129 Ss Answers To Trade Disads

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

i got a hand full of stacks, better grab an umbrella i got a hand full of stacks, better grab an umbrella......................................................................................................................................1 Strat Sheet....................................................................................................................................................................................................2 ***AT: WTO Trade Disad***.....................................................................................................................................................................3 Non Unique-Incentives Increasing Now......................................................................................................................................................4 Non Unique-E.U. Has Alternative Energy Incentives.................................................................................................................................5 Non Unique-Kyoto.......................................................................................................................................................................................6 Non Unique-No Compliance Now (General)..............................................................................................................................................7 Non Unique-No Compliance Now (International)......................................................................................................................................9 Non Unique-No Compliance Now (Cotton)..............................................................................................................................................10 Non Unique-No Compliance Now (Antidumping)....................................................................................................................................11 No Link-General........................................................................................................................................................................................12 No Link-Link Evidence Biased.................................................................................................................................................................13 No Link-Efficiency....................................................................................................................................................................................14 No Link-Affs that Have USFG Buy Alt Energy........................................................................................................................................15 No Link-Cap and Trade.............................................................................................................................................................................16 No Link-RPS..............................................................................................................................................................................................17 Link Turn-Biofuels.....................................................................................................................................................................................18 WTO Bad-Small Arms...............................................................................................................................................................................19 WTO Bad-Environment.............................................................................................................................................................................20 WTO Bad-Environment.............................................................................................................................................................................21 WTO Bad-Small Farms.............................................................................................................................................................................22 WTO Bad-Small Farms.............................................................................................................................................................................23 WTO Bad-Prolif.........................................................................................................................................................................................24 WTO Bad-Neoliberalism...........................................................................................................................................................................25 AT: China Scenario....................................................................................................................................................................................26 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................26 AT: WTO Key to Free Trade......................................................................................................................................................................27 Prefer Our Evidence-Rose.........................................................................................................................................................................28 AT: Uniqueness Counterplan.....................................................................................................................................................................29 ***AT: E.U. Trade Disad***.....................................................................................................................................................................30 Non Unique-EU Pessimistic About US Climate Policy............................................................................................................................31 Non Unique-US Increasing Alternative Energy Incentives.......................................................................................................................32 Non Unique-US EU Relations Low..........................................................................................................................................................33 No Link.....................................................................................................................................................................................................34 No Impact-No Sanctions............................................................................................................................................................................35 No Impact-Trade Conflicts Don’t Escalate................................................................................................................................................36 AT: US-EU Relations Impact.....................................................................................................................................................................37 AT: US-EU Relations Impact.....................................................................................................................................................................38 AT: Middle East Impact ............................................................................................................................................................................39 AT: Terrorism Impact ................................................................................................................................................................................40 AT: Terrorism/Prolif Impact.......................................................................................................................................................................41 ***AT: China Trade Disad***..................................................................................................................................................................42 Non Unique-Environmental Disputes now................................................................................................................................................43 Non Unique-Trade Conflicts Now.............................................................................................................................................................44 Non Unique-Trade Conflicts Now.............................................................................................................................................................45 Non Unique-Trade Conflicts Now.............................................................................................................................................................46 Non Unique-Trade Conflicts Now.............................................................................................................................................................47 Non Unique-China Not Exporting Carbon Intensive Goods.....................................................................................................................48 No Link......................................................................................................................................................................................................49 No Impact-Long Timeframe......................................................................................................................................................................50 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................50 Tariffs Good...............................................................................................................................................................................................51 Tariffs Good-Jobs.......................................................................................................................................................................................52 Tariffs Good-Protectionism/Warming/US Econ........................................................................................................................................53 Tariffs Good-Warming...............................................................................................................................................................................54 China Will Model.......................................................................................................................................................................................55 make it rain

1

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Strat Sheet WTO Disad: -You should definitely read the AT: WTO’s key to free trade-it’s takes out the majority of their impactseven if their cards don’t say free trade, the warrants for most of their impacts will be that the WTO somehow influences U.S. trade policy. Plus those rose cards are fucking sweet. EU Disad: -You’re probably not going to win offense, just go for smart empirically denied and uniqueness arguments China Disad: -I really don’t think you’re going to win offense-I would go for a bunch of uniqueness arguments and a few no links.

make it rain

2

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

***AT: WTO Trade Disad***

make it rain

3

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Non Unique-Incentives Increasing Now ( ) The U.S. is substantially increasing energy incentives now. US Fed News, August 6th, ‘7 (REP. LIPINSKI CALLS FOR CONTINUED FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, p. Lexis) [Bozman] Vice Chairman Lipinski has been a leader in Congress in promoting alternative energy research, especially for hydrogen. Hydrogen vehicles have the same capabilities as fossil fuel-powered vehicles, and their only emission is water vapor. Earlier this year Rep. Lipinski introduced H.R. 632, the H-Prize Act of 2007 which establishes $50 million in cash prizes for advances in hydrogen energy technology. This bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 408-8 on June 6, 2007, and was included in the comprehensive energy bill passed by the House this past weekend, H.R. 3221. As set forth in H.R. 3221, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security and Consumer Protection Act, federal funding levels for alternative energy programs will dramatically increase starting in Fiscal Year 2008. Specifically, this legislation includes $2.3 billion towards research and development of hydrogen, ethanol, bioenergy, solar, geothermal and hydro energy. These funding levels were previously approved in legislation passed by the House Committee on Science and Technology.

make it rain

4

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Non Unique-E.U. Has Alternative Energy Incentives ( ) The EU has alt energy incentives now. Des McGinnes, VerdeXchange Staff Writer, August, ‘7 (http://www.verdexchange.org/node/71) [Bozman] Wave energy clearly lacks the scale of implementation of other forms of renewable energy. However, with the success of technologies such as Ocean Power Delivery’s Pelamis, the ocean won’t remain an untapped source of renewable energy for long. In the following VerdeXchange News interview, OPD’s Des McGinnes explains how Europe’s renewable energy incentives are paving the way for wave energy abroad and how the implementation of similar technology in the United States remains largely unexplored.

make it rain

5

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Non Unique-Kyoto Kyoto should’ve triggered the impact. Lucas Assunção, Research Director at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, 11-20-2K (Trade Rules and Climate Change Policy: Some issues of synergy and conflict, p. Google) [Bozman] The Kyoto Protocol will be an important first step towards internalising the climate change externality and will potentially represent the most commendable effort by the international community to put the concept of sustainable development into practice. Thus far, however, the climate change regime has not been requested to address the need for policy co-ordination, including trade policy, in a sufficiently serious way. This might have to change rather quickly once the Kyoto Protocol enters into force. A need may arise to revisit and eventually strengthen language in Article 3.5 of the Climate Change Convention and Article 2.3 of the Kyoto Protocol with a view to enhance coherence between trade, climate change and development policies. Given the complex policy solutions required to tackle the global climate change problem it would seem much preferable to strengthen the Climate Convention through the Kyoto Protocol and possible future protocols than to propose amendments to WTO rules to achieve the goals of the Climate Convention. The discussion above, albeit limited in scope, shows that there is potential for conflict between WTO trade rules and measures taken to mitigate climate change under the Kyoto Protocol. In many cases, however, these conflicts can be avoided or minimised if the GATT/WTO rules are carefully scrutinised, and efforts are made early on to comply with them.

make it rain

6

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Non Unique-No Compliance Now (General) The U.S. is non compliant now-laundry list of violations. Business Wire 6-11-08 (EU Raises Concerns About Signs of Growing U.S. Protectionism at WTO Trade Policy Review, p. Lexis) [Bozman] The European Union used the opportunity of a two-day WTO review of U.S. trade policy to raise concerns about rising levels of protectionism in America. The EU submitted more than 90 detailed technical questions to the United States about its trade policy during the meeting In its opening statement to the ninth WTO Trade Policy Review of the United States in Geneva on 9 June, the EU expressed its concern at worrying signs of a re-emergence of protectionist sentiment in the United States. The increasingly restrictive import requirements imposed by the U.S. for security purposes - new legislation requiring the 100% scanning of containers destined for the US was an example - and the lack of reform in the 2008 U.S. Farm Bill raised doubts about the compliance and professed intent of some aspects of U.S. trade policy with the WTO. In questions to the U.S., the European Union also raised the use of fisheries subsidies, intellectual property rights enforcement, sanitary measures for food products, RTA policy and constraints on investment in services sectors.

US not compliant—6 examples European Union Factsheet No Date but references 03 in past tense“U.S. Non-Compliance With Wto Rulings” http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/us/sum06_03/wto.pdf. [Zavell] 1. The FSC legislation provides that, certain income earned by a foreign subsidiary of a U.S. corporation would not be subject to U.S. tax. The  purpose was to encourage the export of U.S. manufactured goods. Subsidies such as these, which are contingent upon export performance are  prohibited under the WTO. In February 2000, the WTO ruled that FSC tax exemptions amount to a prohibited export subsidy. Page 2 

­ 2 ­ Subsequently the U.S. replaced the original FSC legislation with the FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act  (ETI). However this Act still provides U.S. firms with prohibited export subsidies and on 14 January 2002 the WTO appellate body  ruled that the U.S. had not complied with the original WTO ruling  from 2000. Subsequent to this finding, on 7 May 2003, the WTO  Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) has authorised the EU to impose countermeasures against the U.S. to the tune of US$4 billion. However, in view of  the assertions by the U.S. that it intends to comply with the WTO’s rulings, including a personal pledge to this effect from President Bush, the EC has   declined to implement these countermeasures so far. The European Commission has agreed a time horizon within which the U.S. should comply with  the latest WTO rulings regarding its FSC legislation. In particular, the Commission will review the situation in the Autumn. In addition to the U.S.  FSC legislation, there are a number of other cases where U.S. compliance with WTO rulings has yet to materialise. 2. The U.S. 

Anti­Dumping Act of 1916 prohibiting the importation and sale of goods “at a price substantially less than the actual market value in  the principal markets of the country of their production” was judged to be in breach of WTO rules in September 2000. There are  currently three bills pending in Congress to repeal the 1916 Anti­Dumping Act, however two of these bills would leave on­going  litigation unaffected. The EC has made it clear that repealing this law without also terminating cases pending under it would not be an  acceptable solution to the dispute. 3. In October 1998, Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act was adopted. It prohibits,  under certain conditions, the registration or renewal of a trademark previously owned by a confiscated Cuban entity and sets forth that  no U.S. Court shall recognise or enforce any assertion of such rights. The WTO Dispute Settlement Body ruled that this legislation  breached WTO rules.  The EU agreed to extend the initial deadline for compliance (31 December 2002) to 30 June 2003. So far,  however, there is little sign that this deadline will be met. 4. The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (or ‘CDSOA’  ­ also known as the Byrd Amendment ­ signed into law in October 2000) provides that proceeds from anti­dumping and countervailing  duties shall be paid to the U.S. companies responsible for bringing the cases. The payments redistributed to U.S. producers are  substantial and have tended to benefit a very limited number of recipients, mainly in the steel sector (cf. facts and figures below), thus  increasing their distorting effects on competition. This provision  is incompatible with several WTO provisions. On 22 December  2000,  the   EC,  together  with  eight  other   WTO  partners   (Australia,   Brazil,  Chile,   India,  Indonesia,  Japan,  Korea,  and  Thailand),  requested formal WTO consultations with the U.S. The position defended by the EC and ten others (Canada and Mexico having joined  the consultations in May 2001) was upheld in the WTO reports adopted on 27 January 2003: namely that the CDSOA is an illegal  response to dumping or subsidisation and therefore WTO incompatible. A WTO arbitrator set the deadline by which the U.S. has to  comply with this ruling for 27 December 2003. 5. On 27 July 2001, the Dispute Settlement Body found that Section 110(5) of the U.S.  Copyright   Act   was   incompatible   with   WTO   rules.   So   far,  there  have   been  no   legislative   initiatives   to  bring   the  Act   into  compliance with this ruling. The U.S. and the EU are discussing on the implementation of a temporary arrangement, pending full  make it rain

7

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

U.S. compliance with the WTO ruling. 6. In the British Steel case the methodology used by the U.S. Department of Commerce on  countervailing duties on privatised exporters was considered as WTO incompatible. The U.S. consequently repealed the measure.  However, due to a mis­interpretation of the WTO’s original Page 3 ­ 3 ­ ruling, the "new" methodology which it was then replaced  with was just as WTO incompatible, remaining prejudiced against EC exporters. The EC, in order to defend its legitimate interest, was  therefore forced to open another case at the WTO (the so­called Privatisation Case), on the same issue, covering all 14 privatisation  cases affected by the U.S. methodology. In this "new" case, the WTO has again ruled in favour of the EC, and stipulated the 8  November 2003 as the date by which the U.S. should comply with this ruling.

