Feb2019pf.pdf

Copyright 2019 by Champion Briefs, LLC All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by an information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner and the publisher.

The Evidence Standard

February 2019

The Evidence Standard Speech and Debate provides a meaningful and educational experience to all who are involved. We, as educators in the community, believe that it is our responsibility to provide resources that uphold the foundation of the Speech and Debate activity. Champion Briefs, its employees, managers, and associates take an oath to uphold the following Evidence Standard:

1. We will never falsify facts, opinions, dissents, or any other information. 2. We will never knowingly distribute information that has been proven to be inaccurate, even if the source of the information is legitimate. 3. We will actively fight the dissemination of false information and will provide the community with clarity if we learn that a third-party has attempted to commit deception. 4. We will never support or distribute studies, news articles, or other materials that use inaccurate methodologies to reach a conclusion or prove a point. 5. We will provide meaningful clarification to any who question the legitimacy of information distributed by ourselves or by any third-party. 6. We will actively contribute to students’ understanding of the world by using evidence from a multitude of perspectives and schools of thought. 7. We will, within our power, assist the community as a whole in its mission to achieve the goals and vision of this activity. These seven statements, while simple, represent the complex notion of what it means to advance students’ understanding of the world around them, as is the purpose of educators.

Champion Briefs

4

Letter from the Editor

February 2019



Letter from the Editor The February resolution for Public Forum debate is “Resolved: The United States should end its arms sales to Saudi Arabia.” The 2017 arms deal with Saudi Arabia was a crucial step in the relationship between the United States and one of its closest allies in the middle east. For decades, the United States has served as one of Saudi Arabia’s primary providers of weapons in an attempt to provide them with the military force to secure the region and curry their favor. However, in the aftermath of the murder of American journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, and other problematic actions on the part of Saudi Arabia, the arms deal has once again made its way into the public eye. Many Americans are asking whether the United States can justify continued relations with a country that called for the execution of a Washington Post journalist. This topic will be a great chance to explore the history of America’s relationship with Saudi Arabia and the implications of our continued arms trade. Additionally, this will be an excellent chance to read about and discuss the causes and effects of the famine in Yemen, Saudi Arabia’s proxy war with Iran, and other destabilizing factors in the Middle East. At Champion Briefs, we’re very excited to publish this brief, as we’ve put extra time and care into this brief knowing how important this topic is for many PF debaters. As always, I urge you to go beyond our brief as well, as the best way to improve on a topic is to learn as much as possible about the subject area. Best of luck this month, we’ll be rooting for you!

Michael Norton Editor-in-Chief

Champion Briefs

5

Table of Contents

February 2019 Table of Contents

The Evidence Standard .......................................................................................4

Letter from the Editor .........................................................................................5



Table of Contents ...............................................................................................6



Topic Analyses ....................................................................................................8 Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda ......................................................................................................................... 9 Topic Analysis by Belén Mella ..................................................................................................................... 18 Topic Analysis by Zachary Ginsberg ......................................................................................................... 25



General Information ......................................................................................... 33



Pro Arguments with Con Responses ................................................................. 44 PRO: The US should halt arms sales as it is facing pressure from its allies to do so ............ 45 A/2: The US should halt arms sales as it is facing pressure from its allies to do so ......... 49 PRO: Saudi attacks damage Yemeni long term development ........................................................ 53 A/2: Saudi attacks damage Yemeni long term development ..................................................... 57 PRO: Saudi airstrikes worsen the famine in Yemen ........................................................................... 60 A/2: Saudi airstrikes worsen the famine in Yemen ....................................................................... 64 PRO: Propping up Saudi Arabia is bad for the environment .......................................................... 68 A/2: Propping up Saudi Arabia is bad for the environment ....................................................... 72 PRO: Ending arms sales will help end the war in Yemen ................................................................. 76 A/2: Ending arms sales will help end the war in Yemen ............................................................. 80 PRO: Saudi Arabia uses these arms to kill innocent civilians ........................................................ 84 A/2: Saudi Arabia uses these arms to kill innocent civilians ..................................................... 88 PRO: Arms sales make US complicit in war crimes ............................................................................ 92 A/2: Arms sales make US complicit in war crimes ......................................................................... 96 PRO: Arms sales create a risk of an arms race ...................................................................................... 99 A/2: Arms sales create a risk of an arms race ............................................................................... 103 PRO: Arms sales weaken Saudi Arabian governance ..................................................................... 106 A/2: Arms sales weaken Saudi Arabian governance .................................................................. 110 PRO: Arms Sales Embolden Saudi Arabia ............................................................................................ 112 A/2: Arms Sales Embolden Saudi Arabia ......................................................................................... 116 PRO: Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia weaken US soft power .............................................................. 119 A/2: Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia weaken US soft power .......................................................... 123 PRO: The US should end its arms sales because of Saudi Arabia’s actions in Yemen ....... 127 A/2: The US should end its arms sales because of Saudi Arabia’s actions in Yemen ... 131 PRO: The US should halt arms due to the UN Arms Treaty .......................................................... 134 A/2: The US should halt arms due to the UN Arms Treaty ...................................................... 137

Champion Briefs

6

Table of Contents



February 2019

PRO: The United States should halt arms sales to punish Saudi Arabia for the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi ............................................................................................................ 141 A/2: The United States should halt arms sales to punish Saudi Arabia for the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi ............................................................................................................ 145 PRO: Saudi Arabia needs to be punished for their many human rights abuses .................. 148 A/2: Saudi Arabia needs to be punished for their many human rights abuses .............. 152

Con Arguments with Pro Responses ............................................................... 156 CON: Saudi Arabia checks Iranian Aggression .................................................................................. 157 A/2: Saudi Arabia checks Iranian Aggression ............................................................................... 160 CON: Saudi Arabia invests in American infrastructure ................................................................. 163 A/2: Saudi Arabia invests in American infrastructure .............................................................. 165 CON: Saudi Arabia will look to other trading partners .................................................................. 167 A/2: Saudi Arabia will look to other trading partners ............................................................... 171 CON: Saudi Arabia will cease reforms. .................................................................................................. 173 A/2: Saudi Arabia will cease reforms. ............................................................................................... 176 CON: Arms deals allow for U.S. dominance in weapons trade .................................................... 178 A/2: Arms deals allow for U.S. dominance in weapons trade ................................................. 181 CON: Cutting arms would lead to Saudi oil retaliation ................................................................. 183 A/2: Cutting arms would lead to Saudi oil retaliation ............................................................... 186 CON: Ending Saudi Sales risks crippling US-Saudi Alliance ......................................................... 189 A/2: Ending Saudi Sales risks crippling US-Saudi Alliance ...................................................... 192 CON: Sales help Saudi fight ISIS ............................................................................................................... 195 A/2: Sales help Saudi fight ISIS ............................................................................................................ 198 CON: Arms sales help us balance the trade deficit ........................................................................... 201 A/2: Arms sales help us balance the trade deficit ........................................................................ 204 CON: Ending Arms sales incentivizes a Chinese Pivot ................................................................... 207 A/2: Ending Arms sales incentivizes a Chinese Pivot ................................................................ 211 CON: THAAD exports key to prevent Iran attack ............................................................................. 214 A/2: THAAD exports key to prevent Iran attack .......................................................................... 216 CON: Other European Countries would pick up the slack ............................................................ 219 A/2: Other European Countries would pick up the slack ......................................................... 223 CON: Foreign Arms sales are a critical foreign policy tool ........................................................... 226 A/2: Foreign Arms sales are a critical foreign policy tool ........................................................ 231 CON: Saudi Arabia will just buy arms from Russia .......................................................................... 234 A/2: Saudi Arabia will just buy arms from Russia ....................................................................... 238 CON: Stopping sales will hurt Saudi domestic reforms ................................................................. 241 A/2: Stopping sales will hurt Saudi domestic reforms .............................................................. 245

Champion Briefs

7

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

February 2019

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda Resolved: The United States should end its arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

Introduction It is difficult to imagine a topic more ripped from the headlines than arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The February resolution intersects a number of hot button public policy issues: US military doctrine, free speech and journalism, human rights, and geopolitics. Each of these independently would be an interesting topic, together they ensure that debates will include ample clash and many different arguments. This topic is broad enough to ensure that strategies will have to be varied from round to round, but narrow enough that teams will be able to dive deep into specific avenues of argumentation. The February topics will reward debaters who understand their own arguments in the context of their opponents’. This is because this resolution looks at a relatively stable and simple independent variable (whether or not the US sells arms to Saudi Arabia). The trick then will be to understand the full range of opposing claims and how they interact with a given argument. This can be difficult; the resolution is a very deep dive into a specific policy. As a result, most arguments will interact with each other, and there will be comparatively fewer points which do not clash. The key to winning in February will be to identify how these arguments clash and exploit those circumstances. Smart teams will be able to de-link their

Champion Briefs

9

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

February 2019

opponents starting from the constructive speeches. February promises to be a month full of intricate debates.

