Da Neg Agenda Politics 30

WNDI 2008

1 Agenda Politics DA Neg

Agenda Politics DA Neg Agenda Politics DA Neg.............................................................................................................................................1

Agenda Politics DA Neg.................................................................................................................1 1NC Shell (1/3)...........................................................................................................................................................3

1NC Shell (1/3)................................................................................................................................3 1NC Shell (2/3)...........................................................................................................................................................4

1NC Shell (2/3)................................................................................................................................4 1NC Shell (3/3)...........................................................................................................................................................5

1NC Shell (3/3)................................................................................................................................5 Uniqueness – Bush Push (1/1)....................................................................................................................................6

Uniqueness – Bush Push (1/1).......................................................................................................6 Uniqueness – Won’t Pass (1/2)...................................................................................................................................7

Uniqueness – Won’t Pass (1/2)......................................................................................................7 Uniqueness – Won’t Pass (2/2)...................................................................................................................................8

Uniqueness – Won’t Pass (2/2)......................................................................................................8 Link – Democrats (1/1)...............................................................................................................................................9

Link – Democrats (1/1)..................................................................................................................9 Link – Pelosi (1/1).....................................................................................................................................................10

Link – Pelosi (1/1).........................................................................................................................10 Link – Republicans (1/1)...........................................................................................................................................11

Link – Republicans (1/1)..............................................................................................................11 Internal Link – Bipartisanship (1/1)..........................................................................................................................12

Internal Link – Bipartisanship (1/1)..........................................................................................12 Internal Link – Pelosi (1/1).......................................................................................................................................13

Internal Link – Pelosi (1/1)..........................................................................................................13 Internal Link – Political Capital (1/2).......................................................................................................................14

Internal Link – Political Capital (1/2)........................................................................................14 Internal Link – Political Capital (2/2).......................................................................................................................15

Internal Link – Political Capital (2/2)........................................................................................15 Human Rights Credibility Good – Democracy (1/1)................................................................................................16

Human Rights Credibility Good – Democracy (1/1)................................................................16 Human Rights Credibility Good – Human Rights (1/1)...........................................................................................17

Human Rights Credibility Good – Human Rights (1/1)...........................................................17 Human Rights Credibility Good – Russia (1/1)........................................................................................................18

Human Rights Credibility Good – Russia (1/1)........................................................................18

WNDI 2008

2 Agenda Politics DA Neg

Human Rights Credibility Good – Terrorism (1/1)...................................................................................................19

Human Rights Credibility Good – Terrorism (1/1)...................................................................19 COFTA Bad – Death Squads (1/1)............................................................................................................................20

COFTA Bad – Death Squads (1/1)..............................................................................................20 COFTA Bad – Drug Trafficking (1/1).......................................................................................................................21

COFTA Bad – Drug Trafficking (1/1)........................................................................................21 COFTA Bad – Environment (1/1).............................................................................................................................22

COFTA Bad – Environment (1/1)...............................................................................................22 COFTA Bad – Instability (1/2)..................................................................................................................................23

COFTA Bad – Instability (1/2)....................................................................................................23 COFTA Bad – Instability (2/2)..................................................................................................................................24

COFTA Bad – Instability (2/2)....................................................................................................24 COFTA Bad – Narco Terrorism (1/2).......................................................................................................................25

COFTA Bad – Narco Terrorism (1/2).........................................................................................25 COFTA Bad – Narco Terrorism (2/2).......................................................................................................................26

COFTA Bad – Narco Terrorism (2/2).........................................................................................26 COFTA Bad – Palm Oil (1/3)....................................................................................................................................27

COFTA Bad – Palm Oil (1/3)......................................................................................................27 COFTA Bad – Palm Oil (2/3)....................................................................................................................................28

COFTA Bad – Palm Oil (2/3)......................................................................................................28 COFTA Bad – Palm Oil (3/3)....................................................................................................................................29

COFTA Bad – Palm Oil (3/3)......................................................................................................29 COFTA Bad – Self Determination (1/1)...................................................................................................................30

COFTA Bad – Self Determination (1/1).....................................................................................30 COFTA Bad – A2 Colombian Economy (1/1)..........................................................................................................31

COFTA Bad – A2 Colombian Economy (1/1)............................................................................31

WNDI 2008

3 Agenda Politics DA Neg

1NC Shell (1/3) A. Uniqueness - Deal won’t pass – democratic opposition, Obama, and administration refusal to compromise National Review Online, 7/15/2008, “Meekly Sensible – A Democrat to listen to on free trade,” http://www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/12077/54/ The Colombian military’s rescue of 15 hostages on July 2 from the narco-terrorist group the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (known by its Spanish acronym “FARC”) put an exclamation point on what have been several months of successes in Colombian president Alvaro Uribe’s campaign to eradicate political violence in the country. But hopes that the episode would revive the stalled U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement appear to be in vain, at least according to one of the FTA’s top Democratic supporters. Congressman Gregory Meeks is among the dwindling number of pro-trade Democrats. He voted for normalized trade relations with China and in favor of the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Meeks has been to Colombia several times and supports the Colombia FTA. Most of his Democratic colleagues oppose it, citing President Uribe’s supposed willingness to tolerate violence against union members even though the number of unionists killed has fallen by 88 percent since 2002. Of the chances that Congress will pass the Colombia FTA before the November elections, Meeks says, “There’s a possibility, but it really would be tough to get done.” The Democrats control both houses of Congress, and their party’s presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, opposes the deal. Meeks says that Obama’s opposition to the FTA doesn’t necessarily mean that his election would doom the deal’s chances. “I would like to make the offer at some point, if he is president, to do as he’s doing right now with reference to Iraq,” Meeks says. “I’d love to take him to Colombia. I’d love to go with him to places I’ve found, in the jungle, where there are things they’ve done for African-Colombians that had never been done before. I’d love to show him where the violence has been reduced substantially.” Meeks says, “Is it all done? Of course not. But under the last five years of the Uribe administration, a substantial, not a minimal, but a substantial change has happened.” Murders, kidnappings, assassinations, and other acts of terrorism common in Colombia five years ago have all decreased by double-digit percentages since Uribe took office in 2002. While acknowledging that Obama’s opposition to the FTA makes passage difficult, Meeks does not blame Democrats for stalling the deal. “I think that the burden is not so much on the Democrats, but the administration,” he says. He argues that the administration needs to make it easier for Democrats to vote for the Colombia FTA by agreeing to work with Congress on an expansion of trade-adjustment assistance (TAA), which is aid to workers who lose their jobs due to import competition.

