China Bashing Disadvantage 08

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

1 OPENING PACKET

CHINA-BASHING DISADVANTAGE INDEX Thesis: The thesis of this disadvantage is that a substantial increase in the use of alternative energy in the United States will disadvantage the United States’ economic competitiveness compared to nations like China, resulting in protectionism and a trade war. Currently, the United States leads the world in economic competitiveness, in large measure due to cheap, sustainable energy. However, forcing the United States to move toward renewable energy while developed nations like China can rely on cheaper fossil fuel energy will adversely affect US economic competitiveness. This would cause Congress to enact trade penalties against such nations, risking a trade war. A specific risk is that Congress will pass legislation punishing China to properly value its currency, which risks a trade war with China. CHINA-BASHING DISADVANTAGE INDEX.............................................................................................1 CHINA BASHING DA SHELL (p. 1 of 2)......................................................................................................2 CHINA BASHING DA SHELL (p. 2 of 2)......................................................................................................3 Uniqueness: Economic Competitiveness Strong Now....................................................................................4 Link Magnifiers: Even Small Actions can threaten US competitiveness........................................................5 Links: Alternative Energy ...............................................................................................................................6 LINKS: Environmental Regulations...............................................................................................................7 LINKS: Environmental Regulations...............................................................................................................8 Links: Cap & Trade Undermines US competitiveness....................................................................................9 Links: CAFÉ Standards.................................................................................................................................10 Links: Kyoto Ratification...............................................................................................................................11 Links: Carbon Tax.........................................................................................................................................12 Links: Gas Tax...............................................................................................................................................13 LINKS: JOB LOSSES CAUSE PROTECTIONISM....................................................................................14 Links: Renewable Portfolio Standard............................................................................................................16 Internal Links: Threats to Competitiveness Spur Protectionism...................................................................17 Internal Links: Protectionism Snowballs.......................................................................................................18 Internal Links: Protectionism Snowballs.......................................................................................................19 Internal Links: Decreased Competitiveness Risks China Bashing................................................................20 Impacts: Protectionism Against China Risks a Trade War ..........................................................................21 Impacts: Trade Wars Risk Real Wars............................................................................................................22 Impacts: Protectionism Causes War..............................................................................................................24 Impacts: Leadership.......................................................................................................................................25 *****Affirmative Answers*****...................................................................................................................26 Affirmative Answers.......................................................................................................................................27

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

2 OPENING PACKET

CHINA BASHING DA SHELL (p. 1 of 2) A) UNIQUENESS: THE UNITED STATES LEADS THE WORLD IN ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS IN THE PRESENT SYSTEM. Education Week, 2008 (staff writer, April 23, 2008. Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008). America's economy has enjoyed a quarter-century of mostly steady economic growth, and the country continues to rank No. 1 among 131 nations on the economic-competitiveness index set by the World Economic Forum.

B) LINK: Unilateral actions to decrease greenhouse gas emissions will undermine US economic competitiveness vis-àvis China. Joseph Nye, 2008 (dean of the Kennedy School of government at Harvard, Federal News Service, April 24, 2008. Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008). Eighth on our list, the next administration and Congress must make addressing climate change and energy insecurity more

we feel that we're going to need to develop a set of rules and costs associated with carbon dioxide emissions which could have disruptive implications for trade, energy security and competitiveness and economic growth unless they are carefully worked out. This is going to take work with than just a political catchphrase. There

Congress to place an economic value of greenhouse gas emissions via a mechanism that sends out clear, long-term price

International collaboration is going to be crucial here. One area where China has passed the United States as a superpower is in the production of greenhouse gases. This year, they produced more, not per capita but totally, than we do. You cannot think of how to solve this by traditional means. Obviously, we're not going to bomb Chinese coal-burning plants, and if we put sanctions on we're going to destroy the trade system. signals for industry.

C) IMPACTS: 1) Weakening US economic competitiveness risks trade retaliation in Congress. Xiong Qu, 2008 (staff writer, April 30, 2008. Online. Internet. Accessed May 9, 2008 at http://www.cctv.com/english/20080430/104202.shtml) The US should focus on enhancing its overall economic competitiveness instead of seeking protectionism to combat its economic slowdown. That's according to the latest 2008 White Paper released by the American Chamber of Commerce in China, or AmCham China.

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

3 OPENING PACKET

CHINA BASHING DA SHELL (p. 2 of 2) 2) Strong US competiveness is critical to stave off the move in Congress to pressure China over its currency. Xiong Qu, 2008 (staff writer, April 30, 2008. Online. Internet. Accessed May 9, 2008 at http://www.cctv.com/english/20080430/104202.shtml) AmCham released the White Paper in Beijing, saying the US should focus on enhancing its overall economic competitiveness. It said the US should not press for the yuan's appreciation to reduce its trade deficit with China, since the value of the yuan is not the fundamental cause of the deficit. Harley Seyedin, Chairman of AmCham China said "RMB's going up

Many American companies are looking to expand in China, thanks to its lucrative and opening markets. The White Paper also said the two countries should work to have more instances of defending and preserving the openness of the trade relationship than instances of dispute. The paper said an open US and an open China will lead to sustained benefits for the companies and citizens of certainly reduce the exports, but that not really impact so much."

both countries.