make it rain

8

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Non Unique-No Compliance Now (International) International Non-Compliance rampant. Gary Horlick Senior Partner in the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering, Hale and Dorr, specializing in matters of international trade in goods AND Judith Coleman Attorney in the Washington, DC of WilmerHale 2007Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law “The Compliance Problems Of The WTO” http://www.law.arizona.edu/journals/ajicl/AJICL2007/vol241/Horlick%20article.pdf [Zavell] To judge just from the very limited sample offered by cases brought to WTO dispute settlement, virtually every major trading Member of the WTO has taken action knowing it was inconsistent with the WTO, apparently on the basis that at worst it would be challenged in the WTO dispute settlement process, and then dragged out in litigation for three to four years before having to comply with the rules to which it had agreed. This is done not just by the big players—the United States, the EU, Japan, Canada, Brazil, India—but also Argentina, Australia, Chile, China, Egypt, and so on (for the sake of politeness, individual cases are not named here, but a quick look at the list of requests for consultations will identify them for the reader). In effect, the WTO has been re-written by those Members to claim that none of the obligations applies for a three- to four-year period. And these are only the most blatant cases. The same phenomena are probably reflected in the very leisurely way in which WTO Members adapt to fairly definitive rulings by the Appellate Body in cases involving other Members. The most obvious example is the case of India against the EC on “zeroing,” decided in India’s favor by the Appellate Body in 2001. 1 The ruling was sufficiently clear to guide other Members. But very few complied (in the sense of adapting their own national systems) with any speed, and some have made it clear they will not comply until fully stretching out (for six years and counting) dispute resolution in additional cases brought directly against them. It will be interesting to observe over time whether empirical data confirms the suspicion that this could become discriminatory, as countries better able to afford the internal or external cost of defending themselves in WTO dispute resolution cases are in a better position to undertake this behavior than poorer countries.

make it rain

9

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Non Unique-No Compliance Now (Cotton) U.S. not complying with cotton measures. Bradley Klapper, Associated Press Writer, 9-28-06 (WTO establishes panel to investigate U.S. compliance on illegal cotton subsidies, Associated Press Worldstream, p. Lexis) [Bozman] The World Trade Organization opened a formal investigation into whether the United States has complied with a ruling to scrap a series of illegal subsidies paid out to American cotton growers, trade officials said Thursday. Washington had blocked Brazil's request earlier this month for the WTO to investigate U.S. compliance with a 2005 decision that said billions of dollars (euros) in U.S. government handouts had unfairly distorted international cotton prices. If the WTO finds the U.S. has failed to remove all subsidies previously ruled illegal, Brazil could ask for permission to impose retaliatory sanctions against U.S. goods. "With respect to some of the ... recommendations and rulings, the United States has adopted no implementation measures at all," Brazilian Ambassador Clodoaldo Hugueney told the WTO's dispute settlement body. "The implementation measures it has adopted fall far short of compliance."

make it rain

10

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Non Unique-No Compliance Now (Antidumping) U.S. isn’t complying with antidumping rules. Bradley Klapper, Associated Press Writer, 9-25-07 (WTO to investigate U.S. compliance with antidumping ruling, Associated Press Worldstream, p. Lexis) [Bozman] But EU trade official Ann-Sofie Sjoberg-Kauppinen said Brussels' request for a panel "should not come as a surprise." "We have expressed our dissatisfaction with U.S. actions several times and in detail, but no corrective actions have been taken," she said. Dumping occurs when foreign producers export products at below the market price usually because the exports have been subsidized or in an attempt to corner the market. In certain circumstances, trade rules allow governments to impose additional duties on dumped goods to protect domestic producers. The WTO has chided the U.S. in disputes with the 27-nation EU, Canada and others for how it determines what antidumping fees to apply, known in trade jargon as "zeroing." Panels have consistently found that zeroing leads to artificial and inflated margins of dumping, and thus higher duties. "We are concerned that the U.S. is still collecting duties calculated with zeroing in many of the cases we challenged and that nothing has been done to eliminate zeroing," Sjoberg-Kauppinen said. In June, the Geneva-based body authorized a new investigation of U.S. dumping rules on 52 additional products Brussels said were being penalized by the levies.

make it rain

11

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

No Link-General ( ) Plan doesn’t violate WTO rules-it doesn’t favor any firms over others Lucas Assunção, Research Director at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, 11-20-2K (Trade Rules and Climate Change Policy: Some issues of synergy and conflict, p. Google) [Bozman] In addition to the exception just mentioned, a close look into the Subsidies Agreement may allow for some additional flexibility regarding its stern specificity rule. A subsidy is considered not “specific”, hence not actionable, if there are objective and legally enforceable criteria governing eligibility for, and the amount of, the subsidy and if eligibility is automatic for any company meeting the criteria 15 . These criteria or conditions will need to be neutral, meaning they would not favour certain firms over others, and be economic in nature and horizontal in application. It could be argued that if eligibility for, and the amount of, a subsidy were linked directly to concrete criteria -- for example energy efficiency or intensity -- the subsidy might not be considered “specific” even if it only applied to one firm and industry, and therefore be perfectly consistent with WTO rules and climate change policies.

( ) Plan’s allowed under WTO rules-it’s not more-trade restrictive than necessary. Lucas Assunção, Research Director at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, 11-20-2K (Trade Rules and Climate Change Policy: Some issues of synergy and conflict, p. Google) [Bozman] In principle, WTO rules do not allow for unilateral measures which are trade restrictive. The WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) 21 , for example, requires that technical regulations affecting imported products not be "prepared, adopted, or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade". 22 If, however, regulations are "not more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective” they may be allowed under the WTO-TBT Agreement. Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement offers some flexibility to regulations introduced pursuant to a few "legitimate objectives" including, national security requirements, prevention of deceptive practices, protection of human health or safety, animal or plant life or health, or the environment. The question then would be to prove that a specific regulation is the least- trade restrictive and necessary to combat climate change. Such criteria could be established by a multilaterally-agreed energy efficiency standard. Additionally, Article 2.5 of the WTO-TBT Agreement states that a regulation is presumed not to contain any unnecessary obstacles to international trade if it is established in accordance with "relevant international standards".

make it rain

12

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

No Link-Link Evidence Biased Their link evidence is blatantly biased-it’s from a free trade lobbyist. Alina Syunkova, National Foreign Trade Council, December, ‘7 (http://www.nftc.org/default/trade/WTO/Climate%20Change%20Paper.pdf) [Bozman] The National Foreign Trade Council advocates an open, rules-based world economy. Founded in 1914 by a group of American companies that supported an open world trading system, the NFTC now serves nearly 300 member companies through its offices in Washington and New York. The NFTC represents its member companies on trade and investment, export finance, economic sanctions and international tax policies that affect the competitiveness of U.S. companies overseas. It supports open markets, opposes unilateral sanction restrictions on trade, and assures U.S. business access to needed risk insurance and export and project finance.

make it rain

13

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

No Link-Efficiency Effiency mechanisms don’t conflict with WTO rules. Lucas Assunção, Research Director at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, 11-20-2K (Trade Rules and Climate Change Policy: Some issues of synergy and conflict, p. Google) [Bozman] The panel upheld the gas guzzler tax, but not the CAFE standards. In analysing the gas guzzler tax, the panel did not consider cars which could run more than 22.5 miles per gallon as "like" cars to those which consume more and run under 22.5 miles per gallon, hence they could be treated differently under article III. Goldberg 24 states that this could “suggest that, in the future, trade restrictions that discriminate between products based on their energy efficiency should not conflict with the WTO rules”. However, he quickly adds a note of caution: “GATT and WTO panels are not bound by previous panel decisions and have been known to reach diametrically opposite conclusions about identical matters”.

make it rain

14

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

No Link-Affs that Have USFG Buy Alt Energy The USFG is allowed to buy alternative energies under WTO rules. Alina Syunkova, National Foreign Trade Council, December, ‘7 (http://www.nftc.org/default/trade/WTO/Climate%20Change%20Paper.pdf) [Bozman] Government procurement of climate-friendly goods, such as the program included in H.R. 3221, may be covered by the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement, to which the U.S. is a party. This Agreement contains numerous flexibility measures that seem to accommodate most climate-friendly government procurement programs. The measures in H.R. 3221 do not appear to be in direct violation of the treaty – especially if the U.S. government employs transparent international product standards and participates in international standardization efforts.

Joint research between industry and the fed is allowed under WTO rules. Lucas Assunção, Research Director at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, 11-20-2K (Trade Rules and Climate Change Policy: Some issues of synergy and conflict, p. Google) [Bozman] Additionally, Annex I Parties may seek to support efforts by their industries to develop climate-friendly products and technologies through joint research and development projects like the US Clean Car Initiative or incentive programs such as the US "golden carrot" awards. Within certain limits, such research assistance is permitted by the WTO subsidy rules, although typically such measures do not seem to be too effective in terms of greenhouse gas emissions reductions achieved.

make it rain

15

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

No Link-Cap and Trade No WTO provisions prohibit a cap and trade system. Alina Syunkova, National Foreign Trade Council, December, ‘7 (http://www.nftc.org/default/trade/WTO/Climate%20Change%20Paper.pdf) [Bozman] Few, if any, WTO provisions explicitly prohibit a cap-and-trade system. The law on regulating cap-and-trade systems that impacts international commerce in goods and services is still forming. If the United States chooses to implement a cap-and-trade system, it would be in its long-term interest to do it sooner rather than later so that it can more effectively participate in forming this body of law. Emissions permits have yet to be defined as a good subject to the GATT 1994, a service subject to the GATS, a financial contribution from government to industry subject to the SCM Agreement, or a non-tariff barrier to trade subject to the TBT. Emissions tradingrelated measures are excellent candidates for General Exceptions clauses under any WTO agreement they invoke, because they intend to “protect the environment62.” However, no WTO case law pertaining to emissions trading exists, and the first such case will likely impact the design of cap-and-trade programs for decades to come. The sooner the United States enacts some form of emissions trading domestically, the greater will be its contribution to the international law of emissions trading.

make it rain

16

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

No Link-RPS ( ) An RPS mandate wouldn’t violate WTO rules-it requires an increase in renewables but doesn’t subsidize specific industries so it doesn’t exclude foreign competition. ( ) State RPS programs exist but haven’t triggered the link-don’t let them spin their evidence, none of it draws a distinction between federal and state policies.

make it rain

17

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Link Turn-Biofuels Biofuels solve trade disputes-they resolve fights over ag. Bradley Klapper, Associated Press Writer, 9-25-06 (Ted Turner says biofuels can rescue suspended global trade talks, Associated Press, p. Lexis) [Bozman] Turner told a public forum at the World Trade Organization on Monday that biofuels liquid fuels made from plants and trees, including biodiesel for trucks and generators and ethanol for cars and cooking can do more than fight global scourges like pollution and global warming. They can also solve the bitter dispute that scuttled the commerce body's trade liberalization talks two months ago by providing rich countries a means of keeping their farmers in business, instead of doggedly subsidizing products that can be farmed more cheaply in poor nations, such as cotton, sugar beets or cane and rice. "If agriculture were always going to be the same, then the question of subsidies would be a problem without a solution," Turner said at the WTO's Geneva headquarters. "But agriculture is changing." Turner suggested that farmers in rich countries could redirect food production to fuel production or change the crops they produce for ones that can make biofuels. Poor countries can also make biofuels to curb their needs for costly petroleum imports. "This is a huge opportunity for farmers who can grow fuel," Turner said. "Demand is so great that even though Brazil produces almost a quarter of the world's sugar, it still struggles to meet its own domestic demand for ethanol." The Doha round of trade talks was launched in Qatar's capital in 2001 with the aim of boosting the global economy by lowering trade barriers across all economic sectors, with a particular focus on helping developing countries by boosting their export growth. The talks came to a screeching halt in July, largely over the unwillingness of rich countries like the United States, the 25-nation European Union and Japan to offer deeper cuts in subsidies paid to farmers or ease access to their agricultural markets for foreign goods.

make it rain

18

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

WTO Bad-Small Arms ( ) Small Arms A. The WTO spreads small weapons worldwide. Susan George, Associate Director of the Transnational Institute, 11-29-99 (http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/WTOandGWSfp.html#SG) [Bozman] In this three-track society that globalization is creating, of course there are going to be protests. People are not going to take their marginalization and their status as outcasts lying down. It is clear that there are going to be more and more upheavals. The rich in the U.S. have shown that they have a consciousness of this. Wealthy Americans have already moved into 30,000 gated and guarded enclaves and demand for more is high. As well, government arms purchases also reveal an understanding of this threat of upheaval. Countries are not buying as much heavy equipment as they used to; what they're buying are light arms. They've switched from heavy external combat equipment like tanks and planes to less expensive infantry weapons, helicopters and riot control gear because it's those types of equipment that are important now to use against increasingly restive peoples. As well, the WTO is trying to organize what it calls trade facilitation and harmonization. Translated, that means there will be fewer controls at the border, which means that it will be easier to ship arms and poison.