Tournament Considerations February is one of the most intense months in PF competition. There are several large tournaments, especially during the second half of the month, but this topic analysis will focus on Harvard. Harvard is possibly the most prestigious tournament of the year. Hundreds of teams from all around the country attend, and the winners are lauded as the best that the circuit has to offer. The timing of the tournament also gives teams ample time to prepare earlier in the month in anticipation for Harvard. This means that debaters should expect that all of their opponents are well prepped and understand the basic arguments on the topic. Many teams will compete intensely the first few weeks of the month for the explicit purpose of collecting information and practice for Harvard. Because of the prestige attached to the tournament, teams are often operating at their best. The judging pool at Harvard is unusual. It is difficult to make any blanket statements about prelims, because the pool is so large. Because of the massive amount of entries, it is impossible to generalize about the judges, who run the gamut from first time parents to experienced coaches. This means that running overly technical, niche, inaccessible cases in

Champion Briefs

10

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

February 2019

prelims is almost certainly a mistake. However, this changes dramatically in elimination rounds. The judges in later rounds are some of the best that the debate community has to offer. It is very common for teams that preform well in prelims to fail early on in elims because they forget to adapt to the new set of judges in front of them. It is a good idea for teams to practice in front of a diverse set of judges, and to have new arguments which they can swap out depending on the technical proficiency of the judges in the room. Remember that people are heterogeneous, and one of the most important parts of debate is being able to forge a connection with the judge.

Strategy Considerations Before getting into specific arguments, it is important to go over some of the fundamentals of policy analysis. The crucial thing to keep in mind when looking at a large international policy such as the one being discussed in the topic is that every decision must be made in the context of its alternatives. Where large actors such as the US and Saudi Arabia are concerned, decisions have many ripple effects which can reinforce or undermine the intended effects of the policy. Similarly, the policies should be thought of in light of similar measures which could be undertaken to achieve the same results. If a policy is inefficient or imposes high costs compared to the alternatives, it should not be adopted. First, it is important to think about the incentives at play for Saudi Arabia. This is because almost every pro team will be running an argument that posits withdrawing military

Champion Briefs

11

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

February 2019

sales will cause a change in behavior on the part of the Saudi government. For this to be true, there must be a substantial incentive tied to military aid that would cause the Saudi government to alter its sovereign policy. Let’s take the civil war in Yemen as an example. Clearly, the Saudi regime is highly motivated and invested in continuing the conflict: despite a multi-billion-dollar price tag, massive international outcry, and few visible results, the Saudi coalition has kept up its war. The pro team must then show how America withdrawing arms sales would change this decision-making calculus. To do so, pro teams must highlight the specific ways in which weapons sales are different than the current costs imposed on Saudi Arabia for the war on Yemen. Likewise, the negative must illustrate how the incentives the affirmative discusses are either not powerful, or how there are countervailing incentives at play which might cause the Saudis to behave differently. This will be the primary strategy for the February topic: in many rounds, the affirmative and negative will agree on most of the link-level debate (the nature of the war in Yemen, the volume of arms sold to Saudi Arabia, etc). The difference lies in a team’s ability to articulate why these incentives matter. On the other hand, teams should understand the various interests that America has in the Middle East. In the context of the topic, because of the War on Yemen, it is likely that human rights promotion will be a prominent impact. Being able to articulate how this impact interacts with other American priorities will be an important part of every round. Even teams which argue exclusively about human rights promotion should familiarize themselves with other arguments. This is because there are many routes to link into human rights. Stopping Saudi bombing is one such route, but so is regional stability, political reform, and even

Champion Briefs

12

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

February 2019

economic development. It would be a mistake to be so taken with a single vision of foreign policy that we forget how complicated and intricate the world can be. The second thing to keep in mind is the relevant alternatives to cutting off arms sales. What other policies are being discussed, how likely is action to be taken in the status quo? Congress is actively debating measures to punish Saudi Arabia right now. The negative should be able to explain why these measures are sufficient for the purposes of American interests in the region, while the affirmative needs to show why they are not enough. Being able to differentiate the marginal impact that weapons sales have on top of actions which the international community is already taking is a necessary prerequisite to generating offense for either team.

Affirmative Argumentation There are two general impacts that affirmative teams should think about when first approaching the topic: Stopping violence in Yemen and broader political reform in Saudi Arabia. The first argument has to do with preventing the ongoing civil war from continuing, or at least deescalating it, which would arguably save hundreds of thousands of lives. The second has to do with reshaping Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy outlook and reigning it in more broadly. These arguments stem from actions such as the Saudi financing for radical Wahhabi clerics who have been linked to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, as well as the recent murder of journalist

Champion Briefs

13

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

February 2019

Jamal Khashoggi. Both arguments rely on weapons sales being crucially important to the Saudi royal family, but in distinct ways. The first argument deals with stopping bloodshed in Yemen. This argument contends that the Saudi government is so reliant on American weapons that the threat of withdrawal would force them to change their foreign policy. The trick to convincingly winning this argument is to articulate why these weapons are so important for the campaign in Yemen. One avenue is to simply argue that the weapons we sell Saudi Arabia directly increase the number of civilian casualties because American weapons are especially deadly. Basically, if we stop selling the Saudis our bombs, they will not be able to bomb as many cities. This argument is a fairly intuitive link into saving lives, but is not a long-term political solution to the conflict. The other warrant is that the cost of buying weapons elsewhere would be prohibitively expensive for the Saudi Royal family. This is because weapons systems are built to be ‘interoperable’, that is to say, compatible with other weapons produced by the same country. For instance, American planes feed data into American radar systems. Changing one part of the equation would be incredibly costly because it would require changes to other parts of the Saudi military inventory. This could theoretically add up to a massive amount of money that might make military adventurism in Yemen not worthwhile for the Saudi government. The other argument worth considering is that halting weapons sales might force the Saudis to reconsider their generally provocative foreign policy. The Saudis sponsor religious extremism by enshrining the controversial doctrine of Wahhabism in civic life, exploit migrant labor, and kill journalists abroad.

Champion Briefs

14

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

February 2019

The affirmative could argue that the Saudi regime carries out this type of behavior because it feels like it can get away with it. So far, Saudi actions have met with little resistance, the international community has done little more than condemn Saudi Arabia. This has led to a climate where Saudi officials act with impunity, pursuing whatever volition they might have even when it flies in the face of accepted international law and norms. Stopping arms sales would send a signal to Saudi Arabia that America’s patience is wearing thin. The signal would illustrate that unless Saudi Arabia changes its behavior, it stands to permanently lose its most important ally. Surely, Saudi Arabia places greater value on its relationship with the United States than on the reckless behavior it has been conducting abroad. Smart Affirmative teams will make the argument that Saudi Arabia only carries out these reckless actions because it does not see consequences for doing so. When punished, they will reform. Negative Argumentation The affirmative impacts of massive human rights violations are unlikely to be outweighed by whatever geopolitical arguments a negative team can come up with – nor should they be. Instead, negative teams should make big picture arguments about how stopping arms sales would actually undermine the affirmative advocacy. This could be by hurting the current Saudi regime and/or pushing it towards Russia. The argument is that stopping weapons sales will only embitter the Saudis, who will see it as a betrayal. Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago writes that 95 percent of the

