Advance. She earned her M.S. degree at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, where she focused
on investigative and data journalism. Her Master’s project, published in Passcode, was a deep-dive into the upcoming industry of social media
monitoring companies that claim to be able to deter school violence, www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/PasscodeInfluencers/2015/0916/Influencers-US-should-sanction-China-for-economic-espionage
“The
problem with the US imposing sanctions on China for economic cyberespionage is that the Chinese
don’t understand the US position that there is a difference between economic espionage - which the US
claims it does not do - and national security cyber espionage, something the US does daily. The line seems
arbitrary to the Chinese culture. ...The truth is, key players on the international stage believe what China
believes. France is notorious for industrial espionage, and the Russians, until recently, have just been stealthier about their operations,
compared to their Chinese brethren...The real question is not whether we should distinguish between industrial
cyber espionage and state secret cyber espionage. The real question is what do we do about cyber
espionage in general. … After the Cold War and since the Internet has become the ubiquitous access tool it now is, the change in
espionage has been one of scale. Before the Cold War, spy organizations stole secrets one at a time at considerable peril to their secret agents
in the field. After, cyber spies can now hoover up libraries of secrets from the safety of their own living rooms. China, Russia, and France
understand this and believe it would be silly not to take advantage of the situation. Imposing
sanctions on countries for
pursuing this activity would not stop it. Most countries would consider it the cost of doing business. The
libraries of hoovered secrets would be worth the price. So, sanctions are not the answer. What might work are
incentives. We need to find ways that make it mutually beneficial to all players not to conduct cyberespionage operations. I am not sure what
those might be, but I am positive that the
U.S. imposing sanctions on China will have no effect and will just raise
tensions between the two countries.”
Negative’s Files
347
Counter Plan to Cyber Aff (Sanctions PIC)
Counterplan Net Benefit – Uniqueness and Link
Punitive measures could cause a trade and cyber war – we are on the brink now
Lawrence L. Muir, Jr. August 22, 2014, Triangulating Cyberespionage for Better US Diplomacy, The Diplomat, Lawrence L. Muir, Jr. is an
Adjunct Professor of Law at Washington & Lee University School of Law in Lexington, Virginia. He has taught W&L’s Cyber Crimes Seminar since
the Spring Semester of 2012. Professor Muir is a former Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, where he prosecuted cybercrimes in the
Computer Crime Section, thediplomat.com/2014/08/triangulating-cyberespionage-for-better-us-diplomacy/
The United States is on the brink of both a trade war and a cyberwar with each country. Chinese
cyberespionage, for which China accepts no responsibility, has contributed to America’s economic malaise. McAfee estimates cybercrime
reduces U.S. GDP growth by up to 0.8 percent. In
response to Chinese hacking, the FBI indicted five officers of the
Chinese People’s Liberation Army on cybercrime charges. This unilateral American effort, undertaken
because bilateral diplomatic efforts failed to reach an accord on cyber-issues, has proven to be a foreign policy
blunder. American companies have faced retribution from the Chinese government. The U.S. has
retaliated with trade sanctions against Chinese solar companies. The Chinese, in turn, have stated that a
promising bilateral investment treaty now faces serious difficulties. The two nations, so dependent upon each
other for economic growth through exports, stand on the precipice of a trade war exacerbated by a cyberwar, due in
no small part to the foolishness of an indictment that will never produce convictions.
Negative’s Files
348
Counter Plan to Cyber Aff (Sanctions PIC)
Counterplan Net Benefit - Impact
US-China trade-war would destroy the US and world economy
Paul Brandus, May 26, 2016, Opinion: How much a Trump trade war could cost you, Market Watch, An award-winning member of the
White House press corps, Paul Brandus founded WestWingReports and provides reports for media outlets around the United States and
overseas. His career spans network television, Wall Street, and several years as a foreign correspondent based in Moscow, where he covered
the collapse of the Soviet Union for NBC Radio and the award-winning business and economics program Marketplace,
www.marketwatch.com/story/how-much-a-trump-trade-war-could-cost-you-2016-05-26
“Who
the hell cares if there’s a trade war?” Trump scoffed at a New Jersey event this month. I suppose when you’re
super wealthy like he is, it doesn’t matter if the price of a TV or pair of sneakers or even a car goes up
35% to 45%. But when you’re just about anyone else, it matters. A lot. On top of that, the report by the nonpartisan
National Foundation for American Policy adds that if those countries retaliated against us (we export stuff to them too, you know)
it would destroy lots of American jobs. “Who the hell cares if there’s a trade war?” I’ll bet the one in six
American workers whose jobs are linked to trade do. Even American companies that don’t export
would be hurt by Trump’s tariffs: their reliance on cheap, imported raw materials would drive up costs—
which would just be passed on to us. Importers, exporters, manufacturers and consumers, Trump’s trade
agenda could hurt everyone. Just how many jobs could be lost in a Trump-inspired trade war? Moody’s Analytics studied that problem for the
Washington Post. It concluded that Trump is right: big tariffs on China and Mexico would push both countries into a recession. But because
we live in a global economy, we’d be dragged into a recession as well. “Up to 4 million American workers
would lose their jobs,” the Post notes, while “another 3 million jobs would not be created that otherwise
would have been, had the country not fallen into a trade-induced downturn.” Seven million jobs. Gone.
Negative’s Files
349
Topicality to Cyber Aff
1. Interpretation: The People’s Republic of China is the sovereign state of China
Collins Dictionary, 2014, People's Republic of China, Collins Dictionary 12 edition, Collins Dictionary is one of the premier
th
dictionaries in the world - it is the official dictionary for Scrabble, www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/peoples-republic-of-china
a republic in East Asia: the third largest and the most populous country in the world; the
oldest continuing civilization(beginning over 2000 years bc); republic established in 1911 after the overthrow of the Manchu dynasty by Sun
Yat-sen; People's Republic formed in 1949; the 1980s and 1990s saw economic liberalization but a rejection of political reform;
contains vast deserts, steppes, great mountain ranges (Himalayas, Kunlun, Tian Shan, and Nan Shan), a central ruggedplateau, and intensively
cultivated E plains. Language: Chinese in various dialects, the chief of which is Mandarin. Religion:nonreligious majority; Buddhist and
Taoist minorities. Currency: yuan. Capital: Beijing. Pop: 1 349 586 000 (2013 est). Area: 9 560 990 sq km (3 691 502 sq miles)
2. Violation: Plan targets individual people and companies – not the PRC
Malena Carollo, SEPTEMBER 16, 2015, Influencers: US should sanction China for economic espionage, The Christian Science Monitor,
Malena Carollo is a reporter at Passcode where she covers surveillance, encryption, and law enforcement. She has written for the Tampa Bay
Times and the Staten Island Advance. She earned her M.S. degree at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, where she focused
on investigative and data journalism. Her Master’s project, published in Passcode, was a deep-dive into the upcoming industry of social media
monitoring companies that claim to be able to deter school violence, www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/PasscodeInfluencers/2015/0916/Influencers-US-should-sanction-China-for-economic-espionage“The
sanctions are not against ‘China,’
but the specific entities involved in the theft of trade secrets,” Mr. Healey said. “This is directly targeting
those involved in the illegal conduct, locking them out of US markets or refusing them visas. So while it is certainly escalatory, it is
less so than counter-hacking or other aggressive state versus state action.”
Negative’s Files
350
3. Standards
a. Fairness: Non-topical plans are absolutely unfair. The links to all our
arguments are based on the affirmative actually doing something with the
PRC – if they don’t use the PRC we lose all our best links and our
argumentation ground. If we can’t argue the core of the topic then there is
no way we can have a fair debate.
b. Education: The key to topical education is debating engagement between
the US and PRC. Plan moots the core of this engagement and destroys
topical education. Topical education is key because the US-China economic
relationship affects all of our lives and if we want to become politicians,
academics, or business people we will need to understand the US-China
relationship.
c. Extra topicality: Plan does more than the resolution calls for, it sanctions
actors other than the PRC. That’s bad because it means that if their case is
fine then any case that’s 99% untopical can be acceptable as long as there’s
1% topicality. This means they could read nearly anything and get away with
it. That’s a bad world of debate.
4. Voters: Evaluate topicality first; non-topical plans kill education and fairness for
debaters which means topicality is a gateway issue. Without education or fairness
debate is not a meaningful game – preserve education and fairness by voting neg.
Negative’s Files
351
Topicality to Cyber Aff
(2NC/1NR Violation extension) Actions are against companies, not the PRC
The Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property, 2013, The IP Commission Report,
Co-chaired by Dennis C Blair (former Director of National Intelligence and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command) and Jon Huntsman
Jr (former Ambassador to China, Governor of the state of Utah, and Deputy U.S. Trade Representative),
www.ipcommission.org/report/IP_Commission_Report_052213.pdf
While this process would have no effect on goods or processes that do not enter the U.S. market, it will have a strong deterrent effect on major
foreign companies with international ambitions, as it forces them to choose between obtaining IP illegally and selling in the U.S. market. This
quick response capability is based on identification of a particular good or service that incorporates
stolen IP. The penalty for the infraction is taken against the product or service. When a Chinese or other
foreign company is identified as a repeat offender, using stolen IP on a larger scale, then action needs to
be taken against the company itself.
Negative’s Files
Convention on the Rights of the Child
Negative
352
Negative’s Files
353
Inherency Answers - CRC
Courts already include the CRC in decisions
Arthur Milikh, March 31, 2015, Decayed Decision-Making, Heritage Foundation, Arthur Milikh is Associate Director at the B. Kenneth
Simon Center for Principles and Politics B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics,
www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2015/3/decayed-decision-making
Even the relatively high standard of Senate ratification has not prevented the use of unratified treaties
in U.S. courts. In the 2005 case of Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court cited the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child in the course of deciding what “cruel and unusual” meant in the
Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. As Allan explains: Top American judges . . . cited and gave weight
to treaty-based international law that the elected branches had specifically and explicitly refused to
incorporate into domestic law.
Negative’s Files
354
Inherency Answers - CRC
The CRC can still be used as legal basis for laws and decisions in the US – also has wide
legal support
Parental Rights Nonprofit, 2006, The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Parentalrights.org, Parental Rights is a
nonprofit focused on conserving traditional values - it is staffed by many policy and governmental experts,
www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?SEC=%7B56EEC7D0-195F-410B-97FE-9A961583A1F4%7D&DE=
This danger to the American family may not seem
imminent - but it is. Even if the UNCRC is not ratified, the
dangers it contains could soon become reality for millions of parents. Under the traditional principles of
international law, a treaty may only obligate a nation which has ratified its provisions. But today a
growing coalition of international jurists and legal scholars are challenging the necessity of ratification
before implementation, citing a complex legal doctrine known as customary international law. In contrast to
international treaties, where a specific document is drafted, signed, and ratified, customary international law is an unwritten
law, "comprised of the customs and usages among nations of the world." Through customary
international law many of the key provisions of the UNCRC could easily be applied to insert the long arm
of government intrusion into millions of American families, simply because this treaty is being ratified by
governments around the world.
Negative’s Files
355
Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRC
Uniqueness Answers
Non-Unique: The president has credibility and it is increasing
Emilie M. Hafner-Burton, June 2014, Interview with Emilie M. Hafner-Burton: “Avoiding Using Power Would be Devastating for
Human Rights”, Conectas Human Rights Journal, Emilie Hafner-Burton is a professor at the UC San Diego’s School of International Relations and
Pacific Studies and is the Director of the School’s new Laboratory on International Law and Regulation, www.conectas.org/en/actions/surjournal/issue/20/1007386-“avoiding-using-power-would-be-devastating-for-human-rights”
Obama has made some genuine efforts to rebuild America’s image as a world leader on human rights.
His administration has taken steps toward improving US credibility through greater engagement on
democracy and human rights promotion in some places—think Honduras after the coup in 2009 or Cote
d’Ivoire after the election crisis in 2010-11—with a softer, less “preachy” tone than his predecessor. In
2009, the US joined the UN Human Rights Council with an eye toward reform and engagement. And total
US government spending in support of democracy and human rights promotion has gone up under
Obama.
Negative’s Files
356
Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRC
Uniqueness Answers
Non-Unique: Other countries already dialogue with the US about human rights
Stephen Collinson, September 25, 2015, U.S. and China make progress, but differences lurk, CNN Politics, Collinson is a senior
enterprise reporter for CNN Politics, covering the 2016 presidential campaign and politics across the United States and around the world,
www.cnn.com/2015/09/25/politics/obama-xi-jinping-white-house/
Xi said he was willing to have a human rights dialogue with the United States, but as is customary with Chinese
leaders, he pointed out that the concept of human rights was seen differently in Beijing. "We must
recognize that countries have different historical processes and realities, that we need to respect people
of all countries in the rights to choose their own development independently," he said.
