Da Subsidies Bad

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 1

SUBSIDIES DA Subsidies DA....................................................................................................................................................1 1NC – Generic version.....................................................................................................................................3 1NC Generic.....................................................................................................................................................4 Uniqueness – Ethanol Specific.........................................................................................................................5 Impact Internals – 1NC Extension....................................................................................................................7 Impact Internals – More Evidence....................................................................................................................8 Links...............................................................................................................................................................10 Impacts – 1NC Extension...............................................................................................................................11 Impacts – Global Economy Module...............................................................................................................12 Impacts – Food Crisis Module........................................................................................................................14 Impacts – Laundry List...................................................................................................................................16 Impacts – Subsidies Turns Environment........................................................................................................18 Impacts – Protectionism Turns Environment.................................................................................................20 Impacts – Ethanol Subsidies Bad...................................................................................................................22 Impacts – Ethanol Subsidies Bad...................................................................................................................23 1NC- Europe version......................................................................................................................................24 1NC Europe version.......................................................................................................................................25 1NC Europe version.......................................................................................................................................25 1NC Europe Version.......................................................................................................................................27 US/European Relations - Middle East............................................................................................................28 U.S. /European relations- middle east............................................................................................................29 US/European Relations - Middle East............................................................................................................30 U.S./European Relations- Middle East ..........................................................................................................31 US/European Relations - Middle East............................................................................................................32 US/European Relations - Middle East............................................................................................................33 US/European Relations - Middle East............................................................................................................34 US/European Relations - Middle East............................................................................................................35 US/European Relations - Economy................................................................................................................36 US/European Relations - Economy................................................................................................................37 US/European Relations - Trade......................................................................................................................38 US/European Relations - Trade......................................................................................................................39 US/European Relations - Terrorism...............................................................................................................40 US/European Relations - Terrorism...............................................................................................................41 US/European Relations - Terrorism...............................................................................................................42 US/European Relations - Environment..........................................................................................................43 US/European Relations - Leadership..............................................................................................................44 US/European Relations - Leadership..............................................................................................................45 US/European Relations - Leadership..............................................................................................................46 US/European Relations - Multilateralism.......................................................................................................47 Protectionism Bad...........................................................................................................................................48 Protectionism Bad...........................................................................................................................................49 Protectionism BAd..........................................................................................................................................50 Protectionism bad...........................................................................................................................................51 Protectionism bad...........................................................................................................................................52 Protectionism BAd..........................................................................................................................................53 Protectionism bad...........................................................................................................................................54 Protectionism bad...........................................................................................................................................55 Protectionism bad...........................................................................................................................................56 Protectionism bad...........................................................................................................................................57 Protectionism bad...........................................................................................................................................58 Environmental protectionism bad...................................................................................................................59 Free Trade Good.............................................................................................................................................60 Free trade good...............................................................................................................................................61 Free trade good...............................................................................................................................................62 Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 2

Free Trade good..............................................................................................................................................63 Uniquness: Protectionism now.......................................................................................................................64 Uniquness: protectionism now.......................................................................................................................65 Uniqueness—subsidies low............................................................................................................................66 Energy subsidies bad......................................................................................................................................67 *Aff Answers*................................................................................................................................................68 Subsidies Non-Unique....................................................................................................................................69 Subsidies non-unique......................................................................................................................................70 Subsidies Non-Unique....................................................................................................................................71 Protectionism Non-Unique.............................................................................................................................72 AT: – Protectionism........................................................................................................................................73 AT:– Economy................................................................................................................................................75 AT: – Food Crisis .........................................................................................................................................77 AT: – Food Crisis...........................................................................................................................................78 AT: “Protectionism Turns Case”....................................................................................................................79

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 3 1NC – GENERIC VERSION

A. Uniqueness – The House has failed to extend subsidies that expire at the end of this year due to failed support – subsidies are getting cut now

International Herald Tribune 6/2/08 [Alternative energy on edge in U.S., lexis]

Anxiety is setting in among companies specializing in solar and wind power, and the investors that are backing them, as U.S. lawmakers delay the extension of tax credits deemed critical for

After several failed attempts by Congress to prolong alternative energy subsidies that are set to expire at the end of this year, companies are bracing for the worst by cutting jobs and trying to increase their sales in Europe, where generous government incentives are more certain. ''It certainly is affecting business,'' said Mike Splinter, chief executive of Applied Materials, a maker of solar equipment. ''It's a the burgeoning renewable energy industry.

major issue for the solar industry,'' Splinter said. ''We've seen hundreds of cities and many states start to adopt their own rules, and we can't pass even the simplest, smallest of incentives.''

The alternative energy industry still relies heavily on subsidies to make prices of renewable power competitive with electricity generated from coal and natural gas. Several attempts to extend the tax credits have failed in recent months as lawmakers argue over how to pay for them. B. Links – Attempts at energy independence through subsidies fosters counterproductive protectionism

The American 07 [Q&A: Energy independence, http://www.american.com/energy/q-a-energy-independence/]

15. How should we think about energy security going forward?A sensible policy goal would be not independence, but diversification: a portfolio of energy technologies and global supplies that minimizes the economic and political risk of disruptions from any particular region or energy source. A diversification strategy can recognize that, even if supplies are precarious, the case for free trade in energy is just as strong as for any other commodity or economic activity. Energy independence, which could also be described as energy protectionism or isolationism, is a counterproductive goal. By limiting ourselves to only what we can make at home, we make ourselves poorer. If a desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions motivates us to discourage oil consumption, we should avoid the temptation to provide specific subsidies to particular alternative approaches.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 4 1NC GENERIC

Protectionist policies violate the WTO Andrew Green 2006 (Trade rules and climate change subsidies, World Trade Review, University of Toronto) However, as will be discussed below, subsidies for industries and individuals are also emerging as an important tool for governments in the context of climate change. These subsidy policies may conflict with international trade rules. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has created and enforces a range of rules to regulate members’ subsidy policies. Because of the broad scope and potential for the use of subsidies by both parties and non-parties to the Kyoto Protocol, thispaper examines whether WTO rules promote optimal use of subsidies. Section 2 discusses potential rationales for subsidy policies from a law and economics perspective and what types of subsidy policies are or are not desirable in addressing climate change. It argues that subsidies policy can play a positive role, particularly in light of the reluctance of governments to use potentially more effective and efficient tools such as taxes and emissions trading. Such a policy would involve the reduction of existing subsidies to industries (such as the coal industry), which are a significant source of greenhouse gases. It may also entail the increased use of subsidies to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases directly such as subsidies for emissions reductions or increased energy efficiency by particular industries. However, while there is a potentially positive role for subsidies, there is also a clear risk that such subsidies will be used to favour domestic production at the expense of imports. WTO rules are intended to constrain members’ ability to adopt such protectionist subsidies. The members have struggled over time with a desire to curb protectionist policy and at the same time allow scope for legitimate subsidies. Section 3 sets out the WTO rules on subsidies (including the now expired limited exception for environmental subsidies) and discusses how they impact on countries’ ability to implement appropriate or inappropriate climate change policies. It argues that in attempting to hinder protectionist subsidy policies, WTO rules create a serious concern to the extent they constrain subsidies aimed at addressing market failures underlying GHG emissions. The impact of WTO rules on subsidy policies not clearly attributable to addressing market failures is more controversial and raises interesting questions about the interaction between the WTO and domestic political processes C. Impacts – Protectionism fosters global war and the eruption of nuclear conflict

Spicer 96 - Economist; member of the British Parliament,

[Michael, “The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the West,” p. 121]

The choice facing the West today is much the same as that which faced the Soviet bloc after World War II: between meeting head-on the challenge of world trade with the adjustments and the benefits that it will bring, or of attempting to shut out markets that are growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for innovative production. The problem about the second approach is not simply that it won't hold: satellite technology alone will ensure that he consumers will begin to demand those goods that the East is able to provide most cheaply. More fundamentally, it will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which natural fears will be fanned and inflamed. A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled and unstable place in which suspicion and ultimately envy will possibly erupt into a major war. I do not say that the converse will necessarily be true, that in a free trading world there will be an absence of all strife. Such a proposition would manifestly be absurd. But to trade is to become interdependent, and that is a good step in the direction of world stability. With nuclear weapons

at two a penny, stability will be at a premium in the years ahead.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 5 UNIQUENESS – ETHANOL SPECIFIC

Democrats and republicans both support the removal of alternative energy subsidies now – They realize that previous subsidies have caused market distortions.

The Washington Times 5/1/08

[“Congress' ethanol affair is cooling; Subsidies tied to food deficit,” Lexis]

Members of Congress say they overreached by pushing ethanol on consumers and will move to roll back federal supports for it - the latest sure signal that Congress' appetite for corn-based ethanol has collapsed as food and gas prices have shot up. House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer said Democrats will use the pending farm bill to reduce the subsidy, while Republicans are looking to go further, rolling back government rules passed just four months ago that require blending ethanol into gasoline. " The view was to look to alternatives and try to become more dependent on the Midwest than the Middle East. I mean, that was the theory. Obviously, sometimes there are unforeseen or unintended consequences of actions, " Mr. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, told reporters yesterday. Only a year ago, Congress and President Bush seemed to view ethanol as a

near-magic solution to the nation's dependence on oil and counted on it to make a dent in greenhouse gas

Republicans and Democrats together piled up the incentives and mandates that pushed farmers into planting corn for ethanol and consumers into buying gasoline blended with it. But as farmers switched crops, they left a dearth in emissions.

other foods - which, coupled with higher worldwide living standards and higher demand - has caused food shortages. Food riots have erupted in some nations, while even in the U.S., some stores have said they will

the most common phrase when lawmakers talk about ethanol is " unintended consequences. " " This is a classic case of the law of ration sales of staples such as rice. Now

unintended consequences, " said Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, who introduced a bill this week to end the entire slate of federal supports, including the mandates for blended gasoline, the tax credits for

Congress surely did not intend to raise food prices by incentivizing ethanol, but that's precisely what's happened. A jump in food prices is the last thing our economy needs right now, " Mr. Flake said. Meanwhile, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas Republican, is working on her own plan to freeze the ethanol-renewable-fuel-replacement mandate at this year's levels. " ethanol producers, and tariffs that keep out cheaper foreign ethanol. "

I've talked to cattle producers, I've talked to pig producers. They are all saying the same thing: The cost of food and the cost of fuel is just killing their ability to continue to operate, " Mrs. Hutchison

told radio Rush Limbaugh yesterday, taking her case to the airwaves. " I think it's going to get worse, and I'd like to try to do something that might mitigate this and not cause the crisis. " talk show host

[

] Ethanol subsidies are being scaled back replaced by private investment loans

Inside Energy 06

[Daniel Whitten, “U.S. sees loans driving ethanol, reducing subsidies,” Lexis]

A senior Bush administration official said last week that the United States will meet its goal of displacing 30% of gasoline with 60 billion gallons of ethanol by offering private investors loan guarantees, rather than a full helping of tax breaks or grants.

Agriculture Department Under Secretary Thomas Dorr, one of the administration's principals on alternative fuels, said Tuesday that

the private sector is already investing in projects to develop rather than a multi-billion dollar infusion of

cellulosic ethanol and that loan guarantees

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 6

subsidies will lead the country toward the 2030 goal. That view has been promoted in recent weeks by a host of ethanol advocates who say that by moving to the homegrown fuel, the government can roll back farm subsidies and scale back, if not eliminate, incentives for the burgeoning industry.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 7

IMPACT INTERNALS – 1NC EXTENSION Green subsidies collapse trade and promote protectionism because

they anger the foreign energy market that in turn imposes duties on imports. The Financial Post 4/28/08 [“U.S., EU exchange threats over biodiesel subsidies; Barriers to trade; European board requests punitive duties,” Lexis]

European biodiesel producers kicked off a new transatlantic trade row yesterday when they asked Brussels to impose punitive duties on U.S. biodiesel, and their U.S. rivals said they would hit back. With demand for plant-based fuels starting to soar as the world seeks ways to fight climate change, the European Biodiesel Board (EBB) said companies in the European Union were going out of business because of unfair U.S. subsidies. "Since 2007, as a result of these measures, there has been a dramatic surge in U.S. biodiesel exports to the EU, thus creating a severe injury to the EU biodiesel industry," the EBB said in a statement. The EBB said it was formally requesting the EU's executive commission to hit U.S. imports with antidumping and anti-subsidy duties. The EU has set itself a target of using biofuel for 10% of its transport fuel by 2020, something that will require large amounts of imports, EU officials say. The European industry has long complained that U.S. subsidies for "B99" biodiesel, which is blended with small amounts of mineral diesel, break World Trade Organization rules. The U.S.

exports are also eligible for EU subsidies. The head of a U.S. biodiesel group accused the EU sector of trying to use litigation for protectionist ends and said his group would "aggressively challenge" EU trade obstacles. "It is hypocritical for the European Biodiesel Board to cry foul while they benefit from a blatant trade barrier," said Manning Feraci, vice-president of federal affairs at the National Biodiesel Board. He said EU biodiesel fuel specifications were discriminatory and inconsistent with WTO rules. "Our industry will aggressively challenge existing EU trade barriers -- such as the EU's discriminatory biodiesel fuel specification -- and other EU biofuel policies that are inconsistent with WTO rules and provide preferential treatment to European fuel producers," Mr. Feraci said in a statement. The

European producers have previously said they would seek to hit U.S. imports with duties. Yesterday's complaint starts the clock on the EU procedure for handling such cases. The European Commission has 45 days from receipt of a complaint to decide whether to launch

investigations. It would then have up to nine months to impose duties provisionally if it finds evidence that trade rules were broken. Those duties may eventually be made definitive, usually lasting five years. "We will look at it very carefully," said Peter Power, a spokesman for Peter Mandelson, the EU Trade Commissioner, referring to the European industry's complaint yesterday. "We

will not under any

circumstances tolerate unfair trade."

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 8 IMPACT INTERNALS – MORE EVIDENCE

Subsidizing energy is a form of economic nationalism and collapses global trade talks

The Independent 06 [“'Economic nationalism' is damaging us all, warns IMF chief,” Lexis] The International Monetary Fund yesterday accused politicians across the world of "pandering" to the growing hostility towards immigration and the rise in protectionism. In what will be seen as a scathing

governments were increasingly pursuing an attitude of "me, my, mine". It came as Gordon Brown unveiled a $750m (pounds 397) bid to break the logjam in the stalled trade talks, whose collapse has been blamed on the protectionist stance taken by the US and continental Europe. Raghuram Rajan, the financial watchdog's chief economist, attack on rich countries, it said

said that governments were failing to sustain the benefits of the technological revolution that helped to combat poverty. In his valedictory briefing before he stands down later this year, he said: "Strong political forces strengthened by rising inequality are gathering to combat the influence of technology and global

far too many politicians are pandering to the discontents." He said: "The rising tide of economic nationalism [and] the strengthening resistance to immigration are all signals pointing in the same direction. In terms of national advantage an attitude of me, my, mine - politicians are once again ensuring collective disadvantage." He urged political leaders to find a way of reducing poverty and to lessen inequalities competition, and

of wealth and income that could fuel social tensions. "For the good times to continue, today's leaders should focus from spending the dividend to reinvesting for the future," he said. He highlighted the

US

where he said there was evidence that income inequality was rising, especially when pensions and healthcare payments were taken into account. "The question is, does this increase social tensions especially if [wages at] the low end are completely flat. I think it does. People don't just look at absolute incomes but at relative incomes and they feel they are being left behind." His comments will be seen as an attack on governments in Washington and European capitals that have blocked cross-border takeovers to protect their national champions. The US blocked a Dubai firm from buying six US ports while France moved to keep the yoghurt giant Danone French. Even the UK, one of the world's most free tradeoriented countries, has recently become lukewarm over the prospect of thousands more eastern European workers coming to Britain when Bulgaria and Romania join the EU next year. "Europe's leaders need to find the will to take on vested interests in both labour and in the corporate sector," he said. "This necessary but difficult domestic battle is constantly postponed till after the next election - but the next election will never come." He also criticised Latin American leaders for adopting "populist" policies such as nationalising

the collapse of the world trade talks known as the Doha round - which poverty campaigners have blamed on the refusal of Europe and the US to make cuts in the agricultural subsidies that would benefit farmers in the developing nations. "This could not be more serious," he said. "For the medium-term health of foreign-owned energy concessions. He highlighted

the world economy, we need continuous improvement on the trade front and therefore the breakdown of the Doha round is clearly a problem." It is understood that Washington is anxious to rekindle negotiations and will use the opportunity of the annual meetings of the IMF and the World Bank to explore how it might do so.

Energy subsidies disrupt market patterns

News Times 11/30/06 [“Alternative energy subsidies skew market, It’s the government, not consumers, who drive demand for green power,” http://www.forestgrovenewstimes.com/opinion/story.php? story_id=116482619508208700]

Subsidies, tax credits and grants have made it very easy for individuals and companies to purchase and install their own alternative energy generators. In a recent study by ECONorthwest, two of the three highest factors for commercial users in purchasing solar equipment are “Return on Investment and Rebates” and “Tax Credits.” In a recent Daily Journal of Commerce article, wind energy proponents admit that the government is necessary

to build demand and to persuade consumers to purchase renewable energy. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 9

Companies involved in methane digester projects, such as Portland General Electric, have decided they cannot fund these projects on their own in the future. Government aid, not the market, is the real engine driving the boom in alternative energy. Subsidies and tax breaks provide incentives to adopt alternative energy, inducing consumers to purchase goods that are simply not market-friendly. The Energy Trust of Oregon, for Studies on methane digesters tell the same story.

example, plans to spend $29.8 million subsidizing alternative energy this year. The organization is funded by a 3 percent sales tax on customers of Portland General Electric, Pacific Power & Light and Northwest Natural Gas. The group spent $53 million of taxpayer money in 2005. A number of promising technologies are emerging in both alternative and traditional energies. The falling costs of wind and solar energy, improvements in methane digester technology, CO2-free coal plants, third- and fourth-generation nuclear power plants with improved safety designs, and many other developments and innovations are pouring out of laboratories, universities and R&D companies. These technologies should succeed or fail

on their own merits, not because government officials and lobbyists in Salem or Washington, D.C. favor them.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 10

LINKS Protectionist policies violate the WTO Andrew Green 2006 (Trade rules and climate change subsidies, World Trade Review, University of Toronto) However, as will be discussed below, subsidies for industries and individuals are also emerging as an important tool for governments in the context of climate change. These subsidy policies may conflict with international trade rules. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has created and enforces a range of rules to regulate members’ subsidy policies. Because of the broad scope and potential for the use of subsidies by both parties and non-parties to the Kyoto Protocol, thispaper examines whether WTO rules promote optimal use of subsidies. Section 2 discusses potential rationales for subsidy policies from a law and economics perspective and what types of subsidy policies are or are not desirable in addressing climate change. It argues that subsidies policy can play a positive role, particularly in light of the reluctance of governments to use potentially more effective and efficient tools such as taxes and emissions trading. Such a policy would involve the reduction of existing subsidies to industries (such as the coal industry), which are a significant source of greenhouse gases. It may also entail the increased use of subsidies to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases directly such as subsidies for emissions reductions or increased energy efficiency by particular industries. However, while there is a potentially positive role for subsidies, there is also a clear risk that such subsidies will be used to favour domestic production at the expense of imports. WTO rules are intended to constrain members’ ability to adopt such protectionist subsidies. The members have struggled over time with a desire to curb protectionist policy and at the same time allow scope for legitimate subsidies. Section 3 sets out the WTO rules on subsidies (including the now expired limited exception for environmental subsidies) and discusses how they impact on countries’ ability to implement appropriate or inappropriate climate change policies. It argues that in attempting to hinder protectionist subsidy policies, WTO rules create a serious concern to the extent they constrain subsidies aimed at addressing market failures underlying GHG emissions. The impact of WTO rules on subsidy policies not clearly attributable to addressing market failures is more controversial and raises interesting questions about the interaction between the WTO and domestic political processes.