Champion Briefs

15

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

February 2019

time, sanctions do not achieve their desired effect. Worse, they are often counterproductive, by empowering xenophobic elites within the target regime. Halting weapons sales would send a strong message to Saudi Arabia that the US is not interested in a serious partnership, and that our interests are incompatible with theirs. This might see an increase in bombing in Yemen, because the Saudis feel even more insecure. Remember, the Saudi rationale for attacking Yemen is that the government is friendly with Iran. If Saudi Arabia is so concerned about Iranian power right now, imagine how paranoid they would be if they could no longer count on American support. Punishing our allies is unlikely to make them friendlier to us, and might reduce the influence that Washington has with which to bring the Saudis to the negotiating table. The second warrant worth considering is that the Saudis could just buy weapons from other countries. If America will not sell weapons, the Russians surely will. It is possible that these weapons will cost substantially more than the ones which Saudi Arabia currently buys, but it is also possible that they do not. Russia is known to cut lucrative arms deals to countries in order to secure more geopolitical influence. For Moscow, a Saudi arms deal would be a coup. It would give the Kremlin a major partner in the Middle East, and substantially hurt the American position. As such, Russian weapons might actually be quite affordable. It is also unclear exactly how much of Saudi Arabia’s inventory would need to be replaced. Some Russian weapons are compatible with American ones, and the Saudi royal family would take every step necessary to secure the armaments it needs. The US banned the selling of weapons to China in

Champion Briefs

16

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

February 2019

the 1990s after human rights violations but China managed to still import and develop enough armaments to make them an incredibly powerful military. This argument is strategic because it de-links the affirmative. If Saudi Arabia simply buys weapons from other countries, the US cannot stop them from attacking Yemen or exercising a bellicose foreign policy. Things might actually get worse, because Russia cares far less about human rights than the United States. Russia would not even exert the limited force that Washington is currently using against Saudi Arabia. A world where the Saudis got their weapons from Russia would likely see more bombings and deadlier weapons. This topic promises to be very interesting. Good luck!

About Jakob Urda Jakob grew up in Brooklyn, New York. He attends the University of Chicago where he hopes to receive a BA in Political Science in 2019, and is interested in security studies and political economy. Jakob debate for Stuyvesant High School where he won Blake, GMU, Ridge, Scarsdale, Columbia, the NCFL national championship, and amassed 11 bids. He coached the winners of the NCFL national tournament, Harvard, and Blake.

Champion Briefs

17

Topic Analysis by Belén Mella

February 2019

Topic Analysis by Belén Mella Resolved: The United States should end its arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Introduction This February, debaters will be discussing the arena of international conflicts. The topic is Resolved: The United States should end its arms sales to Saudi Arabia. This is a question that American leaders have been considering for quite some time. Indeed, a Washington Post article from 1978 describes then president Jimmy Carter struggling over whether to sell the country military planes.1 At the crux of this debate lies the question of whether Saudi Arabia continues to be of strategic importance to the United States, and whether that should outweigh other considerations like their government’s record with human rights. Debaters will have to navigate and weigh many complex issues, but with a relatively straightforward resolution wording, it is sure to make for productive and interesting debates.

Background Debaters should manage quite a bit of context and history to get the most of this debate. For starters, it’s important to know that the United States is the world's largest weapons exporter, and that Saudi Arabia is our biggest customer. According to CBS News, “the U.S. sold a total of $55.6 billion of weapons worldwide” this fiscal year, clearing $18 billion in

1 "Carter's Dilemma on Saudi Arms Sales." The Washington Post. February 02, 1978. Accessed January 08, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/02/02/carters-dilemma-on-saudi-arms-sales/50ee4965-18054240-99a7-21e3bfb9510c/?utm_term=.78da98021501.

Champion Briefs

18

Topic Analysis by Belén Mella

February 2019

“new Saudi arms deals” in 2017.2 According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have cooperated on security matters and business for decades, a relationship that was made especially key when the Iranian revolution turned the country from a U.S. ally to an adversary on the global stage.3 The current de facto leader of Saudi Arabia is Mohammed bin Salman, crown prince since mid-2017. Relations with the U.S. have been warm under President Trump, but as the CFR notes, “recent actions under the crown prince’s leadership, particularly the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, are posing new strains on the alliance, as many members of the U.S. Congress have called for punishing Riyadh [the capital] and reassessing the relationship.4” This is not the only issue that has posed a strain to the alliance. Al Jazeera’s Steven Wright reports that “in 2018, concerns were steadily mounting over the role of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) in a range of controversial foreign policy missteps - from the Yemen conflict to the blockade of neighboring Qatar and the near-collapse of the Gulf Cooperation Council.5” Thus, we arrive at the question: should the United States end its arms sales to Saudi Arabia? On the one hand, Saudi Arabia is being accused of possible war crimes in Yemen by the United Nations, and they’re using American made weapons on the ground.6 On the other hand, 2 Ivanova, Irina. "Saudi Arabia Is America's No. 1 Weapons Customer." CBS News. October 13, 2018. Accessed January 08, 2019. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-arabia-is-the-top-buyer-of-u-s-weapons/. 3 "U.S.-Saudi Arabia Relations." Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed January 08, 2019. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-saudi-arabia-relations. 4 Ibid. 5 Wright, Steven. "The United States and Saudi Arabia: Troubled times Ahead?" GCC News | Al Jazeera. January 08, 2019. Accessed January 08, 2019. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/united-states-saudi-arabiatroubled-times-190104092436711.html. 6 Gregg, Aaron, and Christian Davenport. "Defense Contractors Stand with White House on Saudi Arms Sales." The Washington Post. October 25, 2018. Accessed January 08, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/25/defense-contractors-stand-with-white-house-saudi-armssales/?utm_term=.fce46409e387.

Champion Briefs

19

Topic Analysis by Belén Mella

February 2019

they’re going to buy weapons from somewhere even if it isn’t the United States, so it may not be worth it to strain our strategic relationship (and our budgets) by choosing to end arm sales to make a moral point. Indeed, President Trump has argued that arm sales to Saudi Arabia create half a million American jobs, though “several major defense firms have made lower projections.7” The CFR adds that the Trump signed arms deals “expected to total some $350 billion over a decade,” and that “Saudi Arabia’s total arms imports were almost eighteen times greater... in 2017 than they were a decade earlier.8” What would it even look like to affirm, that is, to end arm sales to Saudi Arabia? Aren’t weapons manufactured and sold by private companies, and if so, how can the government elect to end sales? As the Washington Post explains, “for U.S. defense contractors to sell weapons systems abroad, they have to first go through a complicated government process that involves the Defense Department, State Department and Congress, which vet each deal’s geopolitical, security and human rights implications.9” Thus, major U.S. defense contractors like Lockheed, Boeing and Raytheon would have to heed government policy on whether to sell arms to Saudi Arabia. Though it isn’t the crux of the debate, debaters might still want to consider what such a policy would actually look like, opening up arguments about issues upon implementation or related disadvantages. As this issue comes up in Congress a lot, they can look through real proposed congressional legislation to get a sense. Recently, for instance,

7 "U.S.-Saudi

Arabia Relations." Council on Foreign Relations.

8 Ibid. 9 Gregg,

Aaron, and Christian Davenport. "Defense Contractors Stand with White House on Saudi Arms Sales."

Champion Briefs

20

Topic Analysis by Belén Mella

February 2019

there's H.R.7082 “to prohibit the provision of United States security assistance to the Government of Saudi Arabia, and for other purposes.10”

Pro Arguments The Pro side of this resolution supports ending arm sales to Saudi Arabia. Likely the main argument for Pro teams will be the misuse of these arms at the hands of the Saudi military. According to ThinkProgress, “as of August 2018, strikes by the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen have resulted in the deaths of nearly 6,600 civilians, including children, and the wounding of nearly 10,500, with millions more suffering from food and medical shortages as a result of the Saudi assault on the port city of Hodeidah.11” The Trump administration certified that the Saudi-led coalition is “undertaking demonstrable actions to reduce the risk of harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure,” but human rights agencies remain skeptical of these claims.12 Indeed, the United Nations has stated that Saudi action might amount to “war crimes” that are “bolstered by U.S. arms and training.13” For this very reason, Germany has suspended arm sales to the kingdom, and the Washington Post reported in October that “the European Union passed a resolution… urging a ban on weapons sales in response to Khashoggi’s killing.14” The Con side will argue that if the United States doesn’t sell arms to Saudi Arabia some other 10 McGovern,

and James. "H.R.7082 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): To Prohibit the Provision of United States Security Assistance to the Government of Saudi Arabia, and for Other Purposes." Congress.gov. October 23, 2018. Accessed January 08, 2019. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/7082. 11 Khatami, Elham. "The Long History of U.S. Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia." ThinkProgress. October 12, 2018. Accessed January 08, 2019. https://thinkprogress.org/the-long-history-of-u-s-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia13aaa614a543/. 12 Ibid. 13 Gregg, Aaron, and Christian Davenport. "Defense Contractors Stand with White House on Saudi Arms Sales." 14 Ibid.