B. That outweighs nuclear war. CNN, 2001, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/09/small.arms.conference/ Most are in the hands of police forces, national armies and lawful private gun owners, U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette told the conference. But that does not diminish the problem, he said. "Even in societies not torn by conflict, the proliferation of small arms has contributed to a culture of violence and crime," Frechette said. Small arms have been the weapon of choice in 46 of 49 major conflicts since 1990, contributing to some 4 million deaths, with women and children accounting for 80 percent of those, Frechette added. Hundreds of diplomats, gun-control and gun-rights activists and representatives of other nongovernmental organizations are attending the two-week conference on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. The meeting is scheduled to end July 20 with the adoption of a plan of action for fighting illicit arms trafficking. Although not legally binding, the plan is expected to call on U.N. members to develop national systems to regulate arms brokers and exports and to ensure manufacturers mark small weapons so their movements can be traced. Colombian Defense Minister Gustavo Bell Lemus, whose country's civil war is fueled by small arms, said Monday small arms kill more people than any other weapons. "Practically every year, there are more casualties than those produced by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We can describe these small arms and weapons as arms of mass destruction," Lemus said.

make it rain

19

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

WTO Bad-Environment ( ) Biodiversity A. The WTO destroys the environment-multiple reasons. Chris Keene, Coordinator of the Anti-Globalisation Network, 3-30-01 (http://www.poptel.org.uk/panap/latest/wto10.htm) [Bozman] # WTO rules regard environmental and health issues as barriers to trade: WTO rules conflict with many national laws and practices intended to promote sustainability and protect the environment. Most WTO agreements are based on the premise of sound, scientific evidence which severely limits the application of the precautionary principle. WTO rules have already been used to rule in favor of free trade and against various measures, eg hormone-treated beef and shrimps that are caught using turtle-excluder devices. # WTO rules regard labels and certification systems as potential barriers to trade: The certification and labeling of environmental and socially acceptable goods (such as timber or paper from well-managed sources and fairly traded products) and products that concern consumers (such as GM foods) could be undermined by WTO rules. # The WTO is eroding cultural diversity: The WTO TRIPs Agreement allows companies to expropriate knowledge from local peoples in developing countries who, in many cases, have been cultivators, researchers and protectors of plants for thousands of years. The Agreement permits (primarily Northern) transnational companies to claim traditional plant varieties or plant uses as 'inventions' that must be respected the world over. Culture could also be further eroded if issues surrounding the entertainment business - for example, films, broadcasting, music and publishing - are included in a new Round of trade negotiations. # The WTO could undermine multilateral environmental agreements: Multilateral Environment Agreements that have trade components - such as CITES, the Montreal Protocol and the Basel Convention on Trans-boundary Movement of Hazardous Waste - could be challenged under WTO rules.

B. That causes extinction. Jerry Coyne, Professor of Ecology at UChicago and Hopi Hoekstra, Professor of Biology at Harvard, 9-24-07 (http://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatest-dying) Aside from the Great Dying, there have been four other mass extinctions, all of which severely pruned life's diversity. Scientists agree that we're now in the midst of a sixth such episode. This new one, however, is different - and, in many ways, much worse. For, unlike earlier extinctions, this one results from the work of a single species, Homo sapiens.We are relentlessly taking over the planet, laying it to waste and eliminating most of our fellow species. Moreover, we're doing it much faster than the mass extinctions that came before. Every year, up to 30,000 species disappear due to human activity alone . At this rate, we could lose half of Earth's species in this century. And, unlike with previous extinctions, there's no hope that biodiversity will ever recover , since the cause of the decimation us - is here to stay. To scientists, this is an unparalleled calamity, far more severe than global warming, which is, after all, only one of many threats to biodiversity. Yet global warming gets far more press. Why? One reason is that, while the increase in temperature is easy to document, the decrease of species is not. Biologists don't know, for example, exactly how many species exist on Earth. Estimates range widely, from three million to more than 50 million, and that doesn't count microbes, critical (albeit invisible) components of ecosystems. We're not certain about the rate of extinction, either; how could we be, since the vast majority of species have yet to be described? We're even less sure how the loss of some species will affect the ecosystems in which they're embedded, since the intricate connection between organisms means that the loss of a single species can ramify unpredictably. But we do know some things. Tropical rainforests are disappearing at a rate of 2 percent per year. Populations of most large fish are down to only 10 percent of what they were in 1950. Many primates and all the great apes - our closest relatives - are nearly gone from the wild. And we know that extinction and global warming act synergistically. Extinction exacerbates global warming: By burning rainforests, we're not only polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (a major greenhouse gas) but destroying the very plants that can remove this gas from the air. Conversely, global warming increases extinction, both directly (killing corals) and indirectly (destroying the habitats of Arctic and Antarctic animals). As extinction increases, then, so does global warming, which in turn causes more extinction - and so on, into a downward spiral of destruction. Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start with the most celebrated case: the rainforests. Their loss will worsen global warming - raising temperatures, melting icecaps, and flooding coastal cities. And, as the forest habitat shrinks, so begins the inevitable contact between organisms that have not evolved together, a scenario played out many times, and one that is never good. Dreadful diseases have successfully jumped species boundaries, with humans as prime recipients. We have gotten aids from apes, sars from civets, and Ebola from fruit bats. Additional worldwide plagues from unknown microbes are a very real possibility. But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the world over provide hidden services like waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification, and oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet, through both intention and accident, humans have introduced exotic species that turn biodiversity into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels in North America's Great Lakes and have damaged harbors and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by single species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. [Next Page] make it rain

20

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

WTO Bad-Environment [Continues] Thanks to these developments, soils will erode and become unproductive - which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural yields. Meanwhile,with increased pollution and runoff, as well as reduced forest cover, ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water; and a shortage of clean water spells disaster. In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates major predators, while polluted and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperiling coral reefs - a major problem since these reefs have far more than recreational value: They provide tremendous amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. In fact, the global value of "hidden" services provided by ecosystems - those services, like waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace - has been estimated to be as much as $50 trillion per year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined. And that doesn't include tangible goods like fish and timber. Life as we know it would be impossible if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its current pace. Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote swamps of French Guiana goes extinct? Well, those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just this one species of worm: Its wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anticancer agent), decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors), and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are pharmaceutical gold mines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug highly effective against ovarian and breast cancer), and aspirin. More than a quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anticancer drug that saved the life of one of our friends. Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 percent have been screened for pharmaceutical properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given current extinction rates, it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years. Our arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained, especially in Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that there are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, simple morality and intellectual values that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what could be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins, and realizing that we all got here by the same simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the genetic kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience - not necessarily religious, but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the soul. But, whether or not one is moved by such concerns, it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth extinction. We are creating a world in which exotic diseases flourish but natural medicinal cures are lost; a world in which carbon waste accumulates while food sources dwindle; a world of sweltering heat, failing crops, and impure water. In the end, we must accept the possibility that we ourselves are not immune to extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain, scratching out a grubby existence on a devastated planet . Global warming will seem like a secondary problem when humanity finally faces the consequences of what we have done to nature: not just another Great Dying, but perhaps the greatest dying of them all.

make it rain

21

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

WTO Bad-Small Farms ( ) Small Farms A. The WTO destroys small farms-recent agreements prove. Martin Khor, Member of the UN Tast Force on Environment and Human Settlements, Director of the Third World Forum, 1-28-2K (Rethinking Liberalisation and Reforming the WTO, http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/davos2-cn.htm) [Bozman] The Agriculture Agreement could have severe negative effects on many Third World countries. Most of them (excepting the least developed countries) will have to reduce domestic subsidies to farmers and remove non-tariff controls on agricultural products, converting these to tariffs and then progressively reducing these tariffs. This will impose global competition on the domestic farm sector. Farmers unable to compete with cheaper imports may not survive. Hundreds of millions of small Third World farmers could be affected. There is also a category of developing countries which are net food importers; as subsidies for food production are progressively reduced in the developed countries, the prices of their exports may increase; the net food importers may thus face rising food import bills. A recent FAO study of the experience of 16 developing countries in implementing the Uruguay Round agriculture agreement concluded that, "A common reported concern was with a general trend towards the concentration of farms. In the virtual absence of safety nets, the process also marginalised small producers and added to unemployment and poverty. Similarly most studies pointed to continued problems of adjustment. As an example, the rice and sugar sectors in Senegal were facing difficulties in coping with import competition despite the substantive devaluation in 1994." (FAO Paper, Experience with the implementation of the Uruguay Round agreement on agriculture, synthesis of country case studies, Sept 1999, prepared by FAO's Commodities and Trade Division).

B. Small farms are key to genetically diversified food--3 reasons. James K Boyce, Department of Economics & Political Economy Research and Environmental Research at UMass, July ‘4 (A Future for Small Farms? Biodiversity and Sustainable Agriculture, p. Google) [Bozman] Around the world, it is generally small farms – especially those in the Vavilov centers – that practice high-diversity agriculture. Not only do individual small farmers often choose to cultivate several varieties of the same crop, but also, and probably more importantly, different farmers in a given locality often cultivate different varieties. Large farms, in contrast, are more likely to sow a single variety over a wide area. This inverse relationship between farm size and varietal diversity has several explanations. First, high-diversity farming is generally more labor-intensive than low-diversity farming. It takes more time and effort to cultivate varieties with different sowing dates, harvest times, and other requirements than to practice varietal monoculture. Considerable labor also is needed to maintain the physical infrastructure – such as watercourses and terraces – that often supports high-diversity agriculture. As we know from the many studies of the relationship between farm size and labor use, smaller farms have a comparative advantage in laborintensive operations. This is because they rely more on family labor, the ‘real cost’ of which is lower than the wage of hired labor, and because insofar as they do use hired laborers, small farmers have fewer supervision problems (not only is supervision easier on small farms, but also the need for supervision may be less by virtue of the narrower social distance between employer and employee).9 Second, high-diversity agriculture depends on the farmers’ knowledge of different crop varieties and their relationships to microhabitat variations. Small farmers are the repositories of this knowledge. Without them, it would be harder not only to sustain agricultural biodiversity, but also to know the attributes of the varieties that are being sustained. Indigenous cultures often are particularly rich in this knowledge. For example, the Mixe language, spoken by maize farmers in southern Oaxaca, Mexico, has words for ‘a greater and richer number of stages of plant development (germination, flowering, leaf and whorl development, appearance of black color at base of kernels, etc.) than those existing in conventional scientific literature.’10 Third, small farmers often predominate in ‘marginal’ agricultural environments where the spread of ‘modern’ varieties has been held in check by unfavorable growing conditions . Hilly terrain, as in the highlands of southern Mexico and Guatemala, is less suitable for monoculture and mechanization; similarly, in deeply flooded parts of the Bengal delta, the short-statured ‘highyielding’ (that is, highly fertilizer-responsive) varieties cannot be grown. Such lands are relatively unattractive targets for appropriation and concentration by landowning elites. At the same time, they often have exceptionally high degrees of microenvironmental variation, which favors varietal diversification. In a single village in Oaxaca, for example, researchers Raúl and Luis García-Barrios (1990) found that the campesinos distinguished among 17 different environments in which they grew 26 distinct varieties of maize. Similarly, Maori weavers in New Zealand recognize more than 80 distinct varieties of flax (Shand, 1997, p. 11, citing Heywood, 1995).

make it rain

22

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

WTO Bad-Small Farms C. Genetically diversified food is key to prevent extinction. Cary Fowler, former Director of Research at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences and Pat Mooney, Executive Director of the Rural Advancement Foundation, ‘90 (Shattering: Food, Politics, and the Loss of Genetic Diversity, p. ix) While many may ponder the consequences of global warming, perhaps the biggest single environmental catastrophe in human history is unfolding in the garden. While all are rightly concerned about the possibility of nuclear war, an equally devastating time bomb is ticking away in the fields of farmers all over the world. Loss of genetic diversity in agriculture—silent, rapid, inexorable —is leading us to a rendezvous with extinction—to the doorstep of hunger on a scale we refuse to imagine. To simplify the environment as we have done with agriculture is to destroy the complex interrelationships that hold the natural world together. Reducing the diversity of life, we narrow our options for the future and render our own survival more precarious. It is life at the end of the limb. That is the subject of this book. Agronomists in the Philippines warned of what became known as southern corn leaf blight in 1061.' The disease was reported in Mexico not long after. In the summer of 1968, the first faint hint that the blight was in the United States came from seed growers in the Midwest. The danger was ignored. By the spring of 1970 the disease had taken hold in the Florida corn crop. But it was not until corn prices leapt thirty cents a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade that the world took notice; by then it was August—and too late. By the close of the year, Americans had lost fifteen percent of their most important crop—more than a billion bushels. Some southern states lost half their harvest and many of their farmers. While consumers suffered in the grocery stores, producers were out a billion dollars in lost yield. And the disaster was not solely domestic. U.S. seed exports may have spread the blight to Africa, Latin America and Asia.