B. Link 1.

WNDI 2008

4 Agenda Politics DA Neg

1NC Shell (2/3) 2. Concessions to democrats key to COFTA passage Inside U.S. Trade, Erik Wasson, 3/14/2008, “Pelosi links TAA to Colombia FTA, business nervous about forcing vote,” lexis But a Democratic lobbyist cast doubt that the speaker has outlined a trade-off between TAA passage and support for the Colombia FTA. He said that it is unlikely the TAA bill would be sufficient to sway Democrats to vote for the Colombia FTA, and said the White House would have to offer concessions far more meaningful to Democrats to strike a deal. But any such concession would unlikely be acceptable to Republican members, he speculated. Pelosi did not insist that the administration accept the comprehensive House passed bill, which it threatened to veto last year, but said Democrats could work with the administration on the exact terms of a bill. "It would have to be robust, addressing not only income and health and other considerations,"she said. Pelosi was reacting to the announcement by Schwab on March 12 that the Bush administration plans to send up the final implementing bill for the FTA shortly after the Easter recess even if the congressional leadership does not agree. But Pelosi expressed doubt that the administration would carry out that threat. "I don't think it's going to happen, but there have been soundings coming from the administration that they are going to send this bill over," she said. "And I would say this: we have a consultation process that I think should be honored." Business supporters of the Colombia FTA make the point that despite Schwab's announcement, there has been no formal White House decision signed off by President Bush to actually send the implementing bill to Congress over the objection of the House leadership. This may be partially due to the fact that the high-level outreach by the administration to Pelosi by cabinetlevel officials such as Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has only gone on for four weeks, which some see as too short to bear fruit, one lobbyist said. Pelosi met with Paulson on March 5, roughly three weeks after she met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Feb. 13. In the meeting with Paulson, Pelosi said she would discuss the Colombia FTA with House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) who has been hospitalized in New York. She also said she wanted to discuss the issue with members of the caucus, but her spokesman said that would not necessarily mean a formal caucus meeting. As of mid-week, anti-FTA Democrats said they had not been approached by Pelosi on the Colombia FTA, according to House aides. In addition, Reps. Betty Sutton (D-OH), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Mike Michaud (D-ME) and Phil Hare (D-IL) may call for a caucus meeting to debate the issue if there is any sign from Pelosi that she would consider allowing a vote, they said. Hare called on the leadership in a March 12 statement to use "all the tools in its power to ensure the flawed Colombia FTA is not enacted." The Change to Win federation issued a March 12 statement and print ad urging Congress to vote down the Co-lombia agreement. A labor source said that the unions will use the FTA vote in close House races in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and New York. The issue could help unseat vulnerable House Republicans like Reps. Thomas Reynolds (R-NY), Phil English (R-PA) and elect a Democrat to the seat of retiring Rep. James Walsh (R-NY), he said. The labor source said that traditionally pro-free trade Democrats Reps. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) and Adam Smith (DWA) will not face negative consequences from a no vote on Colombia given their overall record. Given that Demo-crats are in the majority, such members will not face a reduction in business contributions, he said. Schwab and Deputy USTR John Veroneau emphasized this week that their threat of sending up the bill was meant to foster a negotiation with the leadership. "We have not yet had a negotiation that we would like to have with the con-gressional leadership that lays out a path forward to facilitate that vote," Veroneau said in a March 12 press briefing at the White House. One pro-FTA source called Schwab's announcement on forcing a vote a "big mistake," saying that it could stiffen opposition instead of leading to negotiations, possibly endangering the entire trade agenda. The administration seems to assume that once the bill is submitted and a vote is certain, supporters will be able to generate sufficient votes for passage. Supporters of the FTA estimate that they need between 30 and 40 Democrats to support the deal, depending on how many Republicans will vote for it.

WNDI 2008

5 Agenda Politics DA Neg

1NC Shell (3/3) C. Impacts – 1. COFTA kills American human rights credibility The Huffington Post, 4/8/08“Colombia Free Trade Agreement: A Bad Deal for Everyone Involved,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-phil-hare-and-rep-michael-h-michaud/colombia-free-trade-agree_b_95704.html If we had been born in Colombia, we would probably be dead. That's right. As members of our respective labor unions, the fight for higher wages, better working conditions, and a secure pension could have cost us our lives. Thirty nine trade unionists were murdered in Colombia in 2007, and they are being killed at a rate of over one per week this year. Of the more than 2,500 murders in that nation since 1986, only 68 cases -around 3 percent -- have resulted in convictions. However, many of these criminals were convicted in absentia -- meaning they may still be at large and continuing to terrorize workers. Yet inexplicably, President Bush and some Members of Congress want to reward Colombia with a free trade agreement. Not on our watch. The right to organize and bargain collectively is essential to human freedom. We believe passage of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) would greatly diminish our nation's reputation as a leader in the fight to end human rights abuses worldwide.

2. Human rights credibility is key to overall credibility of the military Washington Post, July 23, 2000 U.S. military forces will increasingly be called upon to conduct a broad range of operations--from peacekeeping, as in Somalia; to nation building, as in Kosovo and Haiti; to the traditional warfare we waged in Kuwait. As formidable as these tasks are operationally, they will be even more difficult if charges of human rights abuses undermine America's military standing. Not only will opponents of the United States exploit past war crimes charges to undermine American credibility and future military operations, but even U.S. allies will find it difficult to support already politically sensitive missions if there is no independent resolution of such charges. Whether or not a civilian commission is the answer, in order to build international coalitions and deploy troops effectively, the United States must have credibility as a protector of human rights.

3. 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 lowlevel 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.

WNDI 2008

6 Agenda Politics DA Neg

Uniqueness – Bush Push (1/1) Bush is pushing Colombia FTA BusinessWeek, Avi Salzman, 7/17/2008, “The State of Play on Trade: Trade deal with Colombia, Korea, and panama, all rife with stalled in Congress. In the meantime, some U.S. exports lag,” http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2008/db20080716_265355.htm?chan=top+news_top+ne ws+index_news+%2B+analysis The Bush Administration and its backers in Congress have made a special point to push the agreement with Colombia because it is the only pending trade agreement that has already been sent to Congress for a ratification vote. If it doesn't get voted on during this session, which is expected to end in September, barring a lame-duck session, the whole agreement might have to be scrapped. The other two deals could also face problems if they do not receive a vote, depending on whether the next President and Congress still like the terms the Bush Administration worked out.

Colombia FTA center of Bush agenda LA Times, 7/17/2008, “Upcoming at the Whitehouse and Beyond,” http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/07/fires-colombia.html The president is scheduled to return to Washington on Sunday. On Monday, he will be wrapping himself in the mantle of the Summer Olympics, greeting members of the team the United States is sending to Beijing. On Tuesday, there will be yet another opportunity to push for the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, a centerpiece of his final year's agenda, during a ceremony marking Colombian Independence Day.

Bush calling for Colombia FTA Wisconsin Ag Connection, 7/16/2008, “Bush calls for early congressional approval for FTA with S. Korea,” http://www.wisconsinagconnection.com/story-national.php?Id=1658&yr=2008 President Bush Tuesday urged Congress to quickly approve free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama as a means of stimulating a U.S. economy struggling with rising oil prices and a subprime mortgage crisis. "And the other thing Congress can do is work on trade legislation," Bush told a news conference. "One of the positives in the economy right now is the fact that we're selling more goods overseas, and they need to open up markets to Colombia and South Korea and Panama." Bush was talking about the three free trade agreements awaiting approval by a Democrat-controlled Congress fearful of possible job losses and an increasing trade deficit in an election year.

WNDI 2008

7 Agenda Politics DA Neg

Uniqueness – Won’t Pass (1/2) Deal won’t pass – labor and Obama opposition BusinessWeek, Avi Salzman, 7/17/2008, “The State of Play on Trade: Trade deal with Colombia, Korea, and panama, all rife with stalled in Congress. In the meantime, some U.S. exports lag,” http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2008/db20080716_265355.htm?chan=top+news_top+ne ws+index_news+%2B+analysis A trade deal the Bush Administration negotiated with Colombia could change all that, eliminating tariffs on virtually all U.S. products. But the Colombia deal, as well as major agreements with Korea and Panama, has stalled in Congress. These agreements have become a potent issue in the Presidential campaign. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) traveled to Colombia two weeks ago and expressed his support for the Colombia deal, while Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has said he wants to reevaluate various trade deals, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, to increase protections for U.S. workers.

Won’t pass – election and public The Daily News, 7/16/2008, “Trade pact with Colombia benefits state, nation,” http://www.tdn.com/articles/2008/07/16/editorial/doc487d08885969b230276894.txt The U.S.-Colombian Free Trade Agreement now awaiting congressional approval could deliver a timely boost to the national economy. But there seems little prospect for approval of any free trade pact in this election year. Democratic leaders in Congress and the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee have made their opposition to new trade agreements a major campaign issue. Sadly, it’s an issue that may resonate with an anxious public. Protectionist sentiment tends to flourish during uncertain economic times.

Won’t pass – congressional opposition, Obama, and labor NYT, Steven R. Weisman, 7/13/2008, “Colombia Trade Deal is Threatened,” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/washington/13trade.html?ref=americas Yet the trade agreement remains a long shot, because of opposition by American labor unions, Democratic leaders in Congress and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. “I am not optimistic that the Congress will have an opportunity to review the bill this year, unless something unforeseen or dramatic occurs by the administration,” said Representative Charles B. Rangel, the New York Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. “I don’t think they handled this correctly.”