Negative’s Files
357
Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRC
Impact Answers
Turn: Human rights promotion makes things worse – 3 reasons
FRAME, 31 July 2014, Report on the positive and negative human rights impacts of non-state actors, Fostering Human Rights among
European Policies, FRAME is a large-scale, collaborative research project funded under the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)
coordinated by the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies and conducted by 19 research institutes from around the world, www.fp7frame.eu/wp-content/materiale/reports/04-Deliverable-7.1.pdf
Negative human rights impacts a)
Obstacles to accuracy in monitoring and fact-finding. While monitoring, factfinding and reporting on human rights violations is one of the main weapons used by HRDs, it can also be a doubleedged sword. On occasions HRDs may let their own biases, or closeness to individuals or groups in the civil
society, hamper the accuracy of their work. This can arise for various reasons. HRDs may want to speed up their reporting due
to urgency, for instance, and therefore do not spend enough time checking facts when assessing and
evaluating the alleged human rights violations. In other cases, HRDs, perhaps driven by ideological
commitment, arrive in a country with a fixed opinion about human rights violations, or possibly the lack
thereof, and may, deliberately or otherwise, adjust the ‘evidence’ in support of that opinion, invent stories or
even breach confidentiality. 576 Besides, many HRDs may have a very narrowly defined area of human rights
violations on which they focus, therefore their reporting does not necessarily reflect the full scope of
violations. Inaccurate or misleading monitoring and reporting can have a negative impact not only on
the credibility of HRDs, but also on victims and witnesses. b) A lack of impartiality. The perception of
HRDs is another problem. Some HRDs, for example those motivated by particular religious or ideological beliefs, may be seen
as being against a specific culture or religion, or incapable of recognising the values of indigenous
peoples. HRDs may be perceived as, inter alia, promoting Western values of universality of human rights vs.
cultural relativism; or encouraging religious fundamentalism which undermines the universality of human rights. 577 For these reasons,
and similarly as in the case of other NSAs, such as NGOs, a lack of impartiality on the part of HRDs can lead to negative
human rights impacts by playing into the hands of state authorities who are looking for opportunities to
ostracise their work by labelling them as biased. It makes it easier for states to discredit their reporting
and potentially endangers the position of individuals and vulnerable communities. c) Lack of gender
sensitivity in monitoring and fact-finding Women’s human rights have been widely neglected in many
societies, communities and cultures. Many women and girls in these environments occupy a subordinate
position and their human rights are not respected (e.g. as a result of laws and policies, beliefs in society, cultural practices,
access to economic resources and legal systems or family relationships). HRDs, in many instances, may contribute to
underdocumenting human rights violations against women and girls. Gender discrimination, or a lack of
gender sensitivity by HRDs monitoring and fact-finding - whether intentional or not - can lead to: (1)
violation of women’s and girl’s rights being undocumented; (2) marginalisation of women activists; and
(3) a lack of respect or sensitivity for women and girl victims of human rights abuses. 578
Negative’s Files
358
Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRC
Impact Answers
Impact and Framing Turn: Human rights promotion crushes local culture – rights are
not universal
Peacebuilding Initiative, 2008, Human Rights Promotion & Protection: Key Debates & Implementation Challenges, The
Peacebuilding Initiative is a project of HPCR International, in partnership with the United Nations Peacebuilding Support Office and in
cooperation with the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (HPCR) at Harvard University - it is staffed and advised by many
professors, lawyers, and politicians from around the world, www.peacebuildinginitiative.org/indexb2b7.html?pageId=1850
The cultural relativist perspective Cultural
relativism has been used frequently as an argument against the
universality of human rights. Two main elements lie at the core of this school of thought: the fear of
(neo)imperialism and the desire to demonstrate cultural respect.7 The history of the notion of human
rights, the tendency to concentrate, in practice, more on individual and political rights than on collective as well as economic, social and
cultural rights, and the international political context in which human rights are most often situated, explain and at times may
support the perception that their universality is not such a given. "Cultural relativists, in their most aggressive
conceptual stance, argue that no human rights are absolutes, that the principles that one may use for judging
behavior are relative to the society in which one is raised, that there is infinite cultural variability, and that
all cultures are morally equal or valid."8 Western anthropologists and sociologists themselves have in part
supported that view, combating a posture inherited from colonialization and its implications of
superiority on the part of the West keeping extending and imposing its culture to the rest of the world. In
that perspective, all cultures are morally equal and, as a consequence, no value can claim to be superior.
Negative’s Files
359
Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRC
Solvency Answers
Turn: CRC trades off with the Constitution which is a better instrument for ensuring
and promoting rights
Karen Attiah, November 21, 2014, Why won’t the U.S. ratify the U.N.’s child rights treaty?, Washington Post, Karen Attiah is the
Washington Post's Opinions Deputy Digital Editor, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/11/21/why-wont-the-u-sratify-the-u-n-s-child-rights-treaty/
“When
the United States at first didn’t sign on to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, we were
concerned that this would have implications toward showing support for children around the world,” Dr.
Heymann said. “But in fact, it didn’t get in the way of the fact that nearly other country did sign on and that there has been deep global
commitment. But I think we have to worry a lot about what it means that we haven’t had focused attention on children in the United States.”
Michael P. Farris, is a constitutional lawyer and president of ParentalRights.org, an organization that has been actively campaigning against U.S.
ratification of “dangerous U.N conventions that “threaten parental rights” such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child. “The
chief
threat posed by the CRC is the denial of American self-government in accord with our constitutional
processes,” said Farris in an email interview. “Our constitutional system gives the exclusive authority for the
creation of law and policy on issues about families and children to state governments. Upon ratification, this
nation would be making a binding promise in international law that we would obey the legal standards created by the U.N. CRC. American
children and families are better served by constitutional democracy than international law.” The
group fears that ratifying the treaty would mean children could choose their own religion, that children would have a legally enforceable right
to leisure, that nations would have to spend more on children’s welfare than national defense, and that a child’s “right to be heard” could
trigger a governmental review of any decision a parent made that a child didn’t like. But is the U.S.’s non-ratification of the CRC hypocritical
when the U.S. lectures other countries on children’s rights? Farris says that the
“United States demonstrates its commitment
to human rights whenever it follows and enforces the Constitution of the United States, which is the
greatest human rights instrument in all history.”
Negative’s Files
360
Human Rights Promotion Advantage - CRC
Solvency Answers
US is already meeting most CRC standards – the ones it doesn’t meet it just won’t
follow
Ellenmai Korkoya, November 3, 2015, Convention on the Rights of the Child: Would Ratification Impact American Kids?, North Carolina
Journal of International Law, Ellenmai Korkoya is a legal student at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law and a staff
member of the North Carolina Journal of International Law - she will be graduating in 2017,blogs.law.unc.edu/ncilj/2015/11/03/convention-onthe-rights-of-the-child-would-ratification-impact-american-kids/
Ratification by the U.S. is unlikely to substantially impact the rights of children for two reasons. First,
U.S. law is already consistent with most of the Convention's elements. Apart from the Constitutional
provisions, U.S. federal law provides similar protections for children. For example, federal child-labor
statutes, which protect children’s safety when they work,[17] are consistent with Article 32 of the
Convention.[18] Also, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act[19] helps protect children from child
abuse as the Convention requires.[20] Since children are already afforded these rights, ratifying the
Convention is unlikely to augment those rights further. Second, where the Convention is inconsistent
with U.S. law, the Convention’s provisions are not likely to alter the rights of children because the U.S.
Senate has typically ratified human-rights treaties with RUDs that render them non-self-executing.[21]It
has been argued that this practice is meant to keep U.S. judges from adjudicating local human-rights
conditions under international standards.[22] Article 37 of the Convention, which prohibits sentencing children to death or life
imprisonment without a possibility of parole, was one area in which U.S. laws directly contravened the Convention.[23] It was not until 2005
that the Supreme Court, in Roper v. Simmons,[24] ruled the execution of juveniles unconstitutional.[25] Similarly, it was not until 2012 that the
Supreme Court, in Miller v. Alabama,[26] ruled the sentencing of juvenile to life without the possibility of parole unconstitutional.[27] The
U.S. could ratify the convention with inconsistent provisions; however, as a non-self-executing treaty,
the U.S. can choose to implement only parts that are consistent with domestic laws while inconsistent
provisions remain ineffective absent domestic legislation.
Negative’s Files
361
Identity Politics Advantage - CRC
Uniqueness Answers
Non-Unique: Youth movements are strong and growing
MELINDA D. ANDERSON NOV 23, 2015, The Other Student Activists, Atlantic Journal, MELINDA D. ANDERSON is a contributing writer
for The Atlantic and is based in Washington, D.C, www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/11/student-activism-history-injustice/417129/
More than 50 years later movements for racial and educational justice are once again building
momentum. A surge of student activism has swept across academia in recent weeks as black students
and their allies forcefully call attention to racist climates on American college campuses. And even as
some college-student leaders cite the Black Lives Matter social-justice movement as their inspiration,
what’s happening in higher education is being matched by younger peers. High-school youth are flexing
their collective muscles for equity: fighting budget cuts and out-of-school suspensions as they take on
racial issues and academic offerings. Andrew Brennen, 19, sees parallels between the movements at the high-school and college
levels. A national field director for Student Voice, a youth-led nonprofit growing a corp of involved middle and high schoolers, he points to
students’ shared desire “to have agency and voice in their … institutions” and a newfound ability to network and organize through social media.
“The
student-voice movement is mobilizing around the sense that students are ignored as active agents
of their own destiny,” says Brennen, adding that student input is “largely relegated to the margin when it comes to conversations about
education policy creation, feedback, and reform.” But many youth today are not content to be on the sidelines. Like
several hundred Chicago teens who rallied against public-school cutbacks and potential teacher layoffs
earlier this month. With the state budget at an impasse and politicians locked in a showdown, students held a die-in to
signify the harmful impact of yet another budget shortfall. Similarly, Philadelphia students, rocked by a
severe school-funding crisis, took to the streets this fall to protest cuts to neighborhood schools. “We
just want to let people know … students around the district still feel the effects,” youth organizer Cy Wolfe, a
senior at the Philadelphia High School for the Creative and Performing Arts, told the local ABC affiliate. “If we don't raise our voice,
then who will?” A 2012 paper on youth and social movements, a collaboration between Lady Gaga's Born this Way
Foundation and Harvard University's Berkman Center, found young people to be powerful agents for social change,
crediting undocumented-youth sit-ins for convincing President Obama to grant DREAMers a
reprieve from deportation in 2012. The paper’s author writes of youth activists primed to “call out or
identify systems of oppression, speak up, and mobilize their peers.”
Negative’s Files
362
Identity Politics Advantage - CRC
Uniqueness Answers
Non-Unique: There are already broad laws in favor of youth rights
Law Library of Congress, 2007, INTERNATIONAL LAWS CHILDREN’S RIGHTS, The Law Library of Congress is the branch of the
US federal library that provides information to Congress and the public - it is staffed by many experts and professionals from many different
fields, www.loc.gov/law/help/child-rights/pdfs/Children's%20Rights-International%20Laws.pdf
It was not until the late nineteenth century that a nascent children’s rights’ protection movement
countered the widely held view that children were mainly quasi-property and economic assets. In the
United States, the Progressive movement challenged courts’ reluctance to interfere in family matters,
promoted broad child welfare reforms, and was successful in having laws passed to regulate child labor
and provide for compulsory education. It also raised awareness of children’s issues and established a juvenile court system.
Another push for children’s rights occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, when children were viewed by some
advocates as victims of discrimination or as an oppressed group. In the international context, “[t]he
growth of children’s rights in international and transnational law has been identified as a striking change
in the post-war legal landscape.”1 The purpose of this overview is to sketch in broad strokes some of the key provisions of major
international legal instruments on children’s rights that form part of that landscape.