make it rain

23

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

WTO Bad-Prolif ( ) Prolif A. The WTO encourages massive prolif-military spending is exempt from trade rules. Stephen Staples, Chair of the International Network on Disarmament and Globalization, 11-28-99 (http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/WTOandGWSfp.html) [Bozman] The WTO is based on the premise that the only legitimate role for governments is to provide for a military to protect the interests of the nation and a police force to ensure order within. And so while social and environmental policies are constantly under attack, the war industry is protected through the "security exception" in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Article XXI of the GATT, the principal agreement of the WTO, allows governments free reign for actions taken for national security interests. It states that a country can't be stopped from taking any action "it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests ... relating to the traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war and such traffic in other goods and materials as is carried on directly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment (or) taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations." This clause is the most powerful exception in the WTO. It actually allows a government to define its own "essential security interests," a definition that can't be questioned by WTO dispute panels. Globalization Spurs Military Spending Because the security exception shields the war industry from challenges by the WTO, it actually spurs government military spending since only military spending is free from challenges. Governments must use the military to promote jobs, new emerging industries, or high-tech manufacturing. Let's take a recent example. In 1999, a WTO dispute panel ruled against Canada and its Technology Partnerships Canada (TPC) program -- a program which subsidizes the aerospace and defence industry. The program was being used by Bombardier Aerospace to build and export regional passenger jets. The WTO ruled the non-military subsidies were unfair, and struck them down earlier this year. To appreciate what this decision means, you need to understand that TPC used to be the Defence Industry Productivity Program. The program was Canada's flag-ship industrial program and handed out billions of dollars to Canadian arms manufacturers for years. In 1995 it was renamed TPC, and several non-military categories were added to the fund. It's those non-military programs that are vulnerable to challenges by the WTO. In this new global economy that favours the military, peace activists are losing their ability to work for peace and human rights. The lesson from this is that if governments want to play a role in the economy -- creating jobs, regional development or high-tech research -- the safe way to do it is through the military. This lesson has not been lost on some of the so-called emerging economies, such as South Africa. South Africa is currently undergoing a huge arms-buying spree. It is buying billions of dollars worth of helicopters, aircraft, ships and even submarines from European weapons corporations. The government has negotiated an agreement that the corporations will move some of their production for these contracts to South Africa, creating short-term jobs and investment. South Africa is about to make the same mistake North America did: it is creating new military projects that will become dependent on constant government spending, drawing money away from essential social programs. When the current weapons orders have been filled and the government funding dries up, jobs at the weapons corporations will then depend on corporations finding new customers for their weapons, driving the arms trade and potentially causing a whole new arms race in the region. To a certain degree, I can understand what the South African government is trying to do. It needs jobs and the transfer of technology and knowledge. As a member of the WTO, the only safe way to do this is through military programs. If these were not military programs, the deals would never be allowed, given WTO laws on performance requirements and government procurement.

B. Prolif causes extinction. Taylor, former nuclear weapons designer and chairman of NOVA, ‘1 [“Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”] Nuclear proliferation – be it among nations or terrorists – greatly increases the chance of nuclear violence on a scale that would be intolerable. Proliferation increases the chance that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of irrational people, either suicidal or with no concern for the fate of the world. Irrational or outright psychotic leaders of military factions or terrorist groups may decide to use nuclear weapons under their control to stimulate a global nuclear war, as an act of vengeance against humanity as a whole. Limited nuclear wars between countries with small numbers of nuclear weapons could escalate into major nuclear wars between superpowers. For example, a nation in an advanced stage of “latent proliferation”, finding itself losing a nonnuclear war, might complete the transition to deliverable nuclear weapons and, in desperation, use them. If that should happen in a region, such as the Middle East, where major superpower interests are at stake, the small nuclear war could easily escalate into a global nuclear war.

make it rain

24

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

WTO Bad-Neoliberalism ( ) Neoliberalism A. The WTO spreads neoliberalism worldwide. Nicola Bullard, B.A. in IR from the Institute for Social Studies in the Hague, Deputy Director of Focus on the Global South, ‘4 (Reforming or derailing the WTO: Why we must keep the WTO train off the tracks, p. Google) [Bozman] It is assumed that trade liberalisation will generate wealth, jobs, prosperity and growth. In a perfect computer-generated model of the world this may be true, but we Page 4 live in a far from perfect world. Power, economic weight, history, nature and geography all contrive to create a very un-level playing field, to use the economists jargon, that aptly compares trade negotiations to a sport where there are winners and losers. The WTO rules are meant to “level” this playing field, so that impoverished, backward and landlocked developing countries can all benefit from trade liberalisation alongside the post-industrial, high technology, service-oriented economies of the North. The drive for trade liberalisation is based on the assumption that countries will grow and develop through expansion of their exports, liberalisation of their financial markets, privatisation of large swathes of the economy (including power and water) -- all with minimal intervention from the State. This is called neo-liberalism. This vision of development is shared by the IMF and the World Bank, the two international development finance institutions which have spent the past two decades imposing structural adjustments programmes on developing countries to achieve this sort of economic re-structuring using the big stick of debt to force these countries to agree to the rules. But, after 20 years the evidence is in: structural adjustment does not work. It does not produce growth, it does not create enough jobs, and it is far from being sustainable or just. It does not lead to growth and prosperity. (2)’

B. That causes extinction. Boaventura de Sousa Santos, Professor of Sociology - University of Coimbra, ‘03 (Bad Subjects, Issue #63, April, bad.eserver.org/issues/2003/63/santos.html) According to Franz Hinkelammert, the West has repeatedly been under the illusion that it should try to save humanity by destroying part of it. This is a salvific and sacrificial destruction, committed in the name of the need to radically materialize all the possibilities opened up by a given social and political reality over which it is supposed to have total power. This is how it was in colonialism, with the genocide of indigenous peoples, and the African slaves. This is how it was in the period of imperialist struggles, which caused millions of deaths in two world wars and many other colonial wars. This is how it was under Stalinism, with the Gulag, and under Nazism, with the Holocaust. And now today, this is how it is in neoliberalism, with the collective sacrifice of the periphery and even the

semiperiphery of the world system. With the war against Iraq, it is fitting to ask whether what is in progress is a new genocidal and sacrificial illusion, and what its scope might be. It is above all appropriate to ask if the new illusion will not herald the radicalization and the ultimate perversion of the Western illusion: destroying all of humanity in the illusion of saving it. Sacrificial genocide arises from a totalitarian illusion manifested in the belief that there are no alternatives to the present-day reality, and that the problems and difficulties confronting it arise from failing to take its logic of development to ultimate consequences. If there is unemployment, hunger and death in the Third World, this is not the result of market failures; instead, it is the outcome of market laws not having been fully applied. If there is terrorism, this is not due to the violence of the conditions that generate it; it is due , rather, to the fact that total violence has not been employed to physically eradicate all terrorists and potential terrorists. This political logic is based on the supposition of total power and knowledge, and on the radical rejection of alternatives; it is ultra-conservative in that it aims to reproduce infinitely the status quo. Inherent to it is the notion of the end of history. During the last hundred years, the West has experienced three versions of this logic, and, therefore, seen three versions of the end of history: Stalinism, with its logic of insuperable efficiency of the plan; Nazism, with its logic of racial superiority; and neoliberalism, with its logic of insuperable efficiency of the market. The first two periods involved the destruction of

democracy. The last one trivializes democracy, disarming it in the face of social actors sufficiently powerful to be able to privatize the state and international institutions in their favor. I have described this situation as a combination of political democracy and social fascism. One current manifestation of this combination resides in the fact that intensely strong public opinion, worldwide, against the war is found to be incapable of halting the war machine set in motion by supposedly democratic rulers. At all these moments, a death drive, a catastrophic heroism, predominates, the idea of a looming collective suicide, only preventable by the massive destruction of the other. Paradoxically, the broader the definition of the other and the efficacy of its destruction, the more likely collective suicide becomes. In its sacrificial genocide version, neoliberalism is a mixture of market radicalization, neoconservatism and Christian fundamentalism. Its death drive takes a number of forms, from the idea of "discardable populations", referring to citizens of the Third World not capable of being exploited as workers and consumers, to the concept of "collateral damage", to refer to the deaths, as a result of war, of thousands of innocent civilians. The last, catastrophic heroism, is quite clear on two facts: according to reliable calculations by the Non-Governmental Organization MEDACT, in London, between 48 and 260 thousand civilians will die during the war and in the three months after (this is without there being civil war or a nuclear attack); the war will cost 100 billion dollars, enough to pay the health costs of the world's poorest countries for four years. Is it possible to fight this death drive ? We must bear in

mind that, historically, sacrificial destruction has always been linked to the economic pillage of natural resources and the labor force, to the imperial design of radically changing the terms of economic, social, political and cultural exchanges in the face of falling efficiency rates postulated by the maximalist logic of the totalitarian illusion in operation. It is as though hegemonic powers, both when they are on the rise and when they are in decline, repeatedly go through times of primitive accumulation, legitimizing the most shameful violence in the name of futures where, by definition, there is no room for what must be destroyed. In today's version, the period of primitive accumulation consists of combining neoliberal economic globalization with the globalization of war. The machine of democracy and liberty turns into a machine of horror and destruction. make it rain

25

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

AT: China Scenario ( ) WTO doesn’t influence national trade policies-that’s rose. Takes out their scenario because the reason their evidence says WTO stops conflict is because it can stop conflicting trade policies. ( ) U.S. Chinese trade conflict now and empirically doesn’t escalate to conflict. Deirdre Jurand, Staff Writer, 7-22-08 (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/07/china-plans-to-challenge-world-trade.php) [Bozman] [JURIST] The China Ministry of Commerce [official website, English version] said Tuesday that Chinese officials disagreed with and could challenge a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel report [materials; conclusions and recommendations, PDF] which states that the country illegally taxes and disfavors imported auto parts. The US, EU, and Canada [WTO dispute summaries] submitted complaints in March, alleging that China was taxing auto parts imported from those countries at the same rate that it taxed foreignmade finished cars in violation of promises made upon accession to the WTO and in violation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) [text]. The panel recommended Friday in its report that the WTO Dispute Settlement Body [official website] "request China to bring these inconsistent measures as listed above into conformity with its obligations under the GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement," but Chinese officials maintain that the country's policies are in line with its obligations. AP has more. Since its accession to the WTO in December 2001, China has been the subject of a number of complaints, most prominently disputes with the US regarding the protection of US intellectual property from piracy in China. China has also initiated two disputes with the US in the WTO over anti-dumping laws and US steel tariffs. In April 2007, China denounced a US decision to file a copyright enforcement case against China in the WTO [JURIST reports]. In August 2007, the US requested WTO mediation [JURIST report] in the same copyright dispute.

( ) Bilateral trade solves the impact. Aaron Friedberg, Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University, Fall, ‘5 (International Security, Vo. 30, No. 2, p. Project Muse) [Bozman] Liberal optimists believe that bilateral economic exchange creates shared interests in good relations between states. The greater the volume of trade and investment flowing between two countries, the more groups on both sides will have a strong interest in avoiding conflict and preserving peace. Liberal optimists note that economic exchange between the United States and China has increased dramatically since the onset of market reforms in China in the late 1970s. From the start of reform in 1978 to the end of the twentieth century, the value of the trade moving between the two countries grew by more than two orders of magnitude, from $1 billion to almost $120 billion annually. 11 By 2004 that figure had doubled to a reported total of $245 billion.12

(

) Congress pushing Chinese trade sanctions now.