Won’t pass – trade skepticism The Economist, 7/17/2008, “Defrosting Doha,” Lexis Already there are some signs of rising hostility to trade. The plainest are the taxes or bans imposed by some countries on food exports in response to the rapid increase in prices. This is not protection as usually practised—in the Doha round, countries have been negotiating to end subsidies, not taxes, on farm exports. But had the negotiations been starting now, such gross impediments to trade might well have been on the agenda. Another straw in the wind is the difficult progress of some regional trade agreements. Last year America’s Congress passed a free-trade deal with Peru; this year it has stalled on one with Colombia. Any misgivings in Washington about an agreement with South Korea have been more than matched on the streets of Seoul, where thousands have protested against the prospect of American beef imports. Economists view bilateral and regional deals as a mixed blessing. But if hostility towards such agreements denotes unease about trade in general, it is a worrying sign.

WNDI 2008

8 Agenda Politics DA Neg

Uniqueness – Won’t Pass (2/2) COFTA won’t pass Reuters, Doug Palmer, 7/3/2008, “Hostage rescue may not free US-Colombia trade deal,” http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN03258932 Colombia's dramatic rescue of hostages held for years by a rebel group probably won't lead to quick approval of a U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement that has been snagged for months in the U.S. Congress. "Politically, it's just not in the cards," said Peter Hakim, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a think tank focused on Western Hemisphere affairs. Colombia soldiers posing as aid workers tricked the4decade-old FARC guerrilla group into releasing Colombian politician Ingrid Betancourt, three Americans and 11 other hostages on Wednesday. The rescue raised White House hopes that House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi might reconsider her opposition to the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement and schedule a vote soon on the pact. "One of the concerns that she said she's had has been security in Colombia," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "We maintain that President (Alvaro) Uribe, since elected -- since he was elected -- has done a tremendous job of improving security there in Colombia." Although Pelosi applauds the rescue, it doesn't reduce longstanding concerns she has had about violence facing union workers in Colombia, Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said.

WNDI 2008

9 Agenda Politics DA Neg

Link – Democrats (1/1) Democrats looking for concessions on alternative energy NYT, David M. Herszenhorn, 2/1/2008, “Senate Democrats’ Stimulus Plan Hits Roadblock,” Lexis The Democrats also said that the efforts over the last two days to shape the stimulus package to reflect their economic priorities had allowed them to lay out an agenda that they would pursue in the months ahead and use to bolster the case for electing a Democrat as president and widening their majorities in Congress. Top items on that agenda include increased benefits for the elderly and veterans; subsidies for low-income families struggling with home heating bills and other energy costs; mortgage counseling for distressed homeowners; extended unemployment benefits; increased food stamps; and tax credits for alternative energy sources. The inability to reach a compromise in the Senate was in marked contrast to the negotiations a week ago between the Bush administration and House Democrats, which produced a swift agreement amid a remarkable show of bipartisan cooperation.

Democrats want alternative energy incentives LA Times, Noam N. Levey, 2/5/2008, “Democrats push ‘green’ energy tax breaks,” Lexis As Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus talked up his proposal Monday to expand a multibillion-dollar economic stimulus package, he spoke of the need to help seniors, disabled veterans and the unemployed. There was just one industry the Montana Democrat singled out for special assistance: renewable energy. As Senate Democrats push ahead with legislation to blunt a possible recession, they are trying to get support for tax breaks for wind-farm developers, builders of more efficient appliances and businesses that install fuel cells.

WNDI 2008

10 Agenda Politics DA Neg

Link – Pelosi (1/1) Pelosi wants alternative energy incentives The Washington Post, Shailagh Murray and Juliet Eilperin, 11/9/2006, “Pelosi steps into the spotlight,” lexis The woman who will become speaker of the House in January is strong-willed and determined, an ambitious late bloomer who raised five kids, waded slowly into politics and now stands second in line of presidential succession. Republicans like to ridicule Pelosi as a San Francisco liberal, and her voting record suggests that at least on paper, they are not off base. But her Democratic colleagues describe her as far more pragmatic and realistic than the caricature suggests. The morning after the election, Pelosi spoke almost reverentially about her new role. "I understand my role as leader of the Democrats," she told reporters in a packed reception room off the House floor. "And I very, very much respect that I will be the speaker of the House, and not of the Democrats." Pelosi's top priority is to pass the bills that Democrats promised voters on the campaign trail: a minimum wage increase, alternative energy incentives, incentives to keep jobs in the United States. Passionately antiwar, she also is determined to draw the Bush administration into a debate over the Iraq war. Hopefully, she said, the unexpected resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld would mark "a fresh start toward a new policy in Iraq, signaling a willingness on the part of the president to work with the Congress to devise a better way forward."

WNDI 2008

11 Agenda Politics DA Neg

Link – Republicans (1/1) Republicans want alternative energy incentives Rocky Mountain News, Peggy Proctor, 6/20/2008, “Republicans praising alternative energy,” http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/20/republicans-praising-alternative-energy/ Apparently, from the political ads I have seen lately, we are going to have to stomach the call by Republicans for the development of alternative energy sources. Yes, from the Republicans, we are going to now be told the economical , environmental, and geo-political advantages of alternative energy.

GOP supports alternative energy incentives CNS, Susan Jones, 7/11/2008, “House Republicans Launch ‘American Energy Tour,’” http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32262 House Republicans are going all the way to Arctic Alaska to push their plan to lower gasoline prices. House Republican leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the “American Energy Tour,” which begins next Friday, will stop first at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, Colo. There, lawmakers will meet with researchers who are working on various alternative energy sources -- from solar and wind power to hydrogen, biomass and fuel-cell technologies. “(W)e’re going to learn about how scientists and engineers are making America less dependent on foreign sources of energy,” Boehner said. The next stop is Alaska’s “desolate” Arctic Coastal Plain, where lawmakers will press Democrats to allow more home-grown oil drilling. “In Alaska, we’ll learn more about the 10 billion barrels of oil that sit there laying idle,” Boehner said on Thursday. “We can produce more oil and gas here in the United States in an environmentally sound way,” he insisted.

WNDI 2008

12 Agenda Politics DA Neg

Internal Link – Bipartisanship (1/1) Lack of bipartisanship with Bush means Panama isn’t being pushed ahead of Columbia – preventing it from passing even though it has support Inside US Trade, 9-7-2007, “Deputy USTR,” ln Deputy U.S. Trade Representative John Veroneau has said that the Bush Administration has struck no deal with the Democratic majority in Congress to bypass the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement in order to have the pending free trade agreement (FTA) with Panama passed. Pro-trade congressional Democrats said this week they have enough support to pass FTAs with Peru and Panama, but lack support for the deal with Colombia although they said they are hopeful it can be passed. The Administration, Veroneau indicated, has not budged from its long-standing position that Colombia be considered and passed before Panama is brought up for a vote. "There is no agreement to move Panama next [after the Peru FTA]," Veroneau said Sept. 5. "The order is which trade agreements have typically been considered by Congress and sent to Congress is the order in which they were concluded," he said. "That order is Peru, Colombia, Panama and Korea. . . . Our priority and our goal is to pass all these trade agreements."

WNDI 2008

13 Agenda Politics DA Neg

Internal Link – Pelosi (1/1) Pelosi key to COFTA Reuters, 7/16/2008, “House republicans push for Colombia pact vote,” http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1648117020080716 Republicans pressured U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday to set a vote on a free trade pact with Colombia, which they said would die if Congress does not approve it this year. "If the 110th Congress adjourns without a vote in both the House and the Senate, the agreement will be well and truly dead," senior Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Rules Committee said in a letter to colleagues. The free trade deal with Colombia, one of the United States' staunchest allies in Latin America, has been in limbo since April, when Pelosi rebuffed an effort by President George W. Bush to force a vote on the pact. Bush submitted the agreement under White House trade promotion authority, a law passed in 2002 which required Congress to vote approve or reject trade agreements within 90 days and without making any amendments. However, Pelosi pushed through a rule change allowing her to delay action indefinitely on the pact. She said Bush had ignored her warning that Congress was not ready to vote on agreement, which many Democrats strongly oppose on the grounds that they believe Colombia has not done enough to curb violence against labor groups. Rep. Jim McCrery said he and two other Republicans sent their letter "to make sure everybody is aware that next year is not an option. We've got to get Colombia done this year."