Champion Briefs

21

Topic Analysis by Belén Mella

February 2019

nation will, but if enough countries get behind ceasing sales, the dominos could quickly start to tumble for Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Furthermore, a diminished availability of weapons might push prices for these weapons higher -- at least decreasing access. Con teams will also make an economic case for continuing arm sales, arguing that they support U.S. jobs and government revenue via taxes. As Irina Ivanova of CBS News puts it, though, “some economists question the effectiveness of the military jobs approach, however, noting that federal spending on education, health care or infrastructure creates many more jobs than defense spending does.15” Another argument Pro teams might explore is the conflicting strategic and arms sales relationships that the United States has in the Middle East. For example, it is well known that the United States supports the Israeli military. Some analysts argue that these various arms sales relationships are the seedlings of an arms race, which while convenient for U.S. defense contractors, could spell disaster for Middle Eastern security. As William Hartung puts it for the CFR, “by throwing weapons at Saudi Arabia with one hand while giving them to Israel with the other, are we not simply arming both sides of a nascent arms race? Is Iran likely to be cowed by the Saudi mega-deal, or will it simply seek a way to ratchet up its own military capabilities?16”

15 Ivanova,

Irina. "Saudi Arabia Is America's No. 1 Weapons Customer." William. "Is Big Saudi Arms Sale a Good Idea?" Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed January 08, 2019. https://www.cfr.org/expert-roundup/big-saudi-arms-sale-good-idea. 16 Hartung,

Champion Briefs

22

Topic Analysis by Belén Mella

February 2019

Con Arguments The Con side of this resolution argues that the United States should continue to sell arms to Saudi Arabia. Anthony Cordesman writes in the CFR that it’s important to note that sales are “large in dollar terms, but not in terms of numbers of weapons.17” In order to understand that there is not a major military build-up, it’s key to look at the numbers: “Saudi Arabia had an air force with some 417 combat aircraft in 2000, and it now has only 219… It will take some three to five years to deliver and put fully in service, replace some eighty-seven obsolete F-5A/Bs and F-5EIIs that were in service in 2000.” Meanwhile, the arm sales represent huge financial gains for U.S. companies, protecting jobs at firms like Lockheed, Boeing and Raytheon.18 Cordesman outlines a few other reasons why the U.S. should continue to sell arms. For one, “the stability of Gulf energy exports is critical to our economy and every job in the United States.” It’s important for the United States to have strategic allies in the region, and Saudi Arabia has historically played this role. It will be up to debaters to determine whether this relationship has actually served U.S. interests, and whether the U.S. has alternatives if matters with Saudi Arabia were to become strained. Con debaters should also peer into the specific nature of Saudi arms purchases. For instance, currently in the works are upgrades of the Saudi Patriots which “create a base for an integrated approach to air and missile defense,” that is,

17 Cordesman, Anthony. "Is Big Saudi Arms Sale a Good Idea?" Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed January 08, 2019. https://www.cfr.org/expert-roundup/big-saudi-arms-sale-good-idea. 18 Gregg, Aaron, and Christian Davenport. "Defense Contractors Stand with White House on Saudi Arms Sales."

Champion Briefs

23

Topic Analysis by Belén Mella

February 2019

“advanced missile defense systems like THAAD” which focus on defensive rather than offensive tactics. Another aspect of the Con argument needs to be that if we don’t sell arms to Saudi Arabia, “Moscow, London, Paris, and Beijing will.19” This is important for a few reasons. For one, it means that a lot of Pro arguments might be non-unique, meaning they happen in either world, irrespective of which side the judge votes for. Moreover, it means that the Con has a specific advantage, because if it’s the U.S. selling arms, there is more “interdependence that gives both the current Saudi government as well as Saudi governments for the next fifteen to twenty years a strong incentive to work with the United States.20”

Conclusion This topic is rich and multi-layered. Debaters will have to parse the difference between stated goals and various policy measures intended to achieve them. For instance, both Pro and Con might want stability in the Middle East. However, Pro will argue that arms sales fuel conflict and even a potential arms race that destabilize the region. Meanwhile, Con will argue that arm sales maintain interdependence between the United States and Saudi Arabia, while helping the latter build up a strong defensive arsenal. This is a research intensive topic, and will require debaters to act like big picture strategists to make the links that journalists and policymakers might be missing. I wish everyone the best of luck!

19 Gause III, F. Gregory. "Is Big Saudi Arms Sale a Good Idea?" Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed January 08, 2019. https://www.cfr.org/expert-roundup/big-saudi-arms-sale-good-idea. 20 Cordesman, Anthony. "Is Big Saudi Arms Sale a Good Idea?"

Champion Briefs

24

Topic Analysis by Zachary Ginsberg

February 2019

Topic Analysis by Zachary Ginsberg Resolved: The United States should end its arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Introduction After two domestic topics in a row, it is time to turn our attention back abroad with a topic that focuses primarily on international relations and conflict. It is important to consider that this necessitates a shift in priorities and a change in mindset. What impacts matter the most will change because people in the developing world are starting from a much worse off position, many lacking what we consider necessities in the United States and often take for granted. This is especially true in war torn areas, like Yemen, which will comprise most of the debate on this topic. Not only will the impact analysis change, but the problems and institutional infrastructure are very different as well, which means that many of the ideas that applied to problems and solutions in America will not apply on this topic. Thus, this changes the dynamic of the topic and as a team coming up with arguments, your strategic concerns should adjust as such. Teams should familiarize themselves with basic facts of the countries at play, namely Saudi Arabia and Yemen. At least reading the Wikipedia page on their histories and current state of affairs is better than nothing, but the best teams will have an even more robust understanding of the situations at hand. Furthermore, I suggest that teams read a lot about the history of our relationship with Saudi Arabia. This will give teams a much better understanding of how similar actions have

Champion Briefs

25

Topic Analysis by Zachary Ginsberg

February 2019

been received in the past and how each party has responded. It also can give teams an idea of what kind of impacts are up for grabs here. What exactly does Saudi Arabia do for us? Why are we even diplomatic allies with them to begin with? Finally, I strongly advise that teams read up on the basics of Middle Eastern modern history. History often repeats itself, so looking to the past and seeing how the dynamics have evolved over the years will help a lot with formulating arguments and hypothesizing what may happen when the United States takes such a big action. All in all, a daunting and foreign topic, yes, but it is certainly surmountable with sufficient research and a mindful look into the past for hints as to what may unfold in the future. Tournament Considerations There are many tournaments in February, but the most important is undoubtedly the Harvard Invitational. With one of the largest pools, if not the largest of any tournament, Harvard presents its own unique set of challenges. With as many as 400 teams, breaking as a 42 team is not even guaranteed. This means that to succeed, there is very little margin for error even in preliminary rounds. To do well at Harvard, teams should make sure that their prep is not only top notch and well researched, but also that they have thought through strategy and tried it out in practice rounds. I recommend that teams have multiple practice rounds with their teammates, and even if your team is small you can have one on one rounds with your partner. At the very least, debaters should practice giving summaries and final focuses for both sides, predicting what your opponents might go for and how they may respond to your case. This is critical when

Champion Briefs

26

Topic Analysis by Zachary Ginsberg

February 2019

preparing for a real round because it decreases the chances of being flustered and not knowing what to do. As for the judging, although Harvard is known for having terrific judges, debaters must be prepared for anything. With a pool of competitors this large, the pool of judges will be proportionally as large. This means that there can be a lot of variation and the cases you run should be palatable to and easily understood by a wide audience, but also strategic and packed with good links and impacts to win over the more technical judges in the pool. Of course, despite the pressure and seemingly daunting competition, it is important to maintain a good attitude and have fun. At Harvard, despite and possibly even because of, the highly energized atmosphere is one of the most fun tournaments of the year. It’s an event to look forward to. Strategy and Weighing On this topic I believe there will be two main categories of impacts: short term punchy impacts and longer term more systemic ones. This is often the case, but it is particularly pronounced on this topic, with the con mainly arguing for the long term and the pro mainly arguing for the short term. The short-term impacts in consideration here mainly have to do with the state of the war in Yemen and what Saudi Arabia will do with these weapons immediately upon receiving them. The longer-term impacts have to do with how withdrawing our support affects Saudi Arabia’s willingness to cooperate with us on future issues and of course who may step in in our place.