Forbes 7-17-08 (http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/07/17/2008-07-17T211647Z_01_N17458625_RTRIDST_0_USA-TRADECONGRESS.html) [Bozman] The Rangel-Levin bill locks in a recent change in Commerce Department policy to allow "countervailing" duties against imports of subsidized products from China and gives Congress a role in deciding whether to classify China as a "market economy" under U.S. trade law. It limits the White House's discretion to refuse emergency curbs on imports from China in response to a surge. President George W. Bush has denied that relief in four cases where it was recommended by the U.S. International Trade Commission, Democrats said. In response to concerns over the safety of many products from China, the bill sets new sanctions for repeated noncompliance with U.S. health and safety laws. The legislation also prods the White House to challenge more unfair foreign trade practices by requiring the U.S. Trade Representative's office to publish an annual list of the most significant barriers to U.S. exports. It also creates an office of "congressional trade enforcer" to investigate complaints against foreign countries and call on the U.S. Trade Representative to file cases with the World Trade Organization. Other provisions create a director of intellectual property rights enforcement and require the U.S. Trade Representative to target countries that use nontariff barriers such as discriminatory taxes and regulations to keep out U.S. exports. (Editing by John O'Callaghan)

make it rain

26

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

AT: WTO Key to Free Trade *There’s no correlation between the WTO and free trade-64 economic variables prove. Andrew Rose, Professor of International Business at UC Berkeley, 11-7-02 (Do WTO Members have More Liberal Trade Policy?, p. Google) [Bozman] It seems there is little obvious connection between GATT/WTO membership and trade policy. Figure 1 contains corroborating graphical evidence in the form of histograms for two standard measures of trade policy (the Barro-Lee measures of tariffs and NTB coverage), each split by GATT membership. No dramatic differences between GATT members and outsiders pop out in either NTB coverage or tariff rates. Outsiders typically have slightly less NTB coverage and slightly higher tariffs; neither of these effects is significant at conventional levels.10 Insignificant differences can stem either from similar means or large variances (or both). Which is responsible for these results? We can shed light on this by examining Figure 2, an analogue to the first figure that focuses on import duties as a percentage of imports. Histograms are provided for eight individual years between 1977 (when the sample of countries with data became large) and 1998, both for GATT/WTO members and non-members. While there are never significant differences in mean tariffs between members and non-members, the reason varies over time. In the early years non-members had higher average tariffs (23%) than GATT members (10%), but the variation in tariffs across non-members was sufficiently high that the differences are insignificant.11 After the early to mid 1980s, the differences in both average tariffs and their cross-country variation become small, so the insignificant t-tests result from similar means. Further confirmation of the loose relationship between GATT/WTO membership and trade policy is available in Figure 3. This presents a graphical “event study” for the effects of accession on nine measures of trade policy (those that can be quantified over time). For instance, the top-left graphic shows the mean level of openness (the ratio of exports plus imports to GDP) at the time of entry for countries acceding between 1950 through 1998, along with a plus/minus two standard deviation confidence interval. To the right of the vertical line (which marks accession) are data for the years after entry; the years preceding accession are graphed to the left. The horizontal line marks the average level of openness for those inside the GATT/WTO. The event study graphics allow one to see what happens to trade policy measures for a typical country acceding to the GATT/WTO. And not much happens. For instance, a typical accession country has an openness ratio of 73.1% five years before joining (somewhat higher than the GATT/WTO average of 64.7%). But five years after accession, the joiners only have openness ratios of 70.4%. Similarly, tariffs rise (again, insignificantly) from 12.5% to 13.1% of imports. Indeed, none of the nine measures of trade policy change significantly; most measures are insignificantly different from those inside the system for the five years before, during and after accession. Perhaps a simple example can make the case clearly. Mexico joined the GATT in 1986, at which time its tariffs averaged 6.4% of imports. Yet even five years after accession, the Mexican tariff rate was 7.1%; Mexican tariffs did not really fall until NAFTA began in the mid- 1990s. Nor is Mexico special; for instance, average tariffs were higher even five years after Colombia and Venezuela acceded in 1981 and 1990 respectively. It seems that none of the 64 measures of trade policy is strongly and consistently tied to GATT/WTO membership, with the exception of the index of economic freedom. The majority of the coefficients linking trade policy to membership are small; not many more coefficients are significantly different from zero than would be expected if the true effect of membership on policy is nil.12 To summarize, any effect that the WTO has (and the GATT had) on trade policy is either subtle or weak.13

There’s zero empirical evidence that the WTO has increased free trade. Andrew Rose, Professor of International Business at UC Berkeley, 11-7-02 (Do WTO Members have More Liberal Trade Policy?, p. Google) [Bozman] In 1987, Indian tariff revenues reached 53% of import values. India had been a founding member of the GATT in 1948. Yet Indian tariffs revenues have never fallen below 20% of Indian imports, at least during the 25 years for which we have data. This from a measure of tariffs known to be biased down since highly taxed goods tend not to be imported! Comparable tariff data exist for 91 countries in 1987, at which time 89 countries had lower tariffs than India. 23 of these 89 countries were not members of the GATT; they had tariff rates averaging 15.7%. GATT members collected tariffs averaging 11.4% (a figure that is statistically indistinguishable from that of outsiders at even the 10% level). Nor is there something special about 1987; average tariff rates have been insignificantly different for members and non-members for all years since the mid 1970s at the standard 5% confidence level. Succinctly, tariff rates don’t seem to be significantly different for GATT members and outsiders. Nor do other measures of trade policy. In this short paper, I have used simple conventional statistical techniques to analyze the relationship between GATT/WTO membership and international trade policy. Despite my use of over sixty measures of trade policy, I have been unable to find convincing evidence that membership in the multilateral trade system is associated with more liberal trade policy . The exception is that members of the system usually enjoy slightly more economic freedom using the Heritage Foundation’s index. There are almost no discernible differences between GATT/WTO members and non-members for tariff rates, measures of non-tariff barrier coverage, price-based measures, measures of openness, and so forth. Are we really so sure that the WTO has actually liberalized trade ... or is actually liberalizing it?

make it rain

27

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Prefer Our Evidence-Rose Only our evidence is comprehensive and cites statistics. Andrew Rose, Professor of International Business at UC Berkeley, 11-7-02 (Do WTO Members have More Liberal Trade Policy?, p. Google) [Bozman] Social scientists – especially economists – love to analyze international organizations and their policies. The International Monetary Fund scrutinizes the effects of its own programs, as do its critics. There is enormous controversy over the effectiveness and side effects of World Bank programs, conducted both within the Bank and outside. It is thus curious that one of the currently most controversial international organizations – the World Trade Organization (WTO) – has largely escaped this scrutiny. There is, to my knowledge, no rigorous empirical literature that examines whether the WTO, and its predecessor the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), have actually succeeded in terms of their own mandate, namely trade policy. In this short paper, I begin to fill that void by providing a brief statistical analysis of the effects of GATT/WTO membership on trade policy.1 The WTO is not only of interest because of a gap in the literature. Much of the radical left thinks that the WTO is the source of much evil since, by liberalizing trade, the WTO degrades the environment, perpetuates poverty, increases inequality, and much else. The right uses the same premise to conclude that, in freeing trade, the WTO does just the opposite. In this paper I ask: is the antecedent itself correct? Is there compelling evidence that the GATT/WTO has actually liberalized trade policy?2 To be more precise, the question I ask in this paper is whether trade policy is systematically more liberal for members of the GATT/WTO than for non-members. This immediately raises an important issue, namely “How does one measure trade policy?” In fact, it is widely acknowledged that there is no perfect measure of trade policy. This is true when one seeks to compare countries at a point in time, and even more so when one wishes to compare the trade policy of a given country at different points of time. As a result I look at over sixty measures of trade policy. In fact, I examine all quantitative measures of trade policy that I have been able to find.

make it rain

28

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

AT: Uniqueness Counterplan 1. Perm-do both. Solves their WTO perception arguments. 2. Doesn’t solve the empirically denied arguments-even if we comply with the WTO in the future it doesn’t disprove the fact that we’ve never complied with them in the past and their impacts haven’t happened. 3. Counterplan doesn’t solve WTO perception-even if we comply with WTO disputes in the future trading partners wont know that now means they still don’t perceive the U.S. as compliant with the WTO.

make it rain

29

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

***AT: E.U. Trade Disad***

make it rain

30

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Non Unique-EU Pessimistic About US Climate Policy (

) The E.U.’s pessimistic about U.S. climate policy.

Stephen Boucher, 1 NC author, Former - Prof. @ Science Po in Paris, 4/4/’8 (http://www.notre-europe.eu/uploads/tx_publication/Policypaper34-SBoucher-ClimateChange-en.pdf) [Bozman] In recent years, EU policy makers have become increasingly pessimistic about their ability to work out a global deal with the United States on climate change. In fact, the notion that Europe should spearhead efforts to fight global warming stemmed not just from the desire to stimulate the growth of energy efficiency industries at home. It also reflected the realization that Europe could not wait for the USA, nor a new US administration. The EU thus established a pioneering Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) in 2005, and put forward a package of legislative measures on January 23, 2008, to amend the system for after 2012.1

( ) Their uniqueness evidence is hopeful-not predictive. All of the warrants they underline are about policies the article is advocating, not predicting will happen.

make it rain

31

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Non Unique-US Increasing Alternative Energy Incentives ( ) The U.S. is increasing alternative energy incentives. US Fed News, August 6th, ‘7 (REP. LIPINSKI CALLS FOR CONTINUED FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, p. Lexis) [Bozman] Vice Chairman Lipinski has been a leader in Congress in promoting alternative energy research, especially for hydrogen. Hydrogen vehicles have the same capabilities as fossil fuel-powered vehicles, and their only emission is water vapor. Earlier this year Rep. Lipinski introduced H.R. 632, the H-Prize Act of 2007 which establishes $50 million in cash prizes for advances in hydrogen energy technology. This bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 408-8 on June 6, 2007, and was included in the comprehensive energy bill passed by the House this past weekend, H.R. 3221. As set forth in H.R. 3221, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security and Consumer Protection Act, federal funding levels for alternative energy programs will dramatically increase starting in Fiscal Year 2008. Specifically, this legislation includes $2.3 billion towards research and development of hydrogen, ethanol, bioenergy, solar, geothermal and hydro energy. These funding levels were previously approved in legislation passed by the House Committee on Science and Technology.

make it rain

32

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Non Unique-US EU Relations Low Europe is already pissed at the U.S New York Times, 4/20/03, Europe Gets Tougher On U.S. Companies, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900E0D9143AF933A15757C0A9659C8B63 [adit] The Bush administration regularly weighs in against European regulations that it sees as hurting business. Rockwell A. Schnabel, the United States ambassador to the European Union, called for "smart regulation" that "meets society's objectives without strangling innovation and growth." Many Europeans are still angry at the Bush administration for its rejection of the Kyoto protocol, an agreement created to curb global warming. Jorge Moreira da Silva, a member of the European Parliament from Portugal, said he hoped to turn the tables on President Bush. Mr. Moreira da Silva is shepherding legislation on emissions trading, a market-based incentives plan that the European Union is considering even though the United States has not yet signed on to the agreement.

Europe criticizes the U.S for poor regulations now EurActiv 5/18/08, http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/eu-leaders-slam-white-house-climate-plan/article-171732 [adit] "These objectives are backed by a combination of new market-based regulations, new government incentives, and new funding for technology research," he added. But the plans were widely criticised, notably by European delegates, during a 17-18 April meeting of major emitters in Paris. The meeting is being attended by delegates from the US, France, Germany, Italy, the UK, Japan, China, Canada, India, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Australia, Indonesia and South Africa. "The president has made a disappointing speech that does not match up to the global challenge," said Sigmar Gabriel, Germany's Environment Minister, at a 17 April press conference in Paris. EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas also reacted critically, saying the plans "will not contribute to the effective tackling of climate change". And Andrej Kranjc, environment secretary for Slovenia, which currently holds the rotating EU Presidency, expressed his "disappointment" with the 2025 target, which is widely seen as 'too little, too late' compared with the EU's commitment to slash GHG emissions by 20% by 2020. The Bush administration is opposed to EU-style emissions reductions commitments. "Sudden and drastic emissions cuts that have no chance of being realised and every chance of hurting [the US] economy" should be avoided, Bush said.

Currently, the US and EU disagree on climate change, damaging relations and climate change efforts Ahearn et al., Specialist in International Trade and Finance, 2007, U.S.-European Union Relations and the 2007 Summit, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22645.pdf Energy Security and Climate Change. European leaders have made curbing global climate change an integral objective of EU energy security policy. In March 2007, EU members established binding targets for the use of renewable energy and biofuels and committed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% compared to 1990 levels by 2020. Building on this agreement, European officials are reportedly seeking U.S. support for an international treaty regulating greenhouse gas emissions after 2012, when the U.N. Kyoto Protocol is set to expire, and for an international market-based carbon emissions credit trading system. The United States is not party to the Kyoto Protocol, and U.S. officials appear reluctant to commit to global regulation; instead, they advocate transatlantic cooperation to promote alternative and clean energy technology. In light of the differences on global climate change regulation, the United States and EU used the April 2007 summit to launch initiatives jointly promoting technological advances in clean coal and carbon capture and storage, energy efficiency, biofuels, and methane recovery, among other areas. Although European officials agree with the United States that these technologies should help improve transatlantic energy security and mitigate the negative effects of climate change, they are reportedly disappointed by perceived U.S. reluctance to pursue binding international emissions targets and a global carbon trading system. U.S. officials, pointing out that from 2000-2004 carbon dioxide emissions increased at a faster rate in the EU than in the United States, argue that the U.S. approach, based on fostering technological innovation as opposed to binding regulation, is proving more effective in curbing global warming. 4 At the April 2007 summit, U.S. and European leaders sought to downplay differences over carbon emissions targets and carbon trading, expressing confidence that their decisions to promote clean and renewable energy sources represent a step forward in transatlantic cooperation both to increase energy security and curb climate change. However, analysts note that past efforts — such as a 2006 pledge creating an annual strategic review of U.S.-EU energy cooperation, a U.S.-EU High Level Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development, and a U.S.-EU Energy CEO Forum — yielded little if any tangible progress. make it rain