Negative’s Files
363
Identity Politics Advantage - CRC
Impact Answers
Some adultism is often appropriate and necessary – blanket refusal is bad
Adam Fletcher, Dec 22, 2015, Adultism in Democratic Education, Common Action Engagement Consulting, Adam Fletcher is an
advocate, author, motivational speaker, and educator focused on youth voice and student engagement, recognized for founding The Freechild
Project. His work centers on youth studies, critical thinking and the development of democratic society, and has been acknowledged as
"perhaps the best spokesman for the philosophical basis of community youth development". Fletcher was a youth worker in several nonprofit
organizations and in government agencies for more than a decade. He completed his undergraduate degree in critical pedagogy and youth
studies at The Evergreen State College, and conducted graduate studies at the University of Washington in educational leadership and policy
studies, commonaction.blogspot.com/2013/07/adultism-in-democratic-education.html
In the face of this discrimination, I have found that it is never good to falsely sooth ourselves into believing
we're being anti-adultist. Every adult practices adultism. By confronting the situations and naming what
they are, I have found we can successfully challenge them from an informed place of critical awareness
instead of a naïve place of self-satisfaction with status quo. No Alternative to Adultism From my own position of
experience and privilege, I want to propose that there is no alternative to adultism. It is not one of the Big "Ism"s, like
the racism, sexism, and classism. Most people define those "isms" as exaggerated beliefs focused on a
group or category of people, and while we popularly refer to adultism this way, that's not the right
framework. As any bias towards adults, adultism forms a foundation of our social relationships. There's
something askew in the thinking that all adultism anywhere ever is inherently wrong, bad, and eeeeevil.
Nature habituates hierarchical relationships among many species in order to propel evolution forward.
Given the absence of adults in their species, many animals simply die, while others live only to procreate. I will not
abandon our young people to their own devices and defenses in the name of personal freedom, if only
because I believe that with the rights I enjoy as a human being, there are inherent responsibilities I possess as
well. One of them is to raise young people in ways that are just and fair, which is more important than
free and unhindered. My adult privilege tells me so, and adultism informs that.
Negative’s Files
364
Identity Politics Advantage - CRC
Impact Answers
Turn: ‘Adultism’ as a concept lacks nuance - that overly simplistic understanding
harms education and youth rights movements
Adam Fletcher, Dec 22, 2015, Adultism in Democratic Education, Common Action Engagement Consulting, Adam Fletcher is an
advocate, author, motivational speaker, and educator focused on youth voice and student engagement, recognized for founding The Freechild
Project. His work centers on youth studies, critical thinking and the development of democratic society, and has been acknowledged as
"perhaps the best spokesman for the philosophical basis of community youth development". Fletcher was a youth worker in several nonprofit
organizations and in government agencies for more than a decade. He completed his undergraduate degree in critical pedagogy and youth
studies at The Evergreen State College, and conducted graduate studies at the University of Washington in educational leadership and policy
studies, commonaction.blogspot.com/2013/07/adultism-in-democratic-education.html
Rather than using adultism incorrectly to describe the discrimination young people face in democratic
education, we should use the correct terms to identify why and how this reality is conjured, surfaces,
lives, and sustains itself. Words like ephebiphobia, which is the fear of youth; pediaphobia, the fear of
children; and adultcentrism, which is the belief that adults are better than young people; these words
should be used throughout democratic education, instead of or along with adultism, which should only be
used to describe bias towards adults. Paternalism, patriarchy, infantalizing, and
even maternalism should be used accordingly, too, as each plays a unique role in democratic learning
environments. The continued usage of adultism without deep examination of its extended parts will
actually be detrimental to the growth of democratic education. Using the misunderstood definition or
applying it in a blanketed way across all discrimination facing young people reflects a lazy, irrelevant
analysis that is inconsistent with the goals of what a lot of well-meaning adults say they want through
democratic education practices and organizations. Overcoming Naïveté The concepts we're looking for, I think,
are within grasp. We are on the brink of a social transformation that insists on recognizing the evolving capacities of young
people, youth/adult equity and social justice for children and youth. Democratic education can claim youth/adult partnerships as a cornerstone
right now, positioning young people in substantive, rich relationships with adults in strategic, intentional, and deliberate ways. Every day, each
of us can strive and enact justice with young people in our personal and professional relationships with all young people of every age in all
locations we find ourselves. This naïveté
is at the core of democratic education today, and it can be overcome, if
we’re willing to learn. Understanding that adultism is deep in our work, but not the only thing worth
learning, is essential to this fight. I have found that by directly confronting adultcentrism, paternalism,
and ephebiphobia I am compelling society towards becoming more just and fair for young people and- adults; by fighting adultism, I am merely spinning my wheels. Are you ready to take up arms against semantics
and engage in a real struggle? It is time we address adultism in democratic education.
Negative’s Files
365
Identity Politics Advantage - CRC
Impact Answers
Utilitarian calculus is the only way to determine rights’ relative importance
Richard Brandt, June 26, 1992, Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights, Cambridge University Press. Pg 199., Richard Brandt is professor of
philosophy at the University of Michigan, https://books.google.com/books?id=9lTYQGEcHnoC&q=199#v=snippet&q=199&f=false
Before turning to possible " deeper" difficulties, let me make just one point favorable to the
utilitarian view, that it tells us, in
to find out what are a person's rights, and how stringent they are, relative to each other,
which is much more than can be said of most other theories, unless reliance on intuitions is supposed to
be a definite way of telling what a person's rights are. How does one do this, on the utilitarian theory? The idea, of
course, is that we have to determine whether it would maximize long-range expectable utility to include
recognition of certain rights in the moral code of a society, or to include a certain right with a certain
degree of stringency as compared with other rights. (For instance, it might be optimistic to include a right to life with more
stringency than a right to liberty and this with more stringency than the right to pursue happiness.) Suppose, for instance, one wants to
principle, how
know what should be the scope of the "right to life." Then it would be proper to inquire whether the utility-maximizing moral system would
require people to retrain from taking the life of other adults, more positively to support life by providing adequate medical care, to abstain
from life-termination for seriously defective infants or to refrain from abortion, to require abstaining from assisting a person with terminal
illness in ending his own life if he requests it, to refrain from assisting in the discharge of a sentence of capital punishment, or to refrain from
killing combatants in war time and so on. If
one wants to know whether the right to life is stronger than the right of
free speech on political subjects, it is proper to inquire whether the utility maximizing moral code would
prefer free speech to the cost of lives (and in what circumstances).
Negative’s Files
366
Identity Politics Advantage - CRC
Solvency Answers
Turn: The CRC is deeply adultist – written by and for adults
Kel Kray, February 7, 2015, Adults Just Don’t Understand: Checking Out Our Everyday Adultism, Everyday Feminism Magazine, Kel Kray is
a fiercely friendly social justice warrior who spends their days advocating with and on behalf of queer youth at an LGBTQIA+ youth center in
Philly. A firm believer in the transformative power of dialogue, Kel coordinates a youth-driven education and training program that facilitates
community workshops on gender and sexuality with an intersectional lens. A righteous product of the Midbest, Kel earned a Bachelor of
Women’s Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Master of Social Work at the University of
Pennsylvania,everydayfeminism.com/2015/02/everyday-adultism/
The Word Might Be New, But Adultism Certainly Isn’t. An
essential ingredient in all recipes for social justice is selfdetermination: the ability to author your own life. To be the subject, rather than the object, of your life.
And yet the denial of youths’ right to self-determine is as old as civilization itself. Literally. In 350 BCE, Aristotle stated that children were the
property of their father because he had produced them, not unlike a tooth or a hair. Millennia later, adultism is one of the stealthiest players in
modern society, built into the foundations of family, community, culture, and government. In
1946, children were formally
recognized within the Declaration of the Rights of the Child. The minimum standards for those rights
weren’t set until 1989, when the United Nations established the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
These agreements are crucial for protecting youth from human rights violations. However, they don’t get at addressing
adultism because the privileging of adulthood is entrenched within the policies themselves. How many
of them do you suppose were co-authored by the young people they aim to protect? Essentially: Youth
aren’t necessarily the subject of children’s rights. Historically, they’ve been the objects.
Negative’s Files
367
Identity Politics Advantage - CRC
Solvency Answers
Legal and adult centric solutions can never escape adultism – only authentic ‘bottom
up’ movements can
Gertrud Lenzer, 2015, The Vicissitudes of Children’s Rights, The International Journal of Children's Rights, Volume 23, Issue 1, Gertrud
Lenzer is the founder and director of Children’s Studies, as well as a professor of sociology at both Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate
Center, booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/15718182-02301010
As for the major goal of Children’s Rights from Below, Liebel wishes to discuss ‘the ways children’s rights can be understood as subjective or
agency rights of children and whether they can be enforced by children themselves’ (emphasis added, p. 2). And he argues that children
themselves can and should be able to enforce their own rights. This theme recurs throughout Liebel’s attempt
to reconceptualise children’s rights and is one of the central and extraordinary, not to say eccentric, claims of this
argument. In this connection, a major element of Liebel’s contributions and Vandenhole’s chapter, “Localising the Human Rights of Children”,
is a critique of the un Convention on the Rights of the Child. According to Liebel: We will address what we consider a
problematic trend in large parts of the debate on children’s rights, namely, a focus on the responsibilities of states (and
derivatively of adults) and legal procedures. The framework and starting point for many authors are the
rights enshrined in the u.n. Convention on the Rights of the Child … and much of the analytic interest lies in
the ways of implementation and exercise of the rights codified therein …. We certainly agree these are necessary
ingredients to an analysis of children’s rights. But for several reasons we also consider that this focus severely hinders an
adequate reconceptualization of children’s rights. emphasis added, p. 1 In Liebel’s view, the uncrc represents the
work of adults and has as a consequence led to a paternalistic system, especially in the realisation of the
rights of children. (Children, he states on several occasions, were neither consulted in the drafting process nor the
adoption of the Convention.) According to him, the difference between children and adults is ‘socially
“constructed” in the sense that the life world of children is separated from the adult world and that
children are made dependent on adults … Understood paternalistically, even children’s rights can bring
about and intensify this dependence.’ By contrast, Liebel understands the rights of children as envisioned by him ‘as a possible
way to reduce socially constructed children’s dependence, to strengthen their autonomy and make their agency a reality’ (p. 3). In other words,
the uncrc, together with state parties and legal instruments which implement the treaty repeat this
pattern of adultism and so prevent children from exercising their rights. It is for this reason, so Liebel argues, that
the uncrc can neither provide the “framework” nor the “starting point” and therefore necessitate Liebel’s
“reconceptualization” of children’s rights. He claims that ‘it is time to shift the discussion from the “Geneva
scene” to the grassroots level where children’s rights must be realized in their actual context’ and by the
children themselves (p. 2). This is what he means by “children’s rights from below”. He sees this claim as opposed to
the dominant ‘technical debate on the most effective and efficient way’ (p. 2) of how to implement and monitor
children’s rights, as is the means followed by most authors dealing with the uncrc. Thus, the major substance of the
book – with the exception of Karl Hanson’s chapter on “Schools of Thought in Children’s Rights” – argues from a central criticism of the “Geneva
scene”, the
UN CRC and the un Committee on the Rights of the Child which together with state parties, national legislation and
supraregional and regional entities impose children’s rights from above. In so doing, the actual living conditions of
children, so the argument goes, are not taken into account and people at the grass roots are prevented from
articulating and pursuing the realisation of their own human rights. Vandenhole, in his chapter on “Localizing the
Human Rights of Children”, echoes this criticism when he says: ‘Standard-setting on children’s rights and, by extension, on
human rights, has traditionally been a top-down exercise. States conclude treaties, which are then to be
implemented on the ground. Monitoring bodies at the un or the regional level offer an authoritative
interpretation or settle disputes’ (p. 80). He continues that this ‘approach has been questioned and challenged’
Negative’s Files
368
and new approaches instead ‘draw attention to the daily realities and the way human rights are
received by ordinary citizens on the ground. A bottom-up approach would allow a response to culturally
or otherwise specific challenges and local issues’ (p. 80).