Champion Briefs

27

Topic Analysis by Zachary Ginsberg

February 2019

It is important to be able to go toe to toe on both fronts if you want to write a good case. This is important because it means that you should be sufficiently equipped to outweigh your opponent’s arguments on their own weighing mechanism, a very powerful move for most judges. On the other hand, I strongly recommend having a specific focus of the case. Spend most of your time on either the short term or the long term and do robust weighing so that even if your opponent’s win their cases, it becomes impossible for them to win the round. Weighing can be as simple as to say: the long term matters more because we will spend more time in the long term than we will now, thus the impacts there affect more people. That is sufficient. On the other side, for short term impacts, weighing must do primarily with the certainty of the impact manifesting itself. The probability that these weapons may be used maliciously in the Yemeni civil war is essentially 100 percent because Saudi Arabia is doing that right now. Who knows what may happen in the future. We are so often wrong to predict how international relations will play out— it isn’t worth wasting lives we know we can save right now. Both lines of logic are very compelling but be sure to do the weighing in every speech and even start the rebuttal with an overview that explains how important your impact is. For the short-term impacts, explain how bad it really is for Yemen to be bombed. Stress the high death toll, and that alone should be mortifying, but add on also how damage to infrastructure and the stability of the state will wreck the country for years to come. Without roads, hospitals, and schools as they are bombed, without a unified government which is fractured over the war, it becomes harder and harder to recover going forward. In that sense

Champion Briefs

28

Topic Analysis by Zachary Ginsberg

February 2019

you can make this into a long-term impact with a focus on Yemen, except it has a much higher probability than the con’s long-term impacts. For the long-term impacts, investigate the past. Explain how important alliances with our Middle Eastern allies have been in promoting peace. Stress that they have been on balance successful at reducing violence, despite bumps in the road. Give historical examples to ground the idea and make the argument real in the minds of the judges. Develop a fact claim that the judge can latch on to and already agrees with and couch your argument in that idea. This way you must do less to convince the judge since they already agree with the crux of your argument and have agreed for years if not their whole lives. All I can say is that clarity in this regard is key on a topic that is prone to be so bogged down with specifics and up to date news. Rounds will get confusing very quickly, so maintaining a tried and true through line can help keep your narrative consistent and clear for the judge, ultimately making their decision a lot easier.

Affirmative Argumentation The go to argument on the affirmative is very strong. This of course, is the argument that the weapons we are providing Saudi Arabia are being used to kill innocent civilians by the thousands in Yemen. The link is clear and strong, and the impact is unquestionably enormous. The teams that win on this side must be able to develop this stock argument in a nuanced and sophisticated fashion. How does one do this? I have a few suggestions.

Champion Briefs

29

Topic Analysis by Zachary Ginsberg

February 2019

Most importantly, frontline common negative responses in case. This will make the negative rebuttal increasingly useless and make it much easier to give summaries. It is also especially important to have good, up to date evidence on this front because con responses to this argument are likely to be very strong after hitting so many versions of it repeatedly. One response that is likely to be quite common is that another country, like China, will provide weapons if we do not. The pro can respond to this in two main ways: First, by talking about China’s ability and incentive to match the United States’ weapons sales. The pro can say that China does not have as good of weapons as the United States, or that they cannot provide as many, or they won’t be able to provide any weapons at all. The pro can also say that China has no political will to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia. They are too focused on other international affairs, so this would not be in their top priorities, especially as spaces for their expansion open up in many other places that the United States is receding from, like Somalia and Afghanistan. These other locations may be easier to capitalize on than a ravaging civil war in Yemen. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia does not have the best image now, so becoming closer to Saudi Arabia may hurt China more than it helps. Secondly, the pro can talk about the uniqueness of the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States. The pro can say that Saudi Arabia is dependent on the United States specifically for several reasons. For one, we buy a lot of their oil, which means that staying on our good side is very important to them. However, the United States also has a stronger military and economy than any other country in the world, so it behooves Saudi Arabia to not move on to another ally as we provide very strong aid no other country can. Negative Argumentation

Champion Briefs

30

Topic Analysis by Zachary Ginsberg

February 2019

On the con, the most offensive arguments will have to do with how stopping weapons sales will change our relationship with Saudi Arabia going forward if they do not comply with our demands. There are two important parts of this argument that must be robustly explained: one, why this stopping of arms sales is a tipping point in our relationship, and two, specifically what Saudi Arabia will do in response that is so harmful. Luckily, both are easy to address. Let’s give some examples for both. First, why would this be a tipping point? The war in Yemen matters a lot to Saudi Arabia, which means that holding off support specifically at this time would not go over well with them. Not only is Saudi Arabia fighting what it sees as a deeply important religious war, but it is also fighting in a proxy war with one of its largest regional enemies, Iran. The war in Yemen is a crucially important affair for Saudi Arabia and losing here would really hit them hard. Thus, withdrawing support when they believe they need it most would go over very badly in the Saudi Arabian government, making them much less likely to trust the United States going forward, and likely force them to respond strongly, which brings me to the second area of concern for this argument: what exactly might Saudi Arabia do? It is important to note that generally impacting out to “soft power” or “diplomacy” is not enough to win a round. Teams must explain what the terminal impact is, and offer impact scenarios, which ground the amorphous possibilities of decline in the good terms of our relationship for the judge. Here are a few examples: Saudi Arabia carries out counterterrorism activities all the time. In fact, they are one of the main fighters of terrorism in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia

Champion Briefs

31

Topic Analysis by Zachary Ginsberg

February 2019

also collects and shares intelligence with the United States that we are not privy to given how far away we are from the action and their proximity to the conflicts. Intelligence is often more important than anything else when fighting terrorism. If all we had to do was beat out the terrorists on weaponry and manpower, the battle would have been won ages ago. The issue is clearly that we don’t know where they are and how to respond to the systemic threat that it poses. Perhaps most importantly however, is that maintaining a good relationship with Saudi Arabia ensures that they will not actively support bad terrorist groups they might otherwise if they didn't impede on our interests. The weighing here becomes very strong because even if Saudi Arabia is supporting a horrible civil war in Yemen, it might also be fueling the flames of other conflicts as well if we weren’t acting as a counterweight to their involvement. This effectively beats out the pro on their own impact. About Zachary Ginsberg Zachary Ginsberg is the Debate Coach for Trinity High School in New York City. Throughout his high school debate career, Zach amassed a total of 15 bids to the Tournament of Champions and was awarded a top 5 speaker award at Bronx, Harvard, and Columbia. He has reached semifinals or further of Blake, GMU, Ridge, Bronx, the Glenbrooks, and Scarsdale. In his senior year, Zach championed the Columbia Invitational and finished in the top ten at the TOC, NCFL Nationals, and NSDA Nationals. Now, Zach is a sophomore at Columbia University.

Champion Briefs

32

General Information

February 2019 General Information

Resolved: The United States should end its arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Foreword: We, at Champion Briefs, feel that having deep knowledge about a topic is just as valuable as formulating the right arguments. Having general background knowledge about the topic area helps debaters form more coherent arguments from their breadth of knowledge. As such, we have compiled general information on the key concepts and general areas that we feel will best suit you for in- and out-of-round use. Any strong strategy or argument must be built from a strong foundation of information; we hope that you will utilize this section to help build that foundation.

Champion Briefs

34

General Information

February 2019 The Economics of Arms Sales

The US has been the world’s leading exporter in weapons since 1990 and the biggest customer is Saudi Arabia. The U.S. sold a total of $55.6 billion of weapons worldwide, and in 2017, cleared $18 billion dollars with Saudi Arabia alone. Last May, Trump signed a new arms deal that is allegedly supposed to bring in more than 110 billion dollars. Under the current administration, the sale of these weapons is not to be halted any time soon. Even when the prince of Saudi Arabia was accused of being involved with journalist Jamal Khashoggi, Trump chose to turn a blind eye, rationalizing that “I don't like the concept of stopping an investment of $110 billion into the United States.” Beyond simply selling more arms, the Trump administration has also taken steps to cut regulations and decrease the long wait times that usually accompanies weapons sales, claiming that it will expand opportunities for the American industry and create more jobs.21



21 Ivanova, Irina. “Saudi Arabia Is America's No. 1 Weapons Customer.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 13 Oct. 2018, www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-arabia-is-the-top-buyer-of-u-s-weapons/.