3) Putting pressure on China to revalue its currency triggers a trade war. Heather Stewart, 2008 (staff writer, The Observer. January 6, 2008. Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008). China's extraordinary transformation into a major world trading power has so far been achieved with remarkably little

Beijing has already come under severe pressure to revalue its currency, both from the US and Europe. As a slowdown looms, blaming China is likely to become increasingly attractive and some analysts fear discomfort at its success could even explode into a full-blown trade war. political friction; but

4) A trade war risks a worldwide depression and global conflict. Jason Goldberg, 2007 (staff writer, University Wire, March 8, 2007. Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008). Yet Smith's ideas on international trade were not fully embraced until after World War II. Many countries, in a panic response to the Great Depression, slapped trade restrictions in place hoping to sustain their domestic industries. Instead of fixing things, this prescription sent the world into an economic nose dive and helped create another world war. If only we had listened to the 19th century French scholar Frederic Bastiat, who said, "When goods cannot cross borders, armies will."

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

4 OPENING PACKET

Uniqueness: Economic Competitiveness Strong Now America is economically competitive now, but risks from other nations loom on the horizon. Jack Gage, 2008 (staff writer, Forbes, May 8, 2008. Online. Internet. Accessed May 10, 2008 at http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/2008/05/08/competitivecountries-economy-ent-competition08-cz_jg_0508countries.html) America is No. 1. Don't take our word for it--the Global Competitiveness Report, published every year by the World Economic Forum (WEF), has ranked the U.S. first for the last five years. But Americans shouldn't get too cocky. Healthy European economies have been climbing the ranks, with Switzerland moving to second place in 2008 from fourth in 2007, and Sweden climbing to fourth place from ninth.

The Bush administration is successfully bolstering US economic competitiveness in the present system. Torey Van Oot, 2008 (staff writer, CongressNow, April 24, 2008. Online. Lexis. Accessed, May 10, 2008). Beth McCormick, director of the Pentagon's Defense Technology Security Administration, said that Bush's initiatives, which were announced in January, "ensure proper levels of control for continued U.S. economic competitiveness and innovation while protecting national security."

Surveys illustrate the United States leads the world in global competitiveness. Brian Milner, 2008 (staff writer, The Globe and Mail, April 22, 2008. Online. Lexis. Accessed, May 10, 2008). "None of those leap to mind when I think of weaknesses in Canada, Mr. Porter said. In a survey of global competitiveness by the World Economic Forum, Canada ranked only 13th in 2006, while the United States stood first and Denmark third.

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

5 OPENING PACKET

Link Magnifiers: Even Small Actions can threaten US competitiveness Technology gaps between the United States and other countries means the US must always be vigilant in ensuring its global competitiveness. Torey Van Oot, 2008 (staff writer, CongressNow, April 24, 2008. Online. Lexis. Accessed, May 10, 2008). Voinovich added, "Technology gaps with foreign nations are rapidly shrinking, and the U.S. must adjust to this to not only better understand the capabilities of other nations but to avoid denying private companies the ability to compete on the open market with their goods, which may be readily available from other nations."

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

6 OPENING PACKET

Links: Alternative Energy Efforts to restrain greenhouse gas emissions will undermine competitiveness and cause China-bashing. Jonathan B. Wiener, 2007 (professor of environmental policy at Duke, June 2007. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008). Second, even if leakage is actually unlikely, the mere fear of leakage and its adverse effects on competitiveness may be a

Of special concern to national and state legislators is the fear that regulating GHG emissions may cause the loss of local jobs and the relocation of employment away from the regulated voting districts - a form of outsourcing driven by GHG limitations. The Byrd-Hagel Resolution, passed by a vote of ninety-five to zero in July 1997, announced the U.S. Senate's insistence on participation by developing countries in any future climate treaty, on the ground that American action to restrict GHG emissions could impair the U.S. economy while driving GHG-intensive activities and jobs abroad. 29 [*1972] The day after the Kyoto Protocol was political obstacle to subglobal action.

signed, the Clinton administration announced that it would not submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification until

Fear of competition with China and India and of outsourcing of American jobs has only grown over the past decade, even as concern about climate change has also grown. developing countries had agreed to accept emissions limitation responsibilities as well. 30

The high price of alternative energy sources will decrease US economic competitiveness. Jonathan M. Harris, 2006 (Prof., Global Development And Environment Institute, Tufts U.), ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS: A CONTEMPORARY APPROACH, 06, 293-294. Some alternative power sources, such as wind and biomass energy, have reached the margin of competitiveness in the mass market, but in only a few instances have they crossed that margin into large-scale commercial feasibility. Solar power is competitive for hot water heating, but not yet for power supply.