Subsidies cause market distortion Andrew Green 2006 (Trade rules and climate change subsidies, World Trade Review, University of Toronto) These risks arise from the impact of subsidies on prices and on the production of the subsidized product. Subsidies may be harmful, from an international trade perspective, where they lower the marginal costs (either short run or long run) of producers, leading to their lowering the price for their products. Such lower prices may reduce or eliminate market access rights of exporting countries to the market of the subsidizing state, divert customers in other countries away from the products of non-subsidizing states towards products of the subsidizing state, and/ or reduce global welfare by distorting resource allocation towards the subsidized industry (Sykes, 2003a and Trebilcock and Howse, 2005).

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 11 IMPACTS – 1NC EXTENSION

Protectionism fosters global war in a nuclear age; humankind cannot survive its consequences Miller and Elwood 88 – International society for individual liberty [http://www.free-market.net/resources/lit/free-trade-protectionism.html ]

When the government of Country "A" puts up trade barriers against the goods of Country "B", the government of Country "B" will naturally retaliate by erecting trade barriers against the goods of Country "A". The result? A trade war in which both sides lose. But all too often a depressed economy is not the only negative outcome of a trade war . . . WHEN GOODS DON'T CROSS BORDERS, ARMIES OFTEN DO History is not lacking in examples of cold trade wars escalating into hot shooting wars: Europe suffered from almost non-stop wars during the 17th and 18th centuries, when restrictive trade policy (mercantilism) was the rule; rival governments fought each other to expand their empires and to exploit captive markets. British tariffs provoked the American colonists to revolution, and later the Northern-dominated US government imposed restrictions on Southern cotton exports - a major factor leading to the American Civil War. In the late 19th Century, after a half century of general free trade (which brought a half-century of peace), short-sighted politicians throughout Europe again began erecting trade barriers. Hostilities built up until they eventually exploded into World War I. In 1930, facing only a mild recession, US President Hoover ignored warning pleas in a petition by 1028 prominent economists and signed the notorious Smoot-Hawley Act, which raised some tariffs to 100% levels. Within a year, over 25 other governments had retaliated by passing similar laws. The result? World trade came to a grinding halt, and the entire world was plunged into the "Great Depression" for the rest of the decade. The depression in turn led to World War II. THE #1 DANGER TO WORLD PEACE

The world enjoyed its greatest economic growth during the relatively free trade period of 1945-1970, a period that also saw no major wars. Yet we again see trade barriers being raised around the world by short-sighted politicians. Will the world again end up in a shooting war as a result of these economically-deranged policies? Can we afford to allow this to happen in the nuclear age? "What generates war is the economic philosophy of nationalism: embargoes, trade and foreign exchange controls, monetary devaluation, etc. The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war." Ludwig von Mises THE SOLUTION: FREE TRADE A century and a half ago French economist and statesman Frederic Bastiat presented the practical case for free trade: "It is always beneficial," he said, "for a nation to specialize in what it can produce best and then trade with others to acquire goods at costs lower than it would take to produce them at home." In the 20th century, journalist Frank Chodorov made a similar observation: "Society thrives on trade simply because trade makes specialization possible, and specialization increases output, and increased output reduces the cost in toil for the satisfactions men live by. That being so, the market place is a most humane institution." WHAT CAN YOU DO? Silence gives consent, and there should be no consent to the current waves of restrictive trade or capital control legislation being passed. If you agree that free trade is an essential ingredient in maintaining world peace, and that it is important to your future, we suggest that you inform the political leaders in your country of your concern regarding their interference with free trade. Send them a copy of this pamphlet. We also suggest that you write letters to editors in the media and send this pamphlet to them. Discuss this issue with your friends and warn them of the danger of current "protectionist" trends. Check on how the issue is being taught in the schools. Widespread public understanding of this issue, followed by citizen action, is the only solution. Free trade is too important an issue to leave in the hands of politicians. "For thousands of years, the tireless effort of productive men and women has been spent trying to reduce the distance between communities of the world by reducing the costs of commerce and trade. "Over the same span of history, the slothful and incompetent protectionist has endlessly sought to erect barriers in order to prohibit competition - thus, effectively

The protectionist represents the worst in humanity: fear of change, fear of challenge, and the jealous envy of genius. The protectionist is not against the use of every kind of force, even warfare, to crush his rival. If mankind is to survive, then these primeval fears must be defeated." moving communities farther apart. When trade is cut off entirely, the real producers may as well be on different planets.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 12 IMPACTS – GLOBAL ECONOMY MODULE

Protectionism disrupts the global economy The Times 06

[“Business leaders must now make the positive case for globalisation,” Lexis]

Gordon Brown says the

world must be given a wake-up call about the dangers of retreating back into protectionism. Today, when G8 finance ministers meet in St Petersburg, the speed, scope and scale of globalisation is at the top of the agenda. Just as rising interest rates worldwide and widening interest rate spreads create a more challenging economic environment, darker

protectionist and anti-globalisation forces are on the increase, threatening world growth. "Economic patriotism" across Europe, with country after country blocking cross-border acquisitions, is antithetical to both the spirit and the rules of an open single market. Protectionist calls from parts of the United States, which would seek to halt necessary change, also send out the wrong message, implying that globalisation is a threat, not the opportunity it should be. The rising tide of populism in Latin America and continuing protectionism in Asia are direct assaults on the very idea of globalisation itself. Everywhere, instead of

barriers coming down, they appear to be going up. Instead of focusing on the potential 50 per

cent increases in world trade a successful Doha round could bring, the world trade negotiations are increasingly dominated not by talk of gains but by fears of what countries will lose. Ironically, even globalisation's beneficiaries -the millions who are seeing cuts in consumer goods prices, lower inflation and lower interest rates, and higher economic growth and employment -are acting as if they are victims. With even winners thinking like losers -and the popular focus on lost manufacturing, lost service jobs off-shored, lost jobs to newcomers moving into their communities - the argument is being run by the hardest hit producers, forgetting the benefits to consumers. But it is not the side-effects or the inevitable strains of

Under assault are the very foundations of globalisation -the free movement of capital, goods and services, and labour that would be destroyed by this three-pronged attack from protectionism, economic patriotism and anti-immigrant sentiment. The world is being given a wake-up call about the dangers of globalisation that they have put under attack.

retreating back into the kind of beggar-thy-neighbour, heads-in-the-sand protectionism that set nation

our first task, indeed our responsibility as economic leaders, is to demonstrate to an insecure and uncertain public that either defending a status quo that cannot endure, or retreating into protectionism is a false prospectus. Attempts to stop the clock, and to shelter from globalisation, will lead only to less trade, lower growth and lower employment. against nation in the 1930s. So

And global economic collapse causes nuclear extinction

Bearden 00 - Director of the Association of Distinguished American Scientists and a Fellow Emeritus of the Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study [T. E., "The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly"]

desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea (2) launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and History bears out that

South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other

nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 13

compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has lo survive at all, is to launch immediate

full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 14 IMPACTS – FOOD CRISIS MODULE

[

] Protectionism worsens the food crisis by causing prices to reach record levels

Financial Post 5/27/08 [“Protectionism is to blame for the food crisis,” Lexis]

capacity to produce food to deal with the current food crisis. But this potential has been held back by agricultural protectionism in developed The world has enormous

economies and, more recently, by export restrictions imposed by some less developed countries. Contrary to what is often heard, today's crisis cannot be explained by higher demand for food in emerging countries or by speculation. In addition to natural catastrophes such as the Australian drought that has slightly reduced world production recently, ill-advised government policies are largely to

blame. A sustainable decline in prices will be possible only with an increase in agricultural supply and its corollary, the dismantling of protectionism. This reform would meet both the rise in demand for food and the unpredictable behaviour of Mother Nature. This debate is difficult in Quebec and Canada, where one can get the impression that we are benefiting from high international prices and reaping profits while people die of hunger in faraway places. But exporters

cannot be blamed for the fact that grain, energy and fertilizer prices are hitting record levels. Canada is the world's biggest producer of potassium, a fertilizer found mostly in Saskatchewan and Alberta. The price of potassium and other fertilizers has been pushed up by increased corn production. More corn is being grown because of the huge rise in the world's

heavily subsidized production of ethanol and other biofuels. This has also led to corn being diverted away from animal feed and human consumption as well as to a reduction in land areas used to grow wheat and soybeans. Up to a quarter of the land used to grow corn will be devoted to ethanol production in the United States in 2008. This situation benefits our economy but hurts subsistence agriculture in developing countries. Fertilizers and fuels account for just a small portion of food costs here, but not in less developed countries where food is significantly less processed. We hear regularly that worldwide income growth, especially in India and China, has caused higher demand along with the resulting price pressure. The good fortune of some does not always bring misfortune to others: Greater wealth cannot explain the explosion in food prices seen in the last two years. Grain demand has tended to rise continuously, at a rate that has not varied substantially in the last 10 years. The only solution for feeding the planet is to increase agricultural supply and then to let prices fall naturally. How do we get there?

[ ] Food crisis causes wars, famine, disease and the extinction of humanity Winnail 96 – PhD, MPH [Douglas S., “On the Horizon: Famine,” September/October, http://www.kurtsaxon.com/foods004.htm] As a result grain prices are the highest on record. Worldwatch Institute's president, Lester Brown, writes, "No

other economic indicator is more politically sensitive that rising food prices.... Food prices spiraling out of control could trigger not only economic instability but widespread political upheavals"-- even wars. The chaotic weather

conditions we have been experiencing appear to be related to global warming caused by the release of pollutants into the earth's atmosphere. A recent article entitled "Heading for Apocalypse?" suggests the effects of global warming--and its side effects of increasingly severe droughts, floods and storms--could be catastrophic, especially for agriculture. The unpredictable shifts in temperature and rainfall will pose an

With world food stores dwindling, grain production leveling off and a string of bad harvests around the world, the next couple of years will be critical. Agricultural experts suggest it will take two bumper crops in a row to bring supplies back up to normal. However, poor harvests in 1996 and 1997 could create severe food shortages and push millions over the edge. Is it possible we are only one increased risk of hunger and famine for many of the world's poor.

or two harvests away from a global disaster? Is there any significance to what is happening today? Where is it all leading? What does the future hold? The clear implication is that things will get worse before they

Wars, famine and disease will affect the lives of billions of people! Although famines have occurred at various times in the past, the new get better.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 15

famines will happen during a time of unprecedented global stress--times that have no parallel in recorded history--at a time when the total destruction of humanity would be possible! Is it merely a coincidence that we are seeing a growing menace of famine on a global scale at a time when the world is facing the threat of a resurgence of new and old epidemic diseases, and the demands of an exploding population? These are pushing the world's resources to its limits! The world has never before faced such an ominous series of potential global crises at the same time! However, droughts and shrinking grain stores are not the only threats to world food supplies. According to the U.N.'s studies, all 17 major fishing areas in the world have either reached or exceeded their natural limits. In fact, nine of these areas are in serious decline. The realization that we may be facing a shortage of food from both oceanic and land-based sources is a troubling one . It's troubling because seafood--the world's leading source of animal protein--could be depleted quite rapidly. In the early 1970s, the Peruvian anchovy catch--the largest in the world--collapsed from 12 million tons to 2 million in just three years from overfishing. If this happens

on a global scale, we will be in deep trouble. This precarious situation is also without historical precedent!

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 16 IMPACTS – LAUNDRY LIST

Subsidies distort free trade and cause deforestation, economic insecurity and food price inflation

Lloyd's List 10/23/07

[World Bank highlights cost of biofuel industry subsidies; Production said to have had an upward effect on feedstock prices, Lexis]

biofuel production subsidies and high protective tariffs are proving costly for developing countries such as Brazil which are efficient producers in profitable export markets, a World Bank reports says. "More than 200 support measures cost around $5.5bn-$7.3bn a year in the US," it says, amounting to around $0.38-$0.49 per litre petroleum equivalent for ethanol. The long list of support measures includes consumption incentives such as fuel tax reductions, production incentives through tax incentive schemes, loan guarantees and direct subsidy payments and mandatory consumption requirements. The report says that domestic producers in both the US and the European Union also receive additional support through 'high import tariffs on ethanol'. Last year global production of ethanol was around Large

40bn litres, of which nearly 90% was produced in Brazil and in the US. In addition about 6.5bn litres of biodiesel were produced worldwide, of which about 75% was produced in the EU. The latest annual world development report for 2008, entitled Agriculture for Development, highlights that biofuel production has also had an upward effect on feedstock prices. "The clearest example is whose [feedstock] price rose by over 60% from 2005 to 2007, largely because of the US ethanol programme combined with reduced stocks in major exporting countries."World Bank economists predict feedstock prices are likely to remain constrained in the near term. The report says biofuels represent both an opportunity and a challenge, such as promising new opportunities for mitigating the threats of climate change and ushering in new markets for agriculture through the production of biofuels, influenced to a degree by high energy prices. But it also admits that few of the biofuel programmes are economically viable and that

many pose social risks because of rising food prices and environmental risks through deforestation. Looking ahead, the report argues that future biofuel technology "may rely on dedicated energy crops and timber waste instead of food crops, potentially reducing the pressure on food crop prices". For example, the report outlines that, according to recent forecasts, about 30% of the US maize harvest could be used for ethanol, but the same projections underscore that this would still account for less than 8% of US gasoline consumption. "Second generation technologies, using agricultural biomass, could make a higher contribution to energy security," the report concludes. Turning to the global trade talks, the report argues that the complete removal of farm subsidies, tariffs and other

barriers to trade could result in real increases in international commodity prices. World Bank agricultural economists forecast that prices, such as cotton, could increase by 20.8%, oilseeds by 15.1%, coarse grains by 7%, wheat by 5% and sugar by 2.5%. The report says the World Trade Organisation-sponsored talks "must urgently be concluded, particularly to eliminate distortions such as US cotton subsidies, which are detrimental to the poorest nations". "We must level the playing field in international trade," said World Bank president Robert Zoellick. Mr Zoellick, a former US trade representative, added: "It will require political will to move forward with reforms that improve the governance of agriculture."Countries

must deliver on vital reforms such as cutting distorting subsidies and opening markets," he said. The report says full liberalisation in developing countries would increase their share of global agricultural exports to 65% from 54%, and in the case of oilseeds and cotton by more than double this amount, with projected increases of 34% and 27% respectively. The World Bank estimates that the overall amount of support for agricultural producers in rich industrialised countries increased from $242bn a year from 1986- 1998 and to $273bn annually from 2003- 2005. It forecasts that the global welfare

costs of trade tariffs and subsidies will reach $100bn-$300bn by 2015, with about two-thirds of the costs likely to come from farm tariff and subsidies. The report calls for greater investment in agriculture in developing countries. "We need to give agriculture more prominence across the board," Mr Zoellick said when releasing the report in Washington. "A dynamic agriculture for development agenda can benefit an estimated 900m rural people in the developing world who live on less than $1 a day, most of whom are engaged in agriculture," the World Bank chief added.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 17

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 18 IMPACTS – SUBSIDIES TURNS ENVIRONMENT

Energy subsidies foster more environmental exploitation – they are ethically and environmentally irresponsible

Bozeman Daily Chronicle 06 id=486]

[Pete Geddes, “The Perils of Energy Subsidies,” http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?

I recently met with a Bozeman writer about my opposition to subsidies for alternative fuels. Am I opposed to all subsidies, including those for fossil fuels, or just for wind, solar, and synfuels? Of course, I responded, I’m opposed to all commodity subsidies on ethical and environmental grounds. But I support federal investments in basic research and projects like the construction of the Hyalite handicapped trail. Here’s how I think about the difference. When we subsidize things that trade in the market,

we benefit the well off and well organized at the expense of the most vulnerable members of society. This holds true whether in Bozeman, Boston, or Birmingham. Princeton Ph.D. George Will said it well: “The world is divided between those who do and do not understand that activist, interventionist, regulating, subsidizing government is generally a servant of the strong and entrenched against the weak and aspiring.” For a primer on how this process works, I recommend the late Mancur Olson’s book, The Logic of Collective Action. Olson examines how political forces derail the greater good. His explanation is straightforward: small, wealthy, well-connected groups easily organize

into cohesive, effective units. They then use the political process to reap huge benefits while dispersing the costs over 290 million citizens. Rarely is this graft challenged, especially not in the Bush administration. But isn’t it reasonable to support subsidies for the “right” kind of energy, e.g., wind and solar? No, for the same pathological logic applies. Here’s an example. Wind farms are enjoying a boom. Alas, their popularity has more to do with harvesting advantages in the tax code than with their environmental or energy merits. Following The Logic of Collective Action, we’re not surprised to learn these “good” subsidies annually transfer hundreds of millions of dollars from customers and taxpayers to a few large companies. Wind “farmers” reap more revenue from tax breaks and subsidies than from the sale of their product. They benefit at the expense of other taxpayers and energy consumers. Subsidies cause tremendous environmental harm. Here’s the unintended but predictable consequence of European Union mandates for biofuels. The New Scientist reports: “The drive for ‘green energy’ in the developed world is having the perverse effect of encouraging the destruction of tropical rainforests. From ... Borneo to the Brazilian Amazon, virgin forest is being razed to grow palm oil and soybeans to fuel cars and power stations in Europe and North America....” “The expansion of palm oil production is one of the leading causes of rainforest destruction in south-east Asia. It is one of the most environmentally damaging commodities on the planet,” says Simon Counsell, director of the UK-based Rainforest Foundation. Here’s a key point. If consumers really derive superior value (i.e., in terms of price and performance) from alternative energy sources, won’t entrepreneurs rush to deliver these products to them? We all care about our energy future; some of us

care for the environmental consequences. They include: human health, natural beauty, and ameliorating the negative effects of climate change. Most folks primarily value warm homes in the winter, fast and convenient transportation, and inexpensive energy. The questions we face involve balancing competing values. In what

combination and in what amounts should we seek the things we want? My writer friend is frustrated by our slow transition to a green energy future. She believes we can hasten this process by the government subsidizing the “right” fuels. Perhaps. But if a technology is not

economically competitive, no amount of public subsidy or special political favors will make it so. Isn’t it ironic that western environmentalists who spend Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 19

their careers fighting the perverse environmental impacts of governmental subsidies (e.g., dams on western rivers) believe that government, rather than the market process, must guide our energy future? How can they forget that the West best exemplifies the environmental harms resulting from the subsidized exploitation of the environment? This is a result of the alliance between big government and big business. Are they sure the government will get it right this time? When considering our energy future, understand there are no solutions, only trade-offs. All energy production has environmental impacts. Our choices involve trading off among imperfect alternatives. It’s ethically and environmentally irresponsible to pretend this reality away.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 20 IMPACTS – PROTECTIONISM TURNS ENVIRONMENT

Protectionism turns case – It disables companies from investing in cleaner technologies which has adverse effects on the environment

China Post 2/3/08 [Kendra Okonski and Caroline Boin , Environment program at International Policy Network, PROTECTIONISM MAY BE HARMFUL TO ALL, Lexis]

The idea behind such protectionism is to create a "level playing field" -- where European and American producers are not disadvantaged by their self-imposed restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. But instead of leveling the playing field, this game would artificially make all players one-legged and one-armed. The benefits of trade would be replaced by losses in consumer welfare and environmental degradation.