Champion Briefs

35

General Information

February 2019

Not only is the amount of arms being sold to Saudia Arabia increasing; under the Trump administration, aircrafts have ceased to be the largest component of US arms sales, with bombs and missiles dominating the market.22



22 Khatami, Elham. “The Long History of U.S. Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia.” ThinkProgress, ThinkProgress, 12 Oct. 2018, thinkprogress.org/the-long-history-of-u-s-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia-13aaa614a543/.

Champion Briefs

36

General Information

February 2019

While Trump has been under fire for his continual selling of arms, Obama enacted a similar policy towards Saudi Arabia. Although U.S.-Saudi relations grew slightly tense toward the end of President Obama’s term, largely due to the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal and Saudi’s unwillingness to engage with Iran, Obama’s administration oversaw the largest U.S.-Saudi arms deals in American history23. From 2008 to 2015, Obama’s sales to Saudi Arabia amounted to nearly $94 billion.

Why the selling of weapons is controversial Selling arms to Saudi Arabia has long been controversial because many view it as aiding the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. The conflict began in the Arab Spring in 2011 when Yemen’s Authoritarian president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, was forced to hand over power to Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, his deputy. While this act was supposed to bring stability to Yemen, it only

23 Khatami, Elham. “The Long History of U.S. Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia.” ThinkProgress, ThinkProgress, 12 Oct. 2018, thinkprogress.org/the-long-history-of-u-s-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia-13aaa614a543/.

Champion Briefs

37

General Information

February 2019

illustrated President Hadi’s inability to lead the nation to prosperity; he was unable to deal with the militant attacks, corruptions, food insecurity, and the general disloyalty towards his rule. In 2014, the Houthi rebel movement took the capital of Sanaa, forcing President Hadi abroad24. This lead to a civil war breaking out in Yemen, with Saudi Arabia, who sees the Houthi as proxies to the Iranians25, and eight other mostly Sunni Arab states, sought to restore President Hadi’s power. Thus, the Yemen conflict became a proxy war between the Saudi Arabians and the Iranians. This conflict has only escalated with the United States, as well as the UK and France, continually selling more and more arms to Saudi Arabia. On August 9th, a bomb, identified as a 500-pound weapon sold to Saudi Arabia by Lockheed Martin, hit a school bus in Yemen killing dozens of children. In 2016, a similar strike killed 155 people in a funeral hall, and a US-made bomb killed 97 people in a marketplace. The US has been responsible for selling weapons to Saudi Arabia that continually kills innocent civilians every day. After these attacks, the Obama administration banned US companies from selling precision-guided military technology to Saudi Arabia, but this ban was soon lifted in March 2017 by Rex Tillerson. Overall, this conflict has lead to thousands of civilian deaths, with the death toll as high as 50,000 as of September 2018. The UN has deemed this conflict “the world's worst man-made humanitarian disaster.”26

24

“Yemen Conflict Explained in 400 Words.” BBC News, BBC, 13 June 2018, www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east44466574. 25

Wintour, Patrick. “Why Is Saudi Arabia in Yemen and What Does It Mean for Britain?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 8 Mar. 2018, www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/08/why-saudi-arabia-in-yemen-what-does-it-mean-for-britain. 26 “The Consequences of Selling Arms to Saudi Arabia.” America Magazine, 7 Sept. 2018, www.americamagazine.org/politicssociety/2018/09/07/consequences-selling-arms-saudi-arabia.

Champion Briefs

38

General Information

Champion Briefs

February 2019

39

General Information

February 2019 27

How the situation is evolving While Trump didn’t seem that fazed by the killing of journalist Jama Khashoggi, calls for more restrictions on arms exports have been growing in Europe. Denmark and Finland suspended new arms deals with Saudi Arabia. Germany has called to suspend new arms deals to Saudia Arabia. In recent years, a lot of exporters have dramatically decreased their supply. THe UK transferred 843 million dollars worth of arms in 2016, but only $438 million last year. French exports dropped from $174 million in 2015 to $91 million in 2016 and $27 million last year. Deals involving major weapons can be tracked here.



27 Dewan, Angela. “These Are the Countries Still Selling Arms to Saudi Arabia.” CNN, Cable News Network, 23 Nov. 2018, www.cnn.com/2018/11/22/middleeast/arms-exports-saudi-arabia-intl/index.html.

Champion Briefs

40

General Information

Champion Briefs

February 2019

41

General Information

February 2019 Why the US is involved28

With the arms funneling into such a large humanitarian crisis, it ought to be noted why the United States chooses to continue selling these arms •

The US has a strong reliance on oil, and most of the oil imports come from the middle east. In terms of US oil interests, an ally in the region can help stop a nuclear arms race in the region and be a proxy to keep the region more stable, allowing the US access more oil. The stability of Gulf energy exports is critical to the United States economy and many jobs in the United States

•

Many would contend that if the US refuses to move forward on the sale, the Saudis will simply buy arms elsewhere. Russia and China are eagerly awaiting to get into the market and would be happy to fill the void.

•

With Iran rising in power, the United States needs allies in the region that have strong forces to fight alongside them in order to ease the burden on the US military. Iran poses a massive naval-air assault force threat to the Gulf states and after the US invasion in Iraq, the Iraqi forces are far from being able to counteract Iran, leaving Saudi Arabia as the only regional power to work with. Strengthen Saudi Arabia helps ensure security in the Gulf of Oman and the unstable Red Sea.

•

Iran poses a missile and chemical weapons threat and is on its way to becoming a nuclear threat. By providing Saudia Arabia with integrated approaches to air and missile

28

“Is Big Saudi Arms Sale a Good Idea?” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org/expertroundup/big-saudi-arms-sale-good-idea.

Champion Briefs

42

General Information

February 2019

defense (such as THAAD), it gives Saudia Arabia and other Gulf states security and stops a nuclear arms race in the region. •

The arms sales make the Saudi government dependent on the United States, ergo providing them with a strong incentive to work with the US in the future. Saudi Arabia needs continuing support from the US in order to continue funding their military, thus forcing them to cooperate with the United States.

Champion Briefs

43

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

PRO: The US should halt arms sales as it is facing pressure from its allies to do so Argument: The United States should follow our allies’ lead in halting arms sales. Warrant: Germany has ceased its arms sales to Saudi Arabia Rick Noack, The Washington Post, "Germany halts arms deals with Saudi Arabia, en courages allies to do the same", 10/22/18, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/10/22/germany-its-allies-wellhalt-future-arms-sales-saudi-arabia-until-we-have-clarity-khashoggi-so-shouldyou/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e13cd6cb1208 In a move that could put further pressure on President Trump to stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced Sunday evening that her government would not approve new arms exports to the kingdom until further notice. “There is an urgent need to clarify what happened — we are far from this having been cleared up and those responsible held to account,” she said at a news conference. “I agree with all those who say that the, albeit already limited, arms exports can’t take place in the current circumstances,” Merkel said. While the move affects future deals, exports that have already been approved to the second-biggest foreign market for German arms equipment will proceed for now but may be suspended in the coming days. Germany is the first major U.S. ally to cast doubts on future arms sales after the killing of Washington Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi, and the move is likely to put pressure on bigger exporters to do the same. President Trump has ruled out suspending arms exports but faces bipartisan calls to hold the alleged perpetrators behind the writer’s killing accountable.

Champion Briefs

45

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Warrant: Countries around the world are reducing arms sales as well Patrick Wilcken, The Guardian, "Britain and the US must stop fuelling the bloody Saudi war on Yemen", 03/20/18, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/20/yemen-armssaudi-arabia This conflict has revealed in the starkest possible terms the real cost of the lucrative global arms trade, not to mention the challenge of implementing the UN arms trade treaty. Beyond the US and the UK, many other countries – including France, Spain and Italy – profess their support for human rights and adherence to the treaty while similarly lavishing hi-tech weaponry on the Saudi coalition. However, on this grim anniversary for Yemen there are glimmers of hope. Across the world vocal criticism from campaigners, journalists and, crucially, some politicians has begun to bear fruit. In recent months, under growing public pressure, a host of European countries have suspended arms transfers to the Saudi coalition. In other countries where arms exports have continued, they are coming under intense scrutiny, with court challenges and growing criticism from parliamentarians and the wider public. It’s just possible the tide may be turning. In Greece, there was a storm of protest in December when news emerged of a deal to send 300,000 tank shells to Saudi Arabia. Amid mounting pressure, led by Amnesty Greece, a parliamentary committee broke with precedent and cancelled the deal.

Warrant: Currently, the US is looking to increase arms sales while their allies are pushing to stop them Tom O'Connor, Newsweek, "WHO STILL SELLS WEAPONS TO SAUDI ARABIA?