Efforts to encourage alternative energy will undermine US economic competitiveness. Ben Lieberman, 2007 (economic analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Online. Internet. Accessed May 10, 2008 at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1519.cfm)

These policies have been tried before, with dismal results. The 30-plus-year history of federal attempts to encourage alternative energy sources contains numerous failures and few, if any, successes. Indeed, many of the recipients of tax breaks and incentives in the Senate bill have been subsidized for decades (for example, ethanol has enjoyed preferential treatment since 1978), with the goal that they would become viable within a few years and then go off the dole and compete in the marketplace. But this has never happened.

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

7 OPENING PACKET

LINKS: Environmental Regulations Cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions lead to global protectionism: MOORE, 98 (Thomas Gale, Climate of fear : Why we shouldn't worry about global warming; pg. 145) If they ever agree to cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions, which they would be unlikely to meet, many poor countries would require large handouts. Environmentalists would urge governments to punish countries that failed to cut back on energy use by imposing trade restrictions. Labor and industry would argue that it was unfair for firms facing much higher energy costs to compete with companies in areas not subject to restrictions; these firms in exempt states would be benefiting from reductions in fossil fuel prices. As mentioned above, the United States, Japan, and the European Union, to protect their energy-using industries, will likely impose import controls. Restrictions on foreign trade would precipitate a downward spiral in global income that could easily produce a worldwide depression. The consumers of the country imposing the restrictions would suffer from higher prices and inferior products. Under this dreary scenario, the result would be greater world poverty. Everyone would be a loser.

Environmental laws damage competitiveness of domestic producers: Phillips, University of Michigan Law School, 96 (17 Mich. J. Int'l L. 827, Michigan Journal of International Law, Lexis) Because nearly every environmental law imposes costs on domestic producers, it consequently damages their competitiveness in comparison to foreign producers that do not face similar requirements. In large part because of the harm incurred by domestic producers, many nations are reluctant to approve environmental laws. The CAFE law is a prime example. It is a law that on balance probably damages the competitiveness of domestic producers. 162 The fleet accounting provision was added to help limit the damage. A major irony of the conclusion that the CAFE law is incompatible with the GATT is that domestic interests, which are putatively the beneficiaries of the protection, believe that the law harms them. 163 This proposal, by calling on panels to examine the law as a whole under Article XX(g), seeks to have panels better appreciate those provisions which do in fact promote the conservation of exhaustible resources. As Part III of this Note argued, the provisions softening the blow on domestic companies are integral in the effort to conserve exhaustible resources.

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

8 OPENING PACKET

LINKS: Environmental Regulations A) Environmental regulations lead to trade imbalances against the US: Garriga, staff, New Haven June 24, 2004, Lexis U.S. businesses price their goods higher than businesses in other countries because they pay an added cost for health benefits, labor rights and environmental protection. Higher prices have led to a trade imbalance in favor of countries with fewer regulations, where companies benefit from low labor costs.

B) Rising trade deficits fuel domestic protectionism: Dobbs, staff, U.S. News & World Report January 26, 2004; Lexis Amazingly, last week Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan referred to our recordhigh trade deficits as "seemingly uneventful." I assume Greenspan has heard of the boiling frog analogy, in which as the temperature rises to near boiling, all is seemingly uneventful for the ill-fated frog. But the Fed chairman evidently has no problem proclaiming the dangers of what he calls "clouds of emerging protectionism," apparently referring to a number of calls by members of Congress for this country to conduct fair trade and balanced trade. Those calls so concerned Greenspan that he said, "The costs of any new protectionist initiatives . . . could significantly erode the flexibility of the global economy."

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

9 OPENING PACKET

Links: Cap & Trade Undermines US competitiveness Cap and trade systems undermine US competitiveness. Reuters, Sun Jan 27, 2008, http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN2742035620080128?pag eNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0 (online, internet, accessed Jan 27, 2008) Romney panned McCain's ability to handle the U.S. economy, zeroing in on a proposal by McCain and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, that would set limits on the emission of greenhouse gasses. The McCainLieberman bill would allow those who exceed limits of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to trade with those

a plan known as cap-and-trade. Romney, a multimillionaire former venture capitalist, said equates a tax of roughly 50 cents a gallon on gasoline and would drive up utility costs by 20 percent. "He wants to talk about anything but that, and I won't let him," Romney said. "It would depress the economy just at a time when we are trying to stimulate the economy." under the limit, the plan

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

10 OPENING PACKET

Links: CAFÉ Standards CAFÉ standards would undermine overall US competitiveness. Benjamin Sovacool, 2007 (Ph.D., Virginia Polytechnic Institute), ENERGY POLICY, Nov. 07, 5506. 5508. Consumer preferences for larger and more powerful automobiles, a perceived uncertainty over the cost of future fuel saving technologies, concerns about vehicle safety and performance, and fear that standards would hurt overall economic competitiveness have created a general reluctance toward CAFE standards among automobile manufacturers.