Whereas the beneficiaries of liberalization are widely dispersed, the beneficiaries of trade restrictions are concentrated and tend to be very effective in lobbying national governments to "protect" their business from competition, especially when supported by moralists, such as environmentalists, who claim that such protections benefit the earth. Thus, Greens, big business and organised labor unite. The Lieberman-Warner bill is endorsed not only by major Greengroups but also by electricity providers and their associated trade unions. Similarly, various European trade unionshave applauded calls for punitive trade measures against non-EU competitors. But in reality, it is far more moral to support liberalization. Trade

barriers of any kind, including"green" subsidies, tariffs and quotas, harm both consumers and producers. They artificially increase costs,leading to unnecessary waste of scarce natural and human resources. Consumers and producers spend more to purchase the same goods and services, so have less to invest in new technologies or to save for the future. Although some claim that trade barriers would help the environment, they are actually counterproductive. They favor the status quo by rewarding inefficient producers and thus delaying the adoption of cleaner, resource-saving technologies. Consider bananas. These could be grown in the cold climates of Finland, Canada, and Russia. But to do so would be farmore costly than growing them in warm places, and then exporting them to consumers around the world. Which is why theyare grown in places such as Costa Rica and the Ivory Coast. As a result bananas are less expensive and resources areused more sustainably. Poor

countries would suffer disproportionately from green trade barriers -- with adverse effects on both people and the environment. Protectionism will mean fewer products from poor countries being sold to industrialized countries. So local companies will have less money to invest in new, cleaner technologies. Instead, they will continue to use older, dirtier production methods and thus will use scarce resources less sustainably. This effect would be exacerbated by reduced investment from multinational companies. Moreover, less trade means less wealth, which translates into fewer resources available to invest in environmental conservation. India demonstrates the follies of protectionism. Until 1984, India had one car manufacturer, which produced just one car -- the Ambassador -- which was technologically inferior, belched pollutants, and was unaffordable to all but theelite. In 1984, India began to open its market to foreign car producers. This process exploded after the reforms of 1991and millions of Indians have benefited from competition, purchasing cars that are less expensive, cleaner,

Environmental ideologues continue to make dour prognostications about our planet's future, claiming that we all must consume less, have fewer children and trade less with each other to address climate change. Based on their scaremongering and frankly embarrassing record of false predictions in recent decades, these claims should not be heeded seriously. Such demands may suit the protectionist agenda but they have little merit in terms of their practical ability to enable humanity to use scarce natural and human resources in an ever-more sustainable manner. The competitive market process, underpinned by free trade between and within nations, is inherently more sustainable than the regulated economy advocated by eco-doom moretechnologically advanced and efficient.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 21

mongers. Protectionism, naked or cloaked in green, harms the vast majority of people as well as the environment -- and is best avoided.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 22 IMPACTS – ETHANOL SUBSIDIES BAD

[ ] Ethanol subsidies promote deforestation and food price inflation that has disastrous consequences worldwide Canberra Times 07

[Daniel Howden; in Sao Paolo, “Ethanol proves sweet alternative but at a cost,” Lexis]

The ethanol boom is coming. The twin threats of climate change and energy security are creating an unprecedented thirst for alternative energy with ethanol leading the way. That process is set to reach a landmark this week as US President George W.Bush arrives in Brazil to kick-start the creation of an international market for ethanol that could one day rival oil as a global commodity. The

expected creation of an "OPEC for ethanol" replicating the cartel of major oil producers has spurred frenzied investment in bio- fuels across the Americas. But a growing number of economists, scientists and environmentalists are calling for a "time out" and warning that the headlong rush into massive ethanol production is creating more problems than it is solving. To its advocates, ethanol which can be made from corn,

barley, wheat, sugar cane or beet, is a green panacea a clean burning, renewable energy source that will see us switch from dwindling oil wells to boundless fields of crops to satisfy our energy needs. In its first major acknowledgment over the dangers of climate change, the White House this year committed itself to substituting 20 per cent of the petroleum it uses for ethanol by 2017. In Brazil that switch is more advanced than anywhere in the world and it has already substituted 40 per cent of its gasoline usage.

Ethanol is nothing new in Brazil. It has been used as fuel since 1925. But the real boom came after the oil crisis of 1973 spurred the military dictatorship to lessen the country's reliance on foreign

generals poured public subsidies and incentives into the sugar industry to produce ethanol. Today, the congested streets of Sao Paolo are packed with imports of fossil fuels. The

flex-fuel cars that run off a growing menu of bio and fossil fuel mixtures, and all filling stations offer "alcohol" and "gas" at the pump, with the latter at roughly twice the price by volume. But

there is a darker side to this green revolution which argues for a cautious assessment of how big a role ethanol can play in filling the developed world's fuel tank. The prospect of a sudden surge in demand for ethanol is causing serious concerns even in Brazil. The ethanol industry has been linked with air and water pollution on an epic scale, along with deforestation in both the Amazon and Atlantic rainforests, as well as the wholesale destruction of Brazil's unique savannah land. Fabio Feldman, a leading Brazilian environmentalist and former member of Congress who helped to pass the law mandating a 23 per cent mix of ethanol to be added to all petroleum supplies in the country, believes that

Brazil's trail-blazing switch has had some serious side

effects. "Some of the cane plantations are the size of European states, these vast monocultures have

replaced important eco-systems," he said. There are also mounting calls for a study on the effects on the water supply of the huge quantities of industrial fertilisers used in the plantations. Despite its leading role in bio- fuels, Brazil remains the fourth largest producer of carbon emissions in the world due to

Clouds of black smoke from the arc of destruction across the Amazon are visible from space as the most important carbon sink and climate control on the planet is cut and burned. While Brazil's tropical climate allows it to source deforestation.

alcohol from its sugar crop, the US has turned to its industrialised corn belt for the raw material to

The effect of competition between food and fuel producers for sugar in Brazil, the world's leading producer, has seen sugar prices double in the last two years. While this has had little impact on the world food economy, a similar competition for corn between food producers and ethanol distilleries could have disastrous consequences worldwide. substitute oil.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 23 IMPACTS – ETHANOL SUBSIDIES BAD

Subsidies for bio-fuels and ethanol heavily inflate food prices causing famine and food scarcity Runnalls 07 - CEO and president of the International Institute for Sustainable Development [The Globe and Mail, Lexis]

For example, the competition among small towns for the attention of the builders of prospective ethanol distillery plants is as spirited as the 19th-century competition for rail lines. Meanwhile, U.S.

government subsidies to biofuels have been promoted as a way to simultaneously address concerns related to the environment, energy security and rural development. But the cost-effectiveness of achieving these goals under the current subsidy regime is low. The IISD report finds, for example, that biofuels are an extremely high-cost means for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Under optimistic projections, it costs at least $500 in federal and state subsidies to reduce one metric tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent through the production and use of corn-based ethanol. And that may be a conservative estimate. Five hundred U.S. dollars could purchase more than 30 tonnes of equivalent offsets on the European Climate Exchange, or nearly 140 tonnes on the Chicago Climate Exchange. And if coal-based electricity has been used to power the ethanol plant, the cost of carbon dioxide reduction approaches infinity, as little or no carbon dioxide has been reduced. In fact, it would be just as sensible in climate-change terms to use a gallon of normal gas. The sheer levels of government support for biofuels appear out of proportion to their ability to satisfy domestic transportation fuel requirements. Current forecasts are that biofuels will account for less than 5 per cent of total global transport fuel use in 2010. While corn farmers are happy with this system, other rural dwellers are not. The price of corn has more than doubled, since it is now a competitor to oil rather than food grains, putting ranchers, hog farmers and other feed users under enormous pressure. According to U.S. food policy expert Lester Brown, if all the ethanol plants that have been approved for the next year are built, ethanol will

be eating more than 40 per cent of the entire U.S. grain crop by 2008. What happens if we have another African famine or one or two bad crop years in North America?

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 24 1NC- EUROPE VERSION

The EU is holding off on trade barriers because they believe the Us will increase c02 regulations

Stephen Boucher, Former Advisor on European Affairs for the Belgian Deputy PM - Prof. @ Science Po in Paris, 4/4/’8 [Clinton, Obama, McCain - Europe’s Best Hope for Fighting Climate Change, http://www.notre-europe.eu/uploads/tx_publication/Policypaper34-SBoucherClimateChange-en.pdf] The business community also has spoken in favor of a comprehensive government response to the issue. Large US corporations have thus formed the United States Climate Action Partnership (US-CAP), calling for “a mandatory economy-wide, market-driven approach to climate protection.” 30 The members’ list is impressive, including Alcoa, Ford, General Electric, and Xerox. Signatories to the Global Roundtable on Climate Change, which include CEOs of major international and US-based corporations, have also expressed a desire for government action on climate change through a statement released in February of 2007.31 The United Steelworkers, with the Sierra Club, has commissioned a series of new reports highlighting the economic opportunities that could come from a serious investment in renewable energy.Most

importantly, public opinion has shifted, albeit belatedly. 91% of Americans have heard of the issue.33 71% view human activity as a significant cause of climate change.34 A large majority (59%) favors quick action, including by raising taxes.35 What EU governments and institutions can do in the forthcoming months in relation to US plans for climate change can only be modest in the context of an electoral campaign. However, with the promising trends described above, an

unprecedented opportunity has arisen to form a transatlantic alliance to lead efforts to fight global warming. Climate change could now be seen as a common cause for the EU and the USA, rather than an issue that pits both sides of the Atlantic against each other. There is the possibility to help drive the world towards an international agreement that seriously tackles the issue of global warming. Both the EU and the USA should therefore seek jointly to make use of these positive signals for a global climate treaty, while engaging in discussions with all major emitters with an open mind. Most importantly, they should not talk unwisely of “border adjustments”47 and tariffs on imported goods from countries without carbon pricing. Rightly so, EU Commission President Barroso said that this issue would only be reviewed in 2010 in the light of international negotiations. EU government should adhere to this discipline. This is true also for the USA, where import tariffs have been requested by a number of business interest groups. The opportunity is thus ripe for Europe to engage the United States in climate policy deliberations and for EU discussions to benefit from US plans. Whether with each campaign individually, or the US policy arena collectively, the most important thing is

for Europe to engage Americans actively on the climate issue. The American mainstream is fast becoming aware of the climate problem, and could benefit from learning of Europe’sexperience in tackling the issue. Also, it is crucial that both US and EU policies trend towards harmonization and integration, especially for the functioning of carbon markets. Therefore, at this formative stage, the European Union, the United States, and the world would benefit from a closer alignment of climate policies across the Atlantic. They should also be governed by the notion that convergence is desirable, as opposed to a form of beauty contest some seem to believe the EU is engaged in with the United States. This could lead to the creation before the end of 2009 of a transatlantic consensus helping shape a successor treaty to the Kyoto treaty. As Europe wrestles with the difficulty of being leader and

worries about the impact on its economy, its best hope today is to prepare to join forces with the next US administration, setting bold long term emissions targets and encouraging cooperation with developing countries.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 25 1NC EUROPE VERSION

The Aff Creates the Perception that the US is Shifting Towards Voluntary Incentives, Ensuring European Tariffs on the US

Thomas L. Brewer, Associate Professor at Georgetown University, Washington, DC and Associate Research Fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), June 08 [The Trade and Climate Change Joint Agenda CEPS Working Document No. 295/June 2008, http://shop.ceps.eu/downfree.php?item_id=1673.] Issues have arisen about whether provisions in the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act of 2007 are compatible with the WTO plurilateral Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), to which the US is a signatory (NFTC, 2007, pp. 14-17). A key issue is whether provisions such as those requiring US government agencies to purchase ‘low greenhouse gas emitting’ vehicles and to take into account energy efficiency standards in their purchasing decisions could violate WTO non-discrimination principles or constitute disguised protectionism. Among the climate-trade issues that have emerged to date, one of the most contentious concerns the possible use of offsetting border measures to reduce free rider, carbon leakage and international competitiveness problems. The underlying problem in the terminology of political economy is that there can be ‘free riders’ on international agreements, in this case multilateral climate change agreements. Climate Sanctions Ensure All Out Trade War

Robert Collier, @ Policy Syndicate, 5/2/’8 [Can Green Trade Tariffs Combat Climate Change?, http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/commentary/data/000051] European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and industrial chambers of commerce strongly advocate a similar tariff system, leading many

analysts to predict that the EU will also adopt some sort of green tariff system in the next few years. Warning of an "all-out trade war" if the sanctions go forward, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab argues that green trade sanctions would violate World Trade Organization rules. In a recent letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, she wrote, "We believe this approach could be a blunt and imprecise instrument of fear, rather than one of persuasion, that will take us down a dangerous path and adversely impact U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and

consumers." Developing nations' allies, meanwhile, are warning that the sanctions plan could destroy the chances of a post-Kyoto treaty. Chinese diplomats have not responded directly, but they have noticeably hardened their stand on climate talks. In February, China's top climate negotiator, Yu Qingtai, said at the UN that rich nations, which "caused the problem of climate change in the first place," must be treated as "culprits," and developing countries as "victims." 1NC EUROPE VERSION Impacts – Protectionism fosters global war and the eruption of nuclear conflict

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 26

Spicer 96 - Economist; member of the British Parliament, [Michael, “The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the West,” p. 121]

The choice facing the West today is much the same as that which faced the Soviet bloc after World War II: between meeting head-on the challenge of world trade with the adjustments and the benefits that it will bring, or of attempting to shut out markets that are growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for innovative production. The problem about the second approach is not simply that it won't hold: satellite technology alone will ensure that he consumers will begin to demand those goods that the East is able to provide most cheaply. More fundamentally, it will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which natural fears will be fanned and inflamed. A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled and unstable place in which suspicion and ultimately envy will possibly erupt into a major war. I do not say that the converse will necessarily be true, that in a free trading world there will be an absence of all strife. Such a proposition would manifestly be absurd. But to trade is to become interdependent, and that is a good step in the direction of world stability. With nuclear weapons at two a penny, stability will be at a premium in the years ahead.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 27 1NC EUROPE VERSION

US-Eu Trade relations are key to .political relations, the global economy, and international trade

EurActive, European news paper, July 26th 2002, EU-US Economic Disputes: There is More to Trade than Goods and Services http://www.euractiv.com/en/trade/eu-us-economic-disputes-trade-goodsservices/article-116971

The EU-US trade relationship is of great importance in today's global economic system. Not only do bilateral economic relations between these two economic giants make up over 40% of world trade, but their trade relationship also greatly influences political cooperation between the two unions. As Leon Brittan, former EU commissioner for trade recently wrote, there is a loose linkage between economic and political cooperation and partnership. If serious strains arise on one side of the relationship, there is always a risk that the other will suffer. The US-EU trade relationship draws wider circles, however, and also serves an important signalling effect to the world trading system as a whole. Indeed, it is difficult to move the global trade agenda forward when the EU and US pull on opposite strands. Insert relations impact

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 28 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - MIDDLE EAST

A. US/European cooperation is needed to solve for WMD conflicts in the Middle East, prevent terrorism, and stabilize Russia Daniel Hamilton, Director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations @ Johns Hopkins University, 6/11/2003 (FDCH Congressional Testimony) p. lexis If our efforts in these areas are ultimately to be successful, however, they must be part of more comprehensive transatlantic strategies aimed at the modernization and transformation of the Greater Middle East itself. A circle--with its center in Tehran-- that has a diameter roughly matching the length of the continental United States covers a region that encompasses 75 percent of the world's population, 60 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its energy resources. The Greater Middle East is the region of the world where unsettled relationships, religious and territorial conflicts, fragile and failed regimes, and deadly combinations of technology and terror brew and bubble on top of one vast, relatively contiguous energy field upon which Western prosperity depends. Transformation of this region is the strategic challenge of our time and a key to winning the campaign against terrorism. Choices made there could determine the shape of the 21st century--whether weapons of mass destruction will be unleashed upon mass populations; whether the oil and gas fields of the Caucasus and Central Asia will become reliable sources of energy; whether the Arab world will meet the challenges of modernization and globalization; whether Russia's borderlands will become stable and secure democracies; whether Israel and its neighbors can live together in peace; and whether the great religions of the world can work together. This is a long term effort. We cannot hope to transform this turbulent region into an area of democratic stability and prosperity soon. But we can act more successfully together to defend common interests, to dampen the negative trends that are gaining momentum, and to work with those in the region who seek to carve out areas of civil society where the state does not intrude. Such an effort is far more likely to succeed if America and Europe were to pool our energies and resources and pursue it together. B. Middle East conflicts will go global John Steinbach, Analyst, Center for Research on Globalization, 2002 (“Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Threat to Peace” - Center for Research on Globalization) http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability." and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional." Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reasonthe deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration."