Champion Briefs

46

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

SPAIN JOINS OTHERS TO CANCEL ARMS DEAL, BUT SOME WANT TO SELL MORE", 09/12/18, https://www.newsweek.com/who-still-gives-weapons-saudi-arabiaspain-cancel-others-want-more-1116673 In light of a recent diplomatic spat, Canada and Saudi Arabia have ceased all trade, including military equipment, and Wezeman said that Italy had raised the discussion of ending such weapons sales. Still, Saudi Arabia retains many supporters abroad. Some countries, such as the U.S., are even looking to increase their military ties to the Gulf state despite lawmakers increasingly questioning this relationship at home. Despite the fact that it was likely a U.S. bomb that killed more than 50 people, including 40 children, in Saudi's bus bombing last month, Defense Secretary James Mattis claimed weeks later that the U.S. was only "watching" the conflict unfold. He said the Pentagon was only interested in battling Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State militant group (ISIS), despite reports featured last month by the Associated Press and last year by Just Security in Newsweek suggesting that the U.S. was actually assisting Al-Qaeda fighters in spite of their mutual Houthi foe.

Impact: Inaction on behalf of the United States only further emboldens Saudi Arabia to commit mass atrocities Mohamad Bazzi, The Atlantic, "The United States Could End the War in Yemen If It Wanted To", 09/30/18, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/09/iran-yemen-saudiarabia/571465/ After the Trump administration’s endorsement this month, the Saudi-UAE alliance has even less incentive to prevent civilian casualties and new humanitarian disasters. Saudi Arabia and its allies are more likely to accept a

Champion Briefs

47

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

peace process if it is clear that the United States won’t support an open-ended war in Yemen and won’t provide the military assistance required to keep the war apparatus going. But Trump has shown little sign of pressuring his Saudi and Emirati allies, least of all over Yemen. The only realistic check left is in Congress, where more voices are asking why the world’s most powerful country is helping to perpetuate the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Analysis: This argument is strategic because it shows that the US is the unique nation that controls the arms leverage over Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, one could argue that symbolically this allows Saudi Arabia to further stray from international norms if in this case it is revealed that it can do so unscathed because of US support. Thus, it is vital that the United States stand with their other allies now and in the future.

Champion Briefs

48

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

A/2: The US should halt arms sales as it is facing pressure from its allies to do so Response: Other countries aren’t enough to influence Saudi Arabia on their own not because of the US relationship, but because they sell Saudi Arabia a miniscule amount of weapons. Warrant: The US sells far more arms Angela Dewan, CNN, "hese are the countries still selling arms to Saudi Arabia", 11/23/18, https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/22/middleeast/arms-exports-saudiarabia-intl/index.html Overall, no country comes close to the United States in major weapons supply. Over the past five years, for example, the US accounted for 61% of major arms sales to the Saudis. The UK was a distant second, with a 23% share, while France, in third place, was a mere 4%.

Warrant: Other large exporters aren’t curbing their arms sales either Dominic Dudley, Forbes, "Why More And More Countries Are Blocking Arms Sales To Saudi Arabia And The UAE", 09/07/18, https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/09/07/why-more-andmore-countries-are-blocking-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia-and-theuae/#1cd14574580a The largest arms suppliers to Riyadh are the U.S., with $8.4bn worth of sales since 2014, followed by the UK ($2.6bn) and France ($475m). The governments of these

Champion Briefs

49

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

three countries show little or no interest in curbing their lucrative deals with Gulf countries. However, a growing number of other governments are taking a different approach and, even in London, Paris and Washington, there are regular legal and political challenges to the trade. Analysis: This is a good response because it shows an alternate causality as to why other countries are so quick to curb arms sales. It is because they are not contributing that much to Saudi arms in the first place. Additionally, if the largest sellers besides the United States aren’t curbing arms sales either, it is unlikely that the US halting arms sales will have much of an effect. Response: Halting arms sales would hurt the US economy unnecessarily Warrant: Saudi Arabia is a critical weapons market Christian Davenport and Aaron Gregg, The Washington Post, "Why Trump wants to keep Lockheed, Boeing and others in business with Saudi Arabia", 09/15/18, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/15/why-trump-wantskeep-lockheed-boeing-others-business-with-saudiarabia/?utm_term=.1bd26db07fbd With so much on the line, Loren Thompson, a consultant who counts many of the top defense firms as clients, said he “would be willing to bet that every major defense contractor that was scheduled to appear at the conference will go. Because the Saudi weapons market is too big for any defense contractor to ignore, and the Saudi leadership is too sensitive to take chances with.” Lockheed Martin, the largest defense firm in the world, has long counted Saudi Arabia as a key customer. Earlier this year, Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed’s chief executive, hosted Mohammed bin Salman and gave him a tour of the company’s satellite and missile defense production facilities in

Champion Briefs

50

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Sunnyvale, Calif. They also discussed Lockheed’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-ballistic-missile system, as well as the manufacturing of two communications satellites that Lockheed is building for the country. Lockheed has had a presence in Saudi Arabia since 1965, with the delivery of its first C-130 Hercules military transport aircraft. Since then, it has sold the kingdom missile defense systems, helicopters, satellites and ships. “Saudi Arabia is one of the most lucrative foreign markets for our defense contractors,” said Todd Harrison, a defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “They tend to buy high-end equipment. They have a lot of money to throw around, and they can make decisions on weapons purchases pretty quickly because they don’t have a lot of bureaucracy.” Warrant: New weapons deals don’t actually increase the quantity of weapons by very much Deborah Jerome, Council on Foreign Relations, "Is Big Saudi Arms Sale a Good Idea?", 09/24/10, https://www.cfr.org/expert-roundup/big-saudi-arms-sale-good-idea Fourth, the proposed arms sale package creates a level of interdependence that gives both the current Saudi government as well as Saudi governments for the next fifteen to twenty years a strong incentive to work with the United States. Saudi Arabia will need continuing support from the United States during the entire lifecycle of every major system sold, and no future Saudi government can ignore this fact. Moreover, the sales are large in dollar terms, but not in terms of numbers of weapons. This will not be some kind of massive build-up. Saudi Arabia had an air force with some 417 combat aircraft in 2000, and it now has only 219. The Saudi F-15 buy will not even restore the force to 2000 numbers. It will take some three to five years to deliver and put fully in service, replace some eighty-seven obsolete F-5A/Bs and F-5EIIs that were in service in 2000, and help Saudi Arabia compensate for the serious performance limits on 107 aging Tornados still in service.

Champion Briefs

51

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Analysis: This is a good response because US industries depend on the Saudi Arabian market perhaps more than our allies. Additionally, this shows that arms deals from the US specifically aren’t leading to any sort of weapons stockpile on the part of Saudi Arabia.

Champion Briefs

52

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

PRO: Saudi attacks damage Yemeni long term development Argument: By creating such a horrible famine and damaging institutions and infrastructure, US support for Saudi airstrikes have not only killed millions today but have also damned Yemen from rebounding any time soon. Warrant: Saudi attacks have wrecked economic development in Yemen Walsh, Declan. “The Tragedy of Saudi Arabia’s War in Yemen.” The New York Times, 26 Oct. 2018. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/26/world/middleeast/saudiarabia-war-yemen.html, The devastating war in Yemen has gotten more attention recently as outrage over the killing of a Saudi dissident in Istanbul has turned a spotlight on Saudi actions elsewhere. The harshest criticism of the Saudi-led war has focused on the airstrikes that have killed thousands of civilians at weddings, funerals and on school buses, aided by American-supplied bombs and intelligence. But aid experts and United Nations officials say a more insidious form of warfare is also being waged in Yemen, an economic war that is exacting a far greater toll on civilians and now risks tipping the country into a famine of catastrophic proportions. Under the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi-led coalition and its Yemeni allies have imposed a raft of punitive economic measures aimed at undercutting the Houthi rebels who control northern Yemen. But these actions — including periodic blockades, stringent import restrictions and withholding the salaries of about a million civil servants — have landed on the backs of civilians, laying the economy to waste and driving millions deeper into poverty. Those measures have inflicted a slow-burn toll: infrastructure destroyed, jobs lost, a weakening currency and soaring prices. But in recent weeks the