Negative’s Files
369
Counter Plan to CRC Aff (States)
Counterplan text
The 50 states and the District of Columbia should implement the Convention on the
Rights of the Child treaty
Negative’s Files
370
Counter Plan to CRC Aff (States)
Counter Plan Solvency
States solve better than the federal government or international law
Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute, April 2016, Human Rights Recommendations to the United
States: A Desk Reference for State and Local Human Rights Agencies, The Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute has expertise along
three primary axes: (i) Human Rights in the United States, (ii) Counterterrorism and Human Rights and (iii) Human Rights and the Global
Economy. The Institute works closely with the Graduate Legal Studies Program to select Human Rights Fellows for the LL.M. program, and with
the Center for Public Interest Law to select fellows to work in human rights after graduation. The institute works closely with the Universitywide Institute for the Study of Human Rights, web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/desk_reference.pdf
State and local agencies and officials can, and do, use a range of innovative strategies that advance
human rights and build a culture of human rights based on dignity, freedom from discrimination, and
opportunity. Specifically, state and local agencies and officials are well‐placed to:  Monitor, document,
and report on human rights  Build human rights into local law and policy  Conduct human rights‐based
audits and impact assessments  Foster participatory governance  Engage in human rights education For
example, in 2014, the Tennessee Human Rights Commission held a series of hearings around the state to gather testimony and data on human
rights and civil rights issues relevant to local communities. The Commission framed the conversation around the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. Following the hearings, the Commission drafted a report to distill the testimony from around the state, and it plans to use the
report as a basis for shaping its work and priorities moving forward.3 The Eugene, Oregon Human Rights Commission has played an important
role in the city’s efforts to assess human rights impacts of proposed policies through the “Triple Bottom Line” tool. The Commission has
conducted trainings regarding the tool and also facilitates community events and consultations to support implementation.4 The Recreation
Department used the tool to review budgets and minimize the impact of resource constraints on core services and accessibility, and the
Community Development Division used it to prioritize brownfield assessments. The Commission has also provided education on human rights
standards and issues for city executives, managers, and staff, and has undertaken robust community outreach to raise awareness of the
potential for an international human rights framework to advance the equality and dignity of local residents.5 In Salt Lake City, Utah, the
Human Rights Commission, the Mayor’s Office, and the City Council have worked together to address discrimination. They held a series of
dialogues on gender discrimination that revealed concerns about unequal educational opportunities and employment discrimination. In
response, the Commission and its partners are currently exploring the possibility of adopting the international human rights treaty on women’s
rights (CEDAW) at the local level.6 In 2015, the Illinois Department of Human Rights embarked on a study to develop recommendations
regarding best practices to prevent discrimination and promote diversity and inclusion in a number of areas, including employment, housing,
and education.7 These are just a few of the ways state
and local agencies promote and protect human rights at the
local level.8 “State, local, and tribal officials are normally the closest authorities to the people they serve.
They are often best positioned to solve problems, and they are often directly accountable to local
populations. Moreover, different levels of government in our federal system have been described as
laboratories of democracy, because they may develop and test different and creative solutions. Where
their solutions work well, these best practices may be shared and emulated elsewhere.” ‐ Keith Harper, U.S.
Ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Council 8
Negative’s Files
371
Counter Plan to CRC Aff (States)
Counter Plan Solvency
Human rights treaties empirically fail
Eric Posner, 4 December 2014, The case against human rights, The Guardian, Eric Posner is a professor at the University of Chicago Law
School, www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against-human-rights
Each of the six major human rights treaties has been ratified by more than 150 countries, yet many of
them remain hostile to human rights. This raises the nagging question of how much human rights law
has actually influenced the behaviour of governments. There are undoubtedly examples where countries enter into human
rights treaties and change their behaviour. The political scientist Beth Simmons, for instance, has described the observable impact in Japan and
Colombia of the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The puzzle is how to reconcile
this with the many examples of blatant human rights violations. Saudi
Arabia ratified the treaty banning discrimination
against women in 2007, and yet by law subordinates women to men in all areas of life. Child labour
exists in countries that have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Uzbekistan, Tanzania and
India, for example. Powerful western countries, including the US, do business with grave human rights
abusers. In a very rough sense, the world is a freer place than it was 50 years ago, but is it freer because of the human rights treaties or
because of other events, such as economic growth or the collapse of communism? The central problem with human rights law
is that it is hopelessly ambiguous. The ambiguity, which allows governments to rationalise almost
anything they do, is not a result of sloppy draftsmanship but of the deliberate choice to overload the treaties with
hundreds of poorly defined obligations. In most countries people formally have as many as 400 international human rights –
rights to work and leisure, to freedom of expression and religious worship, to nondiscrimination, to privacy, to pretty much anything you might
think is worth protecting. The
sheer quantity and variety of rights, which protect virtually all human interests,
can provide no guidance to governments. Given that all governments have limited budgets, protecting
one human right might prevent a government from protecting another.
Negative’s Files
372
Counter Plan to CRC Aff (States)
Counterplan Net Benefit Defense
No Link Turn: Contentious treaties are watered down and lead to political fighting –
Delegating to the states avoids any link
Kevin L. Cope, 2014, Lost in Translation: The Accidental Origins of Bond v. United States, Michigan Law Review First Impressions Volume
112, Kevin Cope is Visiting Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center,
repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=mlr_fi
A similar effect may be at work when
Congress implements international agreements like the CWC. Congressional
drafters have little to gain by developing creative approaches to fulfill those agreements. If they play it
safe and simply import the CWC’s language, they can rest assured knowing they have covered all their
international-law bases. Any negative domestic consequences can be blamed on the treaty itself, on
other members of Congress for not inserting reservations (although the CWC itself prohibits them), or on the
president for signing the treaty in the first place. These incentives should tend to produce literal
translations from the international law to the domestic law. In most other cases, Congress is attentive to the
federalism implications of multilateral treaties: consider the roadblocks faced by the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
These treaties all require state parties to prohibit behaviors that are often within the traditional purview
of U.S. states, e.g., child neglect, criminal punishment, and state-government procurement. Each treaty lingered for years or
was stymied altogether, largely because of federalism concerns.18
Negative’s Files
373
Topicality to CRC Aff
1. Interpretation: Engagement must be ongoing
Evan Resnick 2001, “Defining Engagement”, Journal of International Affairs, Spring, 54(2), Dr. Evan Resnick holds a Ph.D. in Political
Science from Columbia University and is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yeshiva University,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24357749?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN ENGAGEMENT AND APPEASEMENT: In contrast to many prevailing
conceptions of engagement, the one proposed in this essay allows a substantive distinction to be drawn
between engagement and appeasement. The standard definition of appeasement--which derives from the language of classical
European diplomacy, namely "a policy of attempting to reduce tension between two states by the methodical removal of the principal causes
of conflict between them"(n29)--is venerable but nevertheless inadequate.(n30) It does not provide much guidance to the contemporary
policymaker or policy analyst, because it conceives of a foreign policy approach in terms of the ends sought while never making clear the
precise means involved. The principal causes of conflict between two states can be removed in a number of ways.(n31) A more
refined
definition of appeasement that not only remains loyal to the traditional connotations but also establishes a firm
conceptual distinction from engagement might be: the attempt to influence the political behavior of a
target state by ceding territory and/or a geopolitical sphere of influence to that state. Indeed, the two bestknown cases of appeasement, Great Britain's appeasement of the United States at the turn of the 20th century and of Nazi Germany in the
1930s, reveals that much of this appeasement adopted precisely these guises. The key elements of the British appeasement of the USacceptance of the Monroe Doctrine-permission for the US to build and fortify a Central American canal, and acquiescence to American claims
on the border between Alaska and the Yukon--consisted of explicit acknowledgement of American territorial authority.(n32) Meanwhile, the
appeasement of the Third Reich by Great Britain was characterized by acquiescence to: Germany's military reoccupation of the Rhineland
(1936); annexation of Austria (1938); acquisition of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia as decided at the Munich Conference; and absorption
of the remainder of Czechoslovakia (1939).(n33) A more contemporary example of appeasement is the land for peace exchange that represents
the centerpiece of the on-again off-again diplomatic negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. Thus,
a
rigid conceptual distinction can be drawn between engagement and appeasement. Whereas both
policies are positive sanctions--insofar as they add to the power and prestige of the target state-engagement does so in a less direct and less militarized fashion than appeasement. In addition,
engagement differs from appeasement by establishing an increasingly interdependent relationship
between the sender and the target state. At any juncture, the sender state can, in theory, abrogate such
a relationship at some (ideally prohibitive) cost to the target state.(n34) Appeasement, on the other hand,
does not involve the establishment of contacts or interdependence between the appeaser and the
appeased. Territory and/or a sphere of influence are merely transferred by one party to the other either
unconditionally or in exchange for certain concessions on the part of the target state.
2. Violation: Treaty ratification is a one-time act – it is not ongoing
3. Standards:
a. Fairness: If the plan is not topical that makes it impossible to have a fair
debate. If a plan is a one-time act that means our links can only be about
that one action – that takes away a lot of our ground. It is also an
unreasonable burden because it means our evidence has to be about a
particular law at this particular time – there just aren’t enough people
writing about this for the literature base to be relevant and robust enough
to sustain clash in a debate.
b. Education: The point of debate is to be educated – an untopical plan means
we lose education. The framers’ chose this topic so that we could learn
Negative’s Files
374
about US-China relations, this affirmative doesn’t teach us anything about
those relations. It teaches us about obscure theories and a law that will
never be passed – that’s and unproductive use of our time.
4. Voters: Topicality is a gateway issue – if the plan isn’t topical then you should vote
against them without looking at the other positions because topicality is an apriori
burden of the affirmative – there can be no fairness or education without a topical
plan.
Negative’s Files
375
Topicality to CRC Aff
Interpretation extension
Plan is not engagement – engagement is ongoing and building
DANIEL Larison, December 17, 2012, Engagement Is Not Appeasement, The American Conservative, Daniel Larison is a senior editor at
The American Conservative, he has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, Orthodox Life, Front Porch
Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and is a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and
resides in Dallas, www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/engagement-is-not-appeasement/
Hagel’s views are being grossly misrepresented here. That isn’t surprising, but it still deserves a response. Hagel has
rejected the lazy,
common conflation of diplomatic engagement with appeasement. He repudiates the latter. What does Hagel mean by
engagement? James Joyner reported on his recent speech at the Atlantic Council: The former Republican Senator from Nebraska could have
been speaking to his former colleagues when he insisted, “Engagement won’t fix all problems, but engagement
isn’t appeasement
or surrender or even negotiation—it’s a bridge-building process, an opportunity to better understand”
others on the basis of “mutual self respect.” The most important error Rubin makes is the assumption that engagement mainly
benefits the regime being engaged over the long term. Cutting off contacts with other regimes doesn’t hasten their downfall or weaken their
hold on power. On the contrary, such regimes can take advantage of attempts at isolation to suppress dissent, consolidate power, and rally
their nations behind them. It
is not the purpose of engagement to undermine other regimes. The purpose is and
should be to advance the interests of the United States. It is more likely that authoritarian regimes will gradually lose their
grip on power if the people in their countries are exposed more regularly to contacts with other nations than if they are shut off from them.
Negative’s Files
376
Capitalism Kritik
Negative’s Files
377
Capitalism Kritik
General Links
USFG will always coopt plans despite the intentions of the planners – only class
revolution avoids cooption
Progressive Labor Party , June 6, 2014, Communist Revolution Will End Imperialist Wars, The Progressive Labor Party is an
international movement opposed to capitalism headed by scholars and workers from many countries and backgrounds,
www.plp.org/challenge/2014/6/6/communist-revolution-will-end-imperialist-wars.html
The enactment of fascist labor, education, tax, and energy reforms demonstrate the nature of a
capitalist system, designed to benefit the bosses and attack the working class. There are no legal ways
to enact changes for workers’ benefit. The bosses’ mass media tells us that the majority is in charge and
the laws are just, but in reality the electoral process is completely controlled by the business, financial
and political oligarchy. Therefore only those in this oligarchy can get access to power through the vote.
Similarly, the rule of law is an illusion, when the same minority of millionaire parasites determines what’s
legal, and can change laws to benefit their businesses, as with structural reforms here in Mexico. When the
electoral farce and bourgeois legality are not enough to control working-class rebellions, the bosses resort to the police and military to repress,
jail, and murder dissenters. Capitalists use fascist terror against the working class to violently impose their interests on the majority. The
bosses believe that the illusion of bourgeois democracy and fascist terror can prevent the unity of the
working class, but they are mistaken. Eventually, millions of workers will unite to build an international
communist movement to abolish capitalist oppression and exploitation.
Negative’s Files
378
Capitalism Kritik
General Links
Economic and Diplomatic engagement are US’ tools of Capitalism
JOHN Stanton, July 22, 2105, Neoliberal American Capitalism Rocks On … But Does Anyone Hear Pope Francis?, John J. Stanton is an
independent journalist and author in the Washington, DC Metro region who focuses largely on national security topics,
www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/22/neoliberal-american-capitalism-rocks-on-but-does-anyone-hear-pope-francis/
Though not explicitly stated, America’s most
powerful instrument of national power is Capitalism. The pistons
that power Neoliberal American Capitalism are: Diplomacy, Information, Military, Economic, Financial, Law
Enforcement, Intelligence and Human Capital/People. The clearest exposition of the instruments of national power on record can
be found in the US Army’s 2008 Special Operations Forces Unconventional Warfare Manual. No assessment of American political,
economic, international, cultural or military strategy/action can be stamped “legitimate” without
reference to and understanding of these Olympian tools of power that America’s leaders have at their
disposal. Combined they are the elements that form the spear and its tip that is Neoliberal American
Capitalism.