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 29 U.S. /EUROPEAN RELATIONS- MIDDLE EAST

Collapse of US/European relations leads to global war and instability Doyle McManus, Staff Writer for the Los Angeles Times, 3/21/2004 (“Transatlantic Wounds Won’t Heal Overnight” – Los Angeles Times) p. lexis Over time, Kissinger warned, the consequences could be grave. "What

if the United States believes that Europe has just another player with which we have relations of convenience?" he asked. "Then we will be living in a world very similar to the pre-World War I world" -- an era when major powers competed with one another for influence, forged no strong alliances and plunged into "an armaments race and ... a huge conflict." become irrelevant and is

US/European cooperation are key to solving a host of global problems – terrorism, the environment, disease, and nuclear proliferation cannot be solved without Europe James B. Steinberg, Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution, Summer 2003 (“An Elective Partnership: Salvaging Transatlantic Relations” – Survival) p. OUP Journals

Both the United States and Europe face new global threats and opportunities that, in almost every case, can be dealt with far more successfully if we act together. Transnational threats, from terrorism and international crime to environmental damage and disease pose an increasing danger to our wellbeing. Porous borders and the extraordinary global flows of goods, money, people and ideas facilitate the spread of economic opportunity – but also foster the proliferation of technology for weapons of mass destruction. Weak states threaten our security as much as powerful ones. Ocean and land barriers offer little protection. Non-state actors – from businesses and NGOs to terrorist and moneylaunderers – play an increasingly influential role. In the place of geopolitics, a new ‘global politics’ is required to address the threats and opportunities that affect us all. If we can work together, we are likely to be far more successful at meeting the new global threats, and preserving our freedom and prosperity, than if we try to achieve these goals alone.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 30 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - MIDDLE EAST

European cooperation is critical for the US to undertake any foreign policy – it cannot solve global problems or economic stability without cooperation Robert E. Hunter, Senior Fellow, RAND Corporation, and Former Ambassador to NATO, 1993-1998, Winter 2003/2004 (“Europe’s Leverage” – The Washington Quarterly) p. lexis

Nothing has happened to lessen the importance of the continent of Europe as the most important landmass—economically and politically—to be kept free of a hegemonic power at odds with U.S. interests, values, and objectives (the stuff of three world wars in the twentieth century). Europe still depends on U.S. power, influence, engagement, and leadership to be fully assured of its own independence, security, long-term prosperity, and in some places even domestic tranquility. Meanwhile, the U.S. and European economies, especially those of the European Union, are now so intermingled that both sides would suffer grievous injury if either tried to lessen their level of entanglement with one another significantly. The panoply of economic interaction between the United States and the EU, including trade in goods and services, investment, cross-ownership, travel, and finance, must now be valued in the trillions of dollars, with the power to control and influence rarely having a clear locus on one side of the Atlantic or the other; certainly neither side is able to claim decisive predominance. Indeed,

transatlantic economic interdependence is now so much a fact of life that the concept is no longer even questioned. At the same time, a broad array of relatively common values and institutions of incalculable worth bind the United States and Europe together, creating an interpenetration of influence unrivaled among any other set of major powers. Much of what the United States seeks to do

elsewhere in the world will depend on its ability to gain the support and active engagement of European power—and European powers— politically, economically, and militarily. US/European relations are key to solve proliferation, terrorism, democracy, and free trade Doug Bereuter, Chair of the Subcommittee on Europe of the House International Relations Committee and President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and John Lis, Senior Policy Adviser for Transatlantic Relations for the House International Relations Committee and Former Director of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s Defense and Security Committee, Winter 2003-2004 (“Broadening the Transatlantic Relationship” – The Washington Quarterly) http://www.twq.com Yet, the reality is that common

interests -- fostering a more open trading order and a more democratic world as well as combating common threats such as global terrorism and weapons proliferation -- make transatlantic cooperation as imperative today as it was during the depths of the Cold War. The United States needs a strong European partner to help promote common interests in Europe and the world beyond.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 31 U.S./EUROPEAN RELATIONS- MIDDLE EAST

US/Europe relations are key to preventing terrorism, proliferation, and maintaining the US economy David Manning, British Ambassador to the United States, 10/19/2004 (“European Studies Program Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies ‘Changes in Europe and America’ with British Ambassador to the United States David Maning” – Federal New Service) p. lexis

My view is that we have, and I believe it's essential that we should. Much is going on that we are doing together that isn't in the headlines: counterterrorism cooperation is now at the center of daily transatlantic business, as is cooperation on counter-proliferation. And we've worked well too on issues that have been making headlines recently. First, free elections in Afghanistan; success in persuading the Libyans to renounce WMD; and in rolling out A.Q. Khan's networks. And we need to remember too that our prosperity is interdependent. The trade and financial flows across the Atlantic are of an extraordinary magnitude. A few statistics for you: The U.S. invested $3.2 billion in China and Hong Kong in 2003, compared with $30.5 billion in the U.K. -- ten times as much. Two-way trade in goods and services between the EU and U.S. last year was worth just under $400 billion. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that $3.3 million U.S. jobs were supported by EU investment in 2002. Visible trade between the U.S. and the EU last year was worth $50 billion.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 32 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - MIDDLE EAST

US/European cooperation is needed to transform the Middle East thereby removing systemic causes of terrorism and WMD proliferation Robert Asmus, Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, 5/6/2002 (“United We’ll Stand: Recasting NATO to Face a Perilous World Together” – The Washington Post) p. lexis The bad news is that America

and Europe again face an existential challenge. It is what German Foreign Minister "new totalitarian threat" to Western societies: the toxic mix of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, radical Islam and failed states. That threat emanates principally from a geographic area that extends from Israel eastward to Central Asia and includes the Greater Middle East and the Persian Gulf. The challenge of our time is addressing this new threat. Tracking down Osama bin Laden or toppling Saddam Hussein will not be enough. We must dramatically expand our efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. We must work to Joschka Fischer has called a

lift failed states, from which our enemies draw sanctuary, support and successors. The problem is more than just terrorism, and the answer must be more than simply a military one. Ultimately, we must support a process by which the greater

Middle East is transformed from within -- into more equitable and open societies that no longer produce ideologies and people intent upon killing our citizens. Success may require decades of sustained political, economic and military cooperation, much of it between the United States and Europe. Acting independently will undermine Middle Eastern reforms – only acting with Europe will strike the right balance Maura Reynolds, Staff Writer, Los Angeles Times, 2/28/2004 (“Their Rift is in the Past, Schroeder Says” – Los Angeles Times) p. lexis One diplomat involved in discussions over the broader Middle East democracy initiative said both the Europeans and Americans face a dilemma in how to help reformers change repressive societies. He said supporting reformers too much can get them branded as foreign lackeys. Help them too little, he said, and they don't stand a chance against their governments. That balance is easier to strike if the United States cooperates with Europe, the diplomat said.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 33 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - MIDDLE EAST

Actively cultivating relations is needed to solve the major problems of WMD terrorism and reform in the Middle East – Iraq proves European support is needed Daila Dassa Kaye, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, George Washington University and a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow, the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs Winter 2003/2004 (“Bound to Cooperate? Transatlantic Policy in the Middle East” – The Washington Quarterly) p. lexis The example of Iraq demonstrates the need for material and political support from European allies to address the shared challenges emanating from the Middle East adequately. None of the major problems in the region today—terrorism, proliferation, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iraq, regional political and economic reform—can be solved by one power alone. A stable, democratic, and prosperous Middle East depends on the United States and Europe working together in the region. Building cooperation on areas such as those identified above to promote a transatlantic agenda will not entirely narrow the transatlantic divide nor avoid future crises, but it can contribute to a more pragmatic and hopefully constructive approach toward a region that is likely to affect global stability for some time to come. Europeans and Americans cannot afford to be complacent and to expect that a variety of common threats emanating from the Middle East will inherently produce transatlantic cooperation. US/European cooperation is the only way to resolve threats from the Greater Middle East region Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former National Security Adviser to the President, Winter 2003/2004 (“Hegemonic Quicksand” – National Interest) p. ebscohost Ultimately, America can look to only one genuine partner in coping with the Global Balkans: Europe. Although it will need the help of leading East Asian states like Japan and China--and Japan will provide some, though limited, material assistance and some peacekeeping forces--neither is likely at this stage to become heavily engaged. Only Europe, increasingly organized as the European Union and militarily integrated through NATO, has the potential capability in the political, military and economic realms to pursue jointly with America the task of engaging the various Eurasian peoples--on a differentiated and flexible basis--in the promotion of regional stability and of progressively widening trans-Eurasian cooperation. And a supranational European Union linked to America would be less suspect in the region as a returning colonialist bent on consolidating or regaining its special economic interests. America and Europe together represent an array of physical and experiential assets with the capability to make the decisive difference in shaping the political future of the Global Balkans. The question is whether Europe--largely preoccupied with the shaping of its own unity--will have the will and the generosity to become truly engaged with America in a joint effort that will dwarf in complexity and scale the earlier, successful joint American-European effort to preserve peace in Europe and then end Europe's division.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 34 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - MIDDLE EAST

The Greater Middle East region is the greatest threat to world order – instability there risks collapsing US hegemony and splitting the Atlantic Alliance Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former National Security Adviser to the President, Winter 2003/2004 (“Hegemonic Quicksand” – National Interest) p. ebscohost FOR THE next several decades, the most volatile and dangerous region of the world--with the explosive potential to plunge the world into chaos--will be the crucial swathe of Eurasia between Europe and the Far East. Heavily inhabited by Muslims, we might term this crucial subregion of Eurasia the new "Global Balkans."(n1) It is here that America could slide into a collision with the world of

Islam while American-European policy differences could even cause the Atlantic Alliance to come unhinged. The two eventualities together could then put the prevailing American global hegemony at risk. At the outset, it is essential to recognize that the ferment within the Muslim world must be viewed primarily in a regional rather than a global perspective, and through a geopolitical rather than a theological prism. The world of Islam is disunited, both politically and religiously. It is politically unstable and militarily weak, and likely to remain so for some time. Hostility toward the United States, while pervasive in some Muslim countries, originates more from specific political grievances--such as Iranian nationalist resentment over the U.S. backing of the Shah, Arab animus stimulated by U.S. support for Israel or Pakistani feelings that the United States has been partial to India-than from a generalized religious bias. There’s no solution to the Greater Middle East crisis without US/European cooperation Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former National Security Adviser to the President, Winter 2003/2004 (“Hegemonic Quicksand” – National Interest) p. ebscohost In the short run, America has the power and the will to disregard Europe's views. It can prevail by using its military might and temporarily prompt reluctant European accommodation. But the European Union has the economic resources and financial means to make the critical difference to the region's long-run stability. Thus, no truly viable solution in the area will be possible unless the United States and the EU increasingly act in common.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 35 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - MIDDLE EAST

US/European cooperation in the Middle East is key to stabilize oil producing nations which are key to the economy and hegemony Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former National Security Adviser to the President, Winter 2003/2004 (“Hegemonic Quicksand” – National Interest) p. ebscohost More broadly, American-European cooperation in promoting a stable and democratic Iraq and in advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace--in effect, a "regional roadmap"--would create more favorable

political preconditions for addressing the unsatisfactory strategic equation that prevails in the oiland natural-gas-producing areas of the Persian Gulf, Iran and the Caspian Basin. Unlike energy-rich Russia, the states of this zone--from Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan all the way down to Saudi Arabia-are almost entirely exporters, but not major consumers, of the energy that is extracted from their ground. They have by far the world's largest reserves of oil and natural gas. Since reliable access to reasonably priced energy is vitally important to the world's three economically most dynamic regions--North America, Europe and East Asia--strategic domination over the area, even if cloaked by cooperative arrangements, would be a globally decisive hegemonic asset. From the standpoint of American interests, the current geopolitical state of affairs in the world's principal energy-rich zone leaves much to be desired. Several of the key exporting states--notably Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates--are weak and politically debilitated. Iraq faces a prolonged period of stabilization, reconstruction and rehabilitation. Another major energy producer, Iran, has a regime hostile to the United States and opposes U.S. efforts on behalf of a Middle Eastern peace. It may be seeking WMD and is suspected of terrorist links. The United States has sought to isolate Iran internationally, but with limited success. Just to the north, in the southern Caucasus and Central Asia, the newly independent energy-exporting states are still in the early stages of political consolidation. Their systems are fragile, their political processes arbitrary and their statehood vulnerable. US/European cooperation is key to stabilizing Iran and the rest of the energy-exporting countries of the region Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former National Security Adviser to the President, Winter 2003/2004 (“Hegemonic Quicksand” – National Interest) p. ebscohost

Active strategic partnership between the United States and the European Union would also make it more likely that Iran could eventually be transformed from a regional ogre into a regional stabilizer. Currently, Iran has a cooperative relationship with Russia, but otherwise either wary or hostile relations with all of its neighbors. It has maintained a relatively normal relationship with Europe, but its antagonistic posture toward America--reciprocated by restrictive U.S. trade legislation--has made it difficult for European-Iranian and Iranian-Japanese economic relations to truly prosper. Its internal development has suffered accordingly, while its socioeconomic dilemmas have been made more acute by a demographic explosion that has increased its population to 70-odd million. The entire energy-exporting region would be more stable if Iran, the region's geographic center, were reintegrated into the global community and its society resumed its march to modernization. That will not happen as long as the United States seeks to isolate Iran and is insensitive to Iran's security concerns, especially given the presence in Iran's immediate neighborhood of three overt and one covert nuclear powers. More effective would be an approach in which the Iranian social elite sees the country's isolation as self-imposed and thus counterproductive, instead of something enforced by America. Europe has long urged the United States to adopt that approach. On this issue, American strategic interests would be better served if America were to follow Europe's lead. A promising start in this regard has been made by the European initiative on the complex issue of the Iranian nuclear program, an issue that should not be addressed in a manner reminiscent of the earlier U.S. exaggerations of the alleged Iraqi WMD threat. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 36 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - ECONOMY

A. US/European relations are key to the global economy Gareth Harding, Europe Correspondent for United Press International, 9/7/2002 (United Press International) p. lexis Despite their differences, EU and U.S. leaders know that a breakdown in relations between the two sides

would be disastrous for the international economy and global stability. Together, Europe and America have the biggest trade and investment relationship in the world -- amounting to over $1 billion a day -- accounting for half the planet's wealth and forming the cornerstone of the world's most powerful military alliance, NATO. B. Economic collapse causes nuclear wars Chris Lewis, Professor, University of Colorado, 1998 (The Coming Age of Scarcity) p. 56 Most critics would argue, probably correctly, that instead of allowing underdeveloped countries to withdraw from the global economy and undermine the economies of the developed world, the United States, Europe, and Japan and others will fight neocolonial wars to force these countries to remain within this collapsing global economy. These neocolonial wars will result in mass deaths, suffering, and even regional nuclear wars. If First World countries choose military confrontation and political repression to maintain the global economy, then we may see mass death and genocide on a global scale that will make the deaths of World War II pale in comparison. However, these neocolonial wars, fought to maintain the developed nations' economic and political hegemony, will cause the final collapse of our global industrial civilization. These wars will so damage the complex economic and trading networks and squander material, biological, and energy resources that they will undermine the global economy and its ability to support the earth's 6 to 8 billion people. This would be the worst-case scenario for the collapse of global civilization.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 37 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - ECONOMY

The US/European economic partnership forms the core of the global economy William Drozdiak, President, American Council on Germany, and Former Executive Director, German Marshall Fund’s Transatlantic Center, January/February 2005 (“The North Atlantic Drift” – Foreign Affairs) p. ebscohost

Any reassessment of the transatlantic alliance must start with an important but often overlooked premise: the United States and the EU are still the twin turbines of the global economy. Together, they account for more than half of trade and investment flows in the world. Their business with each other exceeds $2.5 trillion a year and provides jobs for some 12 million workers. Over the past eight years, Americans invested twice as much in the Netherlands as in Mexico and ten times as much as in China. During that time, Europeans invested more in Texas than Americans did in Japan. And today, American business invests 60 percent more in eastern Europe than in China: $16.6 billion against $10.3 billion, according to the latest data from the U.S. Commerce Department. Conversely, Europe provides 75 percent of all investment in the United States, and it is far and away the biggest foreign source of American jobs: the German industrial giant Siemens alone employs some 70,000 Americans. These transatlantic investments have proved very profitable. In 2003, while the media reported that Americans were pouring Bordeaux wine down the drain to protest Paris' position on the war in Iraq, corporate America saw its investment inflows and profits from France surge to the highest levels in nearly a decade: $2.4 billion and $l.7 billion, respectively. Profits earned by U.S. affiliates in Europe soared to a record $77 billion, and U.S. investments in Europe jumped by 30 percent to $87 billion. Large U.S. technology firms, such as Microsoft and Intel, predict that half of their global revenues will come from Europe in 2005. Thus, U.S. business leaders say that the EU's 450 million affluent consumers still form the largest pool of purchasing power in the world. They also say that economic self-interest should be enough to persuade both Democrats and Republicans in the United States to want to protect the Atlantic partnership--all the more so because the combined Economic power of the United States and Europe would give them enormous leverage to deal with major global challenges. Despite the billions of dollars already invested on both sides, the full potential of the U.S.-European economic relationship is not yet realized.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 38 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - TRADE

A. US/European cooperation is key to a more open and stable global trading system Doug Bereuter, Chair of the Subcommittee on Europe of the House International Relations Committee and President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and John Lis, Senior Policy Adviser for Transatlantic Relations for the House International Relations Committee and Former Director of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s Defense and Security Committee, Winter 2003-2004 (“Broadening the Transatlantic Relationship” – The Washington Quarterly) http://www.twq.com

The United States and the EU have been the driving forces behind the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) 2001 Doha Round, which is aimed at issues such as market access for developing countries, enhanced trade in services and agricultural products, and intellectual property rights. Although serious tensions in the transatlantic trade relationship still exist in areas such as agricultural and steel production subsidies, biotechnology, and export subsidies, these should not deter the United States and the EU from working together toward a more open global trading system. This would help competitive businesses in Europe and North America gain access to international markets while saving consumers money by facilitating imports of competitively priced products. In addition, that system should aim to make it easier for developing countries to grow economically through trade, especially by providing reasonable market access in key areas such as agriculture and textiles. Unfortunately, the collapse of the September 2003 Cancun WTO ministerial meeting has set back this effort. The EU and United States must work with the developing countries to get the Doha Round back on track, and that will require each to act conscientiously on the legitimate concerns of developing countries in exchange for the reductions in tariffs and increased market access that we demand. With U.S. investment in Europe exceeding $3 trillion and European investment in the United States on a similar scale,7 Dan Hamilton, director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University, notes that regulatory policy, traditionally a domestic policy field, is becoming a transatlantic concern. As the two largest economic actors in the world, the United States and the EU enact regulations that alternatively become the de facto starting point for regulators elsewhere in the world. If potential differences between U.S. and EU regulations can be identified and addressed early in the regulatory process, we may be able to reduce some of the barriers for U.S. and European companies doing business overseas. For example, since Congress passed the SarbanesOxley financial reform legislation in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom debacles, European financial institutions doing business in the United States have experienced substantial difficulties in complying with new U.S. regulations. Likewise, U.S. chemical companies are concerned about the possible effect that proposed EU regulations may have on their ability to do business in Europe. Better consultation, cooperation, and coordination is needed between the Congress and the European Parliament on regulatory legislation. By working together when cooperation is in our mutual interest, both legislatures could

help facilitate the ability of our companies to operate in each other’s markets.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 39 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - TRADE

B. The global trading system is key to prevent nuclear war Copley News Service, 12/1/99, p. lexis Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups tike the WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs.As long as nations are trading peacefully. and their

economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. (That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 40 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - TERRORISM

A. International cooperation with Europe is the main tool in preventing terrorism – other tools won’t be enough Richard Rosecrance, Professor of Political Science, University of California-Los Angeles and Project Director of the University of California-Los Angeles-Carnegie Study on Globalization, Summer 2003 (“Croesus and Caesar” – The National Interest) p. 34 Then there is the continuing threat of terrorism. This threat will not disappear now that the war with Iraq is over; terrorism may even spread, at least in the short run. Neither the technical revolution in military affairs that has occurred in the United States nor the growing imperial reach of America's conventional forces can vanquish terrorism. For that, the United States will need cooperation and the shared intelligence of many other countries, particularly those of an enlarged European Union. There are no superpowers in the war against terrorism-every nation can be a military theater where battles may be won, and Pakistan's cooperation may be as important as Russia's. International cooperation

between the United States and Europe is essential to win the long bout against terrorism. B. Terrorism will inevitably go nuclear Graham Allison, Professor of Government and Former Director of the Belfer Center, Harvard University, and Andrei Kokoshin, Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and Member of the Board of Directors, NTI, Fall 2002 (“The New Containment” – the National Interest) p. lexis In sum: even a conservative estimate must conclude that dozens of terrorist groups have sufficient motive to use a nuclear weapon, several could potentially obtain nuclear means, and hundreds of opportunities exist for a group with means and motive to make the United States or Russia a victim of nuclear terrorism. The mystery before us is not how a nuclear terrorist attack could possibly occur, but rather why no terrorist group has yet combined motive, means and opportunity to commit a nuclear attack. We have been lucky so far, but who among us trusts luck to protect us in the future?