33

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

No Link No Link: EU would lose more than they would gain if they implemented a tax on the U.S. RSS (review of policy research), 2-26-08, linking cooperation on climate change to cooperation on trade, http://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&tab=wm#inbox/11b3bdceac6e4718 [Barber] We argue, however, that a threat by the Kyoto countries to link cooperation on climate change to cooperation on trade, would likely not be credible. First, for the Kyoto countries to use such linkage they would have to impose trade restrictions that would probably be impermissible under WTO regulations (Bodansky, 2002). According to WTO regulations, a Kyoto country that uses a carbon tax to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol can, in principle, adopt border tax adjustments to compensate for the advantages enjoyed by companies in countries that do not impose a carbon tax (or similar).7 If it does impose such border tax adjustments, its importers of U.S. goods produced using emissions-intensive technology will face a tax payable on the goods imported. To be permissible under WTO regulations, however, such border tax adjustments must apply in a non-discriminatory manner to all WTO member countries that do not impose a carbon tax (or similar) (Bodansky, 2002). This implies that the border tax adjustments would have to apply not only to goods produced in the United States (as intended) but also to goods produced in other WTO member countries that are parties to the Kyoto Protocol but that do not impose a carbon tax (or similar) in their domestic economies (Bodansky, 2002, pp. 6–7). Thus, the border tax adjustments would also have to apply to goods produced in parties to the Kyoto Protocol that have not made binding emissions reduction commitments (i.e., developing countries such as China, India, and Brazil), and to Kyoto countries that do not have effective emissions limitation targets (i.e., East European countries such as Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, and Romania).8 Making the trade restrictions nondiscriminatory is thus likely to meet fierce opposition from such countries. In conclusion, linking cooperation on climate change to cooperation on trade would likely entail damage either to the climate regime (by causing tension between Kyoto countries with binding and effective emissions limitation commitments and other Kyoto parties), or to the trade regime (by violating WTO regulations requiring that trade restrictions be used in a nondiscriminatory way). It is therefore unlikely that the Kyoto countries would in fact be prepared to implement such border tax adjustments as a response to United States' failure to cooperate on climate change

make it rain

34

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

No Impact-No Sanctions (

) The E.U. won’t sanction the U.S.

Thomas L. Brewer, 2 NC author, Associate Professor at Georgetown University, Washington, DC and Associate Research Fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), June '8 (http://shop.ceps.eu/downfree.php?item_id=1673) [Bozman] In the EU, the issues have arisen from time to time during the past several years in regard to US non-participation in the Kyoto Protocol. The emphasis in the public discussions within the EU was initially on the possible imposition of offsetting tariffs, though the European Parliament’s resolution (2005/2049) uses the generic term “border adjustment measures.” 12 The European Commission’s reaction to these measures was initially to oppose them on the grounds that they risked exacerbating trade relations with the US, particularly at a time when trade relations were already strained and when transatlantic relations more generally were unusually conflicted over a broad range of issues. In addition, there have been concerns that such a measure would undermine support in the US among those political and business circles that have been hoping for increased EU-US cooperation on climate change issues. There have also been concerns that such a tariff might be challenged in a WTO dispute settlement case, and the outcome of such a case would inevitably be uncertain. However, before leaving office in 2007, French President Chirac and Prime Minister de Villepin suggested again that such measures be undertaken, and President Sarkozy subsequently expressed interest in the idea soon after his election.

make it rain

35

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

No Impact-Trade Conflicts Don’t Escalate Trade conflicts don’t escalate-empirics prove. Jack Lyne, Executive Editor of Site Selection, June, ‘4 (http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/incentive/ti0406.htm) [Bozman] And that means that the EU sanctions will continue. At their present rate, the duties will cost U.S. firms an estimated $300 million this year. Current penalties, however, are far less severe than they could be - and eventually will be. The EU has a potential mountain to tax. Trade between the U.S. and the EU nations averages about $1.3 billion a day. The European body, however, decided to phase in penalties, beginning at 5 percent of the WTO's $4-billion tariff limit. The phase-in, Lamy explained, is designed to limit damage to EU importers. The sanctions will increase, though, by 1 percent every month, reaching a maximum of 17 percent. If sanctions continue, U.S. firms next year will pay EU duties estimated at $666 million.

( ) Trade conflicts wont escalate. WILLIAM Drozdiak, Executive Director of the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Center in Brussels, Jan/Feb2005, The North Atlantic Drift. By: Drozdiak, William, Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb ‘5, Vol. 84, Issue 1, EBSCO, Business Source Complete To be sure, Europe and the United States will occasionally be divided over trade issues; strains might even be intensified by the enlarged EU's growing willingness to confront Washington over aircraft subsidies, antitrust rules, bioengineered foods, and cloning. But business so pervades the transatlantic relationship that powerful interests in Europe and the United States will push for the peaceful resolution of these matters. In the battle between Airbus and Boeing, for example, the fact that both companies employ thousands of workers on both sides of the Atlantic creates a formidable lobby that seeks compromise to maintain jobs and healthy competition. Thus, despite a few unavoidable differences, the forces of globalization and competitive markets are driving Americans and Europeans closer together, not apart.

make it rain

36

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

AT: US-EU Relations Impact The EU and the US depend on each other; the plan can’t break the relationship. Hampton Roads International Security Quarterly, 7/15/08, US-EU Summit Declaration, http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2394258&title=June_2008_USEU_Summit.html [SD] We, the leaders of the United States of America and the European Union, met today in Brdo, Slovenia to further strengthen our strategic partnership. We view this Summit, and the fact that it is being hosted by Slovenia in its role as Presidency of the Council of the EU, as symbolic of our endeavour to realize a free, democratic and united Europe. The process of unifying Europe is one of the outstanding historical legacies of our partnership over the past half century. The strategic partnership between the U.S. and EU is firmly anchored in our common values and increasingly serves as a platform from which we can act in partnership to meet the most serious global challenges and to advance our shared values, freedom and prosperity around the globe. We seek a world based on international law, democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and strengthened by broad and sustainable market-based economic growth. The bond between the U.S. and the EU has proven its resilience through times of difficulty, and we continue to demonstrate global leadership and effective transatlantic cooperation in the face of the most pressing challenges of our day: Promoting international peace, stability, democracy, human rights, international criminal justice, the rule of law and good governance; Working together in conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction; Fighting the scourge of terrorism while protecting the fundamental freedoms on which our democratic societies are built; Encouraging the world's fast-growing economic powers to assume their responsibilities in the global rules-based system; Fostering an open, competitive and innovative transatlantic economy, through free movement of goods, persons, services and capital, while working together towards a prompt, balanced and ambitious agreement in the WTO Doha Round that creates new market access and strengthens growth in both developed and developing nations; Combating climate change, promoting energy security and efficiency, helping developing nations lift themselves out of poverty, and fighting the most crippling infectious diseases. An effective response to these challenges requires transatlantic unity of purpose and effective multilateral approaches. We stand stronger when we stand together especially in meeting new global challenges.

make it rain

37

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

AT: US-EU Relations Impact US-EU alliance irrelevant – short term coalitions solve Francois Heisbourg, Director, Fondation pour la Recherche Strategique (French for “Foundation for Strategic Research”) 2004 US-European relations: from lapsed alliance to new partnership? Second, the ‘mission makes the coalition’ to use the blunt formula publicized by Donald Rumsfeld at NATO shortly after the 9/11 attacks; in other words, the existence and unity of multilateral alliances is no longer dependent simply on longstanding bilateral agreements. The 20th century understandings between old ‘friends’ confronted and united by a recognized common threat no longer hold good in the context of an ever-increasing variety of perceived threats. What counts now is mission performance, being prepared to take action against whomever or whatever is the perceived threat of the day. This is the direct result of the replacement of the permanent, existential, threat from the Soviet Union by a discontinuous and shifting set of threats and challenges and the willingness or the ability to participate in the accomplishment of any given mission, whether big or small, which will tend to vary greatly according to the overlap or opposition of interests. The participants involved in Iraq are not identical to those involved in Africa contingencies or in the war against terrorism with a global reach.

Transatlantic military alliance is dead James Dobbins, Director, International Security and Defense Policy Center, 2005 “New directions for transatlantic security cooperation” Survival Global Politics and Strategy, Ingenta Connect It says a great deal about the state of the Western alliance that the United States cannot count upon substantial European support in any of the actual or potential major conflicts that preoccupy American defence planners. In Iraq, NATO is playing only a modest role helping to train Iraqi forces. On Iran, Europe is acting as much as an intermediary between Washington and Tehran as it is the former’s ally. As regards China, Europe aspires to no security role, except perhaps as a supplier of arms. There is no prospect that Europe would countenance military action against Iran, or participate meaningfully in the defence of Taiwan or South Korea. Only in Afghanistan is there transatlantic unity of purpose, and even there, Americans are still doing nearly all the fighting and dying.

make it rain

38

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

AT: Middle East Impact No US-EU cooperation on the Middle East now Dalia Dassa Kaye, political scientist and a member of the research staff in the Center for Middle East Public Policy at the RAND, Winter 03/04, Bound to Cooperate? Transatlantic Policy in the Middle East, Washington Quarterly, Given their common strategic interests in regional stability, the secure flow of oil, and political and economic reform, one would think that Europe and the United States are bound to cooperate in the Middle East. Yet, cooperation is not inevitable, nor has it been the case historically.1 Notwithstanding common strategic interests, differences in strategic culture and historical experience cause the United States and Europe to view the region through distinct lenses, leading them to perceive, prioritize, and approach threats differently. The September 11 attacks only bolstered this historically and culturally rooted gap across the Atlantic. As noted by one analyst of transatlantic relations, “Where the cold war against communism in Middle Europe brought America and Europe together, the ‘war against terrorism’ in the Middle East is pulling them apart.”2 For the United States, the terrorist threat and the war on terrorism have established themselves where the Soviet threat and the Cold War used to stand; this is not yet the case for Europe. Apart from European support for the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan and antiterrorism coordination based in law enforcement, hopes for greater, deeper U.S.-European cooperation after September 11, 2001, have proved ephemeral. Although the tragedy of 9/11 initially created a deep sense of transatlantic community, our responses to it have had a polarizing rather than unifying effect on transatlantic relations.

make it rain

39

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

AT: Terrorism Impact Ideology irrelevant to US-EU cooperation on terrorism Jonathan Stevenson, Editor of Strategic Survey and Senior Fellow for Counterterrorism at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 2003, How Europe and America Defend Themselves, Foreign Affairs, Lexis As for the "values gap" between Europe and the United States, it has not seriously jeopardized day-to-day transatlantic counterterrorism cooperation, and many of the problems it raises can be finessed. Differences over the death penalty do complicate extradition of suspects from Europe to the United States. Divergent data-protection standards also impede intelligence sharing. Washington and Brussels are committed to reaching general accord on these issues, but progress is likely to be slow. Although they have agreed to exchange general analytic information on terrorism and crime via Europol, an impending agreement on sharing personal data relating to terrorist suspects foundered in November 2002 due to concerns over civil liberties and legal liability.

make it rain

40

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

AT: Terrorism/Prolif Impact US-EU alliance can’t stop terrorism and prolif Francois Heisbourg, Director, Fondation pour la Recherche Strategique (French for “Foundation for Strategic Research”) 2004 US-European relations: from lapsed alliance to new partnership? Third, the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by states of concern, a widely recognized and accepted threat, has now been compounded by the threat of proliferation of such weapons of mass destruction into the hands of non-state terrorist groups. To face this prospective ‘hyper terrorism,’ deterrence is largely irrelevant, ex-post repression is insufficient as a policy and the Atlantic Alliance as a locus for counter-terrorism action is inadequate.

make it rain

41

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

***AT: China Trade Disad***

make it rain

42

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Non Unique-Environmental Disputes now ( ) US-China trade disputes over the environment now and aren’t improving. Steven Weisman, NYT Staff Writer, 6/11/’8 (Paulson's Path to China: Progress, but Miles to Go, New York Times, p. Lexis) [Bozman] But American officials say they do not expect breakthroughs beyond pledges of greater cooperation. And even in the environment and energy arena, trade disputes are aggravating tensions. The United States complains that China imposes steep tariffs on American technology that could be used to clean its air and water and improve its energy efficiency. Mr. Paulson said Tuesday that many American businesses will not sell sophisticated products to China, fearing that the Chinese will steal their technologies and copy them. The sore points run the spectrum. Wall Street complains that China is not letting American banks, insurance companies and other institutions offer financial services, including credit cards. Barriers to direct investment in China remain formidable, American businesses say. The new buzzword used by critics of China is ''industrial policy.'' Even the World Trade Organization, a neutral body, used the term in a report last month to describe China's use of government regulations and standards to foster domestic industries. Commenting on the organization's report last month, Peter F. Allgeier, the American envoy to the W.T.O., said China's determination to be self-sufficient in critical areas was at ''the root of many of the problems'' between the Chinese leadership and its trading partners. The actions have included the imposition of tariffs on steel, paper and other goods by the Commerce Department, and complaints filed at the W.T.O. The Chinese also complained about bills under consideration in Congress. Many experts say that China is unlikely to make any major concessions on trade in the remaining months of the Bush administration, and that its leadership may prefer to try to improve the atmosphere for a new incoming president, whether Democratic or Republican.

make it rain

43

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Non Unique-Trade Conflicts Now ( ) U.S. Chinese trade conflict now and empirically doesn’t escalate to conflict. Deirdre Jurand, Staff Writer, 7-22-08 (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/07/china-plans-to-challenge-world-trade.php) [Bozman] [JURIST] The China Ministry of Commerce [official website, English version] said Tuesday that Chinese officials disagreed with and could challenge a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel report [materials; conclusions and recommendations, PDF] which states that the country illegally taxes and disfavors imported auto parts. The US, EU, and Canada [WTO dispute summaries] submitted complaints in March, alleging that China was taxing auto parts imported from those countries at the same rate that it taxed foreignmade finished cars in violation of promises made upon accession to the WTO and in violation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) [text]. The panel recommended Friday in its report that the WTO Dispute Settlement Body [official website] "request China to bring these inconsistent measures as listed above into conformity with its obligations under the GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement," but Chinese officials maintain that the country's policies are in line with its obligations. AP has more. Since its accession to the WTO in December 2001, China has been the subject of a number of complaints, most prominently disputes with the US regarding the protection of US intellectual property from piracy in China. China has also initiated two disputes with the US in the WTO over anti-dumping laws and US steel tariffs. In April 2007, China denounced a US decision to file a copyright enforcement case against China in the WTO [JURIST reports]. In August 2007, the US requested WTO mediation [JURIST report] in the same copyright dispute.