Negative’s Files
379
Capitalism Kritik
Specific Links – SCS aff Hegemony Advantage
Power struggles – like SCS – increase and extend capitalist exploitation
Progressive Labor Party, June 4, 2015, China Military Growth Sets Stage for War, The Progressive Labor Party is an
international movement opposed to capitalism headed by scholars and workers from many countries and backgrounds,
www.plp.org/challenge/2015/6/4/china-military-growth-sets-stage-for-war.html
Recent tensions between the U.S. and China reflect a sharpening battle among imperialists for the
world’s wealth. The U.S., top dog since World War II, is struggling to maintain control over resources, markets
and exploitable labor. With critical shipping routes and huge oil reserves in the South China Sea at
stake, a clash between the U.S. and China looms as a potential prelude to all-out war, the inevitable
outgrowth of imperialist competition. As always under capitalism, the international working class will
bear the brunt of this conflict. Imperialist war will end only when the working class, led by the revolutionary
communist Progressive Labor Party, seizes state power. Only communism can serve workers’ needs. Only a
communist society led by PLP can truly make us free.
Negative’s Files
380
Capitalism Kritik
Specific Links – SCS aff International Law Advantage
International law is deeply entrenched in, and supports, capitalism
Linarelli, Salomon, & Sornarajah, 2015, Laboratory for Advanced Research on the Global Economy, The Laboratory for
Advanced Research on the Global Economy, John Linarelli is Chair in Commercial Law at Durham University, co-directs the Institute of
Commercial and Corporate Law at Durham and is a member of the Centre for Law and Global Justice at Durham. Margot Salomon is Associate
Professor in the Law Department and the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at the London School of Economics where she directs the
Laboratory for Advanced Research on the Global Economy. Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah is CJ Koh Professor of Law at the National
University of Singapore., www.lse.ac.uk/humanRights/research/projects/theLab/internationalLaw.aspx
Contemporary international law supports a particular approach to the market and the promotion of
economic interests. Since the early 1990s, it has been constructed around a neoliberal ideology supporting a
global capitalism of markets for goods, services and technology, open foreign investment regimes, and
the free flow of capital across state borders. This ideology reflects a general commitment to private title
and privatization, to commodification and accumulation, but was built around the promises by the
economically powerful of widespread social and economic benefit. In significant ways these promises did not
materialize, often because international law promotes the wrong values and benefits the powerful at
the expense of the weak, either by design or because of its structural inadequacies. What has become
apparent are the ways in which domination, exploitation and coercion, accompanied by gross
inequalities, serve as a set of unexamined facts about the global economy and its normative order, international law.
The post-1945 international legal order was supposed to be a break from the coercion of international law of the past in the interests of justice,
but what seems to have happened is that the coercion has simply taken on a particular form, which, when combined with fragmentation in
international law, have resulted in serious normative deficiencies.
Negative’s Files
381
Capitalism Kritik
Specific Links – Space aff Colonization Advantage
The logic of growth will follow us to space – we will destroy our ecosystems
Julien Tort, 2005, UNESCO, Working paper for the Ethical Working Group on Astrobiology and Planetary Protection of ESA (EWG) July 28,
2005, “Exploration and Exploitation: Lessons Learnt from the Renaissance for Space Conquest”, Julien Tort is a philosopher, economist and
engineer by training and a Programme Specialist in the Division of Ethics of Science and Technology at UNESCO Paris,
http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/files/8462/11223823441ExplorationExploitation.pdf/ExplorationExploitation.pdf
The scenario in which extraterrestrial room is used as a response to the degradation of the terrestrial
environment also leads us to the second question that may be asked when considering the parallel
between the conquest of the West and the exploration of space. While the possibility of colonizing
celestial bodies may seem distant, it diverts attention from terrestrial issues in a very real way. The
paradigm of the accumulation of Capital is profoundly bound to the pollution and the overexploitation of
natural resources. Likening space exploration to the discovery of America may then be misleading and dangerous. There is –most
probably— no new earth to be discovered through space conquest and it is, so far, unlikely that any relief can
come from outer space for environmental pain. Furthermore, even if the possibility of human settlements
on other celestial bodies was likely, would it still be right to neglect the terrestrial environment, with the
idea that we can go and live elsewhere when we are done with this specific planet (again a scenario that science
fiction likes: see for example the end of Isaac Asimov’s Foundation)? In a way, the presentation of space as a new area for
conquest and expansion tends to deny that the model of the limitless exploitation of natural resources is
facing a crisis.
Negative’s Files
382
Capitalism Kritik
Specific Links – Space aff Economy Advantage
State funded technological innovation only furthers income inequality and exploits
poorer countries
Tony Smith, SPRING 2015, Red Innovation, Jacobin Magazine, Tony Smith is a professor of philosophy at Iowa State University and the
author of Technology and Capital in the Age of Lean Production, https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/socialism-innovation-capitalism-smith/
Capitalism also hampers the ability of much of the world to contribute to technological advancement.
Whole regions of the global economy lack the wealth to support meaningful innovation. Today, only four
countries spend over 3 percent of their GDP on research and development; a mere six others devote 2 percent or more. Capital in these
advantaged regions has the opportunity to establish a virtuous circle, free-riding on the extensive public
investment discussed above. Privileged access to advanced R&D enables capitalists to appropriate high
returns on successful innovations; these returns allow those companies to make effective use of
technological advances in the next cycle, setting the stage for future profits. At the same time,
enterprises in poorer regions, lacking access to high-level R&D, find themselves trapped in a vicious
cycle. Their present inability to make significant innovations that would enable them to compete
successfully in world markets undercuts their future prospects. Only a handful of countries — such as South Korea and
Taiwan — have ever been able to move forward from this starting disadvantage. Global disparities in technological change
alone do not explain why 1 percent of people in the world now own 48 percent of global wealth. But
they are a major part of the story; technological change is a weapon that enables the privileged to
maintain and extend their global advantages over time.
Negative’s Files
383
Capitalism Kritik
Specific Links – Cyber aff Economy Advantage
Intellectual property is one of the most wide ranging and destructive tools of
capitalism
Peter Frase, September 2013, Property and Theft, Jacobin Magazine, Peter Frase is on the editorial board of Jacobin and the author of
the forthcoming book Four Futures: Life After Capitalism, https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/09/property-and-theft/
Faced with these outrages, it’s
tempting to demand the immediate destruction of the entire edifice of patent
and copyright protection. All the more since intellectual property compounds the general socialist discomfort with private property,
because the right it encodes is such an expansive one. No longer just the right to control a particular physical space or
object, it abstracts the property form into the control of patterns and processes, wherever and whenever they
appear. Instead of owning a book or a factory, the intellectually propertied class controls all copies of the
book, and all implementations of the production process within the factory. This issue of Jacobin includes a pair of
essays that explain the origins and implications of this new property form. Sean Andrews traces IP to the laws of seventeenth- and eighteenthcentury England and the ideas of John Locke, showing how intellectual
property protections go back to the beginnings of
capitalism itself. It is the scope of these laws, and their relative economic importance, that has changed
in recent years. Anne Elizabeth Moore gives a more contemporary reading, as she describes the patent and copyright regimes in detail
and explores their spread around the world. She makes the point that intellectual property, no less than the material kind, supports a system of
class power that is both bourgeois and patriarchal. Gendered conceptions of credit and reward are written into the structures of the property
laws themselves, from the range of things that can be covered by it (novels, but not recipes) to who can claim control over it. Both of these
essays demonstrate the absurdities and injustices of a strengthening IP regime. Yet each, in a different way, shows
that simply denouncing all intellectual property is inadequate, as are the political battle lines that are often drawn today. On one side, we find
pirates and free-culture advocates, insisting that “information wants
to be free” and that any attempt to enclose the
copying of patterns within legal restrictions is an affront and an inanity. This view unites a sort of LeftRight coalition that can encompass the libertarian economist David K. Levine and the amorphous rebellion
of Europe’s Pirate parties. Arrayed against them are those who may acknowledge the corporate corruption of the patent and
copyright systems, but who nevertheless hold up a reformed IP system as a bulwark against the depredations of a “sharing economy” that all
too often amounts to a handful of Internet monopolists profiting from the uncompensated labor of creative workers. Jaron Lanier, author of
the recent Who Owns the Future?, is one of the more strident proponents of this view.
Negative’s Files
384
Capitalism Kritik
Specific Links – Cyber aff Deterrence Advantage
Hacking is key to Marxist revolution
Johan Soderberg, 2008, Hacking Capitalism: The Free and Open Source Software Movement page 4, Johan Soderberg is associate
professor of Theory of Science at the Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science, Goteborgs Universitet,
downloads.gvsig.org/download/people/vagazzi/Hacking%20Capitalism.pdf
The promise of hacking is that, by making computer technology accessible to non-professionals, it
undermines the social division of labour as the regulating principle for technological development. In
plain language; corporate and government institutions have lost their monopoly over research and
development. Concrete political results follow when decisions over technology are spread to the crowd.
The mass defection from the intellectual property regime in file sharing networks, the challenge posed by the free operating system GNU/Linux
to Microsoft's dominance over the computer desktop, and the circumvention of state censorship and surveillance on the Internet, all
hinges
on that the tools and skills for writing software code are made public by hackers. This emancipatory promise
contradicts the association regularly made between cyber-politics and high-tech libertarianism. Occasionally, the potential of hacking
for progressive and radical change has been acknowledged by public commentators. Readers of New
Your Times were in 2000 confronted with the proclamation that the communist republic now existed on
the Internet. The journalist Andrew Sullivan made the point that dot-communism had sprung up in the heartland of the
most advanced capitalist country of our time, America, just as Karl Marx had predicted. Similar ideas have been voiced by
the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek. In a paraphrase of Vladimir Lenin's famous endorsement of electricity, Zizek exclaimed in a tongue-incheek way that: "socialism = free access to the Internet + power to the soviets". Sporadic allusions
to the Communist Manifest
are frequent within the computer underground. The most renowned insider drawing parallels between Marx and the hacker
movement is Eben Moglen. As the pro bono general counsellor for the Free Software Foundation, an influential organization of hackers, Eben
Moglen is well accustomed with the practice of hacking. He is convinced that capitalism
out of which hacking is just the first wave.
will be brought to an end by a tide
Negative’s Files
385
Capitalism Kritik
Specific Links – CRC aff Human Rights Advantage
Human rights promotion justifies military interventions and restructures societies to
be exploited by capitalism
Karen Wells, 24 July 2015, What do children need most: saving, rights or solidarity?, Open Democracy, Karen Wells is Assistant Dean for
the Department of Geography, Environment and Development Studies at Birkbeck, University of London. She is also Reader in International
Development and Childhood Studies. She is the author of Childhood in a Global Perspective and has published widely on the visual
representation and the impacts of global structures and flows on children and childhood,
https://www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/karen-wells/what-do-children-need-most-saving-rights-or-solidarity
child well-being is used as a Trojan horse for external intervention. I could cite any
number of instances of this but perhaps one will suffice: when the US government sought to legitimate
its attack on Afghanistan, Laura Bush said “Fighting brutality against women and children is not the
expression of a specific culture; it is an acceptance of our common humanity” (cited in Cynthia Weber’s
book Imagining America at War). This is straightforward enough to counter: bombs for regime change in the name of child
welfare is clearly a cynical ploy for masking real politick. However, other types of development-related interventions, for
There can be no doubt that
example getting children to go to school rather than work or mass vaccinations to eradicate infectious diseases, are more complicated in their
effects. On the one hand, they do save the lives of individual children and they may well improve the life chances of individuals. On the other,
they are also mechanisms through which new (liberal) ideas about the person and their relationship to
society are embedded in non/pre-capitalist societies, ideas that are compatible with capitalist
economics. The governance that is made possible through the actions of development agents is one that
tries to obscure the inequalities inevitably inscribed in global capitalism by mitigating its impacts on the
most vulnerable: children. At the same time it engages children, through education and participation,
in ways of being in the world that are congruent with liberal capitalism: freedom, autonomy and
individualism.
Negative’s Files
386
Capitalism Kritik
Specific Links – CRC aff Identity Politics Advantage
Identity politics has reached its limits – fragments resistance to capitalism
Jodi Dean, January 23, 2016, The JFRP: For a New Communist Party, Jodi Dean is a political philosopher and professor in the Political
Science department at Hobart and William Smith Colleges. She has also held the position of Erasmus Professor of the Humanities in the Faculty
of Philosophy at Erasmus University Rotterdam, https://antidotezine.com/2016/01/23/for-a-new-communist-party/
JD: First I want to say that I disagree with the claim that there is no left. In fact, I think that “the left” is that group that keeps denying its own
existence. We’re always saying that we’re the ones who don’t exist. But the right thinks that we exist. That’s what is so fantastic, actually. Did
you see the New York Post screaming that Bernie Sanders is really a communist? Great! They’re really still afraid of communists! And it’s people
on the left who say, “Oh, no, we’re not here at all!” The
left denies its own existence and it denies its own collectivity.