Pelosi will horse trade for COFTA The Washington Post, 4/20/2008, “Colombia’s Case, The intellectual poverty of free-trade deal’s opponents,” lexis HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says the Bush administration's free-trade agreement with Colombia may not be dead, even though she has postponed a vote on it indefinitely. If the White House doesn't "jam it down the throat of Congress," she said, she might negotiate. Ms. Pelosi wants an "economic agenda that gives some sense of security to American workers and businesses . . . that somebody is looking out for them" -- though she was vague as to what that entails. Nor did she specify how anyone could "jam" through a measure on which the administration has already briefed Congress many, many times.

WNDI 2008

14 Agenda Politics DA Neg

Internal Link – Political Capital (1/2) Bush’s clout is key to lining up votes on a Colombian FTA. Inside U.S. Trade, 6/22/07. “Rangel Cool To Colombia FTA; Bush Presses New Democrats.” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) this week placed the onus on President Bush to secure the necessary votes for the bilateral free trade agreement the U.S. has negotiated with Colombia, but did not completely rule out congressional consideration of the deal. "I am not going to say no [to the Colombia FTA] because that would be a political statement," he told reporters on June 18. "I think the Administration is going to have to see how many votes they have because more and more there is a lack of confidence in the ability of a President that I have a lot of respect for [Colombian President Alvaro Uribe] in being able to control the violence." Meanwhile, President Bush on June 19 told a group of New Democrats in a White House meeting that he would like Congress to consider the pending FTAs in the same order in which they were completed, according to a spokesman for New Democrat Co-Chair Ellen Tauscher (D-CA). The order of completion was Peru, Colombia, Panama and Korea. Rep. Adam Smith (DWA), a New Democrat Coalition vice chair, said in a June 21 interview that President Bush and White House officials made clear they wanted to have Congress consider the Colombia FTA sooner rather than later. But he emphasized that they seemed open to discussing this issue and that he had the impression that they had not made a "firm decision" on the sequencing of FTAs for congressional approval. Smith said the bulk of the New Democrats that attended the meeting conveyed the message that Congress should consider the Peru and Panama FTAs first because they are more likely to get support. Smith said he emphasized at the meeting that the House leadership, Rangel and the White House should not get into a process fight over the FTAs and that the order of consideration should be determined by consensus. According to Smith, the House leadership favors considering Peru and Panama first. In addition to Tauscher and Smith, the meeting was attended by Reps. Ron Kind (D-WI) and Joe Crowley (D-NY). New Democrat Co-Chair Artur Davis (D-AL), who did not attend the meeting with the President, said on June 21 that "from a tactical standpoint" there was no question the Peru and Panama agreements would be easier to approve than the pact with Colombia. He said the Colombia FTA is "a very tough sell because the country has a history of violence against persons trying to organize." He said there are "very real questions of whether that violence has been a function of the government looking the other way or in some instances aiding and abetting it." "There's been some significant progress in Colombia in the last several years," he noted. "Whether that progress is enough to enforce the standards in the trade agreement, we don't know."

WNDI 2008

15 Agenda Politics DA Neg

Internal Link – Political Capital (2/2) Because Bush looks like a loser the Colombia FTA will fail. Edmonton Journal (Alberta), July 29, 2007. “A warning to Harper on the dangerous reality of Colombia; U.S. Democrats stalling trade link like the one Canada aims to negotiate.” For a few months now, Colombians have seen how the signing of an FTA with the United States that was supposed to be ratified by the U.S. Congress this year has become a bitter public battle between Democrat lawmakers in Washington and Uribe himself. Democrats, following the lead of House leader Nancy Pelosi -- and of other Democrat stars, like former vice-president Al Gore and presidential candidate Barack Obama -- have blocked the bilateral treaty alleging Uribe's poor record on human rights. President George W. Bush, who has secured a loyal ally in Uribe, has gone out of his way to defend the treaty, managing only to make Uribe's case less convincing for the Democrats.

WNDI 2008

16 Agenda Politics DA Neg

Human Rights Credibility Good – Democracy (1/1) U.S. demo promo pressure is inevitable – enhanced credibility is key to making it effective Marina Ottaway, Senior Associate and Co-Director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March 2003, Promoting Democracy in the Middle East, http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/otm01/otm01.pdf Lack of credibility will not prevent the United States from trying to implement projects to encourage democratic change in the Arab world. In fact, the Middle East Partnership Initiative generated its first project even before Powell’s announcement. In November 2002, the State Department invited a group of Arab women who had run or planned to run for office to observe the election process here and to get advice from American experts on how to run a campaign more effectively. Projects of this kind can be carried out even in the absence of trust. There will always be visitors willing to come to the United States, or students interested in studying in American universities. But these are not programs that can make a significant difference in countries that are already open to the world. Tens of thousands of Arab students have graduated from American universities over the years; hundreds of thousands have visited. A few hundred more visitors will not make much difference. To play a more important role in the

political transformation of the Middle East, the United States needs to establish its credibility as a prodemocracy actor. This will be difficult, but it is not impossible. It has been faced and solved elsewhere. For example, the United States had very low credibility in Latin America when it first started talking of democracy promotion in the 1980s, because in that region, too, it had historically chosen the stability of friendly autocratic regimes over the unpredictable outcome of political transitions. Sustained U.S. support for democratic change in the second half of the 1980s and throughout the 1990s slowly allayed suspicions about American intentions. The same is happening in many African countries, because U.S. support for democratic change has become more consistent during the last decade.

Global democratic consolidation is essential to prevent many scenarios for war and extinction. Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, October 1995, “Promoting Democracy in the 1990’s,” http://www.carnegie.org//sub/pubs/deadly/dia95_01.html, accessed on 12/11/99 OTHER THREATS 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. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY 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.

WNDI 2008

17 Agenda Politics DA Neg

Human Rights Credibility Good – Human Rights (1/1) Human rights credibility is essential to solving human rights violations internationally San Diego Union-Tribune, May 11, 2001 As a sovereign country, the United States is certainly entitled to address these issues in the manner it deems appropriate. As a member of the international community, however, the United States must recognize the impact of its actions. Its position on these issues places the United States in conflict with much of the international community. During the Cold War, these differences were often overlooked by countries that were fearful of alienating the United States and more fearful of the Soviet Union. The end of the Cold War freed the Soviet bloc. Ironically, it also freed the Western bloc. Countries are now more likely to challenge the United States, particularly in the realm of human rights. As a result, the costs of virtue and arrogance have increased. The United States must continue to denounce human rights violations, regardless of the cost. The impact of these denunciations, however, will depend upon the credibility of its own record.

The impact to strengthened human rights outweighs everything—it leads to war, has killed more than all 20th century wars combined, and leads to genocide and environmental destruction John Shattuck, former Assistant Secretary of State, 9-12-1994, Federal News Service On the disintegration side, we are witnessing ugly and violent racial, ethnic and religious class conflict in Haiti, in Bosnia, in Central Asia, in Africa, most horribly in Rwanda -- all places where I have traveled in recent months and witnessed unspeakable suffering and abuses of the most fundamental rights. The new global community has yet to develop an adequate response to these horrors. We must intensify our search for new ways of holding individuals and governments accountable for gross human rights violations, for new ways of anticipating and preventing conflicts before they spiral into uncontrollable violence and reprisal, for new ways of mobilizing the international community to address an avalanche of humanitarian crises. These are daunting tasks. Why then has the Clinton administration made protecting human rights and promoting democracy such a major theme in our foreign policy? The answer I think lies not only in our values, which could be reason enough, but in the strategic benefits to the United States of a policy that emphasizes our values. We know from historical experience that democracies are more likely than other forms of government to respect human rights, to settle conflicts peacefully, to observe international and honor agreements, to go to war with each other with great reluctance, to respect rights of ethnical, racial and religious minorities living within their borders, and to provide the social and political basis for free market economics. In South Africa, in the Middle East, and now remarkably perhaps even in Northern Ireland, the resolution of conflict and the broadening of political participation is releasing great economic and social energies that can provide better lives for all the people of these long-suffering regions. By contrast, the costs to the world of repressive governments are painfully clear. In

the 20th century, the number of people killed by their own governments under authoritarian regimes is four times the number killed in all of this century's wars combined. Repression pushes refugees across the borders and triggers wars. Unaccountable governments are heedless of environmental destruction, as witnessed by Chernobyl and the ecological nightmares of Eastern Europe.