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 41 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - TERRORISM

C. That causes global nuclear war Louis Rene Beres, Terrorism Expert and Professor, Purdue University, 1987 (Terrorism and Global Security) p. 50-51 Nuclear terrorism could even spark full-scale nuclear war between states. Such war could involve the entire spectrum of nuclear conflict possibilities, ranging from a nuclear attack upon a nonnuclear state to systemwide nuclear war. How might such far-reaching consequences of nuclear terrorism come about? Perhaps the most likely way would involve a terrorist nuclear assault against a state by terrorists “hosted” in another state. For example, consider the following scenario: Early in the 1980s, Israel and her Arab state neighbors finally stand ready to conclude a comprehensive, multilateral peace settlement. With a bilateral treaty between Israel and Egypt already several years old, only the interests of the Palestinians-as defined by the PLO-seem to have been left out. On the eye of the proposed signing of the peace agreement, half of a dozen crude nuclear explosives in the one-kiloton range detonate in as many as Israeli cities. Public grief in Israel over the many thousand dead and maimed is matched only by the outcry for revenge. In response to the public mode, the government of Israel initiates selected strikes against terrorist strongholds in Lebanon, whereupon the Lebanese government and its allies retaliate against Israel. Before long, the entire region is ablaze, conflict has escalated to nuclear forms, and all countries in the area have suffered unprecedented destruction. Of course, such as scenario is fraught with the makings of even wider destruction. How would the United States react to the situation in the Middle East? What would be the Soviet response? It is certainly conceivable that a chain reaction of interstate nuclear conflict could ensue, one that would ultimately involve the superpowers or even every nuclear weapon state on the planet. What, exactly, would this mean? Whether the terms of assessment be statistical or human, the consequences of nuclear war require an entirely new paradigm of death. Only such a paradigm would allow us a proper framework for absorbing the vision of near-total obliteration and the outer limits of human destructiveness. Any nuclear war would have effectively permanent and irreversible consequences. Whatever the actual extent of injuries and fatalities, it would entomb the spirit of the entire species in a planetary casket strewn with shorn bodies and imbecile imaginations.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 42 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - TERRORISM

Transatlantic cooperation is essential to prevent bioterrorism attacks that are highly probable, quick timeframe, and as dangerous as nuclear war Daniel Hamilton, Director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations @ Johns Hopkins University, 6/11/2003 (FDCH Congressional Testimony) p. lexis

It is unlikely that a successful effort to strengthen homeland security can be conducted in isolation from one's allies. The U.S. may be a primary target for Al-Qaeda, but we know it has also planned major operations in Europe. A terrorist WMD attack on Europe would immediately affect American civilians, American forces, and American interests. If such an attack involved contagious disease, it could threaten the American homeland itself in a matter of hours. The SARS epidemic, while deadly, is simply a "mild" portent of what may be to come. Bioterrorism in particular is a first-order strategic threat to the Euro-Atlantic community. A bioterrorist attack in Europe or North America is more likely and could be as consequential as a nuclear attack, but requires a different set of national and international responses. Europeans and Americans alike are woefully illprepared for such challenges. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, it has become very clear that controlling borders, operating ports, or managing airports and train stations in the age of globalization involves a delicate balance of identifying and intercepting weapons and terrorists without excessively hindering trade, legal migration, travel and tourism upon which European and American prosperity increasingly depends. Efforts to protect the U.S. homeland against cyberattack, for example, can hardly be conducted in isolation from key allies whose economies and information networks are so intertwined with ours. Unless there is systematic trans-European and trans-Atlantic coordination in the area of preparedness, each side of the Atlantic is at greater risk of attack. The war on terrorism depends on skills that only US/European cooperation can produce Stephen Holmes, Professor of Law, New York University School of Law, April 2003 (“Why We Need Europe” – The American Prospect) p. lexis That this assumption is fallacious is the very least that might be said. The September 11 attacks were partly planned, organized and financed in Europe. The Muslim diaspora communities into which terrorist cells can invisibly blend remain the likeliest staging grounds for future al-Qaeda attacks on the United States. In other words, Europe remains a frontline region in the war against terrorism just as it was in the war against communism. As daily press reports also reveal, the European police have been acting in a perfectly Hobbesian manner, arresting scores of suspected terrorists. In other words, despite his pose as a no-nonsense realist, Kagan has apparently failed to realize the degree to which the contours of American national security have been redrawn since 9-11. The home front and the foreign front have now been disconcertingly blurred. National-security strategy must now operate in a domain where soldiering and policing have become of coequal importance. This profound change helps us understand the erroneous premise of Bush's foreign policy. In our new security environment, despite the prevailing cliche, the

United States is not the world's only superpower. The war on transnational terrorism depends essentially on information gathering and policing, and in these respects the Europeans are anything but security pygmies. Their capacities to respond effectively to today's greatest security threats easily rival those of the United States. Europeans' linguistic skills and cultural knowledge alone ensure that they can make indispensable contributions to U.S. security. They can perform essential tasks of monitoring, infiltration, disruption and apprehension for which our own unrivaled military machine is patently inadequate. Dismissing the "platitude" that the United States cannot protect itself without European help, Kagan announces that "the United States can 'go it alone.'" This is apparently the thinking (if you can call it that) behind the administration's mindlessly denigrating remarks about Europe. True, European leaders can sometimes be hypocritical and foolishly condescending. But let it pass. We cannot afford, for the sake of a frisson, to undermine American security by further poisoning

relations with capable allies in a time of unprecedented national peril. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 43 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - ENVIRONMENT

A. US/European relations are critical to saving the environment James B. Steinberg, Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution, Summer 2003 (“An Elective Partnership: Salvaging Transatlantic Relations” – Survival) p. OUP Journals Yet, the objective realities of environmental risk inevitably will force both the United States and Europe to work more closely together – the main question is whether this will be sooner rather than later. In the end,

global environmental problems can only be addressed through effective global action. But enhanced US-European cooperation is an essential precondition for the broader global efforts to succeed. European efforts, may, for example, help to bring about the coming into force of the Kyoto Protocol, but it will have marginal benefits if the United States stays outside. Conversely, continued USEuropean disputes can magnify international disagreements, as each side seeks to line up supporters in both the developing and developed world. B. Environmental collapse risks extinction Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies, Stanford University, and Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, May 1998 (“Rivets and Redundancy” – BioScience) p. lexis But just because some functional groups consist of single species that warrant special attention, it does not follow that where there is significant redundancy in a functional group we can afford to lose some of the species. Such a policy would lead to loss of resilience. The essential message of both the redundancy and rivet-popper hypotheses is that we force species and populations (Hughes et al. 1997) to extinction at our own peril. Humanity is utterly dependent on services delivered by ecosystems (Daily 1997). Considering the uncertainties and complexities in the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem services, policy decisions should have a large “insurance” bias toward protection of biodiversity – and therefore especially toward functional groups in which there is little or no redundancy.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 44 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - LEADERSHIP

A. US/European relations are essential to US power projection, global stability, and the base of US leadership Zbigniew Brzezinski, Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Professor of American Foreign Policy, Johns Hopkins University, 2003 (The Next American Century edited by Jeffrey T. Bergner) p. 69

The transatlantic alliance is America's most important global relationship. It is the springboard for U.S. global involvement, enabling America to play the decisive role of arbiter in Eurasia-the world's central arena of power-and it creates a coalition that is globally dominant in all the key dimensions of power and influence. America and Europe together serve as the axis of global stability, the locomotive of the world's economy, and the nexus of global intellectual capital as well as technological innovation. Just as important, they are both home to the world's most successful democracies. How the U.S.-European relationship is managed, therefore, must be Washington's highest priority. B. Leadership prevents global nuclear war and is key to global stability Zalmay Khalilzad, Research Analyst at the RAND Institute, Spring 1995 (“Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War” – Washington Quarterly) p. lexis Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 45 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - LEADERSHIP

European cooperation is the only way to maintain domestic support for leadership and solve global problems Ivo Daalder, Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution, and James M. Goldgeiger, Professor of Political Science, George Washington University, Spring 2001 (“Putting Europe First” – Survival) p. Ingenta

Although America today enjoys unrivalled military, economic and political power, it lacks the capacity to deal with many of the critical global challenges – ranging from weapons proliferation and terrorism to environmental degradation and the rapid spread of infectious disease – without support from allies. There are also fundamental political problems with such an approach. The unilateralism implied by assigning primary responsibility for global security and stability to the United States without support from or regard for the perspective of regional allies and other countries is hardly consistent with the desire, repeatedly emphasised by the incoming team, to exercise American power ‘without arrogance and to pursue its interests without hectoring and bluster’. At a time when the United States is already regarded by much of the world as an overbearing ‘hyperpower’, insisting on a division of labour that assigns Washington the main international security role to the exclusion of others is unlikely to be popular among its allies. Such a posture is also unlikely to be popular at home. In recent years, it has become very clear that the American public will support the use of US military forces overseas only if other countries share the burden. This is not only in the case of so-called humanitarian interventions, but also when it involves the defence of such vital national interests as the world’s supply of crude oil. In either case, international legitimacy of action and a commitment by

other nations to share the costs will be a political prerequisite for gaining public support. Despite Europe’s internal weaknesses and divisions, no part of the world offers the United States a better prospect for becoming a strong partner in taking on global challenges and opportunities. US/European partnership is need to prevent imperial overstretch from undermining the credibility of US leadership and deal with international crises Rob de Wijk, Professor of Strategic Studies and International Relations and Director of the Clingendael Center for Strategic Studies in the Netherlands, Winter 2003/2004 (“European Military Reform for a Global Partnership” – The Washington Quarterly) p. lexis

Washington must develop a vision of a strategic partnership between the United States and the EU and acknowledge that a Europe with stronger forces can influence U.S. foreign policy. For the United States, the risk of imperialistic overreach is one of many powerful incentives for such a partnership. With U.S. forces tied up in South Korea, the Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the United States will find it increasingly difficult to deal with rogue states or international crises, undermining the credibility of U.S. coercive diplomacy. The Europeans must accept the reality that the use of hard power could be unavoidable and must learn from the United States on this score. The methods of warfare used in Afghanistan and Iraq hold great promise for the future. Armed force will become a more usable instrument of foreign policy and could reduce Europe's reluctance to use it. As long as Europe lacks credible military capabilities, however, there is no other option but to strive for a temporary division of labor where each of side of the Atlantic specializes in the military operations suited to its political culture. For the time being, a stronger partnership must be built on the U.S. preponderance of war fighting and the European preponderance of stabilization and reconstruction.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 46 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - LEADERSHIP

US/European relations are key to avoid a power struggle and threats to US leadership Ivo H. Daalder and James M. Lindsay, Senior Fellows in Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution, Summer 2003 (“Power and Cooperation: An American Foreign Policy for the Age of Global Politics” – Agenda for the Nation, Brookings Institution) http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/daalder/20030814.pdf Nevertheless, the drifting apart of erstwhile allies has both short- and long-term costs. Many of the most important global challenges—terrorism, global warming, poverty—can be dealt with only if the major powers cooperate. Moreover, rancor, especially between the United States and Europe,

ultimately could lead to competition for power and global leadership. Even if America could win such a competition, the inevitable costs suggest that wise policy would work now to avoid it. The value of seeking cooperation from America’s most important partners, even when their contribution is not strictly required, lies precisely in maintaining mutually supportive relations and avoiding the drift that over time can turn into destructive rivalry. US/Europe relations are key to checking US isolationism – it’s the best way to shore up internationalism Dominique Moisi, Senior Adviser, the Intitut Francais des Relations Internationales and Professor, College of Europe in Warsaw, November-December 2003 (Foreign Affairs) p. lexis It is all too easy for Washington to view Europe with a mixture of indifference, commiseration, and derogatory paternalism. But the United States still badly needs Europe -- although not for the reasons it thinks. Washington seems to view Europe as being somewhere between its deputy sheriff and its cleaning lady. "America fights, Europe funds, the un feeds," the thinking goes. The problem with this vision is that it does not fit today's geopolitical realities. In our complex, interdependent world, "hard" and "soft" power are increasingly intertwined. The clear-cut definition of military force has disappeared, and classical notions of territory and boundary have become a thing of the past. In this context the United States needs Europe -- and not just for its intelligence networks, sophisticated judicial systems, humanitarian efforts, or police. Europe is the best protection that the United States has against its

inner evils: its isolationist narcissism, its ignorance of the way others feel and think. To remain truly internationalist in a positive, constructive -- and republican -- way, the United States must be reminded of the best aspects of its past. How, otherwise, will Americans achieve idealism without illusion, realism without cynicism? Learning from past European empires is also vital to the success of the American imperial enterprise today. One of the first of these lessons -- a particularly pertinent one for American administrators in Iraq -- is that no power should ever define what is good for others without those people being involved.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 47

US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS - MULTILATERALISM Failure to reverse transatlantic disputes risks the collapse of all forms of multilateralism and international order – the US will lashout in response to European constraints Joachim Krause, Professor of International Relations, the University of Kiel and Member of the Council of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Spring 2004 (“Multilateralism: Behind European Views” – The Washington Quarterly) http://www.twq.com/04spring/docs/04spring_krause.pdf The current transatlantic rift must be prevented from gaining any momentum that will exacerbate the situation. A certain cycle appears increasingly underway, and it bodes ill for all kinds of multilateralism. Even while the United States is at war with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, the U.S. administration, a huge majority in the U.S. Congress, and public opinion all hold the view today that that there are major security problems that need to be resolved, preferably through international

institutions but unilaterally if a multilateral approach cannot address these problems. The more that European governments, particularly France and Germany, continue to use international organizations such as the Security Council and international law to check alleged U.S. hyperpower, the more Washington will circumvent international organizations, disregard international law, and look for unilateral ways or for "coalitions of the willing," no matter which party controls the White House and Congress. If this dynamic continues unabated, the Atlantic Alliance as well as the UN could be damaged beyond repair, and the existing Western liberal order risks eroding as rapidly as the international order of the nineteenth century did in the two decades preceding World War I.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 48 PROTECTIONISM BAD

Protectionism kills the global economy – empirical examples Walter Block 1998 (Necessity of Free trade, Department of Economics and Finance University of Central Arkansas) Mutual Free Trade Protectionist measures give domestic producers an artificial advantage over their foreign counterparts. At first glance, such barriers may seem to be advantageous measures that save jobs. In truth, however, policies that exclude foreign products only hurt the global economy and all who participate in it. Consumers in the importing nation have to pay more for that widget–when it could have been produced and imported from another country at a lower cost. These restrictions undoubtedly benefit local producers but are an inefficient use of money for everyone else. During the Great Depression of the 1930s England raised its tariffs to extremely high levels and used its navy to restrict the flow of goods produced elsewhere from entering. This was accomplished at great expense to British taxpayers and despite the efforts of many smugglers to avoid the tariffs. Then, in 1939, Adolph Hitler generously provided this same service to the British with the German navy and its U-boats. Moreover, the Germans provided this service at no expense to the British taxpayers. All costs were paid by the German people. One would expect an outpouring of gratitude from the British for this kindness from their German neighbors, but it was not to be. On the contrary, this was an act of war by an implacable enemy–not the generous act of a friendly nation. Yet, what Germany was doing to Britain was merely what the British government had been doing to its own people only a few weeks earlier. Indeed economically speaking, by pursuing protectionist policies, our own government does to us in peacetime what enemy governments do to us in time of war. The British consumer paid dearly for the blockade of his shores, whether it was imposed by the Germans or by his own government. In either case, however, did not the prohibition of imports protect British jobs? Things that otherwise could have been imported now had to be produced domestically–even though it was more costly to do so. Yes, jobs were protected or even “created” in industries in which England was less efficient. But that meant that workers were no longer available to work in industries where England was more efficient, that is, in which it had a comparative advantage. Moving workers from where they produce more to where they produce less is a recipe for government-imposed poverty.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 49 PROTECTIONISM BAD

Protectionism creates a vicious cycle of retaliation and ensure economic collapse US Department of State 1985 (Protectionism: A Threat to Our Prosperity, Government Publication) The Dangers of Protectionism The most serious threat to the world economy--and to our domestic economy--is the swelling tide of protectionism. People who would never condone protectionism at home somehow accept that it should be practiced internationally. To illustrate this point with a hypothetical example, suppose that the State of Virginia decided that North Carolina tobacco was making excessive inroads in the Virginia market, and suppose that Virginia (defying the constitutional prohibition against internal tariffs) managed to impose a special levy on all tobacco entering the state. Of course, North Carolina would retaliate against products from Virginia. Clearly, total economic activity--and our prosperity --would be reduced. No one in this room would consider that trade barriers among the 50 States would be anything but a disaster; but many people (economists included) appear to assume that a different set of economic rules operates on the international scene. By this same logic--or lack of logic--they assume that with impunity we can introduce protectionist measures at our international borders without hurting all parties concerned--ourselves more than others. Protectionist measures invite a spiral of retaliation, and, even in the absence of retaliation. They foster inefficient uses of scarce resources and raise the cost of living in the country introducing the protection. A favored group or industry may initially benefit from a quota, for example, but even greater additional costs are borne by the majority of the population. It may seem strange that in the United States, historically the champion of the free market, I should feel the need to make a plea for a free and open trading system. But, while most persons would readily agree that such a system is demonstrably superior in principle, I often find them advocating policies that would produce the opposite result. When individuals, industries, or even whole sectors perceive their economic interests to be threatened, they often rationalize a course of action that has, over and over again, proven to be a failure: protectionism. "We believe in free trade,' they say, "but it must be fair trade.' "Fair trade' is not defined, but implicitly it means trade in which we win. Protectionist measures, and trade-distorting measures in general, are not really actions taken by one country against another country. Instead, they are actions that benefit one domestic group at the expense of other groups in the same country. Producers oppose consumers, and industries that compete with imports oppose industries that export. It is disheartening but not surprising that protectionism's advocates are found in all nations, and always have been, but that does not validate their cause. Their arguments, in whatever language they may be phrased, are founded on the same fallacies, and neither eloquence nor vehemence will alter the fundamental fact that protectionism is inevitably self-defeating. Protectionism is like a disease--not only pernicious but contagious. When it appears, it spreads and leaves a trail of economic disability. By "protectionism,' I mean any measure that gives a domestic producer an artificial advantage over foreign producers. I include tariffs, quotas, voluntary export restraints, subsidies, unnecessary licensing, health and safety standards, and all other measures that distort trade.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 50 PROTECTIONISM BAD

Protectionism turns food crisis UPI 2008 (Protectionism could worsen food crisis. April 21)

The U.N. chief is warning countries to resist protectionism, saying it will exacerbate the global food crisis resulting in increased threats to security. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, speaking at the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development in Ghana, said that global trade has resulted in two decades of economic prosperity. Ban said that despite the current food crisis in poor countries, if government officials turn toward protectionist policies it will only make the situation worse and potentially escalate security concerns, the United Nations reported. "International grain markets must remain open and functioning normally," Ban said in a statement. "Ultimately, our task is to ensure that the virtuous cycle goes on and its benefits extend as broadly as possible -- most especially to those who have so far missed out. More trade, not less, will get us out of the hole we're in." Recent protests and riots resulting from the surging costs of basic foods including rice, wheat and corn have caused many critics to call for protectionist policies that could stifle global trade. Ban acknowledged that at the same time leaders around the world have to support the countries that have been bypassed in the global market. But he noted that the world's consumption level is greater than the amount of food produced and called the situation unsustainable. He urged wealthy nations to rethink subsidy programs. "Grain stocks are at

their lowest in 30 years," Ban said. "The situation is unsustainable. ... It is time for wealthier nations to rethink old-fashioned program of agricultural subsidies. Economists agree that they inhibit trade and disproportionately penalize poorer nations, contributing to the current emergency." Protectionism causes trade wars Dr. John Rutledge 2007 (PROTECTIONISM - THE REAL THREAT TO GROWTH, STABILITY. Dr John Rutledge is a leading economist who has advised several presidents, including the current administration, as well as multinational corporations and financial institutions. China Daily august 3) Today, when a political leader announces a new protectionist measure, crowds cheer. I believe that rising protectionism, nationalism, and social instability are rooted in the turbulence caused by rapid economic change. Rapid economic change raises average incomes but it creates new industries and destroys others, creating uncertainty in the lives of many people. Those, whose fortunes have been temporarily or permanently reduced, as well as those who are simply afraid of change, appeal to political leaders for relief; political leaders who promise to stop or reverse change will gain power over leaders who counsel openness. Left unchecked, this process can

lead to global trade war as country after country erects non-market barriers to the smooth flow of trade. Ultimately, these mounting frictions can produce system failure, akin to the blackouts caused by failures of an electricity network, in which the global economy stops growing, as it did in the 1970's. Rampant protectionism could also breed social and political instability and, ultimately, bring nations into conflict. Political instability would put all the gains of the past quarter century at risk. The unintended consequences of protectionism would be harmful for people living in developed countries; they would be a tragedy for the world's three billion poor people. We can choose a better course. Although we cannot entirely eliminate calls for protectionism, there are things we can do to retard its growth and mitigate its harmful effects.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 51 PROTECTIONISM BAD

Protectionism turns case – it harms the environment by rewarding inefficient policies and delays the adoption of cleaner technologies – it also impoverishes the vast majority of people – India proves Turkish Daily News 2008 (Februrary 5, PROTECTIONISM HARMS CONSUMERS AND THE ENVIRONMENT)

Although some claim that trade barriers would help the environment, they are actually counterproductive. They favorthe status quo by rewarding inefficient producers and thus delaying the adoption of cleaner, resource-savingtechnologies. Consider bananas. These could be grown in the cold climates of Finland, Canada, and Russia. But to do so would be farmore costly than growing them in warm places, and then exporting them to consumers around the world. Which is why theyare grown in places such as Costa Rica and the Ivory Coast. As a result bananas are less expensive and resources areused more sustainably.