Now, is identity politics to blame? Maybe it’s better to say that identity politics has been a symptom of
the pressure of capitalism. Capitalism has operated in the US by exacerbating racial differences. That has
to be addressed on the left, and the left has been addressing that. But we haven’t been addressing it in a way that
recognizes how racism operates to support capitalism. Instead, we’ve made it too much about identity
rather than as an element in building collective solidarity. I’m trying to find a way around this to express that identity
politics has been important but it’s reached its limits. Identity politics can’t go any further insofar as it
denies the impact of capitalism. An identity politics that just rests on itself is nothing but liberalism. Like
all of the sudden everything will be better if black people and white people are equally exploited? What
if black people and white people say, “No, we don’t want to live in a society based on exploitation?”
Negative’s Files
387
Capitalism Kritik
Consequentialist Impact Scenario - Impact
Capitalism is unsustainable - the drive for profit will cause extinction, but the alt
solves
Adrian Parr, 2013, THE WRATH OF CAPITAL: Neoliberalism and Climate Change Politics, pp. 145-147, Adian Parr is Associate Professor of
Philosophy and Environmental Studies at the University of Cincinnati, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/parr15828)
A quick snapshot of the twenty-first century so far: an
economic meltdown; a frantic sell-off of public land to the
energy business as President George W Bush exited the White House; a prolonged, costly, and unjustified war in Iraq;
the Greek economy in ruins; an escalation of global food prices; bee colonies in global extinction; 925
million hungry reported in 2010; as of 2005, the world's five hundred richest individuals with a combined income greater than that of the
poorest 416 million people, the richest 10 percent accounting for 54 percent of global income; a planet on the
verge of boiling point; melting ice caps; increases in extreme weather conditions; and the list goes on
and on and on.2 Sounds like a ticking time bomb, doesn't it? Well it is. It is shameful to think that massive die-outs of
future generations will put to pale comparison the 6 million murdered during the Holocaust; the millions
killed in two world wars; the genocides in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Darfur; the 1 million left homeless and
the 316,000 killed by the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. The time has come to wake up to the warning signs.3 The real issue
climate change poses is that we do not enjoy the luxury of incremental change anymore. We are in the last
decade where we can do something about the situation. Paul Gilding, the former head of Greenpeace International and a core
faculty member of Cambridge University's Programme for Sustainability, explains that "two degrees of warming is an
inadequate goal and a plan for failure;' adding that "returning to below one degree of warming . . . is the solution to the
problem:'4 Once we move higher than 2°C of warming, which is what is projected to occur by 2050, positive
feedback mechanisms will begin to kick in, and then we will be at the point of no return. We therefore
need to start thinking very differently right now. We do not see the crisis for what it is; we only see it as an isolated symptom
that we need to make a few minor changes to deal with. This was the message that Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez delivered at the COP15
United Nations Climate Summit in Copenhagen on December 16, 2009, when he declared: "Let's talk about the cause. We should not avoid
responsibilities, we should not avoid the depth of this problem. And I'll bring it up again, the
cause of this disastrous panorama
is the metabolic, destructive system of the capital and its model: capitalism.”5 The structural conditions in which we operate
are advanced capitalism. Given this fact, a few adjustments here and there to that system are not enough to solve
the problems that climate change and environmental degradation pose.6 Adaptability, modifications,
and displacement, as I have consistently shown throughout this book, constitute the very essence of capitalism.
Capitalism adapts without doing away with the threat. Under capitalism, one deals with threat not by
challenging it, but by buying favors from it, as in voluntary carbon-offset schemes. In the process, one gives up on one's
autonomy and reverts to being a child. Voluntarily offsetting a bit of carbon here and there, eating vegan, or recycling our waste, although well
not solutions to the problem, but a symptom of the free market's ineffectiveness. By casting a
scathing look at the neoliberal options on display, I have tried to show how all these options are ineffective. We are not buying
intended, are
indulgences because we have a choice; choices abound, and yet they all lead us down one path and through the golden gates of capitalist
heaven. For these reasons, I have underscored everyone's implication in this structure – myself included. If anything, the book has been an act
of outrage – outrage at the deceit and the double bind that the "choices" under capitalism present, for there is no choice when everything is
expendable. There is nothing substantial about the future when all you can do is survive by facing the absence of your own future and by
sharing strength, stamina, and courage with the people around you. All the rest is false hope. In many respects, writing this book has been an
anxious exercise because I am fully aware that reducing the issues of environmental degradation and climate change to the domain of analysis
can stave off the institution of useful solutions. But in my defense I would also like to propose that each
and every one of us has
certain skills that can contribute to making the solutions that we introduce in response to climate
change and environmental degradation more effective and more realistic. In light of that view, I close with the
Negative’s Files
following proposition, which I mean in the most optimistic sense possible: our
2050 it may all be over.
388
politics must start from the point that after
Negative’s Files
389
Capitalism Kritik
Consequentialist Impact Scenario - Framing
The uncertainty regarding every possible outcome makes consequentialism the only
option for most rational decision-making
Robert E Goodin, 1995, Cambridge University Press, “Utilitarianism As a Public Philosophy”, Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and
Public Policy, pg 63, Robert E Goodin, Robert 'Bob' E. Goodin (born 30 November 1950),[1] is professor of government at the University of
Essex, and professor of philosophy and social and political theory at Australian National University.[2] He is the editor of The Journal of Political
Philosophy[3] and the co-editor of the British Journal of Political Science.[4] pg 63)
My larger argument turns on the proposition that there
is something special about the situation of public officials that
makes utilitarianism more plausible for them (or, more precisely, makes them adopt a form of utilitarianism that we would
find more acceptable) than private individuals. Before proceeding with that larger argument, I must therefore say what it is that is so special
about public officials and their
situations that makes it both more necessary and more desirable for them to
adopt a more credible form of utilitarianism. Consider, first the argument from necessity. Public officials are obliged
to make their choices under uncertainty, and uncertainty of a very special sort at that. All choices-public and private alike- are
made under some degree of uncertainty, of course. But in the nature of things, private individuals will usually have more
complete information on the peculiarities of their own circumstances and on the ramifications that
alternative possible choices might have for them. Public officials, in contrast, at relatively poorly
informed as to the effects that their choices will have on individuals, one by one. What they typically do
know are generalities: averages and aggregates. They know what will happen most often to most people
as a result of their various possible choices. But that is all. That is enough to allow public policy makers
to use the utilitarian calculus – if they want to use it at all – to choose general rules of conduct. Knowing aggregates and averages,
they can proceed to calculate the utility payoffs from adopting each alternative possible general rule. But they cannot be sure what
the payoff will be to any given individual or on any particular occasion. Their knowledge of generalities,
aggregates and averages is just not sufficiently fine-grained for that.
Negative’s Files
390
Capitalism Kritik
Deontological Impact Scenario - Impact
Capitalism underlies all forms of oppression – the erosion of justice and values creates
inequality that results in crime, disposability, incarceration, authoritarianism,
excessive surveillance, exclusion, marginalization, and social death
Henry A. Giroux, 2014, Tikkun, Volume 29, Number 3, Summer 2014, Duke University Press “Neoliberalism’s War Against the Radical
Imagination” project muse; accessed 7/20/15, Henry A Giroux holds the Network Chair Professorship at McMaster University in the English and
Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University
Democracy is on life support in the United States. Throughout the social order, the forces of predatory capitalism are
on the march. Their ideological and material traces are visible everywhere—in the dismantling of the welfare
state, the increasing role of corporate money in politics, the assault on unions, the expansion of the corporate surveillancemilitary state, widening inequalities in wealth and income, the defunding of higher education, the privatization of public
education, and the war on women’s reproductive rights. As Marxist geographer David Harvey, political theorist Wendy Brown, and
others have observed, neoliberalism’s permeation is achieved through various guises that collectively function
to undercut public faith in the defining institutions of democracy. As market mentalities and moralities
tighten their grip on all aspects of society, public institutions and public spheres are first downsized,
then eradicated. When these important sites of democratic expression— from public universities to community health care
centers—vanish, what follows is a serious erosion of the discourses of justice, equality, public values,
and the common good. Moreover, as literary critic Stefan Collini has argued, under the regime of neoliberalism, the “social self” has
been transformed into the “disembedded individual,” just as the notion of the university as a public good is now repudiated by the privatizing
and atomistic values at the heart of a hyper-market-driven society. We
live in a society that appears to embrace the
vocabulary of “choice,” which is ultimately rooted in a denial of reality. In fact, most people experience daily an
increasing limitation of choices, as they bear the heavy burden of massive inequality, social disparities, the
irresponsible concentration of power in relatively few hands, a racist justice and penal system, the
conversion of schools into detention centers, and a pervasive culture of violence and cruelty—all of
which portends a growing machinery of social death, especially for those disadvantaged by a ruthless
capitalist economy. Renowned economist Joseph Stiglitz is one of many public intellectuals who have repeatedly alerted Americans to
the impending costs of gross social inequality. Inequality is not simply about disproportionate amounts of wealth and
income in fewer hands, it is also about the monopolization of power by the financial and corporate elite.
As power becomes global and is removed from local and nation-based politics, what is even more alarming is the sheer
number of individuals and groups who are being defined by the free-floating class of ultra-rich and corporate powerbrokers as disposable,
redundant, or a threat to the forces of concentrated power. Power, particularly the power of the largest corporations, has
become less
accountable, and the elusiveness of illegitimate power makes it difficult to recognize. Disposability has become the new
measure of a neoliberal society in which the only value that matters is exchange value. Compassion, social
responsibility, and justice are relegated to the dustbin of an older modernity that now is viewed as either quaint or a grim reminder of a
socialist past. The Institutionalization of Injustice A regime of repression, corruption, and dispossession has become the organizing principle of
Corporate bankers and powerbrokers trade with terrorists, bankrupt
the economy, and commit all manner of crimes that affect millions, yet they go free. Meanwhile, across the
society in which an ironic doubling takes place.
United States, citizens are being criminalized for all sorts of behaviors ranging from dress code infractions in public schools to peaceful
demonstrations in public parks. As Michelle Alexander has thoroughly documented in her book The New Jim Crow, young
men and
women of color are being jailed in record numbers for nonviolent offenses, underscoring how justice is
on the side of the rich, wealthy, and powerful. And when the wealthy are actually convicted of crimes,
they are rarely sent to prison, even though millions languish under a correctional system aimed at
Negative’s Files
391
punishing immigrants, low-income whites, and poor minorities. An egregious example of how the justice system works
in favor of the rich was recently on full display in Texas. Instead of being sent to prison, Ethan Couch, a wealthy teen who killed four people
while driving inebriated, was given ten years of probation and ordered by the judge to attend a rehabilitation facility paid for by his parents.
(His parents had previously offered to pay for an expensive rehabilitation facility that costs $450,000 a year.) The defense argued that he had
“affluenza,” a “disease” that afflicts children of privilege who are allegedly never given the opportunity to learn how to be responsible. In other
words, irresponsibility is now an acceptable hallmark of having wealth, enabling the rich actually to kill people and escape the reach of justice.
Under such circumstances, “justice” becomes synonymous with privilege, as wealth and power dictate
who benefits and who doesn’t by a system of law that enshrines lawlessness. In addition, moral and political
outrage is no longer animated by the fearful consequences of an unjust society. Rather than fearing injustice at the hands of
an authoritarian government, nearly all of us define our fears in reference to overcoming personal
insecurities and anxieties. In this scenario, survival becomes more important than the quest for the good life. The American
dream is no longer built on the possibility of social mobility or getting ahead. Instead, it has become for many a nightmare
rooted in the desire to simply stay afloat and survive.