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

11 OPENING PACKET

Links: Kyoto Ratification Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol would undermine US economic competitiveness. Pamela Chase, 2006 (Prof., Political Science, Manhattan College), GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS, 4th Ed., 06, 89. In regard to the climate change regime, industry lobbying in the United States succeeded in reducing the flexibility of the executive branch in the negotiations. Some of the most powerful trade associations launched the Global Climate Information Project (GCIP) in 1997. Through a multimillion-dollar print and television advertising campaign, the GCIP cast doubt upon the desirability of emissions controls in the Kyoto Protocol, which was entering the final stages of negotiation, by arguing that emissions controls would raise taxes on gasoline, heating oil, and consumer goods and reduce the competitiveness of American businesses. An alliance of business and labor succeeded in persuading the

U.S. Senate to vote 95-0 for a resolution stating that the president should not sign a protocol that requires greenhouse gas reductions without commitments from developing countries, or that would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.

The Kyoto Protocol would harm US competitiveness: Thomas Derr, 2006 (Prof., Ethics, Smith College), CONSERVING THE ENVIRONMENT, 06, 90. Most of the European countries that have ratified Kyoto are falling behind already on targets, despite having stagnant economies and falling populations. It is highly unlikely they will meet the goals they have signed on for, and they know it. Neither will Japan, for that matter. The European Union has committed itself to an eight percent reduction in energy use (from 1990 levels) by 2012, but the European Environment Agency admits that current trends project only a 4.7 percent reduction. When Kyoto

signers lecture non-signers for not doing enough for the environment, they invite the charge of hypocrisy. There is also the obvious fact that adherence to the treaty will hurt the U.S. economy much more than the European, which suggests that oldfashioned economic competitiveness is in the mix of motives at play here. The absurdity of the treaty becomes obvious when we recognize that it does not impose emissions requirements on developing countries, including economic giants such as China, India, and Brazil. (China will become the world's biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions in just a few years.

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

12 OPENING PACKET

Links: Carbon Tax Carbon taxes would undermine US energy competitiveness. Ben Lieberman, 2007 (economic analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Online. Internet. Accessed May 10, 2008 at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1519.cfm)

Taxing successful energy sources and subsidizing unsuccessful ones—that is the essence of Washington’s energy policy during the 1970s and early 1980s, and it would be repeated by the Senate’s version of the House’s energy bill (H.R. 6). The bill would raise taxes by an estimated $28 billion over 10 years, mostly from the oil and natural gas sector, and spend much of this money on tax breaks for alternative energy sources like ethanol and wind power. If history is any guide, this approach is likely to backfire, raising prices and reducing energy security.

Carbon taxes would undermine the US economy: Ben Lieberman, 2007 (economic analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Online. Internet. Accessed May 10, 2008 at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1519.cfm)

The Senate's proposed tax increases would likely reduce supplies and increase prices in the years ahead by discouraging investment in domestic drilling for oil and natural gas. America's demand for energy is growing along with its economy, and so it will need more domestic oil and natural gas supplies in the years ahead. However, raising taxes on energy would move America in the opposite direction, because it would raise the cost of capital for exploration and production, making some domestic energy projects less viable.

Tax increases will undermine US competitiveness. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, 2006 (Analyst, Hudson Institute), KEEPING AMERICA COMPETITIVE, Nov. 10, 06. Retrieved Mar. 15, 08 from www.hudson.org. Raising income taxes might be populist, especially among the 50% of earners who pay almost none, but would be detrimental to competitiveness and economic growth. With nations all over the world competing to lower taxes, America must stay at the cutting edge in order for entrepreneurs and foreign investors to flourish. As New York knows only too well, labor and capital are mobile and need little excuse to go elsewhere.

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

13 OPENING PACKET

Links: Gas Tax Gasoline taxes would undermine US economic competitiveness compared to other oil producing nations. Ben Lieberman, 2007 (economic analyst at the Heritage Foundation, August 1, 2007. Online. Internet. Accessed, May 10, 2008. http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1581.cfm)

Unfortunately, the House tax measures would likely reduce supplies and increase prices in the years ahead by discouraging investment in domestic production of oil and natural gas. This was clearly the lesson of the disastrous windfall profits tax of 1980, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, "reduced domestic oil production from between 3 and 6 percent, and increased oil imports from between 8 and 16 percent. This made the U.S. more dependent upon imported oil."[2] The latest tax increases will also have a negative impact on badly needed domestic production. Tax hikes on domestic energy also undercut the energy security rationale for the bill. The tax title would improve the comparative advantage of OPEC and other non-U.S. suppliers, whose imports are not subject to most of these provisions.

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

14 OPENING PACKET

LINKS: JOB LOSSES CAUSE PROTECTIONISM Job losses risk protectionism culminating in world war: Foroohar, staff, Newsweek, 8/23/2004; Lexis None of that money is going to pad the payroll. The past three years have seen the greatest sustained job loss in the United States since the Great Depression. Or so many say. Those numbers are being hotly debated in the U.S. presidential campaign. Democrats point to the government payroll survey, which tracks big companies and shows startlingly anemic job creation in the Bush years, including a meager 32,000 jobs created in July. Republicans prefer the household survey, which includes the self-employed, and shows relatively strong gains under Bush. Taken together, however, both surveys support the picture of a Darwinian job market in which a comfy corporate post is increasingly hard to find. The United States is likely a harbinger of what's to come in Europe, as it widens its own continental market. Already, tens of thousands of big-company manufacturing jobs have migrated to the 10 new member states since they joined the European Union in May. Now, small- and medium-size businesses are also expected to take advantage of cheaper labor in countries like Estonia. "Even if the actual number of job losses aren't high, just the idea that management could move jobs anywhere, at any time, will have an effect on the Western European work force," says Citigroup European equity economist Richard Reid. The same basic concerns haunt employers on both sides of the Atlantic. Faced with relentless price pressure from all sides, chief executives can't look at labor costs the same way, says A. D. (Pete) Correll, the CEO of the timber and paper products manufacturer Georgia Pacific. His main customer is Wal-Mart, and he counts Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott as a friend, but says, "If I call Lee and say, 'Lee, I've got to raise prices,' he says, 'You raise prices, and I'm taking my business elsewhere'." In that environment, says Correll, the "implicit social contract" between workers and bosses is changing irrevocably. Experts say the global labor market has not changed this dramatically since the height of