WNDI 2008

18 Agenda Politics DA Neg

Human Rights Credibility Good – Russia (1/1) A strong US stance on human rights is necessary to prevent Russian revanchism and terrorism Stephen Blank, professor of national security studies at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, Washington Quarterly, Winter, 2002 A truly successful U.S. policy must prevent any state from establishing unilateral hegemony in Eurasia. The Eurasian states' enormous problems cry out for a multilateral dialogue about solving them. Neither Russia, itself a paragon of misrule, nor any other country can do so alone. Without playing imperialistic games, the United States, its allies, and its partners -including Russia -- must influence the security structure surrounding Russia and also constantly raise the issues of democracy and human rights. Only that policy can in the long run eliminate the causes of war and terrorism in that part of the world. As Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz recently wrote: Nothing could be less

realistic than the version of "realism" that dismisses human rights as an important tool of American foreign policy. There were no doubt policies put forward in the name of human rights that damaged or could have damaged other U.S. interests, but often these policies were bad for human rights and democracy as well -- for example, the notion that undermining the [shah's] regime would be a great advance for the Iranian people, or the belief that weakening South Korea's ability to defend itself from the North was necessary in order to advance human rights. What is more impressive is how often promoting democracy has actually advanced other American interests. That approach applies today to Russia. Unless we combine vigorous attention to regional security with democratization, we become Russia's enabler, not its exemplar.

Russian revanchism causes nuclear war Ariel Cohen, Ph.D, Senior Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation Reports, 1-25-97 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. n15 Vladimir Zhirinovsky, mouthpiece for the most irredentist elements in the Russian security and military services, constantly articulates this threat. 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. Eurasian oil resources are pivotal to economic development in the early 21st century. The supply of Middle Eastern oil would become precarious if Saudi Arabia became unstable, or if Iran or Iraq provoked another military conflict in the area. Eurasian oil is also key to the economic development of the southern NIS. Only with oil revenues can these countries sever their dependence on Moscow and develop modem market economies and free societies. Moreover, if these vast oil reserves were tapped and developed, tens of thousands of U.S. and Western jobs would be created. The U.S. should ensure free access to these reserves for the benefit of both Western and local economies.

WNDI 2008

19 Agenda Politics DA Neg

Human Rights Credibility Good – Terrorism (1/1) Human rights credibility is key to preventing terrorism and fostering world stability New York Law Journal, February 6, 2002 E. Policy

Reasons for Honoring Human Rights Obligations This nation's credibility would be weakened by non-compliance with treaty obligations or with international norms. The United States seeks to impose international law norms--including, notably, those on terrorism--upon other nations. It would seem strange, then, if the government would seek to avoid enforcement of such norms within its own borders. A former Chief Judge of the court of appeals in this Circuit recognized this concern. Comparing current judicial unease with human rights treaties to post-revolutionary unease with the Supremacy Clause, he stated: There are international supremacy clauses which have civil consequences and criminal consequences that we today are currently not comfortable with.... Once this country says there is a U.N. Charter, there are U.N. covenants, there are treaties, and we subscribe to them, in effect, having something of an international supremacy clause, then there are going to be civil and perhaps criminal consequences that we might not all think are so wonderful. But you can't simply say that we're going to have treaties for the rest of them but, of course, they won't apply to us. Statement of Jon O. Newman, 170 F.R.D. 201, 317-18 (1996) (Judicial Conference of the Second Circuit). The United States

cannot expect to reap the benefits of internationally recognized human rights--in the form of greater worldwide stability and respect for people--without being willing to adhere to them itself. As a moral leader of the world, the United States has obligated itself not to disregard rights uniformly recognized by other nations. Thus, United States courts act appropriately when they construe statutory programs in accordance with international law; they avoid a construction which, "if given its literal application, would threaten the interests of the United States by placing the Nation in violation of international standards or embarrassing the political branches in their conduct of foreign relations."

WNDI 2008

20 Agenda Politics DA Neg

COFTA Bad – Death Squads (1/1) Columbia FTA is bad – it supports Columbia death squads that kill thousands of people Mark Weisbrot, Co-Dir. Center for Econ. and Pol. Research, 7-12-2007, “Congress should reject trade agreement with Columbia,” Common Dreams, http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/12/2466/ A May 22 news report in the Washington Post summed up Colombia’s ever-widening scandal: “Top paramilitary commanders have in recent days confirmed what human rights groups and others have long alleged: some of Colombia’s most influential political, military and business figures helped build a powerful anti-guerrilla movement that operated with impunity, killed civilians and shipped cocaine to U.S. cities.” Yet the Bush Administration wants to sign a “free trade” agreement with Colombia, which is the Bush Administration’s closest ally in Latin America and receives $700 million annually in mostly military aid. Congress is threatening to block the agreement, and they should. The word “paramilitary” is a euphemism. In the 1980s, when the Reagan Administration was supporting the mass murder of tens of thousands of civilians in countries like Guatemala and El Salvador, these organizations were called “death squads.” The Colombian death squads - which are classified as terrorist organizations by the US State Department — were mostly demobilized in recent years under an agreement that allows lenient sentences for the murderers in exchange for telling the truth about their crimes. But the truth has shown increasingly close ties between the death squads and high-ranking allies of President Alvaro Uribe. More than a dozen legislators, mostly Uribe allies, have been arrested, and his foreign minister has resigned. As the investigation progresses, including to President Uribe’s home state, it is becoming clear that the death squads have been an integral part of the government. One of the most sinister revelations has been the government’s role in the murder of trade unionists, which continues despite the incomplete demobilization. Last year 72 trade unionists were killed, making Colombia the most dangerous place in the world by far for a union activist. According to witnesses co-operating with the Colombian Attorney General’s office, the government’s intelligence services provided names and security details of union activists to the death squads. The former chief of the intelligence service - who managed Uribe’s 2002 presidential campaign in the state of Magdalena - has been arrested and charged with conspiring with the death squads to kill union leaders and others. Over the past three decades the United States has greatly expanded trade with — and moved factories to — countries where workers have limited rights to form unions or bargain collectively. One of the main purposes of such commercial agreements as the NAFTA and the WTO has been to reduce wages here by throwing US workers into competition with their much lower-paid counterparts throughout the world. Partly as a result of these policies, the average real wage in the United States has hardly moved over the last 30 years, despite productivity increases every year. These “free trade” agreements have therefore become increasingly unpopular, and this issue helped tip the balance of Congress to the Democrats in the 2006 election. These agreements have also lost popularity in Latin America, where the governments of Ecuador and Bolivia - accountable to their voters - cannot sign the kind of agreement that Colombia and Peru are willing to accept. All four countries currently have access to US markets under the ATPDEA (Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act). But some Republicans in Congress have been threatening that dutyfree access in order to punish Ecuador and Bolivia for not signing a “free trade” agreement, and for not being sufficiently subservient to foreign investors. This kind of bullying will not force these governments to ignore their electoral mandates and will only increase resentment against the United States in the region. Congress should stop using the ATPDEA preferences as a political weapon against Ecuador and Bolivia, and reject the agreements with Colombia and Peru. Approving the Colombian agreement would send an especially chilling message to the world that Washington is seeking access to cheap and repressed labor - and doesn’t care how much violence is used to terrorize workers into submission.