Negative’s Files
392
Capitalism Kritik
Deontological Impact Scenario - Framing
We have a moral obligation to treat individuals with full dignity and respect – anything
less is the road to tyranny and sacrifice
Henry Shue, 1989, Nuclear Deterrence and Moral Restraint: Critical Choices for American Strategy, pp. 141-2, Henry Shue is a Professor
of Ethics and Public Life at Princeton University,
https://books.google.com/books?id=YTVgQAXt_J4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
in dealing with the issue
of the morality of nuclear strategy. One approach is to stick doggedly with one of the established moral theories constructed by
Given the philosophical obstacles to resolving moral disputes, there are at least two approaches one can take
philosophers to “rationalize” or “make sense of” everyday moral intuitions, and to accept the verdict of the theory, whatever it might be, on
the morality of nuclear weapons use. A more pragmatic alternative approach assumes that trade-offs in moral values and principles are
inevitable in response to constantly changing threats, and that the emergence of novel, unforeseen challenges may impel citizens of Western
societies to adjust the way they rank their values and principles to ensure that the moral order survives. Nuclear weapons are putting just such
a strain on our moral beliefs. Before the emergence of a nuclear-armed communist state capable of threatening the existence of Western
civilization, the slaughter of millions of innocent human beings to preserve Western values may have appeared wholly unjustifiable under any
Western democracies, if they are to survive as guardians of
individual freedom, can no longer afford to provide innocent life the full protection demanded by Just
War morality. It might be objected that the freedoms of Western society have value only on the assumption
that human beings are treated with the full dignity and respect assumed by Just War theory. Innocent human life is
possible circumstances. Today, however, it may be that
not just another value to be balanced side by side with others in moral calculations. It is the raison d’etre of Western political, economic, and
social institutions. A
free society based on individual rights that sanctioned mass slaughter of innocent human
beings to save itself from extinction would be “morally corrupt,” no better than soviet society, and not worth
defending. The only morally right and respectable policy for such a society would be to accept
destruction at the hands of tyranny, if need be. This objection is partly right in that a society based on individual rights that
casually sacrifices innocent human lives for the sake of common social goods is a contradiction in terms. On the other hand, even Just War
doctrine allows for the unintentional sacrifice of some innocent human life under certain hard-pressing circumstances. It is essentially a
consequentialist moral doctrine that ascribes extremely high – but not absolute – value to innocent human life. The problem for any
nonabsolute moral theory, of course, is where to draw the line.
Negative’s Files
393
Capitalism Kritik
Discursive Impact Scenario - Impact
Their capitalist discourse and framing reduces the debate to a mere extension of
economic managerialism – this crushes the real, transformative potential of education
Marie Lall, 2012, Policy, Discourse and Rhetoric How New Labour Challenged Social Justice and Democracy, EDUCATIONAL FUTURES
RETHINKING THEORY AND PRACTICE Volume 52, Professor Marie Lall is a South Asia expert (India, Pakistan and Burma/Myanmar) specialising
in political issues (with regard to the economy, geopolitics of energy, foreign policy formulation, citizenship and Diaspora politics) and
education (with specific regard to policy, gender, ethnicity and conflict, the formation of national identity and its close links with citizenship),
She received her MPhil from Cambridge in 1993 and her PhD from the London School of Economics in 1999,
https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/767-policy-discourse-and-rhetoric.pdf
Neoliberalism can be identified as the predominant ideology of the last decades (Giroux, 2002); in effect the
new ‘common sense’ that has replaced the social democracy of the post-war era. It has penetrated education
(Harris, 2007) changing the purpose of education itself (Bartlett et al., 2002; Wolf, 2002). Education currently is seen as
a main condition for economic success, central to any modern economy. (Gamanikov 2009) Often forgotten is
that education is relevant for the development of citizenship values (see chapter 2 in this volume), and for the
sake of learning (McGregor, 2009; Wolf, 2002). Although it brings economic benefits it also brings an essential
contribution to the public good (Margison 1993 in McGregor, 2009). Neoliberal ideology not only changed the
purpose of education, but it also changed the structure of education systems (Bartlett et al., 2002; Wolf, 2002).
Through the implementation of neoliberal policies, education was opened to the market assuming the features just
described. This has meant that there are private providers entering into the education system in a context of deregulation, which constitutes
the commercialisation and marketisation of education (Ball, 2007; Verger, 2008). The debate over the role of the state led
to reforms across all UK public services. Over the last 20 years the way the public sector has been managed has changed markedly - there has
been a shift away from old-style bureaucratic administration. The elevation of effectiveness and efficiency as the sole criteria of legitimacy
reflects the increasing dominance of an ethic of managerialism and a concomitant emphasis upon measuring and improving performance (see
chapter 1 in this volume). This new way of perceiving public services also gave rise to an ‘accounting logic,’ promoting a general perception that
what is visible and quantifiable is what is important. However professional ‘outputs’ are not easily standardised and measurable: ‘In various
guises, the key elements of the education reform ‘package’ – and it is applied with equal vigour to schools, colleges and universities - are
embedded in three interrelated policy technologies: the market, managerialism and performativity.’ (Ball 2003) As the role for the state has
changed from provider to regulator, there has been the loss of a distinctive public sector. It is important not to suggest a ‘golden age’ of public
sector administration. There are lots of criticisms that can be (and were) made, for example, issues of professional discretion and judgement,
the lack of client consultation, the slow and weighty bureaucracy, the hierarchy and the lack of accountability. But the reforms leading to a
change from public sector bureaucracy to managerialism have also affected the character, ethos, values and behaviour of individuals and
organisations. Today the discussion of education focuses not so much on the transformations in peoples’ lives brought about by education, or
the quality of their educational experiences, but the number of qualified students, the savings made in the delivery of services and the
The effects of neoliberalism on social justice and education ‘It
is clear therefore that with increased market logic there is also an increase in democratic deficit and
with it a reduction of the social justice agenda, especially in the public sector arena as new
inequalities are created.’ (Lall and Nambissan 2011 p.7) The effects of the reforms across the UK education sector have led to
proportion of students going on into higher education.
substantial change. The new policy discourse is restricting both for head teachers managing the schools and teachers in the classroom (Harris:
2007). With regard to schooling the focus has shifted to an instrumentalist thinking with measurable outputs. Schools aim to raise achievement
in order to compete with each other through league tables. The influx of new educational providers such as academies has led to increased
opportunities for students from poorer backgrounds to attend different types of schools. Nevertheless, as Roberts (2001 in Reay, 2006) argues,
this transformation has created the illusion of a fairer society while it creates a stratification along the
system which relegates the working classes to different trajectories than middle classes (Reay, 2006). The
underlying assumption is that free markets allow parents to choose the school that aligns with their expectations and needs. The possibility of
choosing a school would act as a natural selection process through which unpopular schools will be forced to change or to close if they do not
adapt to clients expectations (Ball, 1993). However the rhetoric of choice assumes that all parents have equal cultural capital and are equally
informed and capable of making such a choice for their children. The
middle classes benefit whilst the lower classes have
to make do with the leftovers (Leathwood, 2004; Reay, David and Ball, 2005). This has also affected those with Special Educational
Negative’s Files
394
Needs, where a rhetoric of inclusive education has not resulted in equitable education provision for all. (See Chapter 3 in the volume) There
have been similar effects in the higher education sector: Marketisation
across the sector has made performativity and
accountability cornerstones of higher education policies today. Increasing the number of institutions has
led to a stratified system with ‘first’ and ‘second class’ universities providing a different quality learning
experience and catering to different sections of society. The pressure to increase the number of students, account for how
time is spent and the general concern with national and international rankings are all effects of the changing understanding of what higher
education stands for. The
role of the university is no longer that of a ‘public interest institution’ but being sites
of ‘knowledge production’ in light of the economic imperatives of the ‘knowledge economy.’ (see Chapter 4
in this volume).
Negative’s Files
395
Capitalism Kritik
Discursive Impact Scenario - Framing
Focus on discourse is first priority - it defines the possible field of policies and
determines what that policy will ultimately be
Les Bell & Howard Stevenson, 2006, 'What is Educational Policy?', Education Policy published by Routledge, Les Bell is Professor
of Education at the Centre for Educational Leadership and Management and Director of the Doctor of Learning programme. Howard Stevenson
is a lecturer in Educational Leadership and Management based at the Centre for Educational Leadership and Management, Univeristy of
Leicester, eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/1851/1/Ed_Policy_book_proofs.pdf pages 8-9
All those working in schools and colleges must make sense of their policy context. Policy agendas require a response as those in the institution
are faced with the task of implementing policy directives. Those in senior leadership positions face a particular challenge as they often
represent the interface between the organization and the external policy environment. Key decisions must be made relating to the
interpretation and implementation of external policy agendas – those decisions will in turn reflect a complex mix of factors including personal
values, available resources and stakeholder power and perceptions. Understanding and anticipating policy therefore becomes a key feature of
‘leadership’ (Day et al. 2000) – understanding
where policies come from, what they seek to achieve, how they
impact on the learning experience and the consequences of implementation are all essential features of
educational leadership. To some extent it may be argued that in recent years studies of ‘leadership’ have supplanted studies of policy.
This in part reflects the emergence of a managerialist agenda in which institutional leadership and management is often
reduced to a technical study of the ‘one best way’ to deliver education policy objectives determined elsewhere within the
socio-political environment and legitimated by a dominant discourse which may be located outside the
immediate sphere of education (Thrupp and Willmott 2003). Policy is treated uncritically and denuded of its
values, neglecting to assess how policy impacts differentially on different social groups. The importance of
policy, as distinct from leadership, is recognized in this volume, but a simple dichotomy between leadership or policy is avoided – the key
issue is to explore the relationship between the interdependent themes of leadership, policy and power.
This volume acknowledges the importance of leadership, but seeks to make the case that leadership must be located within a policy context. A
failure to fully understand the complex ways in which policy shapes, and is shaped by, leadership fails adequately to explain the actions and
practices of leaders at both the organizational and operational levels. Key
practitioners in schools and colleges, rather than
being passive implementers of policies determined and decided elsewhere, are able to shape national
policy at an early stage, perhaps through their involvement in interest groups, professional associations or their
favoured position in government policy forums and think-tanks. In other cases, influence may be exerted at an institutional level as the
organizational principles and operational practices through which policy is implemented are formed and re-formed. Leaders in educational
institutions, therefore, are both policy implementers and policy generators. For these reasons it
can be more accurate to describe
a process of policy development, rather than use the more traditional, but less helpful, term of policy
making. Sharp distinctions between policy generation and implementation can be unhelpful as they fail
to account for the way in which policy is formed and re-formed as it is being ‘implemented’. The term policy
development also more accurately conveys the organic way in which policy emerges. This is not to argue that policies develop in entirely
serendipitous ways. On the contrary, an important theme of this book is to argue that
policy is decisively shaped by powerful
structural forces of an economic, ideological and cultural nature. Nevertheless the crucial role of human
agency in the development of policy must be recognized. Furthermore, if institutional leaders do not mechanically
implement policy from the state, nor do those studying and working in educational institutions mechanically implement the policies of their
institutional leaders. Policy
is political: it is about the power to determine what is done. It shapes who
benefits, for what purpose and who pays. It goes to the very heart of educational philosophy – what is education for? For
whom? Who decides? The point is well made by Apple:
Negative’s Files
396
Capitalism Kritik
Alternative Solvency
Alternative is to create and advocate class solidarity against capitalism
Class solidarity is key to solve all capitalism’s impacts
Progressive Labor Party, Last Updated 2016, PLP homepage, The Progressive Labor Party is an international movement
opposed to capitalism headed by scholars and workers from many countries and backgrounds, www.plp.org/challenge/2013/12/26/china-usimperialists-heading-for-armed-clash.html
Only the dictatorship of the working class — communism — can provide a lasting solution to the
disaster that is today’s world for billions of people. This cannot be done through electoral politics, but
requires a revolutionary movement and a mass Red Army led by PLP. Worldwide capitalism, in its relentless drive for profit,
inevitably leads to war, fascism, poverty, disease, starvation and environmental destruction. The capitalist class, through its state power —
governments, armies, police, schools and culture — maintains a dictatorship over the world’s workers. The capitalist dictatorship supports, and
is supported by, the anti-working-class ideologies of racism, sexism, nationalism, individualism and religion. While the bosses and their
mouthpieces claim “communism is dead,” capitalism is the real failure for billions worldwide. Capitalism returned to Russia and China because
socialism retained many aspects of the profit system, like wages and privileges. Russia and China did not establish communism.
Communism means working collectively to build a worker-run society. We will abolish work for wages,
money and profits. Everyone will share in society’s benefits and burdens. Communism means abolishing racism and
the concept of “race.” Capitalism uses racism to super-exploit black, Latino, Asian and indigenous workers, and
to divide the entire working class. Communism means abolishing the special oppression of women —
sexism — and divisive gender roles created by the class society. Communism means abolishing nations
and nationalism. One international working class, one world, one Party. Communism means that the minds of
millions of workers must become free from religion’s false promises, unscientific thinking and poisonous ideology. Communism will
triumph when the masses of workers can use the science of dialectical materialism to understand, analyze and
change the world to meet their needs and aspirations. Communism means the Party leads every aspect
of society. For this to work, millions of workers — eventually everyone — must become communist
organizers. Join Us!