During the 19th century many of the same factors, including technological change, improved communications and transport and falling prices, threw millions out of jobs. Then as now, there were nationalistic outcries about the loss of "quality" jobs. Princeton economics historian Harold James says British author E. E. Williams wrote the classic of the genre, "Made in Germany," which began with a rant against his German-made pencil. By the 1920s, restrictions on immigration and trade were making the world poorer and less safe. It took two world wars to bring the global economy back to where it started. And now, some economists fear, the new competitive threats are inspiring another protectionist backlash. the Industrial Revolution.

Unemployment risks protectionism: Zinsmeister, staff, The American Enterprise, 6/1/2004; Lexis They wailed loudly about employment losses, a "jobless recovery," "outsourcing" ordeals, and "the worst economy since Herbert Hoover"--all of this obligingly echoed by the media. Hearings are being held, TV specials aired, protectionist measures proposed in Congress.

Job losses feed fears of outsourcing: Foroohar, staff, Newsweek, 8/23/2004; Lexis What's crucially new this time around is what's being globalized--that is, the service sector, which accounts for the bulk of employment in the developed world. The fact that seemingly any job can be exported abroad is creating an unprecedented level of anxiety across all social classes. Though the number of Western jobs "outsourced" to India is far too small to explain the jobless recovery, the trend is only in its infancy. The number of Indian professionals in the IT sector is expected to triple to more than 2 million over the next five years, and Morgan Stanley's Mumbai research center predicts that multinationals will match new jobs in Indian subsidiaries with head-count reductions elsewhere. General Electric's "70-70-70" plan signals the possible extent of these shifts: It plans to outsource 70 percent of its head count, push 70 percent of that outsourcing offshore and locate 70 percent of its workers in India.

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

15 OPENING PACKET

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

16 OPENING PACKET

Links: Renewable Portfolio Standard A renewable portfolio standard would undermine US competitiveness. Ben Lieberman, 2007 (economic analyst at the Heritage Foundation, August 1, 2007. Online. Internet. Accessed, May 10, 2008. http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1581.cfm) The House seeks a requirement that 20 percent of electricity be generated from so-called renewable sources--chiefly wind but also solar and others. In effect, the requirement forces utilities that produce America's electricity from natural gas, coal,

Of course, the only reason why a federally mandated Renewable Portfolio Standard is needed in the first place is that that these alternatives are far too expensive to compete otherwise. In effect, Washington is forcing costlier energy options on the public. This is particularly true of and nuclear power to diversify into these alternatives.

certain states, especially those in the Southeast and parts of the Midwest, where the conditions are not conducive to wind power. And

since renewables are lavished with substantial tax breaks, a national mandate will cost Americans both as taxpayers and as ratepayers.

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

17 OPENING PACKET

Internal Links: Threats to Competitiveness Spur Protectionism Threats to competition inspire protectionism: Foroohar, staff, Newsweek, 8/23/2004; Lexis During the 19th century many of the same factors, including technological change, improved communications and transport and falling prices, threw millions out of jobs. Then as now, there were nationalistic outcries about the loss of "quality" jobs. Princeton economics historian Harold James says British author E. E. Williams wrote the classic of the genre, "Made in Germany," which began with a rant against his German-made pencil. By the 1920s, restrictions on immigration and trade were making the world poorer and less safe. It took two world wars to bring the global economy back to where it started. And now, some economists fear, the new competitive threats are inspiring another protectionist backlash.

Big industry can tempt politicians into going protectionist: American Spectator March 2002 - April 2002; Lexis Protectionism is always tempting to political leaders left and right, especially when the special-interest lobby in question comprises both large corporations and labor unions. Little is more frightening to a politician than to be accused of "doing nothing" while cheap foreign imports undermine America's industry, bankrupting great companies and throwing hard-working Americans out of jobs. Nothing gets the juices flowing fasterespecially with a war on-than to have Big Steel wrap itself in the flag and appeal for help.

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

18 OPENING PACKET

Internal Links: Protectionism Snowballs US protectionism threatens the entire world trading system: Cal Trade Report, 6/17/2008 http://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/front-page-1213666112.html The review of US trade policy has been held annually for the last nine years. Sun Zhenyu, China's permanent representative to the WTO, addressed the meeting saying that “rising domestic trade protectionism could threaten world trade and the global multilateral trade system.”