WNDI 2008

21 Agenda Politics DA Neg

COFTA Bad – Drug Trafficking (1/1) COFTA will increase drug trafficking Council on Hemispheric Relations, 6/29/2008, “Free Trade w/ Colombia: McCain’s Misguided Policy,” http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0806/S00685.htm Another impact of the CTPA will be its influence on current efforts to curb coca cultivation and combat drug trafficking. John McCain, an ardent supporter of the agreement, acknowledges that the CTPA is a symbol of the "friendship and enormous support that the Colombian government has given and people have given us in trying to stem the flow of illegal drugs into the United States of America." Similarly, the Bush Administration considers the trade deal as something of a reward for Colombia's progress in combating FARC, which relies heavily on drug-trafficking for funds. However, the CTPA will inadvertently make coca cultivation a profitable alternative for many in rural populations. Since many Colombian agricultural products will be less profitable with the passage of the trade agreement, many producers may turn to the illegal production of coca as a means of economic survival. The paradox of the CTPA is that it creates an incentive to increase production of coca instead of legal crops. As a result, ratification of the CTPA would eliminate much of the success Colombia is beginning to achieve in combating FARC and drug trafficking.

WNDI 2008

22 Agenda Politics DA Neg

COFTA Bad – Environment (1/1) COFTA opens the door to the destruction of the Colombian environment Guardian Unlimited, 7/8/2008, “Free trade’s false promises,” Lexis On the environment, the deal amounts to a rollback of small but significant steps that Nafta took. Unlike Nafta, the Colombia deal does not create a significant commission for environmental cooperation committed to improving the laws of the signatories, nor do does it provide any new funding for cooperation, clean up or compliance. Finally, the deal has a little secret not allowed under the WTO but taken from Nafta: it leaves open the possibility that ad hoc investment tribunals will interpret social and environmental regulations as "indirect expropriation" and allow foreign firms to directly sue governments for billions of dollars. Nafta signalled a detour in US trade policy that has led to a long road of agreements that have been detrimental to our trading partners. The best trade deals for the United States is one that helps our trading partners grow their economies. Growth leads to political and macroeconomic stability and (selfishly) the ability to import more US goods.

WNDI 2008

23 Agenda Politics DA Neg

COFTA Bad – Instability (1/2) COFTA ratification would fuel instability and civil war in Colombia John Wojcik, 7/10/2008, “Unions say ‘free trade’ pact would stoke Colombia strife,” People’s Weekly World Newspaper, http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/13354/ Teamsters Union president James Hoffa and Jorge Gamboa, president of the National Petroleum Workers Union of Colombia, warn that ratifying the U.S.-Colombia “free trade” agreement would continue the long civil war that results in hostage-taking there. The deal, they say, would let big multinational monopolies further cut Colombian workers’ wages and slash their few current on-the-job protections. Hoffa and Gamboa told a joint July 1 telephone news conference that if the trade agreement passes the U.S. Congress, thousands more Colombians will have no alternative but illegal coca cultivation to feed their families. Coca cultivation and uncontrolled activity by right-wing paramilitaries financed by companies like Chiquita and Coca-Cola are widely acknowledged as major elements fueling the country’s on-going civil war. The paramilitaries have killed tens of thousands of Colombians, including 2,500 trade unionists, since 1991. Gamboa explained the connection between the civil war and the U.SColombia Free Trade Agreement: “The paramilitaries receive money from the multinationals for murder of labor leaders. If the agreement is passed the companies will have even more incentive to continue paying the paramilitaries because the trade agreement would let them cut workers’ wages and violently suppress organizing drives.”

Colombian instability spills over Lisa Trei, 5/7/2001, “Experts say conflict in Colombia threats all of northern Latin America,” , http://newsservice.stanford.edu/news/2001/march7/colombconf-37.html These facts, discussion about the ongoing civil war involving guerrillas, paramilitaries, the military and national police, and the consequences of $1.3 billion in U.S. military assistance designed to counter a burgeoning cocaine trade provided the backdrop for a recent two-day conference on Colombia. Presented by the Center for Latin American Studies, the Feb. 27-28 meeting invited scholars, policy analysts, journalists and peace negotiators to discuss the escalating turmoil in what one participant, Colombian reporter Clara Ines Rueda, described as "one of the most dangerous countries in the world." One of the conference organizers, Amy Upgren, said representatives from the armed groups were not invited in order to allow participants, some of whom live in Colombia, to speak freely. One speaker, journalist Ignacio Gomez, a Neiman Fellow at Harvard this year, has received 40 death threats since he started reporting on the conflict 16 years ago. Panels included "The Culture of Violence," "Conflict Resolution," "Press Freedom," "War and Economy" and "Drugs, Human Rights and U.S. Policy." Political science Professor Terry Karl, director of the Center for Latin American Studies, opened the conference by explaining the origins of the conflict and placing it in a regional perspective. Most Latin American countries are worse off today than 10 years ago, she said. The late 1980s witnessed a period of euphoria that saw the end of military regimes and an economic upswing that was supposed to translate into stability and a better standard of living. The United States, the largest source of external capital, promised to open its markets to Latin American trade. "Things didn't work out that way," Karl said. Debilitating economic crises hit the region, which saw economic growth rates drop 40 percent between the first and second parts of the 1990s. "In this context, setbacks to democracy were even more serious," she said, "not just 'bumps in the road,' as U.S. government officials have said." According to Karl, the issue that is most likely to cause a breach in U.S.-Latin American relations is last year's increase in U.S. military assistance under Plan Colombia. "Every Latin American country has recognized the seriousness of Colombia's situation," she said. Plan Colombia is a broad initiative designed to promote the peace process, combat the narcotics industry, revive the economy and support democracy. Under it, the United States is supporting training of army counter-narcotics battalions and equipping them with helicopters. "There is a fear that the military funds will lead to a bigger war that will spill over the borders in Latin America and the Caribbean," Karl said. "The U.S. stands largely alone in funding the military aspect of Plan Colombia." Rafael Pardo, a former peace counselor and defense minister in the Colombian government, said that just as in Northern Ireland, a military solution will not end the conflict. "There is no point in spending more on the military," he said. "With 60 additional helicopters we get from the U.S., we won't see any change in the conflict. It will only be solved by political means." Karl pointed to how the war is already having ramifications in Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, Mexico and the Caribbean. "When we talk about the future of Colombia, we are talking about the entire northern part of Latin America," she said. "When a conflict is a regional conflict, it is incumbent upon us to understand it."

WNDI 2008

24 Agenda Politics DA Neg

COFTA Bad – Instability (2/2) The collapses the economy Boris Saavedra, Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, April 2003, “Confronting Terrorism in Latin America: Latin America and United States Policy Implications,” http://www.ndu.edu/chds/journal/PDF/2003-0403/Saavedraarticle.pdf The United States shares with its Latin American neighbors an increasingly and vitally important financial, commercial, and security partnership. Any kind of political-economic-social-security deterioration in the region will profoundly affect the health of the U.S. economy—and the concomitant power to act in the global security arena.

Extinction Lt. Col, Tom Bearden, PhD Nuclear Engineering, April 25, 2000, http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm Just prior to the terrible collapse of the World economy, with the crumbling well underway and rising, it is inevitable that some of the [wmd] weapons of mass destruction will be used by one or more nations on others. An interesting result then---as all the old strategic studies used to show---is that everyone will fire everything as fast as possible against their perceived enemies. The reason is simple: When the mass destruction weapons are unleashed at all, the only chance a nation has to survive is to desperately try to destroy its perceived enemies before they destroy it. So there will erupt a spasmodic unleashing of the long range missiles,

nuclear arsenals, and biological warfare arsenals of the nations as they feel the economic collapse, poverty, death, misery, etc. a bit earlier. The ensuing holocaust is certain to immediately draw in the major nations also, and literally a hell on earth will result. In short, we will get the great Armageddon we have been fearing since the advent of the nuclear genie. Right now, my personal estimate is that we have about a 99% chance of that scenario or some modified version of it, resulting.