Negative’s Files
397
Capitalism Kritik
Alternative Solvency
Class centric resistance is key – leads to an egalitarian democracy
Bertell Ollman, Last updated 2016, What is Marxism? A Bird's-Eye View, Dialectical Marxism: The Writings of Bertell Ollman, Bertell
Ollman is a professor of politics at New York University. He teaches both dialectical methodology and socialist theory. He is the author of
several academic works relating to Marxist theory. Ollman attended the University of Wisconsin, receiving a BA in political science in 1956 and
an MA in political science in 1957. He went on to study at Oxford University, earning a B.A. in Philosophy, Politics and Economics in 1959, an MA
in political theory in 1963, and a PhD in political theory in 1967, https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/what_is_marxism.php
In order to supplement the institutions of force, capitalism has given rise to an ideology, or way of
thinking, which gets people to accept the status quo or, at least, confuses them as to the possibility of
replacing it with something better. For the most part, the ideas and concepts which make up this ideology work by getting people
to focus on the observable aspects of any event or institution, neglecting its history and potential for change as well as the broader context in
which it resides. The
result is a collection of partial, static, distorted, one-sided notions that reveal only what
the capitalists would like everyone to think. For example, in capitalist ideology, consumers are
considered sovereign, as if consumers actually determine what gets produced through the choices they
make in the supermarket; and no effort is made to analyze how they develop their preferences (history) or
who determines the range of available choices (larger system). Placing an event in its real historical and
social context, which is to say—studying it "dialectically," often leads (as in the case of "consumer sovereignty") to conclusions
that are the direct opposite of those based on the narrow observations favored by ideological thinking.
As the attempted separation of what cannot be separated without distortion, capitalist ideology reflects in thought the fractured lives of
alienated people, while at the same time making it increasingly difficult for them to grasp their alienation. As the
contradictions of capitalism become greater, more intense, and less amenable to disguise, neither the state nor ideology can restrain the mass
of the workers, white and blue collar, from recognizing their interests (becoming "class conscious") and acting upon them. The
overthrow
of capitalism, when it comes, Marx believed, would proceed as quickly and democratically as the nature of
capitalist opposition allowed. Out of the revolution would emerge a socialist society which would fully
utilize and develop much further the productive potential inherited from capitalism. Through
democratic planning, production would now be directed to serving social needs instead of maximizing
private profit. The final goal, toward which socialist society would constantly build, is the human one of abolishing
alienation. Marx called the attainment of this goal "communism".
Negative’s Files
398
Capitalism Kritik
Alternative Solvency
Organizing politics around unconditional resistance to capitalism solves – has to come
first
Peter McLaren, 2006, “Slavoj Žižek's Naked Politics: Opting for the Impossible, A Secondary Elaboration”, Peter McLaren is a professor
of cultural studies at the University of California, http://www.jacweb.org/Archived_volumes/Text_articles/V21_I3_McLaren.htm
Žižek challenges the relativism of the gender-race-class grid of reflexive positionality when he claims that class antagonism or
struggle is
not simply one in a series of social antagonisms—race, class, gender, and so on—but rather constitutes
the part of this series that sustains the horizon of the series itself. In other words, class struggle is the
specific antagonism that assigns rank to and modifies the particularities of the other antagonisms in the
series. He notes that "the economy is at one and the same time the genus and one of its own species" (Totalitarianism 193). In what I consider
to be his most important work to date, Contingency, Hegemony, Universality (coauthored with Judith Butler and Ernesto Laclau), Žižek
militantly refuses to evacuate reference to historical structures of totality and universality and argues that class struggle itself enables the
proliferation of new political subjectivities (albeit subjectivities that ironically relegate class struggle to a secondary role). As Marx argued, class
struggle structures "in advance" the very terrain of political antagonisms. Thus, according to Žižek, class struggle is not "the last horizon of
meaning, the last signified of all social phenomena, but the formal generative matrix of the different ideological horizons of understanding"
("Repeating" 16-17). In his terms, class struggle sets the ground for the empty place of universality, enabling it to be filled variously with
contents of different sorts (ecology, feminism, anti-racism). He further argues that the split between the classes is even more radical today than
during the times of industrial class divisions. He takes the position that post-Marxists
have done an excellent job in
uncovering the fantasy of capital (vis-à-vis the endless deferral of pleasure) but have done little to uncover its
reality. Those post-Marxists who are advocates of new social movements (such as Laclau and Mouffe) want
revolution without revolution; in contrast, Žižek calls for movements that relate to the larger totality of capitalist social relations and
that challenge the very matter and antimatter of capital's social universe. His strategic focus on capitalist exploitation (while
often confusing and inconsistent) rather than on racial, ethnic, gender, or sexual identity is a salutary one: "The
problem is not how our precious particular identity should be kept safe from global capitalism. The problem is how to oppose
global capitalism at an even more radical level; the problem is to oppose it universally, not on a
particular level. This whole problematic is a false one" (Olson and Worsham 281). What Žižek sets himself against is the particular
experience or political argument. An experience or argument that cannot be universalized is "always and by definition a conservative political
gesture: ultimately everyone can evoke his unique experience in order to justify his reprehensible acts" ("Repeating" 4-5). Here he echoes
Wood, who argues that capitalism
is "not just another specific oppression alongside many others but an allembracing compulsion that imposes itself on all our social relations" ("Identity" 29). He also echoes critical educators
such as Paulo Freire, who argues against the position that experiences of the oppressed speak for themselves. All experiences need to
be interrogated for their ideological assumptions and effects, regardless of who articulates them or from
where they are lived or spoken. They are to be read with, against, and upon the scientific concepts produced by the revolutionary
Marxist tradition. The critical pedagogical act of interrogating experiences is not to pander to the autonomous subject
or to individualistic practices but to see those experiences in relationship to the structure of social
antagonisms and class struggle. History has not discharged the educator from the mission of grasping the "truth of the present" by
interrogating all the existing structures of exploitation present within the capitalist system where, at the point of production,
material relations characterize relations between people and social relations characterize relations between things. The critical
educator asks: How are individuals historically located in systematic structures of economic relations?
How can these structures—these lawless laws of capital—be overcome and transformed through
revolutionary praxis into acts of freely associated labor where the free development of each is the
condition for the free development of all?
Negative’s Files
399
Capitalism Kritik
Permutation Answers
Perm doesn’t solve: Using the state strengthens and legitimizes the capitalist system
Jim Glassman 2004, , “Transnation hegemony and US labor foreign policy: towards a Gramscian international labor geography”,
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, volume 22, pages 573-593, Jim Glassman is a professor in the Department of Geography at the
University of British Columbia
Whilst previously neglected, it is clear that Antonio Gramsci
advanced a conception of the state within a broader
Marxist approach to political economy that he referred to as 'Critical Economy'.8 For Gramsci, a 'Critical
Economy' approach was distinguished from the 'Classical Economy' of Adam Smith and David Ricardo in that it
did not seek to construct abstract hypotheses based on generalised, historically indeterminate conditions of a generic 'homo oeconomicus'
(Gramsci 1995, 166–167). The whole conception of 'Critical
Economy' was historicist in the sense that categories were
always situated within historical circumstances and assessed within the particular context from which
they derived, rather than assuming a universal 'homo oeconomicus' (ibid., 171–173, 176–179). Moreover, the importance of a
theory of value was acknowledged to the extent that: one must take as one's starting point the labour of all working people to arrive at
definitions both of their role in economic production and of the abstract, scientific concept of value and surplus value, as well as ... the role of
all capitalists considered as an ensemble (ibid., 168). This distancing from liberal ideology was then continued in Gramsci's direct reflections on
the state. According to Gramsci, the
conception of the state developed by dominant classes within capitalist
social relations derived from a separation of politics and economics. 'The state', as represented by the
intellectual class supportive of dominant social forces, 'is conceived as a thing in itself, as a rational
absolute' (Gramsci 1992, 229). Additionally, in those situations when individuals view a collective entity such as the state to be extraneous
to them, then the relation is a reified or fetishistic one. It is fetishistic when individuals consider the state as a thing and expect it to act and, are
led to think that in actual fact there exists above them a
phantom entity, the abstraction of the collective organism, a
species of autonomous divinity that thinks, not with the head of a specific being, yet nevertheless thinks,
that moves, not with the real legs of a person, yet still moves (Gramsci 1995, 15).
Negative’s Files
400
Capitalism Kritik
Transition Wars Disadvantage Answers
No Link: The crackdown won’t happen – capital can’t afford to attack its labor
István Meszaros, 95, Beyond Capital, István Mészáros is a Hungarian Marxist philosopher, and Professor Emeritus at the University of
Sussex. He held the Chair of Philosophy at Sussex for fifteen years and was earlier Professor of Philosophy and Social Science for four years at
York University, P 725-727
Another argument which is often used in favour of permanent accommodation is the threat of extreme
authoritarian measures that must be faced by a socialist revolutionary movement. This argument is backed up by
emphasizing both the immense destructive power at capital's disposal and the undeniable historical
fact that no ruling order ever cedes willingly its position of command over society, using if need be even the
most violent form of repression to retain its rule. The weakness of this argument is twofold, despite the factual circumstances which
would seem to support it. First, it disregards that the antagonistic confrontation between capital and labour is not
a political/military one in which one of the antagonists could be slaughtered on the battlefield or
riveted to chains. In as much as there can be chains in this confrontation, labour is wearing them
already, in that the only type of chains compatible with the system must be 'flexible' enough to enable
the class of labour to produce and be exploited. Nor can one imagine that the authoritarian might of capital is likely to be
used only against a revolutionary socialist movement. The repressive anti-labour measures of the last two decades — not to mention many
instances of past historical emergency characterized by the use of violence under the capital system —give a foretaste of worse things to
come in the event of extreme confrontations. But this is not a matter of either/or, with some sort of apriori guarantee of a 'fair' and
benevolent treatment in the event of labour's willing accommodation and submission. The matter hinges on the gravity of the crisis and on
the circumstances under which the antagonistic confrontations unfold. Uncomfortable as this truth may sound to socialists, one
of the
heaviest chains which labour has to wear today is that it is tied to capital for its continued survival,
for as long as it does not succeed in making a strategic break in the direction of a transition to a
radically different social metabolic order. But that is even more true of capital, with the qualitative
difference that capital cannot make any break towards the establishment of a different social order.
For capital, truly, 'there is no alternative' — and there can never be — to its exploitative structural
dependency on labour. If nothing else, this fact sets well marked limits to capital's ability to
permanently subdue labour by violence, compelling it to use, instead, the earlier mentioned
'flexible chains' against the class of labour. It can use violence with success selectively, against
limited groups of labour, but not against the socialist movement organized as a revolutionary mass
movement.
Negative’s Files
401
Capitalism Kritik
Transition Wars Disadvantage Answers - Framing
Revolution is necessary for long term survival – outweighs transition wars. Short term
pain, long term gain
Chris Lewis, 1998, "The Paradox of Global Development and the Necessary Collapse of Modern Industrial Civilization," in The Coming
Age of Scarcity: Preventing Mass Death and Genocide in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Michael N Dobkowski and Isidor Wallimann, p. 5960, Chris Lewis is an American Studies professor at University of Colorado-Boulder
the only solution to the growing political and economic chaos caused by the collapse of
global industrial civilization is to encourage the uncoupling of nations and regions from the global economy.
In conclusion,
Effort to integrate the underdeveloped countries with this global economy through sustainable development programs such as Agenda 21 will
only further undermine the global economy and industrial civilization. Unfortunately, millions
will die in the wars and
economic and political conflicts created by the accelerating collapse of global civilization. But we can be
assured, on the basis of the past history of the collapse of regional civilizations such as the Mayan and
the Roman empires, that, barring global nuclear war, human societies and civilizations will continue to exist
and develop on a smaller, regional scale. Yes, such civilizations will be violent, corrupt, and often cruel,
but, in the end, less so than our current global industrial civilization, which is abusing the entire planet and
threatening the mass death and suffering of all its peoples and the living, biological fabric of life on
earth. The paradox of global economic development is that although it creates massive wealth and power for modern elites, it also creates
massive poverty and suffering for underdeveloped peoples and societies. The failure of global development to end this suffering and
destruction will bring about its collapse. This
collapse will cause millions of people to suffer and die throughout the
world, but it should, paradoxically, ensure the survival of future human societies. The collapse of global
civilization is necessary for the future, long-term survival of human beings. Although this future seems hopeless
and heartless, it is not. We can learn much from our present global crisis. What we learn will shape our future and the future of the complex,
interconnected web of life on earth.