(

) Congress pushing Chinese trade sanctions now.

Forbes 7-17-08 (http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/07/17/2008-07-17T211647Z_01_N17458625_RTRIDST_0_USA-TRADECONGRESS.html) [Bozman] The Rangel-Levin bill locks in a recent change in Commerce Department policy to allow "countervailing" duties against imports of subsidized products from China and gives Congress a role in deciding whether to classify China as a "market economy" under U.S. trade law. It limits the White House's discretion to refuse emergency curbs on imports from China in response to a surge. President George W. Bush has denied that relief in four cases where it was recommended by the U.S. International Trade Commission, Democrats said. In response to concerns over the safety of many products from China, the bill sets new sanctions for repeated noncompliance with U.S. health and safety laws. The legislation also prods the White House to challenge more unfair foreign trade practices by requiring the U.S. Trade Representative's office to publish an annual list of the most significant barriers to U.S. exports. It also creates an office of "congressional trade enforcer" to investigate complaints against foreign countries and call on the U.S. Trade Representative to file cases with the World Trade Organization. Other provisions create a director of intellectual property rights enforcement and require the U.S. Trade Representative to target countries that use nontariff barriers such as discriminatory taxes and regulations to keep out U.S. exports. (Editing by John O'Callaghan)

make it rain

44

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Non Unique-Trade Conflicts Now Trade Dispute Aggravates EU and US. China won’t budge. China Daily, 2008-03-04, China Daily, “Eu and US file WTO case against China, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-03/04/content_6506700.htm The United States and the European Union filed a case against China at the World Trade Organization (WTO) on Monday, demanding that China loosen restraints on foreign companies in terms of providing financial information services. The US and the 27-nation EU said they were challenging Chinese rules announced 18 months ago that foreign suppliers including Reuters Group, Dow Jones and Bloomberg distribute their data and news reports to customers in China through Xinhua News Agency. "Competitive and open financial services information markets are the lifeblood of a strong financial sector, but China's rules have tipped the balance against foreign companies," said EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson in a statement. "I trust the EU and China will be able to resolve this issue amicably and to mutual benefit." Susan C. Schwab, the United States trade envoy addressed that the current restriction placed "US and other foreign suppliers at a serious competitive disadvantage" and the US has repeatedly raised the issue to China but it has not been resolved yet. In response, China said it "respects the choices" of other WTO members and will follow WTO rules in settle disputes with other members, the Commerce Ministry said in a brief statement on its website. According to WTO rule, the requests of EU and US trigger a 60-day consultation period. If the dispute is failed to be resolved before the deadline, Washington and Brussels could ask the WTO to launch a formal investigation. The financial information provided by those companies like Reuters Group, Dow Jones and Bloomberg includes stock prices, currency rates etc. The lucrative financial information market in China exceeded US$100 million in 2006. To compete with foreign financial information providers, Xinhua News Agency launched its own service dubbed "Xinhua 08" last year. The provided information includes data on currency, gold and future markets and 55 industries like metal, energy and real estate. China enjoys a remarkable trade surplus with both EU and the United States and this has aroused great concerns from Brussels and Washington. Last year, Bush administration decided to take a more confrontational approach towards China on trade issues to meet the demands of the US Congress. The United States has more frequently gone to the WTO to solve its trade disputes with China. For instance, last April, the United States filed two WTO cases against China over copyright piracy and restrictions on the sale of US books, music, videos and movies. US China relations tense in recent months. Xinhua News Agency, Primary periodical of Chinese economics, 7/2/2008, “Paulson: Economic Relations with China Growing in a positive direction”, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-07/02/content_3034767.htm US Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez arrived in Beijing Thursday morning, starting his first visit to China after taking office earlier this year. Chinese senior officials, including Vice Premier Wu Yi and Commerce Minister Bo Xilai were set to meet or hold talks or with him during his three-day stay in Beijing. US Trade Representative Rob Portman is also scheduled to meet Wu on Saturday. Economic and trade ties between China and the United States are becoming tense in recent months due to US restrictions on Chinese textile exports and pressure on the exchange rate of Chinese currency. Local analysts expect this visit could help to cool down the Sino-US textile trade friction, which provoked anger of Chinese textile and garment producers but experts ruled out a trade war. "Though the parties appear to be tough, the trade dispute is far from a trade war," said Zhang Hanlin, director of the Research Institute on the World Trade Organization with China's University of International Business and Economics. Enditem

make it rain

45

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Non Unique-Trade Conflicts Now China losing interest in American products. Shu-Ching Jean Chen, 06.17.08, staff writer for Forbes, China's U.S. Shopping List http://www.forbes.com/markets/2008/06/17/china-us-tradetalks-markets-econ-cx_jc_0617markets02.html

Shorter

This

Year

,

HONG KONG - In its latest annual shopping trip to the United States, China signed agreements worth nearly $14 billion late Monday for goods and equipment from U.S. companies. The buying spree, part of Beijing's effort to reduce its record high-trade surplus with the United States, contributed to an atmosphere of good will during the weeklong conference between top officials from both countries known as the Strategic Economic Dialogue, an initiative launched by U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in 2006. The latest round of talks is the last under the current American administration. But the sum total of the purchase contracts amounts to less than half of what the annual Chinese trade delegation bought a year ago, when it closed a total of 138 deals from its visits to 25 cities in 24 states, spending $32.6 billion. The sharp decline possibly signals cooling Chinese interest in bulk purchases of U.S. goods via official missions, at a time when the focus of attention of both governments is shifting from the issue of revaluating China's currency, the yuan, to liberalizing the investment environment. There may be an announcement later in the week of talks aiming to conclude a bilateral investment treaty. The latest shopping delegation consists of 120 top Chinese executives, who have signed 71 contracts and agreements with their U.S. counterparts totaling $13.6 billion.

China decreasing national exposure to the Dollar Financial Times, Henny Sender in New York, July 17th,2008, Sovereign Funds cut exposure to weak us dollar, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1f51a6de-539b-11dd-8dd2-000077b07658.html One big sovereign fund in the Gulf has cut its dollar-denominated holdings from more than 80 per cent a year ago to less than 60 per cent, while China's State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE) has been looking to strike deals with private equity firms in Europe as a part of a strategy to reduce its dollar holdings. Sovereign wealth funds have played a leading role in helping to recapitalise faltering US banks, but have lost money so far on such investments. Continuing market turbulence has further shaken their faith in US policy and policymakers.

China and US experience a lot of friction. Donald H. Straszheim, 06.19.08, President of the Milken Institute.Chief Economist of Merrill Lynch & Co. Dissecting A 'Dialogue', http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/06/19/economic-dialogue-energy-oped-cx_dhs_0619china.html Just talking about economic and financial concerns at the cabinet level of government is extremely useful, even if it doesn't result in so-called breakthroughs. Any breach of the economic relationship between the U.S. and China--the most important in the world-would be costly. Over the four meetings of this kind held since 2006, the agendas have gravitated toward long-term concerns like energy and environmental clean-up, where the two countries share common ground. On other topics, however, the two sides have basically agreed to disagree, listening politely but ultimately going their own ways. Take, for example, China's currency and exchange rate policy. America would like China to allow market forces to determine the exchange rate. China's currency was pegged to the U.S. dollar from 1994 to 2005 in an effort to lend some stability to China's still immature but reforming economy. In July 2005, China unpegged the currency, gradually letting it appreciate by about 20% against the dollar since then. Ideally, this week China received a civics lesson on how the U.S. runs its government--elections, transitions, selection of a new Cabinet members, Congressional turnover and so forth. Under our system, the potential for economic policy change is considerable, and this must mystify the Chinese. I have had countless meetings in China over the years with senior people who don't have a clue about the way things work over here. Conversely, I'm sure, Chinese hosts are shocked by Americans' lack of knowledge about China's political practices. In most aspects of life, better understanding is the first step toward agreement. The 10-year energy and environment framework signed this week is an important step. Oil prices at $130 a barrel tend to focus the mind. On energy, America and China are generally headed in the same direction. Both are thinking of environmental risks, global warming, energy security and alternative energies. The truth is that the U.S. is far behind China in creating anything that resembles a coherent energy policy. Despite the 35 years that have passed since the first oil shock in 1973, our government still doesn't have its act together. Investment interests were discussed as well--from the U.S. to China; from China to the U.S.--and a new treaty process was agreed upon. But here are the sticking points. Just after the Strategic Economic Dialogue in December 2006, which seemed constructive, China listed 13 industries that were identified as "strategically vital." The basic message to foreign investors with respect to these industries was: "Don't call us. We'll call you if we

want your involvement." China has every right to limit investment in these industries, which range from autos to telecommunications and cover a wide swath of China's economy, as it sees fit, and, similarly, the U.S. has rules to limit foreign investment within its own borders. So both sides want the other side more open, but neither wants to relax the limits. Neither China nor the U.S. is happy about these restrictions, but they are a fact of a complicated global economy. As I see it, friction will likely remain on the issue of cross-border investment for a long time.

make it rain

46

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Non Unique-Trade Conflicts Now THE US HAS TRADE DISPUTES WITH CHINA NOW (CHINA DAILY, 2008-03-04, “US, EU file WTO case against China”, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-03/04/content_6506700.htm) The United States and the European Union filed a case against China at the World Trade Organization (WTO) on Monday, demanding that China loosen restraints on foreign companies in terms of providing financial information services. The US and the 27-nation EU said they were challenging Chinese rules announced 18 months ago that foreign suppliers including Reuters Group, Dow Jones and Bloomberg distribute their data and news reports to customers in China through Xinhua News Agency. "Competitive and open financial services information markets are the lifeblood of a strong financial sector, but China's rules have tipped the balance against foreign companies," said EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson in a statement. "I trust the EU and China will be able to resolve this issue amicably and to mutual benefit." Susan C. Schwab, the United States trade envoy addressed that the current restriction placed "US and other foreign suppliers at a serious competitive disadvantage" and the US has repeatedly raised the issue to China but it has not been resolved yet. In response, China said it "respects the choices" of other WTO members and will follow WTO rules in settle disputes with other members, the Commerce Ministry said in a brief statement on its website. According to WTO rule, the requests of EU and US trigger a 60-day consultation period. If the dispute is failed to be resolved before the deadline, Washington and Brussels could ask the WTO to launch a formal investigation. The financial information provided by those companies like Reuters Group, Dow Jones and Bloomberg includes stock prices, currency rates etc. The lucrative financial information market in China exceeded US$100 million in 2006. To compete with foreign financial information providers, Xinhua News Agency launched its own service dubbed "Xinhua 08" last year. The provided information includes data on currency, gold and future markets and 55 industries like metal, energy and real estate. China enjoys a remarkable trade surplus with both EU and the United States and this has aroused great concerns from Brussels and Washington. Last year, Bush administration decided to take a more confrontational approach towards China on trade issues to meet the demands of the US Congress. The United States has more frequently gone to the WTO to solve its trade disputes with China. For instance, last April, the United States filed two WTO cases against China over copyright piracy and restrictions on the sale of US books, music, videos and movies. According to the breakdown released by the customs agency, China imported $78.8 billion worth of services and goods, 35% more than in the previous year. Exporters, however, only saw 6.5% growth in shipments, to $87.4 billion. In February, China registered a 23% year-on-year decline, to $9.4 billion, in its trade surplus with the United States, its No. 2 trading partner. The surplus with the European Union, China's biggest trading partner, also narrowed, by 15%, to $10 billion. Sliding demand from the United States spurred worries over the potential impact on the Chinese economy of a U.S.-led global recession. THE US IS WITHIN A DISPUTE WITH CHINA OVER TRADE RIGHT NOW (International News, 8/14/07, US squeezes China at WTO in copyright http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/archives/news/business/20070814-WTO-china-US-copyright-dispute.php)

dispute,

The United States on Monday asked the World Trade Organization to mediate a copyright trade dispute with China, saying bilateral talks have failed to close loopholes that allow counterfeiters to flourish. It marked the third time in less than a year that the United States has sought a WTO dispute settlement panel to help resolve trade frictions with the leading emerging superpower, whose ballooning trade surplus has become a political flashpoint. Washington filed a complaint with the WTO against China in April, alleging China's legal regime for protecting and enforcing copyright and trademark protections was unfairly deficient. Chinese-made counterfeit goods -- from software and DVDs to luxury leather goods and watches -- are widely available in the US market. "In pursuing this action, the United States is seeking to eliminate significant structural deficiencies that give pirates and counterfeiters in China a safe harbor to avoid criminal liability," the trade office said.