Doha Round at a critical juncture now: Cal Trade Report, 6/17/2008 http://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/front-page-1213666112.html The “critical” Doha Round of global trade talks are at a “critical juncture,” and “the protectionist measures of the US Congress sent a very negative signal.” These measures, he added, “also make WTO members doubt the leadership and political will of the United States to promote success in the Doha Round negotiations.

Any weakening of support for free trade risks retaliation by other nations: Cassidy, staff, New Yorker, 8/2/2004; Lexis Some economists privately acknowledge that the arguments about outsourcing are nuanced, but they fear that any weakening of support for free trade could do untold damage to the economy. During the Great Depression, Congress introduced the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which raised duties on a range of foreign goods. Other countries retaliated, and the subsequent downturn in international trade intensified the slump. The economists are right when they say protectionism isn't the answer to outsourcing.

Protectionism spirals into trade wars: American Spectator March 2002 - April 2002; Lexis Neither does "strategic protectionism" make sense as a negotiation strategy, because it is much more likely to set off trade war with our key economic partners. Mexico, ironically, which was excluded from the tariff increases, is considering taking advantage of them by raising its own tariffs on steel. Russia has stopped issuing import licenses for chicken imports from the U.S. and may impose an outright ban. European Parlimentarians say they will use "all means at their disposal" to respond, and Japan says it is considering every option available to counter the U.S. tariff hike on steel.

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

19 OPENING PACKET

Internal Links: Protectionism Snowballs Staying the course on free trade essential to open markets for 1.3 billion people: News & Observer, 7/28/2004; Lexis It adds up to a tremendous temptation to back away from free trade. Certainly trade agreements entered into by this country in good faith need to be honored by all parties. But to retreat from the spirit of free trade now would be to undermine policies that allow developing nations to stimulate growth of a stable middle class, as India is doing. Staying the course is bound to pay dividends in terms of global stability and security. Another consideration: The trade agreements open a market of 1.3 billion people to American companies.

Need to continue to support free trade so US can preserve its pro-free trade image: EIRAS, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS, Heritage Foundation Reports, July 23, 2004; lEXIS To its credit, the Bush Administration has engaged in an aggressive expansion of free trade with more than 10 nations, and President Bush lifted the steel tariffs in late 2003. These are steps in the right direction, but the Administration needs to express its support for freer markets more forcefully and credibly by pushing for elimination of subsidies and tariff barriers at once so that America can increase its economic freedom and preserve the image of a pro-freedom government.

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

20 OPENING PACKET

Internal Links: Decreased Competitiveness Risks China Bashing Congress is willing to enact protectionist legislation against China’s currency. Xiong Qu, 2008 (staff writer, April 30, 2008. Online. Internet. Accessed May 9, 2008 at http://www.cctv.com/english/20080430/104202.shtml) The White Paper noted that China has in effect acquired part of the trade deficit formerly held by other Asian countries. As a result, imports from China are not really displacing US goods. The White Paper also said the US Congress should refrain from enacting legislation that attempts to change the terms of trade with China through currency appreciation.

A weakening US economy risks undermining efforts to liberalize trade. Heather Stewart, 2008 (staff writer, The Observer. January 6, 2008. Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008). As the turmoil in the giant American economy spreads from the housing market to jobs and consumer spending, and politicians cast around for someone to blame, there is a growing risk that 2008 could become the year when half a century of trade liberalisation grinds to a halt. Last year was supposed to be crunch-time for the Doha round of international trade talks, launched in the wake of the 2001 attacks on New York, with the aim of making the world's markets fairer for

2007 was another 12 months of mutual finger-pointing between the world's great trading powers, and a deal looks as distant as ever. developing countries. Instead,

Industries will push for China-bashing. Frank Ching, 2007 (staff writer, South China Morning Post, December 19, 2007. Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008). No sooner had the United States and China announced the successful conclusion of their strategic economic dialogue, last week, than the China Currency Coalition pronounced the talks a failure and called on the US Congress to "take muchneeded action". The coalition is an alliance of American industry, agriculture and labour groups whose mission, it says, is "seeking an end to Chinese currency manipulation".

China will be blamed for lost American jobs. Frank Ching, 2007 (staff writer, South China Morning Post, December 19, 2007. Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008). American society is clearly divided on China. There are differences between the Bush administration and Congress. And between those who benefit from China such as US firms that do business with, and consumers who enjoy low-cost imports from, that nation - and those who blame it for their lost jobs.

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

21 OPENING PACKET

Impacts: Protectionism Against China Risks a Trade War Congressional protectionism against China triggers a trade war. Frank Ching, 2007 (staff writer, South China Morning Post, December 19, 2007. Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008). But trade issues remain intractable. American attention is focused on the value of the yuan, and Washington is pressuring

China has allowed its currency to rise by over 12 per cent since July 2005, but Washington wants a much more dramatic increase. More than 50 China-related bills have been proposed by US legislators in recent years. The best-known was put forward by Senators Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham, to impose a 27.5 per cent surcharge on all imports from China to compensate for what they call the deliberate undervaluation of the yuan. If any of these bills become law, they will trigger a trade war. Beijing for a rapid appreciation to make exports more costly.