Poor countries would suffer disproportionately from green trade barriers with adverse effects on both people andthe environment. Protectionism will mean fewer products from poor countries being sold to industrialized countries. Solocal companies will have less money to invest in new, cleaner technologies. Instead, they will continue to use older,dirtier production methods and thus will use scarce resources less sustainably. This effect would be exacerbated byreduced investment from multinational companies. Moreover, less trade means less wealth, which translates into fewerresources available to invest in environmental conservation. India demonstrates the follies of protectionism. Until 1984, India had one car manufacturer, which produced just one car the Ambassador which was technologically inferior, belched pollutants, and was unaffordable to all but theelite. In 1984, India began to open its market to foreign car producers. This process exploded after the reforms of 1991and millions of Indians have benefited from competition, purchasing cars that are less expensive, cleaner, moretechnologically advanced and efficient. Environmental ideologues continue to make dour prognostications about our planet's future, claiming that we all must consume less, have fewer children and trade less with each other to address climate change. Based on theirscaremongering and frankly embarrassing record of false predictions in recent decades, these claims should not be heededseriously. Such demands may suit the protectionist agenda but they have little merit in terms of their practical abilityto enable humanity to use scarce natural and human resources in an ever-more sustainable manner. The competitive market process, underpinned by free trade between and within nations, is inherently more sustainable than the regulated economy advocated by eco-doom mongers. Protectionism, naked or cloaked in green, harms the vastmajority of people as well as the environment and is best avoided.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 52 PROTECTIONISM BAD

Protectionism turns case – artificially stimulates one player creating unequal opportunities paving the way for environmental degradation China Post 2008 (PROTECTIONISM MAY BE HARMFUL TO ALL, Feb 3)

The idea behind such protectionism is to create a "level playing field" -- where European and Americanproducers are not disadvantaged by their self-imposed restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. But instead of leveling the playing field, this game would artificially make all players one-legged and one-armed. The benefits of trade wouldbe replaced by losses in consumer welfare and environmental degradation. Whereas the beneficiaries of liberalization are widely dispersed, the beneficiaries of trade restrictions areconcentrated and tend to be very effective in lobbying national governments to "protect" their business fromcompetition, especially when supported by moralists, such as environmentalists, who claim that such protections benefit the earth. Thus, Greens, big business and organised labor unite. The Lieberman-Warner bill is endorsed not only by major Greengroups but also by electricity providers and their associated trade unions. Similarly, various European trade unionshave applauded calls for punitive trade measures against non-EU competitors. But in reality, it is far more moral to support liberalization. Trade barriers of any kind, including"green" subsidies,

tariffs and quotas, harm both consumers and producers. They artificially increase costs,leading to unnecessary waste of scarce natural and human resources. Consumers and producers spend more to purchase thesame goods and services, so have less to invest in new technologies or to save for the future. Protectionism turns case – hurts the environment – empirically proven – free trade solves GABRIEL STEIN 2007(Chief International Economist, Lombard Street Research. Will environmentalism become the new protectionism? Twenty-three experts weigh in.(A SYMPOSIUM OF VIEWS)) Insisting on imposing environmental standards as a condition for trade will have one of two effects. Either it will create substantial tension with emerging economies, who rightly claim that today's advanced economies ignored the environment when they grew rich. In this case the efforts will be unsuccessful and the political consequences harmful. Or else the efforts will be successful, but at the cost of condemning billions of people in emerging economies to continued poverty. But that would be self-defeating, since history shows that people care more about the environment the richer they are. Ultimately, the best way to improve the world's environment is to help poor countries grow rich. An easy way to do that is to practice free trade.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 53 PROTECTIONISM BAD

Protectionism causes retaliation – free trade solves JIM O'NEILL 2007 (Head of Global Economic Research, Goldman Sachs International. Will environmentalism become the new protectionism? Twenty-three experts weigh in.(A SYMPOSIUM OF VIEWS)) Moreover, it is likely that global environmental standards will not be raised by protectionist behavior. Trade limitations on one side incite retaliations on the other. As a result trade becomes more expensive and the price level increases. Why should countries that are made poorer by protectionism be more ready to improve their environmental standards? There is a more positive strategy. Economies should enhance trade in environmental technologies. Sophisticated machinery that allows sustainable production without polluting the environment should be in high demand, especially in countries that face environmental problems. The same applies to technologies that clean up an already polluted environment. Economies supplying these technologies benefit from higher growth and those buying them benefit from an improved environment. What will happen? There are good reasons to believe that the latter strategy has at least a fair chance. Even in China, politicians are well aware of their environmental problems. Chinese economic growth will only become sustainable if environmental standards are raised. There are firms in the United States and Europe that could help China achieve this aim. Trade pays. Protectionism has been on the decline – only free trade solves WILLIAM E. BROCK III 2007(Former U.S. Trade Representative and Secretary of Labor. Will environmentalism become the new protectionism? Twenty-three experts weigh in.(A SYMPOSIUM OF VIEWS)) Over the past few decades, demands for egregious acts of protectionism have been faced with a slow but increasing reluctance in Washington, in part because most Americans have realized that in many cases the affected firm's competitive weakness was largely self-imposed. The result has been a growing reliance on a rules based world trading system, a slow but steady improvement in more open markets, and a rapid, even dramatic, growth in world trade In sum, the forces of protectionism were being hard pressed, thus the need for new and more acceptable arguments to justify governmental intervention. Yet just as the demands and "justifications" for protectionism seem endless, so too are the methods and tactics employed by those who prefer market intervention to competition. Environmentalism to the rescue! [Continued] The task for our economic and trade leadership is to find a way to craft approaches which satisfy the public demand for environmental progress, and that will require global as well as bilateral agreements, without allowing those agreements to become a subterfuge for protectionism. The potential for error is large, and the potential consequences enormous.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 54 PROTECTIONISM BAD

Protectionism create economic instability – it outweighs any potential benefits. Only free trade solves Gene Smiley 1989 (“Protectionism Threatens U.S. Prosperity” He is an associate professor of economics @ Marquette university) If the government imposes quotas or tariffs on, say, imported steel, then reduced supplies and higher prices for imported steel allow domestic steel producers to sell more steel and raise their prices. That, in fact, is what has recently happened. Firms that purchase steel, such as the producers of stainless steel kitchenware, are facing rising prices. Rexworks, a small industrial firm in Milwaukee, found that even though it had an excellent year in production and sales, unanticipated increases in steel prices wiped out $2 million in profits. Meanwhile the steel producers are reaping huge gains. These harmful effects extend far beyond the direct purchasers of the protected products. The reduced sales of foreign steel decrease the number of American dollars foreign countries receive. Because foreigners have fewer dollars, their demand for American exports must fall. American exporters find that there is less foreign demand for their products, and their sales and prices and incomes fall. While the measures designed to protect selected U.S. firms raise their incomes, they reduce the incomes of American firms and individuals that serve foreign markets. Consumers who buy protected products must pay higher prices and face a reduced range of choices. The benefit for the protected firms and industries, then, comes at the expense of consumers in general and firms that export. Unfortunately, the losses incurred by those who are harmed by the protective measures will be greater than the gains of those who are helped. In free markets, specialization and exchange encourage people to engage in those activities for which they are the most productive. Trade protection stifles this process, so that total output falls. And, when this occurs, we begin the long trek down the road to the general impoverishment of our society -- in the name of "protecting" those firms whose owners and employees are enriched at everyone else's expense. We have gone through this before. In June 1930, during the early stages of the Great Depression, Congress tried to protect Americans by enacting huge tariff increases. Such intervention served only to lengthen and worsen the depression. Current proposals are inviting another Great Depression. The freedom to choose our specialization and to exchange with whomever we wish is the only way to guarantee prosperity.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 55 PROTECTIONISM BAD

Protectionism hurts the environment – free trade solves. James Sheehan 2004 (Globalized Free Trade Will Protect Global Resources. James M. Sheehan is director of international policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank) Environmentalists need not fear that expansion of trade will produce growth in pollution. To the extent that expanded trade is generating economic growth, environmental quality should also improve. This fundamental economic reality does not change simply because goods and services are crossing borders. The same free-market institutions which generate economic gains also generate environmental gains. To the extent that protective tariffs and subsidies restrict and distort trade, they reduce income and, hence, the demand for environmental quality. Environmentalists have more to fear from protectionism. Current agricultural policies cause major distortions of world food production and trade. Industrial countries encourage agricultural production with price supports and other subsidies totaling $200 billion per year, while developing countries discourage agricultural production through tax and trade policies. Agricultural subsidies in the United States, for example, are responsible for intense chemical pesticide and fertilizer use on farmlands. By fostering inefficient land use, US subsidies and land set-aside programs contribute to soil erosion and loss of wetlands and forests. Federal mismanagement also encourages farmers to overplant while discouraging crop rotation, depleting soils and exacerbating pest eradication. By scaling back interventionist government policies, trade liberalization would have significant environmental benefits. Protectionist structures turns case – it causes environmental degradation – empirically proven. James Sheehan 2004 (Globalized Free Trade Will Protect Global Resources. James M. Sheehan is director of international policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank) The Folly of Government Regulation Even though growth coincides with environmental improvement, "market failure" is often blamed for the existence of pollution itself. Many environmentalists consider the system of capitalism and private enterprise inherently responsible for environmental externalities. Only government regulation in the public interest can force businesses to internalize social costs, according to this argument, and such regulation must be extended to trade. Thus, there is a strong anti-market bias to environmentalist arguments. The market-failure argument leads inexorably to central planning; any human activity with environmental impacts must be politically controlled. Government is entrusted to effectively foster only the types of economic growth which are environmentally friendly, while preventing the types that are not. Yet no government has the capability of assimilating the vast amounts of economic, technological, and scientific data necessary to make such determinations. The task of ecological central planning is no easier than economic central planning. If market failure was truly the cause of pollution, we would expect the absence of markets in the centrally-planned economies of Eastern Europe would have been environmentally beneficial. On the contrary, without the profit motive of the market, some of the worst environmental degradation in the world occurred in the former Soviet Bloc. Central planning failed largely because it could not efficiently distribute resources. Neither could it safeguard environmental resources. Data from sample market and socialist economies shows that market economies become more resource-efficient with economic growth. Socialist countries, however, are generally more resource intensive, even in times of recession. Without a profit motive, there is little incentive for political owners of a resource to conserve for the future in order to maximize returns.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 56 PROTECTIONISM BAD

Protectionism causes retaliatory measures The Socialist 2006 (“World Economy: Trade Wars and Protectionism” Ken Smith, writer for the socialist weekly) THE BIG danger associated with imposing protectionist measures for any capitalist class, as well as a slow down in world economic growth, is that it brings the prospect of retaliation and closes down areas of the world market to them. Whilst there are tensions between different sections of the capitalist classes about how far to advance globalisation and free trade, the capitalists generally prefer to avoid greater protectionism in the global economy, whilst trying to create the most favourable conditions - often through disguised protectionism - for their own indigenous industries. An almighty economic crisis, however, could probably bring about deep-rooted protectionist measures in most major economies - as happened in the 1930s. The capitalist classes are aware that this could lead to a depressing effect on world economic growth - again as happened in the 1930s. The capitalists are not blind to the consequences of their actions but these measures would be deemed necessary to protect national economies against their rivals At present, there is little chance of the advanced capitalist countries going fully down a protectionist road. Yet, as the pace of job losses and industrial closures increases in the USA, Europe and other parts of the world, the demand for protectionism to safeguard jobs could find a bigger echo in the workers' movement. Workers cannot safeguard their future through adopting the type of protectionist measures advocated from time to time by certain sections of the capitalist class. Protectionism kills growth and causes trade wars Business Times 2006 (“Execs see protectionism as rising threat: EIU study; Backlash can cut world GDP growth by one percentage point” November 24, 2006) (SINGAPORE) Protectionism is increasingly viewed as a major threat to corporate growth, a global study has found. According to a new study by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) part of the Economist Group which publishes The Economist - business executives around the world believe that protectionism is on the rise in both developed and emerging markets. The survey, which also outlines some of the strategies that companies are using to deal with the problems caused by protectionism, was commissioned by UK Trade & Investment, the UK government's international business development agency. The report comes in the wake of recent bad news on the free trade front. The Doha trade talks of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) have stalled, with little likelihood of a quick resolution. Developed markets seem increasingly willing to stop foreign takeovers of key firms. And the sweeping victory by the Democrats in the US Congress has fanned fears of rising economic nationalism in the US. According to EIU forecasts, the impact on economic growth of a rise in protectionism could be severe - a relatively modest backlash against globalisation could shave nearly a full percentage point off annual world GDP growth during the period 2011-2020. World trade has been one of the principal engines of global economic growth over recent decades, and increased protectionism risks putting the brakes on that growth,' said Ian McCartney, UK Trade Minister responsible for UK Trade & Investment. 'Protectionism leads to less trade, lower growth and, therefore, lower employment and more poverty. Those economies that benefit from globalisation will be those that take the long-term view and provide stability in the business environment. This allows businesses to invest and plan ahead with greater confidence.'

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 57 PROTECTIONISM BAD

Protectionism is an ineffective way to correct recessions Bhagwati 1988 (Jagdish Bhagwati is the Arthur Lehman Professor of Economics and a professor of political science at Columbia University, “Protectionism.”) One may well think that any market failure could be a reason for protection. Economists did fall into this trap until the fifties. Economists now argue, instead, that protection would be an inappropriate way to correct for most market failures. For example, if wages do not adjust quickly enough when demand for an industry's product falls, as was the case with U.S. autoworkers losing out to foreign competition, the appropriate government intervention, if any, should be in the labor market, directly aimed at the source of the problem. Protection would be, at best, an inefficient way of correcting for the market failure. Many economists also believe that even if protection were appropriate in theory, it would be "captured" in practice by special interests who would misuse it to pursue their own interests instead of letting it be used for the national interest. One clear cost of protection is that the country imposing it forces its consumers to forgo cheap imports. But another important cost of protection may well be the lobbying costs incurred by those seeking protection. These lobbying activities, now extensively studied by economists, are variously described as rent-seeking or directly unproductive profit-seeking activities. They are unproductive because they produce profit or income for those who lobby without creating valuable output for the rest of society. Protectionism collapses the world economy and causes chaotic wars and proliferation. Mead 1992 (Walter, Senior Fellow @ WP institute, Harpers Magazine) We cannot simply outpace the competition – nor can we simply keep them out. The most vocal critics of the Bush Administration’s trade policies are frankly protectionist: don’t sign the free-trade agreement with Mexico, build a wall along the Rio Grande instead. Keep foreign goods out and bring back the fifties. This is the gut instinct of the least enlightened members of the American labor movement, and it underlies the rhetoric of America Founders on the right. But the protectionist option is an illusion. Because the United States is the world’s leading exporter, US jobs and economic prospects depend on the continued willingness of other countries to receive our exports. We can be certain that if we slam our doors shut, other countries will retaliate. We must also worry about war. Closing our doors to goods from Russia, China, and India will wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 58 PROTECTIONISM BAD

Protectionism is unjust Daniel Griswold 2006 (Free Trade Promotes Human Rights. Daniel T. Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian public policy think tank. He is coeditor of Economic Casualties: How U.S. Foreign Policy Undermines Trade, Growth, and Liberty (1999) and the author of numerous editorials and scholarly papers on issues pertaining to trade and immigration) One: Free Trade Respects Individual Dignity and Sovereignty A man or woman engaged in honest work has a basic right to enjoy the fruits of his or her labor. It is a violation of my right to property for the government to forbid me to exchange what I produce for something produced by a fellow human being, whether the person I'm trading with lives across town or across the ocean. Protectionism is a form of stealing, a violation of the Eighth Commandment and other prohibitions against theft. It takes from one group of people, usually a broad cross section of consumers, and gives the spoils to a small group of producers whose only claim to the money is that they would be worse off under open competition. Free trade meets the most elementary test of justice, giving to each person sovereign control over that which is his own. As [economist] Frederic Bastiat wrote in his 1849 essay, "Protectionism and Communism": Every citizen who has produced or acquired a product should have the option of applying it immediately to his own use or of transferring it to whoever on the face of the earth agrees to give him in exchange the object of his desires. To deprive him of this option when he has committed no act contrary to public order and good morals, and solely to satisfy the convenience of another citizen, is to legitimize an act of plunder and to violate the law of justice. Two: Free Trade Restrains the Power of the State Free trade is morally superior to protectionism because it places trust in what [economic philosopher] Adam Smith called "the natural system of liberty" rather than in a man-centered system of centralized industrial policy. And by doing so it allows citizens to fulfill their creative and productive potential. There is no compelling moral reason why a small group of politicians should decide, on the sole basis of where things are produced, what goods and services an individual can buy with his earnings. By diffusing economic decisionmaking as broadly as possible, free trade reduces the power of people in high places—always fallible and subject to temptation and abuse of power—to inflict damage on society.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 59 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONISM BAD

Environmental protectionism violates the WTO GA 1998 (TRADE PROTECTIONISM DISGUISED AS ENVIRONMENTAL AND LABOUR LAW SHOULD BE ELIMINATED, SECOND COMMITTEE TOLD, Press Release) Trade protectionism disguised as environmental and labour laws should be eliminated by industrialized countries, the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) was told this morning, as it considered macroeconomic policy questions. The elimination of trade-distorting policies, protectionist practices and non-tariff barriers, in the guise of environmental, technical and labour standards, remained urgent, said the representative of Bangladesh. Products of least developed countries very often faced problems of access in the industrial markets due to those policies. Close cooperation among the United Nations, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Bretton Woods institutions remained an imperative in that regard. There was an excessive array of trade tariffs, quotas and unilateral measures that were intended to safeguard markets and limit free trade, said the representative of Brazil, on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR). Many countries invoked environmental protection and labour rights as a pretext to control and limit trade. Access to markets and the reductions of subsidies must have priority for future deliberations and decisions of the WTO. Speaking on the topic of globalization, the representative of Indonesia, on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, said the phenomenon had triggered a range of opportunities for development and advanced economies had already reaped significant benefits. However, globalization also exposed developing countries to new and enormous risks, making them much more vulnerable to certain external factors that were beyond their control. Preferential access on its own was unlikely to achieve the effective integration of least developed countries into the world trading system, said the representative of the European Union. In order to ensure that development was sustainable and contributed to human, social and economic development, export expansion should not come at the expense of social and environmental protection.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 60 FREE TRADE GOOD