WNDI 2008

25 Agenda Politics DA Neg

COFTA Bad – Narco Terrorism (1/2) COFTA will strip the Colombian government of the funds needed to combat narcoterrorism Guardian Unlimited, 7/8/2008, “Free trade’s false promises,” Lexis The Colombia agreement seems to be on the same path. According to new estimates by the UN Economic Commission for Latin America, the agreement will actually make Colombia worse off by up to $75m or one-tenth of 1% of its GDP. According to the study, the losses to Colombia's textiles, apparel, food and heavy manufacturing industries that will face new competition from US imports will outweigh the gains in Colombian petroleum, mining and other export sectors. What's more, reducing tariffs will strip the government of funds needed for combating guerrillas, fighting crime and developing their economy. According to a new study by the Inter-American Development Bank, the tariff revenue losses for Colombia will amount to $520m per year. Nor is it clear that the agreement will bring foreign investment to Colombia. The World Bank's 2005 Global Economic Prospects report warned that, across the globe, trade and investment agreements themselves would not necessarily translate into new foreign investment. More recent studies have similar findings for Latin America. Articles in peer reviewed journals the Latin American Research Review and the Journal of World Investment and Trade found no independent correlation between foreign trade or investment agreements and increases in foreign investment in the region.

Narcoterrorism key tow world terrorism St. Petersburg Times, David Adams, 3/10/2003, “Narcoterrosim needs attention,” http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/10/Columns/_Narcoterrorism__need.shtml No one more so than Gen. James T. Hill, the military commander of the U.S. Southern Command, in Miami. When Hill addressed a regional security conference in Miami last week, attended by 300 academics and military brass, he didn't pull punches. "Narcoterrorism" in Latin America is fueling "radical Islamic groups" such as Hamas and Hezbollah, he said. These groups are exploiting weak border controls and the lack of state authority in certain "lawless" areas, to "generate hundreds of millions of dollars through drug and arms trafficking with narcoterrorists." This was "fact, not speculation," he stressed. Hill said he wasn't pointing fingers at any one country. "I don't have enough fingers," he said. He did, however, go on to pick out some of those "lawless" places, including the so-called triborder area, a curious dot on the map where Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay converge, and the Venezuelan island of Margarita in the Caribbean. The notion of Islamic radicals in those places might sound like a new threat from an unexpected quarter. In fact, these allegations have been around for a while. What was new this time was the emphatic way Hill delivered it, and the message of a "clear and present danger" it carried.

WNDI 2008

26 Agenda Politics DA Neg

COFTA Bad – Narco Terrorism (2/2) Unchecked terrorism will result in extinction Yonah Alexander, professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies in Israel and the United States. “Terrorism myths and realities,” The Washington Times, August 28, 2003 Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary

terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns. Two myths in particular must be debunked immediately if an effective counterterrorism "best practices" strategy can be developed [e.g., strengthening international cooperation]. The first illusion is that terrorism can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated completely, provided the root causes of conflicts - political, social and economic - are addressed. The conventional illusion is that terrorism must be justified by oppressed people seeking to achieve their goals and consequently the argument advanced by "freedom fighters" anywhere, "give me liberty and I will give you death," should be tolerated if not glorified. This traditional rationalization of "sacred" violence often conceals that the real purpose of terrorist groups is to gain political power through the barrel of the gun, in violation of fundamental human rights of the noncombatant segment of societies. For instance, Palestinians religious movements [e.g., Hamas, Islamic Jihad] and secular entities [such as Fatah's Tanzim and Aqsa Martyr Brigades]] wish not only to resolve national grievances [such as Jewish settlements, right of return, Jerusalem] but primarily to destroy the Jewish state. Similarly, Osama bin Laden's international network not only opposes the presence of American military in the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, but its stated objective is to "unite all Muslims and establish a government that follows the rule of the Caliphs." The second myth is that strong action against terrorist infrastructure [leaders, recruitment, funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational command and control] will only increase terrorism. The argument here is that law-enforcement efforts and military retaliation inevitably will fuel more brutal acts of violent revenge. Clearly, if this perception continues to prevail, particularly in democratic societies, there is the danger it will paralyze governments and thereby encourage further terrorist attacks. In sum, past experience provides useful lessons for a realistic future strategy. The prudent application of force has been demonstrated to be an effective tool for short- and long-term deterrence of terrorism. For example, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron commander of the Islamic Jihad, defused a "ticking bomb." The assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab - a top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip who was directly responsible for several suicide bombings including the latest bus attack in Jerusalem - disrupted potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the U.S. military operation in Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime as a state sponsor of terror. Thus, it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism to understand a cardinal message communicated by Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however long and hard the road may be: For

without victory, there is no survival."

WNDI 2008

27 Agenda Politics DA Neg

COFTA Bad – Palm Oil (1/3) COFTA will pave lead to large-scale palm cultivation The AFRO-LATINO Working Group, Center for Latin American Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, Spring 2008, “More on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement,” http://laguayabita.blogspot.com/2008/04/more-on-colombia-free-trade-agreement.html 3. A Threat to the Environment The FTA contains an ambitious project to supply the world with biofuels produced from Oil Palm, sugar cane and corn¹s large scale cultivation. Large scale monocrops target the best lands, most of which are collectively and individually owned by Afro-Colombian grassroots communities. Oil palm cultivation has been linked to massacres and expropriation by paramilitaries in Chocó, Nariño, South of Urabá and the East Llanos region. Nevertheless, the Colombian government aspires to grow 6 million hectares of this product by 2020. The cultivation of just 456 hectares of African palm requires 86 kilometers of drains and 11 kilometers of roads. This type of infrastructure has extremely high cultural, social and environmental cost for the communities, the nation and the world. To approve the FTA is to approve large scale monocrops that will devastate environmental heritage of humanity.

Palm oil cultivation leads to deforestation, monoculture, warming, and wild fires Rhett A. Butler, mongabay.com, 4/25/2006, “Why is oil palm replacing tropical rainforests? Why are biofules fueling deforestation?” http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0425-oil_palm.html So, why is oil palm cultivation a concern? For environmentalists the problem with palm oil as a source of biodiesel lies in the nature of how the crop is produced. In recent years, vast areas of natural forest have been cleared across tropical Asia for oil palm plantations. This conversion has reduced biodiversity, increased vulnerability to catastrophic fires, and affected local communities dependent on services and products provided by forest ecosystems. Beyond the loss of forest ecosystems, the production of palm oil, as currently practiced, can be quite damaging to the environment. In 2001 Malaysia’s production of 7 million tons of crude palm oil generated 9.9 million tons of solid oil wastes, palm fiber, and shells, and 10 million tons of palm oil mill effluent, a polluted mix of crushed shells, water, and fat residues that has been shown to have a negative impact on aquatic ecosystems. Further, the liberal use of petroleum-based pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers ensures that most palm- oil cultivation is not only polluting on a local level but also contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Considering that Malaysia is held to be one of the most efficient producers, production in other parts of the world may be more polluting. Indonesian plantations are so damaging that after a 25-year harvest, oil- palm lands are often abandoned for scrubland. Soils may be so leached of nutrients, especially in acidic environments, that few other plants will grow, leaving the area essentially devoid of vegetation other than weedy grasses which serve as tinder for wildfires. For these reasons, the scientific community is deeply concerned by a proposal by the Indonesian government to turn vast areas of Borneo’s remote and biodiverse rainforests into oil-palm plantations. The proposed expanse of monoculture threatens to obliterate the region’s legendary biodiversity —the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) says some 361 species of animals have been discovered on the island in the past decade—while displacing local people, including the Dyaks, native forest dwellers renowned for their hunting and tracking prowess.

Environmental destruction causes extinction Paul Warner, American University, Dept of International Politics and Foreign Policy, August, Politics and Life Sciences, 1994, p 177 Massive extinction of species is dangerous, then, because one cannot predict which species are expendable to the system as a whole. As Philip Hoose remarks, "Plants and animals cannot tell us what they mean to each other." One can never be sure which species holds up fundamental biological relationships in the planetary ecosystem. And, because removing species is an irreversible act, it may be too late to save the system after the extinction of key plants or animals. According to the U.S. National Research Council, "The ramifications of an ecological change of this magnitude [vast extinction of species] are so far reaching that no one on earth will escape them." Trifling with the "lives" of species is like playing Russian roulette, with our collective future as the stakes.

