380 Gt Cofta Politics Updates

GT Ciborowski

1 COFTA Politics

Index Index................................................................................................................................................................................1 COFTA 1NC....................................................................................................................................................................2 Russia Impact Scenario...................................................................................................................................................4

GT Ciborowski

2 COFTA Politics

COFTA 1NC Columbian Free Trade will pass now but Bush’s political capital is key Wall Street Journal 2008 (3/10/08, “The Chavez Democrats”, Wall street editorial) [Ciborowski]

Mr. Rangel is right about the politics. No matter what U.S. strategic interests may be in Colombia, this is an election year in America. And Democrats don’t want to upset their union and anti-trade allies. The problem is that the time available to pass anything this year is growing short. The closer the election gets, the more leverage protectionists have to run out the clock on the Bush Presidency. The deal has the support of a bipartisan majority in the Senate, and probably also in the House. Sooner or later the White House will have to force the issue. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both competing for union support. Insert Plan kills Pol Cap Colombia FTA is key to American ability to promote democracy everywhere Burns 2004 (Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs, 10/23//07, "Promoting Peace and Prosperity in Colombia" http://www.tradeagreements.gov/TradeAgreementNews/Speeches/PROD01_004389.html)

I have spoken about the direct economic benefits that would flow both to Colombia and the United States under the Free Trade Agreement. However, this agreement is about more than dollars or pesos, it is about achieving the vision I spoke of earlier of a more secure, prosperous and just hemisphere. Just as Colombia appears poised to put decades of conflict behind it, the fate of the FTA stands as a vote of confidence in Colombia's future. Our entry into this long-term partnership with Colombia will reinforce Colombia's commitment to pro-market policies. It will bolster the country's democratic institutions by ensuring transparency and respect for workers rights, promoting strong labor and environmental standards, and giving us an important mechanism to monitor compliance so we can work with Colombia to ensure continued progress in these important areas.

Most importantly, approving the Free Trade Agreement demonstrates America's enduring commitment to Latin America. On the other hand, rejecting this agreement -- just as Colombia shows signs of emerging from its nightmare past -- would undercut its successes and send precisely the wrong signal to the region. Turning our back on our most loyal ally on the continent would cause countries around the world to question our commitment to the region, and our willingness to go the distance with our friends. The FTA's defeat would be a huge victory for those -- like Hugo Chavez -- who promote an authoritarian, populist, highly personalized model of government, drawing upon the failed economic policies of decades past.

GT Ciborowski

3 COFTA Politics

Democracy promotion is crucial to avert extinction Diamond, 95 – (Larry, Hoover Institution @ Stanford University, December 1995, “Promoting Democracy in the 1990s.” http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm) This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of

these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of

international security and prosperity can be built.

GT Ciborowski

4 COFTA Politics

Russia Impact Scenario Russian democracy prevents adventurism Diamond, 95 – senior fellow @ Hoover, prof. poli sci and sociology @ Stanford [Larry, “Promoting Democracy in the 1990’s: Actors and Instruments, Issues and Imperatives,” Dec., http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/di.htm] A HOSTILE, EXPANSIONIST RUSSIA Chief among the threats to the security of Europe, the United States, and Japan would be the reversion of Russia--with its still very substantial nuclear, scientific, and military prowess--to a hostile posture toward the West. Today, the Russian state (insofar as it continues to exist) appears perched

on the precipice of capture by ultranationalist, anti-Semitic, neo-imperialist forces seeking a new era of pogroms, conquest, and "greatness." These forces feed on the weakness of democratic institutions, the divisions among democratic forces, and the generally dismal economic and political state of the country under civilian, constitutional rule. Numerous observers speak of "Weimar Russia." As in Germany in the 1920s, the only alternative to a triumph of fascism (or some related "ism" deeply hostile to freedom and to the West) is the development of an effective democratic order. Now, as then, this project must struggle against great historical and political odds, and it seems feasible only with international economic aid and support for democratic forces and institutions.

Russian expansionism causes global nuclear conflicts Cohen, 96 (Ariel, Heritage Foundation, “The New "Great Game": Oil Politics in the Caucasus and Central Asia”, 1/25, http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/BG1065.cfm) Much is at stake in Eurasia for the U.S. and its allies. Attempts

to restore its empire will doom Russia's transition to a democracy and free-market economy. The ongoing war in Chechnya alone has cost Russia $6 billion to date (equal to Russia's IMF and World Bank loans for 1995). Moreover, it has extracted a tremendous price from Russian society. The wars which would be required to restore the Russian

empire would prove much more costly not just for Russia and the region, but for peace, world stability, and security. As the former Soviet arsenals are spread throughout the NIS, these conflicts may escalate to include the use of weapons of mass destruction. Scenarios including unauthorized missile launches are especially threatening. Moreover, if successful, a reconstituted Russian empire would become a major destabilizing influence both in Eurasia and throughout the world. It would endanger not only Russia's neighbors, but also the U.S. and its allies in Europe and the Middle East. And, of course, a neo-imperialist Russia could imperil the oil reserves of the Persian Gulf.15 Domination of the Caucasus would bring Russia closer to the Balkans, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Middle East. Russian imperialists, such as radical nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, have resurrected the old dream of obtaining a warm port on the Indian Ocean. If Russia succeeds in establishing its domination in the south, the threat to Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, and Afganistan will increase. The independence of pro-Western Georgia and Azerbaijan already has been undermined by pressures from the Russian armed forces and covert actions by the intelligence and security services, in addition to which Russian hegemony would make Western political and economic efforts to stave off Islamic militancy more difficult.

GT Ciborowski

5 COFTA Politics

Failure to pass Colmbian free trade allows chavez to deck hegemony Snyder 2008 (Timothy M., International Analyst Network, "No One Needs to Worry": Chavez versus American Primacy," 1-72008, www.analyst-network.com /article.php?art_id=1556) [Ciborowski] While Venezuela can threaten the United States directly, its ability to threaten the United States indirectly is the most troublesome. Hugo Chávez has been employing a combination of tactics ranging from bilateral barter arrangements to creating international institutions parallel to those created by the U.S., all in an effort to supplant U.S. dominant influence in the region with his own. Further, he has been expanding agreements with countries such as China, Iran and Russia to encourage expansion of their investments and thus strategic interests in the region. Chávez’s efforts to spread his influence throughout the region, and his budding relationships with some of Washington’s largest competitor and adversarial states comprise a concerted effort to limit U.S influence in a region it has dominated since Monroe. If ultimately successful, the marginalization of the United States in South America certainly signals the decline of U.S. primacy. Since coming to power, Chávez has been working hard to increase his influence in the region, gains in which come largely at the expense of American influence. From using barter systems instead of dollar-based trade, to complicating U.S. antinarcotics efforts in the region, Chávez is steadily countering U.S. activities in the region in both economic and security realms. This generally compromises U.S. interests and limits U.S. leverage in South America. Further, a shift of traditional allies and clients away from the U.S. towards another regional power, especially in a region so close to home, appears to herald the decline of U.S. primacy.