make it rain

47

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Non Unique-China Not Exporting Carbon Intensive Goods China’s lowered it’s exports of carbon-intensive goods. Targeted News Service 5-21-08 (Smart U.S. Climate Change Policy Can Create Fair Playing Field on Trade, p. Lexis) [Bozman] In addition, China is already seeking to curb exports of carbon-intensive goods due to local energy and environmental concerns, and has recently implemented border treatment for goods like steel that are equivalent to imposing a carbon tax of $50 per ton of CO2. This, the book's authors argue, means that engaging China and other developing countries in reaching international agreements on key sectors is more promising than many think, and would more successfully address both competitiveness and climate concerns than unilateral carbon tariffs at the U.S. border. As part of an international sectoral agreement, trade-specific measures could play a role in creating incentives for individual foreign firms to reduce emissions.

make it rain

48

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

No Link industries wouldn’t impose trade measures – they know its detrimental to the environment Trevor Houser et. al , visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, is also a partner at the Rhodium Group, a practice helping decision makers in the public and private sectors analyze and understand global economic and policy trends, May 2008 Rob Bradley, Britt Childs, Jacob Werksman, Robert Heilmayr “Leveling the Carbon Playing Field International Competition and US Climate Policy Design” PETERSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE http://pdf.wri.org/leveling_the_carbon_playing_field.pdf Policy actions taken already include changes in tax policy equal to the imposition of a $50 per ton carbon tariff applied to exports of Chinese steel. Building on these steps, international agreements to reduce industrial emissions from key sectors, whether through product standards, emissions targets, or a direct tax, would be more successful in addressing competitiveness concerns and reducing emissions than trade measures imposed unilaterally. Indeed, during the last round of climate negotiations in Bali, Indonesia, in December 2007, industry-level agreements garnered support from developed and developing countries alike. The rules and institutions of the international trading system may well have a role to play in leveling the carbon playing field in the years ahead. If approached multilaterally and in conjunction with a broader international climate framework, trade policy could create additional incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To be successful, a trade regime that included climate considerations would require the willing participation of both developed and developing countries. Such multilateral involvement would promote an accurate assessment of embedded carbon both by product and by producer, so that low-carbon goods and production processes were adequately rewarded. Absent broad multilateral action, the use of trade measures to address competitiveness concerns and emissions leakage will have only limited success and could put considerable strain on the international trading system we rely on to boost economic growth in developing countries and deliver the technology required to make that growth green.

make it rain

49

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

No Impact-Long Timeframe No sanctions until 2020. Robert Collier, Visitng Scholar at the Center for Environmental Public Policy at UC Berkeley, 5-6-08 (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/JE06Cb01.html) [Bozman] The tariff proposal, contained in the central piece of global warming legislation now before Congress, would impose emission controls on domestic industries starting in 2012. It would also levy punitive tariffs on greenhouse-gas-intensive products imported from countries that lack "comparable action" to that of the US, starting in 2020. Industrial lobbies and labor unions are pushing hard for these sanctions to take effect more quickly.

make it rain

50

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Tariffs Good Climate regulations are key for renewable competitiveness abroad. Trevor Houser et. al , visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, is also a partner at the Rhodium Group, a practice helping decision makers in the public and private sectors analyze and understand global economic and policy trends, May 2008 Rob Bradley, Britt Childs, Jacob Werksman, Robert Heilmayr “Leveling the Carbon Playing Field International Competition and US Climate Policy Design” PETERSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE http://pdf.wri.org/leveling_the_carbon_playing_field.pdf A Broader View of Competitiveness? It is important to note that while our discussion, as well as that of the policy community, focuses on the impact of US climate legislation on carbon intensive industries, it is a fairly narrow interpretation of US competitiveness. If the world is indeed heading toward a carbon-constrained future, fun and more efficient practices will be needed. Past experience in renewable energy and efficient vehicle technologies has seen companies profit from strong regulatory environments at home to build competitive advantage abroad. Loose or uncertain policy structures will not serve US companies well in the medium to long term, as other countries will build markets for the products and services that will be required in a low-carbon world. Such concerns have led many major US companies to call for strong mandatory climate policy.4 In addition, policymakers should carefully weigh the cost of measures to protect carbon-intensive industry for the economy as a whole. Certain policy options may shield domestic producers of goods like steel, aluminum, and chemicals but do so at the expense of taxpayers, consumers, or downstream industries that rely on those goods and that compete internationally as well. And building US competitiveness in the low-carbon energy technologies needed to stabilize the climate will require not only a clear domestic regulatory environment but also a significant amount of investment in infrastructure, education, and research and development. The economic and fiscal costs of protecting carbon-intensive manufacturing must be measured against these longer-term strategic goals. Finally, while there are costs associated with US action to reduce carbon emissions, there are also costs associated with inaction or delay. Estimating the financial costs associated with the impacts of climate change is notoriously difficult, but the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC 2007a) calculates that the cost of adaptation globally will run to tens of billions of US dollars per year by 2030. While the poorest countries will disproportionately feel these impacts, the United States will by no means be immune from significant damage (Ruth, Coelho, and Karetnikov 2007). Though we focus on leveling the playing field for carbon-intensive industries under various US climate policy scenarios, when possible, we assess legislative options in light of their broader costs and impact on overall US economic dynamism.

make it rain

51

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Tariffs Good-Jobs Carbon tariffs would result in a reversal of manufacturing outsourcing David Roberts is Grist's staff writer. at 8:28 AM on 3/29 2008 “Report: carbon tariffs could bring manufacturing jobs back from China” http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/29/82021/1196 Via Greenwire (sub rqd), a new report from Canada-based investment bank CIBC shows that if the U.S. passes domestic carbon caps, and China doesn't, and the U.S. responds with "carbon tariffs," it could spark a return of manufacturing jobs: The report finds that a carbon tariff, combined with triple-digit oil prices, "could reverse the migration of certain manufacturing industries that have left North America for much cheaper labour markets in China." "Wage advantages may no longer be as decisive in determining overall competitiveness for energy-intensive industries in today's energy-starved world economy," the report finds. "All the more so if exports from those industries will be assessed relatively punitive tariffs for their carbon content upon entering North American or Western European markets." [CIBC chief economist Jeff] Rubin, in an interview, was more succinct. "All of sudden," he said, "maybe you don't want your steel plant in China." His report notes that other developing countries could also face disadvantages, but singles out China because of its growing energy use and reliance on coal in particular. Coal, the most carbon-heavy major energy source, provides about two-thirds of China's total energy needs and roughly 80 percent of its electric power, the report states. And export-related emissions account for 27 percent of China's total emissions, CIBC finds. Rubin says industries that would take part in his predicted reverse migration would be energy-hungry sectors like chemicals, metal manufacturing, cement, glass and others. The report finds that if carbon were priced at $45 per ton in the United States, applying this cost to Chinese goods would raise about $55 billion per year from Chinese exports to the United States, the equivalent of a 17 percent tariff.

make it rain

52

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Tariffs Good-Protectionism/Warming/US Econ Tariffs are key to stop free trade, save the US economy and stop global warming. David K. Randall, Forbes Staff Writer, 4/7/’8 (Smoke Screen, Forbes, Vol. 181, Iss. 7, p. Ebsco) [Bozman] Or maybe not. A case for protectionism recently reemerged in the Lieberman- Warner Climate Security Act, now in the Senate. The bill chiefly mandates a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse emissions, an approach supported by all presidential candidates, and creates a sort of Federal Reserve of pollution credits, the Climate Change Credit Corp., which would auction off emission allowances the government doesn't give away. An odd alliance of greenies, captains of industry and labor unions has backed the bill. Why? Because it contains a kicker that spreads the pain of a pollution tax, forcing other countries--chiefly China, India and Brazil--to buy U.S. carbon credits if they don't have similar controls on emissions or else face a total ban on the particular import. Without the tariff-like provision, which takes effect eight years after the bill becomes law, support for the legislation falls away. The argument for the tariff is that without it, dirty Chinese manufacturers would have an unfair advantage over clean American ones. That is, pollution control in the U.S. would not only export jobs but would also worsen the world's atmospheric carbon problem. American Electric Power, the big midwestern utility, fears that imposing costs on carbon emitters here but not in developing nations would persuade 38% of its industrial customers to move production overseas. David Doniger, policy director for the National Resources Defense Council's climate center, also endorses pollution tariffs. He calls the bill "the single most important step we can take to unlock the global negotiating gridlock of the past decade." No one's guesstimating how many U.S. jobs would be saved by the tariff, though 1.8 million of them have fled overseas since China entered the World Trade Organization in 2001, according to the Economic Policy Institute. (This group doesn't have a figure for how many American workers owe their jobs to free trade.)

make it rain

53

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

Tariffs Good-Warming Trade sanctions are key for action to combat global warming Robert Collier, a visiting scholar at the Center for Environmental Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, is writing a book about China and global warming. He has been with the San Francisco Chronicle from 1991 to the present as a senior foreign affairs correspondent (since 2002), a member of the editorial board (2001-2002), and a foreign affairs reporter (1994–2001). May 6, 2008 China Business | China faces trade war climate challenge, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/JE06Cb01.html Developing nations' allies, meanwhile, are warning that the sanctions plan could destroy the chances of a post-Kyoto treaty. Chinese diplomats have not responded directly, but they have noticeably hardened their stand on climate talks. In February, China's top climate negotiator, Yu Qingtai, said at the UN that rich nations, which "caused the problem of climate change in the first place," must be treated as "culprits" and developing countries as "victims". Despite China's official hard line, some Chinese environmental officials privately express alarm at runaway carbon emissions and suggest that foreign green tariffs would actually strengthen their hand in domestic policy struggles over controlling greenhouse gases by helping to win political support for emissions cuts. Pan Yue, vice director of the State Environmental Protection Administration, recently argued in a China Daily article in favor of stronger emissions regulations and a more "green-oriented China", warning that "China's image among the international community" was in jeopardy. The growing dispute over trade sanctions brings to the fore not only the fundamental ethical question of whether wealthy nations should bear the burden of emissions reduction alone but also the strategic question of whether sticks as well as carrots should be used to induce green behavior in developing countries. Although China may not like it, the international trading system may provide more leverage than any other post-Kyoto mechanism over developing countries' environmental policies. Despite the threat of trade wars, trade sanctions could emerge as the most effective means of forcing international action on global warming.

make it rain

54

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

AT: Trade Disads

Regan

Serrano/Strange

China Will Model China will model U.S. action-absent the plan China will do nothing. Steve Mufson, Washington Post Staff Writer, 9/23/’7 (Bush Steps Out Front on Climate Issue; But No Policy Shift Is Planned as Nations Begin Debate on Post-Kyoto Accord, The Washington Post, p. Proquest) [Bozman] Some experts said that if the administration is not willing to make commitments, it could undercut its mission of drawing developing nations into climate regulation."The view of the Chinese government is that the developed countries, which are responsible for the bulk of the CO2 in the atmosphere, should take the lead," said Erica S. Downs, an expert on China and energy at the Brookings Institution. "While many in the U.S. like to argue that China should take the initiative because it is on the verge of surpassing the U.S. as the largest CO2 emitter, the Chinese like to focus on the fact that their per-capita CO2 emissions are only a fraction of those of the U.S. and that China's CO2 emissions in recent decades are only a small fraction of the world total." China, eager to burnish its image ahead of the Beijing Olympics and in the wake of product-safety issues, may highlight its energy conservation measures and an initiative to include environmental issues as one measure of the performance of provincial officials. But such steps are relatively modest. "If the U.S. manages actually to pass some legislation that includes mandatory emissions reductions, the Chinese would probably find their way to making some legal commitment," said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, who recently visited Chinese officials. "Absent that, I don't see China doing that."

make it rain

55