WNDI 2008

28 Agenda Politics DA Neg

COFTA Bad – Palm Oil (2/3) Monoculture leads to extinction Cary Fowler and Pat Mooney, Rural Advancement Fund International, Shattering: Food, Politics, and the Loss of Genetic Diversity, 1990, 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 19701 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.

5. Warming leads to extinction ECES, 2002, ”documenting the collapse of a dying planet”, Earth crash earth spirit http://eces.org/ec/globalwarming/oceans.shtml#090301, 8/11/03 The vast majority of the world's climate scientists agree that global warming is now occurring on Earth due to the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities. It is not certain that the present global warming will "runaway" and cause a catastrophic climate change such as that which has made Venus uninhabitable, but, as is discussed in the articles below, it is considered a possibility. The question is, do we want to play what is basically a form of Russian roulette with life on Earth by contining to pour greenhouse gases into the atmosphere on the gamble that runaway global warming won't happen?

WNDI 2008

29 Agenda Politics DA Neg

COFTA Bad – Palm Oil (3/3) Palm oil plantations devastate biodiversity, cause massive fires, increase warming, and devastate water quality Daily Kos, 4/11/2008, “Rain Forest Destruction and Oil Palm Plantations: What You Should Know,” http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/11/205249/850/242/494014 The expansion of the palm oil industry has been phenomenal; since the mid-1960's, production has grown 3600% in Indonesia alone (FWI/GFW, 2002). In Malaysia, the amount of cultivated land used for palm oil production rose from 54,638 hectares in 1960 to 3,376,664 hectares in 2000, a 61-fold increase (WWF, 2002). Malaysia and Indonesia today account for 81% of world palm oil production (Basiron, 2002). From an economic perspective, these statistics and growth rates are astounding. When one considers the ecological consequences, however, the analysis is more sobering. Behind the rosy numbers lies a destructive pattern of large-scale land conversion. Tropical rain forests in Malaysia and Indonesia have undergone unprecedented and permanent changes as a result of degradation and deforestation. Rates of deforestation in Indonesia have been so severe that it is believed that only remnant patches of tropical lowland rain forest still exist in Sumatra today (FWI/GFW, 2002). In Kalimantan, the region of Borneo that falls under Indonesian jurisdiction, most tropical lowland rain forest will cease to exist by 2010 if current rates of deforestation continue unabated (FWI/GFW, 2002). Implicit in these changes is the loss of critical habitat for flora and fauna in a region that is home to some of the planet’s most impressive biodiversity and the outright extinction of several species of large animals (CSPI, 2005). Several large species at high risk are the Sumatran tiger, both the Sumatran and Bornean orangutans, and the Asian elephant. Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson referred bleakly to the Sumatran rhinoceros as belonging to the “Hundred Heartbeats Club,” a species whose living population currently numbers less than 100 individuals (Wilson, 2002). These charismatic megafauna are very often the focus of international conservation groups, but countless other unique lifeforms of intrinsic value are endangered or already extinct as the result of rain forest conversion to palm oil plantations. Physical changes in the non-human environment often accompany the severe effects of palm oil plantations on biodiversity. Closed canopy forests regulate heat, moisture, and wind regimes, creating local microclimates. When forests are degraded or deforested, increased sunlight, dryness, and wind create conditions that lead to a gradual recession of the remaining forest edge (Gascon, Williamson, and da Fonseco, 2000.) On a regional level, large-scale deforestation can result in decreased evapotranspiration, reducing cloud formation and rainfall. In Southeast Asia, Epstein (2002), notes that global warming may be a contributor to the increased frequency, duration, and intensity of El Niños since 1976. Since rain forest conversion to palm oil plantations is normally followed by the use of fire to release nutrients into the soil, carbon dioxide emissions from recurring fires on Sumatra and Borneo are themselves a major contributor to global climate change (Aiken, 2005). Oil palm agriculture has important implications for water quality as well. Sedimentation from soil erosion can degrade drinking water and destroy aquatic ecosystems. Inputs of petrochemical herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers often pollute local waterways in areas that have already been converted to industrial plantation agriculture. Additionally, effluent from industrial wastewater creates massive amounts of untreated sewage. In 1999 alone, palm oil mill effluent in Indonesia produced the equivalent of the amount of domestic sewage generated by 20 million people (CSPI, 2005).

WNDI 2008

30 Agenda Politics DA Neg

COFTA Bad – Self Determination (1/1) COFTA prevents self-determination The AFRO-LATINO Working Group, Center for Latin American Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, Spring 2008, “More on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement,” http://laguayabita.blogspot.com/2008/04/more-on-colombia-free-trade-agreement.html 1. A Threat to Ethnic and Human Rights The FTA was conceived by violating the rule of law. It was not consulted with Afro-Colombians or Indigenous Peoples as required by the Colombian constitution and ILO convention 169. These laws were created to protect Indigenous and Afro-Colombian¹s rights to territory, environment, food security, and to self determination. The FTAviolates these laws and is therefore a threat to their rights. 2. A Threat to Land Ownership and a Dignified Life Land is a principle of life and strengthens identity for ethnic groups in Colom5bia. As land is threatened, the right to life is threatened. Systematic human rights violations including murder, terror, and forced displacement, are used on a daily basis to take over Afro-Colombian and Indigenous lands that are rich in natural resources. Of the Afro-Colombians who held title to their land 79% are currently homeless due to this violence. In Mexico, the North American Free Trade Agreement caused the displacement of 3 million rural farmers, Colombia¹s ethnic and rural populations cannot afford further displacements. The FTA cannot be discussed or voted on until Afro-Colombians and Indigenous are able to safely return and live on their lands. 3.

Self-determination is necessary to prevent the violent expansion of colonialism across the world Ward Churchill, Creek Cherokee, member of the Governing Council of the Colorado chapter of the AIM, From a Native Son: Selected Essay on Indigenism, 1985-1995, 1996, p. 181-182 The struggle currently shouldered by AIM and related native organizations is not merely “for Indians.” It is for everyone. To resolve the issue of the colonization of the American Indian would be, at least in part, to resolve matters threatening to the whole of humanity. In altering the relations of internal colonialism in North America, “the AIM idea” would vastly reduce the capability of the major nations there to extend their imperial web into Central and South America, as well as Africa, Asia, and the Pacific Basin. In denying access to the sources of uranium to the industrial powers, American Indians could take a quantum leap toward solving the problem of nuclear proliferation. In denying access to certain other resources, they could do much to force conversion to renewable, nonpolluting alternative energy sources such as solar and wind power. The list could be extended at length. Ultimately, the Lagunas, the Shiprocks, Churchrocks, Tuba Cities, Edgemonts, and Pine Ridges which litter the American landscape are not primarily a moral concern for non-Indian movements (although they should be that, as well). Rather, they are pragmatic examples, precursors of situations and conditions which, within the not-so-distant future, will engulf other population sectors; which, from place to place, have already begun to actively encroach in a more limited fashion. Circumstance has made the American Indian the first to bear the full brunt of the new colonialism in North America. The only appropriate response is to see to it that they are also the last. The new colonialism knows no limits. Expendable populations will be expended. National sacrifice areas will be sacrificed. New populations and new areas will then be targeted, expended, and sacrificed. There is no sanctuary. The new colonialism is radioactive; what it does can never be undone. Left to its own dynamics, to run its course, it will spread across the planet like the literal cancer it is. It can never be someone else’s problem; regardless of its immediate location at the moment, it has become the problem and peril of everyone alive, and who will be alive. The place to end it is where it has now taken root and disclosed its inner nature. The time to end it is now.

WNDI 2008

31 Agenda Politics DA Neg

COFTA Bad – A2 Colombian Economy (1/1) CFTA doesn’t impact the Columbia economy – ATPDEA fills in Economist, 7-18-2007, “Saying no to free trade,” ln Economically, postponement of the FTA will not have any immediate impact. Colombia will continue to benefit from preferential access to the US market under the Andean Trade Preferences and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA), which at the end of June (when it was due to expire) was extended by the US Congress for another eight months. An additional extension next year is possible.