Trade is the most likely area of friction between the US and China. Frank Ching, 2007 (staff writer, South China Morning Post, December 19, 2007. Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008). How American society views US relations with China was highlighted by a recent Zogby International poll commissioned by the Committee of 100, a non-profit, non-partisan group of Chinese-American leaders and professionals. The survey showed that trade is regarded as the most likely area of shared interests - but also as the most likely source of conflict between the two countries. That view was held by virtually all segments of American society - the general public, opinion leaders, business leaders and congressional staffers. This underlines the need for Washington and Beijing to handle trade issues with special care.

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

22 OPENING PACKET

Impacts: Trade Wars Risk Real Wars Free trade critical to stop a nuclear war: Copley News Service, December 1, 1999 For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and

As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As bombs.

exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a growing number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30

Growing global prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter. Nations of the world are learning to live and work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about world peace shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it. percent of our gross domestic product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers.

Trade wars risk shooting wars. States News Service, 2008 (staff writer, April 14, 2008. Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008). The prosperity in one country, of course, need not take away from the prosperity of another. Indeed, economic prosperity spills across borders if governments are open to it. Frederic Bastiat, a famous 19th Century French economist, said that if goods do not cross borders, armies will. The more international ties between economies there are, the more likely it is that the prosperity of one country will benefit other countries.

Free trade prevents warfare. Tyler Cowen, 2008 (professor of economics at George Mason University, Washington Post, January 24, 2008. Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008).

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

23 OPENING PACKET

Markets embody more knowledge and mobilize more expertise than is held by any single human being. That's why South Korea is so much richer and happier than North Korea. Shermer also cites Bastiat's principle: "When goods do not cross borders, armies will." His corollary is that when goods do cross frontiers, armies will not, and so we should base our societies on trade.

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

24 OPENING PACKET

Impacts: Protectionism Causes War Free trade ends the nationalism that drives conflicts – a global body politic ensures peace Jason Brooks, Department of Journalism at Carleton University, 1999 ed. Independent Institute “Make Trade, Not War” http://www.independent.org/tii/students/GarveyEssay99Brooks.html Different people have different solutions to war; none are as logical as free trade. The war hawks have pursued a policy of mutual assured destruction, arguing that bigger weapons make better deterrents. Others have argued for disarmament. While

the causes of war are undoubtedly varied, protectionism clearly invites conflict. To this, free trade is a remedy. While diplomacy is important, there can be no better diplomacy than that which exists between common citizens of the world every day in a thousand spheres of life. The more free trade we have, the more the invisible hand of the market helps us to, while working for our own advancement, create a world of peace. The wellbeing of others becomes our own. There is no reason why, in a world of perfect free trade, people worldwide shouldn't get along as well as the citizens of the happiest, most prosperous democracies. For in a world of free trade it matters little where borders are drawn. "Make love, not war," was a slogan once bandied about as an answer to war. It was a catchy phrase -- and an appealing message given the two options. But it wasn't too practical. The real solution to war, if condensed to the size of a placard, would instead read, "Make trade, not war."

All empirical examples demonstrate that protectionism causes massive wars Vincent Miller, founder and President of the International Society for Individual Liberty, and James Elwood, Vice-President of the International Society for Individual Liberty, “Free Trade of Protectionism?” 1988, http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/free-tradeprotectionism.html, accessed 1/3/03 History is not lacking in examples of cold trade wars escalating into hot shooting wars: Europe suffered from almost non-stop wars during the 17th and 18th centuries, when restrictive trade policy (mercantilism) was the rule; rival governments fought each other to expand their empires and to exploit captive markets. British tariffs provoked the American colonists to revolution, and later the Northern-dominated U.S. government imposed restrictions on Southern cotton exports – a major factor leading to the American Civil War. In

the late 19th Century, after a half century of general free trade (which brought a half-century of peace), short-sighted politicians throughout Europe again began erecting trade barriers. Hostilities built up until they eventually exploded into World War I. In 1930, facing only a mild recession, U.S. President Hoover ignored warning pleas in a petition by 1028 prominent economists and signed the notorious Smoot-Hawley Act, which raised some tariffs to 100% levels. Within a year, over 25 other governments had retaliated by passing similar laws. The result? World trade came to a grinding halt, and the entire world was plunged into the "Great Depression" for the rest of the decade. The depression in turn led to World War II. The # 1 Danger To World Peace The world enjoyed its greatest economic growth during the relatively free trade period of 1945-1970, a period that also saw no major wars. Yet we again see trade barriers being raised around the world by short-sighted politicians. Will the world again end up in a shooting war as a result of these

Can we afford to allow this to happen in the nuclear age? "What generates war is the economic philosophy of nationalism: embargoes, trade and foreign exchange controls, monetary devaluation, etc. The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war." economically deranged policies?