Free trade solves war – credible studies prove Boudreaux 2006 (November 20, Donald J. Boudreaux is chairman of the economics department at George Mason University. Want world peace? Support free trade) These activities employ workers here at home and raise their wages. Mountains of empirical evidence show that protectionism is economically destructive. The facts also show that protectionism is inconsistent with a desire for peace - a desire admirably expressed by many Democrats during the recent campaigns. Back in 1748, Baron de Montesquieu observed that

"Peace is the natural effect of trade. Two nations who differ with each other become reciprocally dependent; for if one has an interest in buying, the other has an interest in selling; and thus their union is founded on their mutual necessities." If Mr. Montesquieu is correct that trade promotes peace, then protectionism - a retreat from open trade - raises the chances of war. Plenty of empirical evidence confirms the wisdom of Montesquieu's insight: Trade does indeed promote peace. During the past 30 years, Solomon Polachek, an economist at the State University of New York at Binghamton, has researched the relationship between trade and peace. In his most recent paper on the topic, he and co-author Carlos Seiglie of Rutgers University review the massive amount of research on trade, war, and peace. They find that "the overwhelming evidence indicates that trade reduces conflict." Likewise for foreign

investment. The greater the amounts that foreigners invest in the United States, or the more that Americans invest abroad, the lower is the likelihood of war between America and those countries with which it has investment relationships. Professors Polachek and Seiglie conclude that, "The policy implication of our finding is that further international cooperation in reducing barriers to both trade and capital flows can promote a more peaceful world." Columbia University political scientist Erik Gartzke reaches a similar but more general conclusion: Peace is fostered by economic freedom. Economic freedom certainly includes, but is broader than, the freedom of ordinary people to trade internationally. It includes also low and transparent rates of taxation, the easy ability of entrepreneurs to start new businesses, the lightness of regulations on labor, product, and credit markets, ready access to sound money, and other factors that encourage the allocation of resources by markets rather than by government officials. Professor Gartzke ranks countries on an economic-freedom index from 1 to 10, with 1 being very unfree and 10 being very free. He then examines military conflicts from 1816 through 2000. His findings are powerful: Countries that rank

lowest on an economic-freedom index - with scores of 2 or less - are 14 times more likely to be involved in military conflicts than are countries whose people enjoy significant economic freedom (that is, countries with scores of 8 or higher). Also important, the findings of Polachek and Gartzke improve our understanding of the long-recognized reluctance of democratic nations to wage war against one another. These scholars argue that the so-called democratic peace is really the capitalist peace. Democratic institutions are heavily concentrated in countries that also have strong protections for private property rights, openness to foreign commerce, and other features broadly consistent with capitalism. That's why the observation that any two

democracies are quite unlikely to go to war against each other might reflect the consequences of capitalism more than democracy. And that's just what the data show. Polachek and Seiglie find that openness to trade is much more effective at encouraging peace than is democracy per se. Similarly, Gartzke discovered that, "When measures of both economic freedom and democracy are included in a statistical study, economic freedom is about 50 times more effective than democracy in diminishing violent conflict." These findings make sense. By promoting prosperity, economic freedom gives ordinary people a large stake in

peace. This prosperity is threatened during wartime. War almost always gives government more control over resources and imposes the burdens of higher taxes, higher inflation, and other disruptions of the everyday commercial relationships that support prosperity. When commerce reaches across political borders, the peace-promoting effects of economic freedom intensify. Why? It's bad for the bottom line to shoot your customers or your suppliers, so the more you trade with foreigners the less likely you are to seek, or even to tolerate, harm to these foreigners. Senators-elect Sherrod Brown (D) of Ohio and Jim Webb (D) of Virginia probably don't realize it, but by endorsing trade protection, they actually work against the

long-run prospects for peace that they so fervently desire.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 61 FREE TRADE GOOD

Free trade ensures peace Daniel Griswold 2006 (Free Trade Promotes Human Rights. Daniel T. Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian public policy think tank. He is coeditor of Economic Casualties: How U.S. Foreign Policy Undermines Trade, Growth, and Liberty (1999) and the author of numerous editorials and scholarly papers on issues pertaining to trade and immigration) Six: Free Trade Fosters Peace In an 1845 speech in the British House of Commons, Richard Cobden called free trade "that advance which is calculated to knit nations more together in the bonds of peace by means of commercial intercourse." Free trade does not

guarantee peace, but it does strengthen peace by raising the cost of war to governments and citizens. As nations become more integrated through expanding markets, they have more to lose should trade be disrupted. In recent years, the twin trends of globalization and democratization have produced their own "peace dividend": since 1987 real spending on armaments throughout the world has dropped by more than onethird. Since the end of the Cold War, the threat of major international wars has receded. In fact, today, virtually every armed conflict in the world is not between nations but within nations. During the 1930s the industrialized

nations waged trade wars against each other. They raised tariffs and imposed quotas in order to protect domestic industry. The result, however, was that other nations raised their barriers even further, choking off global trade and deepening and prolonging the global economic depression. Those dark economic times contributed to the conflict that became World War II. America's postwar policy of encouraging free trade through multilateral trade agreements was aimed at promoting peace as much as prosperity.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 62 FREE TRADE GOOD

Free trade solves poverty and empowers people Daniel Griswold 2006 (Free Trade Promotes Human Rights. Daniel T. Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian public policy think tank. He is coeditor of Economic Casualties: How U.S. Foreign Policy Undermines Trade, Growth, and Liberty (1999) and the author of numerous editorials and scholarly papers on issues pertaining to trade and immigration) Seven: Free Trade Feeds and Clothes the Poor Free trade and free markets empower poor people by giving them greater opportunity to create wealth and support their families. By dispersing economic power more widely, free trade and free markets undercut the ability of elites in less-developed countries to pillage a nation's resources at the expense of its poor. Proof can be found in the immigration patterns of poor people throughout the world. By the millions, they seek to leave closed and centrally controlled economies for those that are more open and less controlled. Poor people themselves understand that a free economy serves their interests, even if many of their self-appointed intellectual advocates in the West do not. Nations open to trade tend to be more prosperous, just as cities along coastlines and navigable rivers tend to be wealthier than those in more remote, inland locations. The most recent Economic Freedom of the World study, by James Gwartney and Robert Lawson, found that the nations that were most open economically from 1980 through 1998 grew nearly five times faster than those that were most closed. And that trade-related growth lifts the lot of the poor. To cite the most dramatic example of this, the World Bank estimates that the number of Chinese citizens living in absolute poverty—that is, on less than $1 per day—has fallen since 1978 by 200 million. Revoking China's normal trade status, among all its other negative consequences, would set back one of the most successful anti-poverty programs in the history of mankind. In contrast, those regions of the world where poverty has been the most intractable, sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, have been the least open to trade and foreign investment. For all those reasons, trade sanctions fall heaviest on the poor of the target nation. Political rulers have the power to protect their pampered lifestyles, while the poor are left to suffer the consequences of U.S. policies that were enacted in the name of helping the very people they victimize. You can be sure that the communist leaders in Cuba and the ruling junta in Burma will continue to enjoy their fine, catered meals and chauffeur-driven cars while the millions of poor people they oppress are made even more miserable by U.S. trade and investment sanctions. When all of the arguments are weighed, it should become clear that a policy of free trade is moral as well as efficient. Free trade limits the power of the state and enhances the freedom, autonomy, and self-responsibility of the individual. It promotes virtuous and responsible personal behavior. It brings people together in "communities of work" that cross borders and cultures. It opens the door for ideas and evangelism. It undermines the authority of dictators by expanding the freedom, opportunity, and independence of the people they try to control. It promotes peace among nations. It helps the poor to feed and care for themselves and creates a better future for their children. For which of these virtues should we reject free trade?

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 63 FREE TRADE GOOD

Free trade solves poverty and corrupt regimes Daniel Griswold 2006 (Free Trade Promotes Human Rights. Daniel T. Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian public policy think tank. He is coeditor of Economic Casualties: How U.S. Foreign Policy Undermines Trade, Growth, and Liberty (1999) and the author of numerous editorials and scholarly papers on issues pertaining to trade and immigration) The United States trades freely with some nations that have dismal records on human rights issues. Liberals and religious conservatives object to this practice because they say it provides encouragement and support to regimes that violate human rights. In truth, U.S. trade threatens such regimes by creating an empowered and financially successful class of citizens who are in a much better position to challenge a tyrannical government than a nation of impoverished serfs would be. A government that relies on international trade is much less likely to engage in war and gross human rights violations as they could disrupt trade and thereby threaten the national economy. The United States should continue to trade with tyrannical regimes not because it is efficient or morally acceptable, but because it is morally good. Free trade is one of the most effective ways to empower the oppressed and threaten their oppressors.U.S. trade policy is almost always debated in terms of economic utility: Does free trade raise or lower incomes? Does it help or hurt U.S. industry? Does it create or destroy jobs? But behind the statistics and anecdotes lie moral assumptions about human nature, the sovereignty of the individual, and the role of government in a free society. Free trade may deliver the goods and boost efficiency, but is it morally superior to protectionism? At the Summit of the Americas meeting in Quebec in April [2001], anti-capitalist protesters answered with a loud no, condemning free trade as a tool of the rich that exploits the poor and undermines democracy. Some religious conservatives portray free trade as a tool of the devil. Reform Party presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, in his 1998 book The Great Betrayal, called the doctrine of free trade "a secularist faith ... born of rebellion against church and crown." Gary Bauer, former head of the Family Research Council and another failed aspirant to the White House, compares American trade with China with appeasement of the Soviet Union. In a speech in May before the Council of the Americas, President [George W.] Bush joined the moral debate, telling his audience: "Open trade is not just an economic opportunity, it is a moral imperative. Trade creates jobs for the unemployed. When we negotiate for open markets, we are providing new hope for the world's poor. And when we promote open trade, we are promoting political freedom. Societies that open to commerce across their borders will open to democracy within their borders, not always immediately, and not always smoothly, but in good time."

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 64 UNIQUNESS: PROTECTIONISM NOW

Protectionism now Robert Barro 2004 (Journal of Policy Modeling, “Current Protectionism and the Benefits of Free Trade” Department of Economics @ Harvard University) The other part that I see as a problem, which relates more to this session, is about protectionism. I don’t see an overarching commitment to free trade in this administration. Instead it seems that each policy is driven by the interest of a particular group, which often leads to some kinds of protectionism and subsidy. Early on in the administration this showed up in agricultural subsidies and protection of timber imports from Canada. Subsequent to that were the infamous steel tariffs, protecting an industry which has been protected for at least 30 years. I think this was driven by a doubtful political calculus, and the this year’s election politics. I wrote a column in Business Week criticizing protectionism in the form of the steel tariffs. I got quite a bit of harsh criticism, but all from the steel sector. Interestingly, the criticism was equally enthusiastic from managers and labor union people in the steel union industry. The only real difference that I could see is that the managers were polite and the union people tended to use a lot of colorful obscenities. Of course, the administration has been forced, particularly by the WTO to do the right thing on the steel tariffs and to apparently, reluctantly, eliminate them. So, we have to applaud the fact that they did agree to eliminate them, but there’s some gesture about trying to maintain the potential for re-instituting these tariffs if it turns out that they don’t like what’s going on with, quote un-quote, dumping. Protectionism on the rise Japan Times 2008 (Hugh Cortazzi, May 14, “Protectionism won’t solve crisis”) A renewed attempt should be made to revive the Doha round of trade negotiations although this may already be too late. Protectionist pressures are growing particularly in the U.S. The world sadly does not learn from history. In the first half of the 19th-century Britain, which was moving from primarily an agricultural economy to an industrial state, protected its agriculture from cheap imports from North America through "The Corn Laws." Land owners feared that if these laws were repealed and imports freely allowed, their income would be greatly reduced. But workers in the factories and mines of industrial Britain suffered greatly as inflation and shortages pushed up prices. In Ireland in the 1840s, potato crops failed and Ireland faced famine. Many died; the luckier ones managed to escape to North America. The British prime minister at the time, the Conservative Sir Robert Peel, had long opposed repeal of the Corn Laws, but in the face of the threat of social unrest and hunger, he relented and forced the repeal through Parliament. His decision split his own party.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 65 UNIQUNESS: PROTECTIONISM NOW

We’re on the brink – with the US in midst of a recession, there is a growing tendency to become protectionist Xinhua 2008 (January 25, Gordon Brown warns against protectionism) British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned on Friday against protectionism, which tend to find its place in part of Europe and other countries amid an uncertain global economy. "We have to be less protectionist," Brown told a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum, which kicked off here on Wednesday. The annual gathering of world political and business leader was clouded this year by increasing concern about the prospect of an economic slowdown of the global economy as economists feared the U. S. economy, troubled by the financial turmoil, is heading for recession. In face of worldwide difficulties, there is a danger of resorting to protectionism among some countries. "I think there is a danger. I see it in parts of Europe where people resort to protectionism," Brown said, without identifying the countries he was referring to. Britain, a traditional supporter of free trade within the European Union (EU), has been in spat with France over French President Nicolas Sarkozy's call for flexibility from Europe in sticking to free market principles. "We must be champions of free trade," Brown said.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 66 UNIQUENESS—SUBSIDIES LOW

Subsidies for alternative energy are on the decline The International Herald Tribune 2008 (June 2, Matt Daily, “Alternative Energy on Edge in the US”) Anxiety is setting in among companies specializing in solar and wind power, and the investors that are backing them, as U.S. lawmakers delay the extension of tax credits deemed critical for the burgeoning renewable energy industry. After several failed attempts by Congress to prolong alternative energy subsidies that are set to expire at the end of this year, companies are bracing for the worst by cutting jobs and trying to increase their sales in Europe, where generous government incentives are more certain. ''It certainly is affecting business,'' said Mike Splinter, chief executive of Applied Materials, a maker of solar equipment. ''It's a major issue for the solar industry,'' Splinter said. ''We've seen hundreds of cities and many states start to adopt their own rules, and we can't pass even the simplest, smallest of incentives.'' The alternative energy industry still relies heavily on subsidies to make prices of renewable power competitive with electricity generated from coal and natural gas. Several attempts to extend the tax credits have failed in recent months as lawmakers argue over how to pay for them. In February, the House of Representatives approved an extension by taking away billions of dollars in tax credits from big oil companies, but the measure was opposed by the Senate. The latest bill includes about $20 billion of incentives that extend for one year the federal tax credit for companies that produce electricity from wind, and extend it for three years for power generated from biomass, geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas and solid waste. Businesses and homeowners would also be able to offset 30 percent of the cost of solar or fuel-cell equipment purchased before 2014 with a one-time tax credit. The measure passed in the House last month, but the White House threatened to veto it. Democrats have said election-year pressures and soaring gasoline prices will eventually lead to an extension of the subsidies. But that confidence is not shared by the industry. Akeena Solar, a maker of solar power systems, recently cut 8 percent of its work force and warned of weaker demand this year, in part because of a pullback in large-scale projects that would not be completed by the end of the year. Energy subsidies have been on a sharp decline Olivier Appert 2002 (Director, Office for Long-Term Co-operation and Policy Analysis International Energy Agency. Reforming Energy Subsidies) The overall size of energy subsidies has fallen sharply since the 1980s, mainly due to economic reform in the former communist bloc. Subsidies dropped by more than half in the five years to 1996 according to the World Bank (see Figure 2). A 1999 IEA study, which examined eight of the largest non-OECD countries covering almost 60 per cent of total non-OECD energy demand, put the total value of energy subsidies in those countries at around $95 billion in 1998. End-use prices were found to be about one-fifth below market levels in those countries.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 67 ENERGY SUBSIDIES BAD

Energy subsidies turn case – they hurt the poor and doesn’t help the people it attempts to – multiple barriers. Olivier Appert 2002 (Director, Office for Long-Term Co-operation and Policy Analysis International Energy Agency. Reforming Energy Subsidies) In reality, however, these subsidies often benefit mainly the energy companies, equipment suppliers and the better-off households, especially in the towns and cities, and, in some cases, may not even reach the poor at all. As a result, many energy-subsidy programmes intended to boost poor households’ purchasing power or rural communities’ access to modern energy through lower prices can, paradoxically, leave the poor worse off, since the costs are shared by the entire population including the poor. There are three main reasons for this: The poorest households may be unable to afford even subsidized energy or may have no physical access to it, for example when a rural community is not connected to the electricity grid. Even if the poor are able to benefit from an energy subsidy, the financial value to them may be small since their consumption is generally modest. Higher income households tend to benefit much more in nominal terms since they consume more of the subsidized fuel. Consumption subsidies that involve the imposition of caps on prices below market levels may lead to a need for rationing (see Box 1). Middle and higher income households tend to get hold of the bulk of subsidized energy in countries where it is rationed, through petty corruption and favouritism. Price caps, where they have led to big differences in prices with neighbouring countries, have also encouraged smuggling in some parts of Africa and Asia. Subsidies can hurt the interests of poor people in other ways too. In practice, energy subsidies often go to large capital-intensive projects, such as hydroelectric dams, at the expense of local, small-scale labour-intensive alternatives, such as biomass burners. The construction of dams usually involves displacing communities, although the improved availability of electric power and water for irrigation can bring important social benefits as well. Subsidies to large-scale thermal power plants, oil refineries and gas-processing plants affect poor households close to those facilities most, since they are usually less able to move to avoid local pollution and safety risks.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 68 *AFF ANSWERS*

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 69 SUBSIDIES NON-UNIQUE

[

] Non-unique - Subsidies have doubled and are on the rise

Fordney 4/14/08 - Inside Energy with Federal Lands

[Jason, “Federal subsidies for energy double, with many intended for renewables,” Lexis]

Energy industries received $16.6 billion in federal subsidies in 2007, twice as much as they received eight years earlier, the Energy Information Administration said in a report released last week. The increase is largely attributable to wind and other forms of renewable energy, a finding that played into the hands of a Tennessee senator who requested the report. The subsidies, which include tax relief, direct expenditures and research funding, totaled $8.2 billion in 1999, EIA said in the report, "Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007." The increasing subsidies for renewable energy coincided with a decline in support for natural gas and petroleum-related concerns, EIA said. The increase is spread widely across energy sectors, EIA said, noting that the "changes in the distribution of subsidies by fuel type between 1999 and 2007 reflect a redirection of priorities."Subsidies for renewable energy sources increased from 17% of total subsidies in 1999 to 29% last year, the report says, while subsidies for natural gas and petroleum declined, mostly because of the expiration of the alternative fuels production tax credit. The tax credit was applied to "unconventional" gas projects in 1999, and refined coal technologies were the prime recipient last year. Other coal-related subsidies have declined by 1% since 1999, EIA said. In addition to these subsidies, the federal government reduced the tax liability of energy companies by $10.4 billion in fiscal 2007, more than triple the level of tax breaks handed out in 1999, EIA said. The report said such subsidies are likely to increase, mostly because of recent

legislation like the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. [

] Overall energy subsidies are high and rising

Global Power Report 4/17/08 [“Federal incentives for energy sector have doubled to more than $16 bil, says EIA,” Lexis]

Annual federal incentives for the energy sector have doubled in the last decade, a new federal report says, with $16.6 billion in subsidies going out in fiscal 2007 in a trend that has marked steady increases in subsidies for renewable energy concerns.

Republican of Tennessee, who said it indicates that too many subsidies are being handed out, particularly to the high-growth wind energy industry. Alexander ? unlike many legislators a staunch foe of wind development ? introduced an amendment to the federal housing stimulus package last week that would have halved the production tax credit for wind energy and bring the incentive to the same level as other fuel types such as biomass, small irrigation power, and wind and tidal facilities. His amendment, which was rejected, would have reduced from 2 cents/kWh to 1 cent/kWh the tax credit, although it would have extended the duration of the credit for all "emerging technologies" from one year to two. Federal subsidies range from direct expenditures to tax relief, research and development funding, and support of electricity concerns, according to the report. Within these subsidies, the federal government reduced the tax liability of energy companies by $10.4 billion in fiscal year 2007, more than triple the level of tax breaks handed out in 1999, says the study, titled "Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007." The increasing subsidies for renewables coincided with a decline in subsidies for natural gas and petroleum-related concerns, the report says, although coal-related technologies still receive the largest

Out of the overall $16.6 billion devoted to energy concerns total, $6.7 billion was devoted to electricity production, including subsidies and tax breaks. Broken down by fuel type, in 2007 wind received $734 million in subsidies and tax breaks out of the approximate $1 billion set aside for renewables, according to the report. Hydroelectric power, which includes emerging wave and tidal share.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 70

power, received $174 million, biomass $36 million, $14 million for solar and landfill gas $8 million. This is compared to study results for "refined coal" technology, which received the largest subsidy in fiscal 2007 at $2.2 billion and standard coal $854 million. The nuclear industry received $1.3 billion and natural gas $227 million. The increase in energy subsidies is spread widely across all sectors of the energy industry, the report says, but "changes in the distribution of subsidies by fuel type between 1999 and 2007 reflect a redirection of priorities." Subsidies for renewable energy sources increased from 17% of total subsidies in 1999 to 29% last year, the report says, while subsidies for natural gas and petroleum declined, mostly due to the expiration of the alternative fuels production tax credit. The tax credit was applied to "unconventional" natural gas projects in 1999, and refined coal technologies were the prime recipient last year. Other coal-related subsidies have declined by 1% since 1999, EIA said.

SUBSIDIES NON-UNIQUE

Subsidies are already high – policymakers are pilling them on Runnalls 07 - CEO and president of the International Institute for Sustainable Development [The Globe and Mail, Lexis]

the International Institute for Sustainable Development's Global Subsidies Initiative estimates that subsidies to biofuels are between $5.5billion and $7.3-billion (U.S.) a year. Those figures are expected to grow significantly if current policies remain in place, because the bulk of biofuel subsidies are tied to output - and output is increasing at double-digit rates of growth. The IISD report estimates that the subsidy content of a gallon of E-85 - the almost pure blend of A recent report by

ethanol that "flex fuel" cars are designed to run on - at roughly $1. In mid-February, the price at the pump

Many of these subsidies are being piled on top of one another without policy-makers having a clear idea of their potential impact on the environment and the economy. And these are not just federal subsidies; everyone wants in on this act. The report estimates there are more than 200 individual subsidies for biofuels in the United States. of a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. Midwest was $2.26.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 71 SUBSIDIES NON-UNIQUE

[

] Big subsidies are already in place and are inevitable

Business Week 07

[“ETHANOL IS NOT THE ONLY GREEN IN TOWN; Memo to Feds: Make subsidies available to the whole field of biofuel innovation,” Lexis] But not with the current mix of energy subsidies. Thanks to years of lobbying by ethanol

and biodiesel producers, those two fuels get the big breaks. A number of states mandate that ethanol or biodiesel be blended with oil-based fuels, and Congress has locked in tax subsidies of 51 cents per gallon of ethanol and $1 per gallon of biodiesel. The laws also narrowly define biodiesel in terms of a specific process, shutting out innovations and improvements. Which leaves out not just Amyris but others working on better green fuels. DuPont and BP PLC have a joint venture to make bio-butanol, a relative of ethanol, while startup LS9 Inc. mimics an ingredient in gasoline. State and federal rules create hurdles for both approaches. "Policies should not discourage new

There are legitimate arguments about whether subsidies are needed at all, but with the White House and Congress rushing to promote alternatives to fossil fuels, incentives are almost inevitable. So the subsidies need to be smarter. "We need a technologies," says Louis Burke, manager of alternative energy and programs at ConocoPhillips.

level playing field for all the processes," says Henrik Erametsa, president of the U.S. subsidiary of Finland's Neste Oil, which has a new plant making renewable diesel--not classed as biodiesel--from animal fat.

[

] Subsidies are increasing

F.E.R.C. 4/14/08

[“Despite big hike in federal subsidies, energy production has hardly changed, report finds,” Lexis]

Where renewables are concerned, there has been a steady increase since FY99 in subsidies, said the report commissioned by Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican-Tennessee. Alexander has maintained that wind developments get too large a share of federal subsidies compared to other energy sources, such as nuclear. An aide to Alexander on Wednesday said the senator plans to use the EIA report to support an amendment he has introduced that would cut the incentive rate for wind energy in a new House bill (H.R. 3221). Subsidies

for renewable energy sources increased from 17% of total subsidies in FY-99 to 29% in FY-07 while subsidies for natural gas and petroleum declined, mostly due to the expiration of the alternative fuels production tax credit, said the report.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 72 PROTECTIONISM NON-UNIQUE

[

] Protectionism is growing in the US- Paulson agrees

Lee 07 - Currency Analyst

[Richard, “Treasury Secretary Paulson Hints At Growing Protectionism,” June 6, http://www.dailyfx.com/story/dailyfx_reports/top_fx_market_movers/Treasury_Secretary_Paulson_H ints_At_1181165164777.html]

In a speech to the Heritage Foundation in Washington today, US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson suggested that protectionism is growing in both nations of the US and China. Further escalation of such relationships will likely damage current trade flows exponentially as a trade war potential looms. According to Paulson ‘we who believe in open economies are swimming against a strong protectionist tide these days….protectionism isn’t’ a growing force only in the United States. It is playing a role in domestic politics in China as well." The statements don’t come as a surprise as rhetoric has been less than encouraging from both sides in recent months, even leading up to the strategic economic dialogue that took place last month. The significance of this, however, is in the fact that it seems the situation may be spiraling out of the hands of both countries as policy makers gear up for political counterpunches, notably current legislation on currency intervention by the US. One thing is for certain, and that is Chinese officials may ultimately have to revalue in order to shift the focus, or come up with further concessions to appease US politicians.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 73 AT: – PROTECTIONISM

[ ] Free Trade destroys global resources, collapses the global economy, creates pollution and damages the environment Robinson 03 – Global Exchange [Lindsey, “The Myth of Free Trade,” http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/ftaa/883.html] The Bush administration seems unwilling to see the white elephant in its White House living room. Turning a blind eye on the upcoming Kyoto Protocol and continuing unilateral compromises in the Doha Free Trade agreement, Bush and Co. won't admit that the true culprit to environment degradation, as well as the regression in America's standard of living, loss in manufacturing jobs, growing national debt, and record trade deficits is due to international free trade. "Competitive protectionism is a proven idea with a lot of success. Free trade is historically a relatively new idea with a lot of failure," said Dr. Ravi Batra , international economist, in his book, The Myth of Free Trade. "Free trade has done to the us

what Hitler and imperial Japan could not do during the war," he said. Wasteful investment from intra industry trade and raw materials trade are crippling world economies in many ways. Batra claims together they represent 90 percent of global commerce, yet have no rational economic justification behind them. Since world trade has soared faster than economic activity, trade is a bigger polluter than industrialization-in spite of fuel efficiency. Trade in energy intensity industries reaches far above that of GNP of America and most nations, and continues to rise. Being green doesn't sell as pollution taxes on domestic trans nationals would further put them at a disadvantage in global markets and governments don't want to inhibit world trade, corporate profits and growth. Destroying the world's resources unnecessarily, free trade increases pollution, and creates higher energy prices, while risking higher global rates of economic contagion (Asian Contagion, Russia and Argentina debt default), and international vulnerability to economic shocks like the OPEC crisis of 1973 or 1979. "By far international trade comes out as the worst

villain in the destruction of the environment....Yet about 60 percent of international trade today is of the intra industry variety-another 30% in raw materials...The cost of transporting trade worldwide equals most countries GNPs...(indeed,) air freight fuel consumption almost tripled in just two decades from 1970-1990, emitting millions of tons of nitrogen oxides," said Batra. According to Global Outlook 2000 every year about 3,000 million tons of crude oil or petroleum products are shipped around the globe. In the process two million tons slip into the marine environment from routine tanker operations like tanks cleaning, oil spills from tankers and platforms.* (Batra). Indeed, the oil trade is linked to the trade in other goods. "If intra industry trade were eliminated and countries

manufactured and produced from their own raw materials, global oil demand would plummet. There would be no need to transport so many goods, materials, and oil across the seas. Global energy prices would fall generating massive growth around the world. Not only would the environment benefit, production costs would also decline thanks to declining energy prices...Few people realize that international trade is the worst polluter among all economist activities," said Batra. Batra contends that every successful country in the postwar period: Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Indonesia, Mayalasia, and Thailand, excluding Germany have become world leaders in trade thanks to competitive

protectionism. In contrast, US, Australia and to some extent Canada who adopted freer trade have suffered a drop in real earnings in spite of rising productivity-- what Batra calls agrification syndrome, where Americans continue to loose manufacturing jobs and are suffering declining wages, in spite of their rising productivity. During GATT's history, "Of the countries US, Great Britain, Australia, India, Italy, Canada, Mexico, France, Japan, Korea, Germany, and Taiwan-only Germany has pursued free trade through much of its history. All others except for India and Mexico became

affluent by adopting competitive protectionism over the first two centuries of development," Batra said. Americas demise began with our commitment to free trade beginning in 1973. Today's joint ventures and regional trade agreements represent a move towards a fairer protectionist free trade agreement, if foreign investment is reciprocal and anti-dumping is enforced. The goal is to bring manufacturing jobs back to America, and keep American foreign manufacturing connected

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 74

to foreign markets, raw materials and consumers. When multinationals make more money off of hedging derivatives (i.e. currency exchange, swaps, indexing stocks, bonds, interest rates, and commodities), price transfer, cross ownership of subsidiaries or securitizing debt than on products and services, the system is faulty. In fact, cyber money laundering has become such a potential threat as to cause global stock market and international banking financial crises. Everyone is linked by globalization in today's international casino economy. Batra argues free trade liberalization has caused real falling wages,

declining living standards, and the exporting of foreign investment, manufacturing, technology, jobs and capital abroad creating domestic recessions and deflation, seriously disrupting and distorting our economy. "It is free trade, not productivity that has been the real cause of falling wages in industry," said Batra. "If your wages fall sharply while you're working harder and becoming more efficient, the system is broke...Indeed, US productivity has been reaped by foreign labor and the multinationals," he said.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 75 AT:– ECONOMY

[ ] Protectionism is more than necessary for infant industries like the alternative energy market to grow, market tools are necessary for economic development Chang 07 - Professor of economics at the University of Cambridge [Ha-Joon, The Independent, “Protectionism: The truth is on a $10 bill,” Lexis]

However, just as children need to be nurtured before they can compete in high-productivity jobs,

industries in developing countries should be sheltered from superior foreign producers before they "grow up". They need to be given protection, subsidies, and other help while they master advanced technologies and build effective organisations. This argument is known as the infant industry argument. What is little known is that it was first theorised by none other than the first finance minister (treasury secretary) of the United States - Alexander Hamilton, whose portrait adorns the $10 bill. Initially few Americans were convinced by Hamilton's argument. After all, Adam Smith, the father of economics, had already advised Americans against artificially developing manufacturing industries. However, over time people saw sense in Hamilton's argument, and the US shifted to protectionism after the Anglo-American War of 1812. By the 1830s, its industrial tariff rate, at 40-50 per cent, was the highest in the world, and remained so until the

The US may have invented the theory of infant industry protection, but the practice had existed long before. The first big success story was, surprisingly, Britain - the supposed birthplace of free trade. In fact, Second World War.

Hamilton's programme was in many ways a copy of Robert Walpole's enormously successful 1721 industrial development programme, based on high (among world's highest) tariffs and subsidies, which had propelled Britain into its economic supremacy. Britain and the US may have been the

most ardent - and most successful - users of tariffs, but most of today's rich countries deployed tariff protection for extended periods in order to promote their infant industries. Many of them also actively used government subsidies and public enterprises to promote new industries. Japan and many European countries have given numerous subsidies to strategic industries. The US has publicly financed the highest share of research and development in the world. Singapore, despite its freemarket image, has one of the largest public enterprise sectors in the world, producing around 30 per cent of the national income. Public enterprises were also crucial in France, Finland, Austria, Norway, and Taiwan. When they needed to protect their nascent producers, most of today's rich countries restricted foreign investment. In the 19th century, the US strictly regulated foreign investment in banking, shipping, mining, and logging. Japan and Korea severely restricted foreign investment in manufacturing. Between the 1930s and the 1980s, Finland officially classified all firms with more than 20 per cent foreign ownership as "dangerous enterprises". While (exceptionally) practising free trade, the Netherlands and Switzerland refused to protect patents until the early 20th century. In the 19th century, most countries, including Britain, France, and the US, explicitly allowed patenting of imported inventions. The US refused to protect foreigners' copyrights until 1891. Germany mass-produced counterfeit "made in England" goods in the 19th century. Despite this history, since the 1980s the "Bad Samaritan" rich countries have imposed upon developing countries policies that are almost the exact

these countries condemning tariffs, subsidies, public enterprises, regulation of foreign investment, and permissive intellectual property rights is like them "kicking away the ladder" with which they climbed to the top - often against the advice of the then richer countries. But, the reader may wonder, didn't the developing countries already try protectionism and miserably fail? That is a common myth, but the truth of the matter is that these countries have grown significantly more slowly in the "brave new world" of neo-liberal policies, compared with the "bad old days" of protectionism and regulation in the 1960s and the 1970s (see table). And that's despite the dramatic opposite of what they used in the past. But

growth acceleration in the two giants, China and India, which have partially liberalised their economies but refuse to fully embrace neo-liberalism. Growth has failed particularly badly in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, where neo-liberal reforms have been implemented most thoroughly. In the "bad old days", per capita income in Latin America grew at an impressive 3.1 per cent per year. In the "brave new world", it has been growing at a paltry 0.5 per cent. In sub-Saharan Africa, per capita income grew at 1.6 per cent a year during 1960-80, but since then the region has seen a fall in living standards (by 0.3 per cent a year). Both the history of rich countries and the recent records of developing countries point

Economic development requires tariffs, regulation of foreign investment, permissive intellectual property laws, and other policies that help their producers accumulate productive capabilities. to the same conclusion.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

[

SENIORS 76

]

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 77 AT: – FOOD CRISIS

[ ] Multiple studies and indicators prove long-term food availability Richman 95 - Senior Editor at the CATO Institute [Sheldon, Testimony on The International Population Stabilization and Reproductive Health Act (S. 1029), July 20, http://cato.org/testimony/ct-ps720.html]

Food is abundant. Since 1948, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, annual world food production has outpaced the increase in population. Today, per capita production and per-acre yields are at all-time highs. Prices of agricultural products have been falling for over 100 years. The average inflation-adjusted price of those products, indexed to wages, fell by more than 74 percent

While Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute and the noted butterfly expert Paul Ehrlich predict higher food prices and increasing scarcity, food is becoming cheaper and more plentiful. That good news is due largely to technological advances (the "green revolution") that have provided better seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, and methods of farming. The only obstacles to agricultural progress are the between 1950 and 1990.

impediments created by governments. Imagine what the world would be like today if the fertile farmland of the former Soviet Union or China or India had been in productive private hands operating in free markets for the past several decades. Since permitting market incentives in agriculture, India has been come a net food exporter and agricultural production in China has boomed. Catastrophists

argue that the bright past does not imply a bright future; they arbitrarily assert that mankind has crossed some fateful threshold. But the earth is capable of feeding many more people than are now alive. The late Roger Revelle of Harvard University (whom Gore claims as a mentor) estimated that Africa, Asia, and Latin America alone, simply by using water more efficiently, could feed 35 to 40 billion people--seven to eight times the current world population. And that assumes no change in technology--a groundless assumption, to be sure. Those who annually predict imminent famine (while urging readers to subscribe to next year's publications) seize on any change as evidence that man's alleged strain on the biosphere is finally beginning to show. Thus, if

the price of seafood rises, they announce that the seas are nearing exhaustion. They never consider the myriad other possibilities, such as the shift in diet from meat to fish, the decline of the Russian fishing industry during the dissolution of the Soviet Union, or the "tragedy of the commons" associated with the lack of property rights in the oceans and lakes. The most telling indication of the trend in food production is the presence of a farm lobby in every industrial capital. Those lobbies spend millions of dollars a year to persuade their governments to hold food prices up and food supplies down. They apparently don't expect help from nature.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 78 AT: – FOOD CRISIS

[ ] Famine is caused by issues of politics and power and is not limited to only production Wyk 01 [Jo-Ansie wan, FOOD FOR THOUGHT? The politics of food, resources and development in Africa, New Zealand International Review]

The issue of food security is not just an issue of food alone. Food security is really about politics and power. Famine is one of the most severe illustrations of food insecurity. A brief review of past famines and food insecurities in Africa indicates the degree

of risk to which states are exposed. Ethiopia has experienced about ten major famines in its history. Kenya has experienced about 15 famines since 1979. Since the 1960s, famines have occurred in the Democratic

Food security entails improving a developing nation's access to cheaper food from comparatively advantaged exporting countries. It is generally more efficient and cheaper for a developing state to import food than to produce it. This form of security also requires that richer countries lower their tariffs on all goods from developing countries so that these developing countries can earn some foreign currency. One of the unfolding emergencies in Africa is the growing imbalance between food Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Sahel.

and people. Africa remains the only continent where per capita income, food production and industrial production have declined since the 1980s. Per capita food production dropped by 12 per cent between 1980 and 1990, and more than 220 million people in Africa live below the poverty line. African concern with food security began in ancient times.

Resources and food have figured persistently throughout history in the relations between states. They were often the driving force for many international political events. They were the primary motives for the European colonisation of most of Africa, which underlies much of the current trade relations between developed and developing countries.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 [FILE NAME]

SENIORS 79 AT: “PROTECTIONISM TURNS CASE”

[ ] Protectionism doesn’t turn case – Global trade could collapse and the environment would benefit tremendously Robinson 03 – Global Exchange [Lindsey, “The Myth of Free Trade,” http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/ftaa/883.html]

"Migration of factories to mineral rich areas can trim international trade by as much as 25% without reducing global living standards. We can eliminate intra industry trade altogether without much effect on planetary production. Global trade can be cut by at least 75%with out much harm to overall outputbenefiting the environment tremendously. Energy use would plummet, oil prices would tumble, oceans would be safer from oil and chemical spills, the atmosphere would be safer," said Batra.. [ ] Free trade causes governments to relax environmental standards in order to compete on the market Harris 07- Adjunct Associate Professor of International Economics at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy [Jonathan M., “Trade and the environment,” Encyclopedia of Earth, May 18]

Trade can impact domestic as well as international policy, weakening the autonomy of nations to define their own environmental and social policies. Concerns have arisen of a “race to the bottom”, in which nations reduce environmental and social standards in order to gain competitive advantage. In principal, producers located in nations enforcing strict process standards will suffer a competitive disadvantage compared with producers located in member states enforcing less strict standards. All things being equal, this may result in increased sales, market share and profitability for those producers located in low-standard nations. Faced with the prospect of their industries suffering a competitive disadvantage when compared with companies located in low-standard nations, some nations may choose not to elevate environmental standards or may even relax current standards.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958