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

25 OPENING PACKET

Impacts: Leadership A) Trade war risk undermining global trading system: Bergsten, 04 (Foreign Affairs, March 2004 - April 2004; Lexis) U.S. policymakers must decisively overcome the domestic backlash against globalization to create a firm political foundation for a sustainable and constructive foreign economic policy. But the outlook is worrisome, despite the current economic recovery. Overvalued exchange rates and the massive trade deficits they create -- characteristics of the current U.S. economy -- have historically caused a retreat from openness. The admirable efforts of the Bush administration to revive liberalization have mostly run aground: the Doha Round of World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations stalled at Cancun in September 2003; the Free Trade Area of the Americas fared similarly poorly at Miami in November 2003; and bilateral free trade agreements are facing stiff congressional resistance and may have to be shelved. Moreover,

disputes between Europe and the United States could spark a transatlantic trade war, and a vicious round of China-bashing has erupted over the past year. These developments have put U.S. trade policy, and hence the global trading system, in deep jeopardy and could start to reverse the profound benefits of globalization.

B) Rollback of globalization undermines US leadership: Bergsten, 04 (Foreign Affairs, March 2004 - April 2004; Lexis) Stopping the advance of globalization would be very dangerous to U.S. foreign policy because globalization -- more than terrorism or the end of the Cold War -- has been the dominant force for change in international affairs in the past 50 years. And rightly or wrongly, it is equated with Americanization in much of the world. Debates over globalization are often debates over the role of the United States itself. A significant rollback of globalization, or a halt in its continued advance, would therefore represent a major defeat for the United States on the world stage. The next administration must recognize the urgency of the situation and make foreign economic policy a top priority.

C) US leadership is essential to prevent global nuclear exchange. Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995 Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional

hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

26 OPENING PACKET

*****Affirmative Answers***** No impact: China won’t allow protectionism to spiral into a trade war: Scott Tong, 6/24/2008 (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/06/24/china_fingerwagging) Tong: Well, there's talk of protectionism in Congress, that China isn't proceeding quickly enough. From China's perspective, the technicians who are trying to tweak the economy, most people tell me that this push back rhetoric right now at least is not going to lead into protectionism from the Chinese side, that what motivates them principally is political stability and if they can go in the right direction in a way that's politically stable, they're going to keep going in that direction and for all the rhetoric and finger wagging globally, it's going to be motivated by domestic concerns first.

No impact: Any US protectionism will be rolled back—steel tariffs prove: Seattle Times, 1/5/2004; Lexis Next, freeing international trade from heavy regulation. Dean says he will not sign trade agreements unless they include labor and environmental standards. Whose standards? Ours? Poor countries cannot afford them. There is room for compromise, but recent debates on trade suggest industries or unions often push for protectionism under the cloak of fairness. A protectionist trade policy, no matter how it is camouflaged, can't exist for long in today's global economy. Look at President Bush's failed steel tariff as an example.

Non-unique: Protectionist sentiment is rising in the US now: Cal Trade Report, 6/17/2008 http://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/front-page-1213666112.html GENEVA, Switzerland – 06/17/08 – Rising levels of protectionism in the US is cause for serious concern, according to a recent two-day review of US trade policy conducted last week by the World Trade Organization (WTO). The global trade body submitting more than 90 detailed technical questions to the US about its trade policy during the two-day meeting, expressing its dismay “at worrying signs of a re-emergence of protectionist sentiment” in the US. “The increasingly restrictive import requirements imposed by the United States for security purposes new legislation requiring the 100% scanning of containers destined for the US is an example…as is the lack of reform in the 2008 US Farm Bill raised doubts about the compliance and professed intent of some aspects of US trade policy with the WTO,” the group said in a statement to the press.

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08

27 OPENING PACKET

Affirmative Answers US protectionist sentiment on the rise now: Cal Trade Report, 6/17/2008 http://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/front-page-1213666112.html The rise of US domestic trade protectionist sentiment, he said, “has caused widespread concern.” Such trade protectionism, Sun added,“is demonstrated in events such as the US Congress failing to extend the president's trade promotion authority, and the Congress recently passing a new farm bill which provides huge agricultural subsidies.”

No impact: Neither Obama or McCain will China-bash: AFP, 6/22/2008 (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjYxYPat679CouKzkuC-lvK8Mpg) WASHINGTON (AFP) — Despite their rhetoric, White House aspirants Barack Obama and John McCain are unlikely to adopt a confrontational approach towards China even as it flexes its military and economic muscles, experts say.

No impact: US politicians won’t let China bashing get out of control: AFP, 6/22/2008 (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjYxYPat679CouKzkuC-lvK8Mpg) China has also challenged longstanding US military dominance in Asia, and some experts say that in five years, the Asian giant with an exploding manufacturing sector may be able assemble the "building blocks" of a military superpower. President George W. Bush and his recent predecessors all determined that they had to make the relationship between the world's most developed nation and biggest developing economy work, the experts said, and senators Obama and McCain would also very quickly come to that conclusion. "When you are dealing with an economic superpower of that magnitude one does not give the impression of a desire for a confrontation unless one is pushed to the wall," said John Tkacik, a former China expert at the State Department. "And China is simply too big an economic actor to confront head on if one doesn't have to," he said.