Champion Briefs

53

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

economic collapse has gathered pace at alarming speed, causing top United Nations officials to revise their predictions of famine. Warrant: US support prevents peaceful attempts to solve the conflict Bazzi, Mohamad. “The United States Could End the War in Yemen If It Wanted To.” The Atlantic, 30 Sept. 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/09/iran-yemen-saudiarabia/571465/. By accepting the coalition’s cosmetic attempts to minimize civilian casualties, the Trump administration is signaling to Saudi and Emirati leaders its apparent belief that a clear military victory in Yemen remains possible. And as long as the coalition believes it can crush the Houthis, there’s little incentive for it to negotiate. Trump, then, has bought into Saudi Arabia’s zero-sum calculation: that a military win in Yemen for the kingdom and its allies would be a defeat for Iran, while a negotiated settlement with the Houthis would be a victory for Tehran. Blinded by its obsession with Iran, the Trump administration is perpetuating an unwinnable war and undermining the likelihood of a political settlement. This current phase of the conflict in Yemen began in September 2014, when the Houthis, a group of Shia rebels allied with Yemen’s ousted dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh, forced most of President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi’s government to flee to Saudi Arabia, and threatened to take over much of the country. Warrant: The US can stop airstrikes if we stop selling weapons Bruton, Brinley. “The U.S. Wants the Saudis to End War in Yemen. And It Has Leverage.” NBC News, 5 Nov. 2018, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-wantsyemen-war-end-will-it-stop-selling-n929921.

Champion Briefs

54

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Senior U.S. officials have gone further than ever before in calling for an end to the Saudi-led war in Yemen — a conflict that has pushed 14 million people to the brink of starvation. “Coalition airstrikes must cease in all populated areas in Yemen,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said last Tuesday. The same day, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said all sides needed to take meaningful steps toward a cease-fire and begin negotiations in the next 30 days. The comments raised the prospect that the Trump administration is getting tougher with the Saudis over their military campaign against Iran-linked Houthi rebels, which has killed more than 10,000 people in the desperately poor country since 2015. All sides have been accused of violating international law and committing war crimes. Washington supports Saudi Arabia and its ally, the United Arab Emirates, through billions in arms sales. It also refuels their jets mid-air, provides training and shares intelligence. So if the U.S. wants to try to force the Saudis' hands, it has leverage. The best way to force the Saudis to change their ways is to stop sending weapons, according to Human Rights Watch’s Yemen researcher Kristine Beckerle. Impact: War makes it increasingly difficult to rebound Gaub, Florence. “Arab Wars: Calculating the Costs.” European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), Oct. 2017. Neighbours are economically affected, too: coun- tries bordering a warzone in the MENA will lose nearly 2% of their GDP in comparison to 1.4% elsewhere in the world. The Levant as a whole has foregone $35 billion in lost output or growth because of the Syrian war – the equivalent of Syria’s entire GDP in 2007. Refugees are a part of the problem, but they are, of course, not solely responsible for economic difficulties: Jordan, for example, spends 6% of its GDP and a quarter of its annual revenues on hosting Syrian refugees. Moreover, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict alone has cost the region $12 trillion – if direct and indirect costs are combined.Economic recovery also takes time: Lebanon took 20 years to recover from its 15-year civil war, while Kuwait took 7 years

Champion Briefs

55

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

to repair the damages resulting from the Iraqi invasion and occupation. Although oilexporting countries find it easier to rebound, their recovery depends on volatile (and currently low) oil prices, as well as on the state’s capacity to control exports. In Libya, for instance, this is not the case: since 2011, Libya’s oil output has consistently declined and now stands at 25% of its pre-war levels. Most importantly, several of the ongoing conflicts in the region are part of a larger conflictcycle rather than isolated crises. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the spill over into Lebanon in the 1970s first resulted in a civilwar and later led to the emergence of Hizbullah, which fought a war with Israel in 2006 and is now propping up the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Analysis: This is a good argument because it impacts out to a very long term problem in Yemen. Even if the pro is able to prove that there are long term benefits of being allied with Saudi Arabia, these harms to Yemen will last for generations, surely outweighing any positive benefits of the alliance.

Champion Briefs

56

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

A/2: Saudi attacks damage Yemeni long term development Response: The Blockade is more to blame Warrant: The Blockade stops UN assistance Brown, Matt. “Amnesty Accuses Saudi-Led Forces and Houthi Rebels of Possible War Crimes.” ABC News, 22 June 2018, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-0622/yemen-houthis-and-saudi-forces-hold-up-food-aid-fuel/9897684. The Saudi coalition has imposed a partial blockade on Houthi held ports and tightened restrictions after the Houthis launched missiles aimed at the Saudi Arabian capital, Riyadh. The partial blockade has played a significant role in the collapse of the health system and exacerbated suffering that Amnesty International said could, "constitute a war crime”. United Nation staff inspect ships bound for Houthi controlled ports in support of a UN Security Council arms embargo established in 2015. However, the coalition mounts subsequent inspections by boarding ships in international waters, or diverting them to coalition controlled ports. Warrant: the blockade has created the famine within a year Norwegian Refugee Council. “Yemenis in Free Fall One Year since Blockade - Yemen.” ReliefWeb, 5 Nov. 2018, https://reliefweb.int/report/yemen/yemenis-free-fallone-year-blockade. One year since the Saudi-led Coalition imposed a blockade on sea, land and air routes in Yemen, millions more are edging closer to famine and fatal disease. "The past 12 months have been a never-ending nightmare for Yemeni civilians. The parties to the

Champion Briefs

57

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

conflict have consistently disavowed the laws of war and employed tactics that exacerbate suffering for civilian populations," said Jan Egeland, Secretary General of the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC). The one-year-long partial blockade has prevented import of vital food, fuel and medical supplies, creating shortages on key commodities for a population in dire need. This had led to mass inflation and propelled a crisis already widely regarded as the worst in the world. Fuel imports through Hodeidah, Yemen's most important sea port, remain drastically low and insufficient for meeting needs. The past days have also seen fierce fighting and air strikes pick up in the vicinity of Hodeidah city threatening to further deteriorate civilians' access to safety and aid. Analysis: This is a good response because even if the pro can prove that stopping the sale of weapons will stop air strikes, there are far more insidious tactics at play that are causing institutional and developmental degradation in Yemen. This will only solve a fraction of the problem if that, thus taking out the pro’s impact. Response: Saudi Arabia can get weapons elsewhere Warrant: Saudi Arabia has already made a deal with Russia Carrol, Oliver. “Russia and Saudi Arabia ‘sign $3bn Arms Deal’ on King Salman Visit.” The Independent, 5 Oct. 2017, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-king-salman-visitsaudi-arabia-moscow-vladimir-putin-a7985161.html. According to the Kommersant newspaper, agreement has already been reached on a $3bn (£2.2bn) deal to supply the Saudis with Russia’s most advanced air defence missile system, the S400 Triumph. According to the publication, the deal will be signed off at a WTO meeting at the end of October. There may be other deals forthcoming on

Champion Briefs

58

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

aircraft and helicopters – that depending on the success of talks. Defence is one of few technological sectors where Russia can still claim to be a world leader, with over a fifth of all arms deals in 2016. But with China and India, Russia’s biggest markets, looking to move towards military self-sufficiency, Russia is with increasing urgency looking to open new markets. Warrant: British weapons also supply Saudi Arabia with airstrike capabilities Trew, Bell. “‘Irresponsible and Incoherent’: British-Backed Bombing Raids Destroy UK Aid in Yemen.” The Independent, 2 Nov. 2018, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/yemen-saudi-arabiaoxfam-aid-air-strikes-civilian-casualties-a8615081.html. She said: “On the one hand, British aid is a vital lifeline, on the other, British bombs are helping to fuel an ongoing war that is leading to countless lives being lost each week to fighting, disease and hunger. “The UK continues to sell arms to Saudi Arabia, whose coalition bombing campaign in Yemen has cut off vital food supplies, destroyed hospitals and homes, and hit aid programmes funded by British taxpayers.” The UK Department for International Development (DFID) reported in June 2015 that coalition warplanes destroyed a warehouse of UK-funded aid in an airstrike. DFID declined to comment on the latest projects hit. Since Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies launched a bombing campaign to oust the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in the spring of 2015, the UK has sold an estimated £3.87billion worth of arms to Riyadh. Analysis: This is a good response because if Saudi Arabia can get weapons from other countries, the stopping of US sales will do nothing to improve the state of Yemen. Saudi Arabia does not need unlimited supplies to launch a few devastating attacks. This entirely takes out the pro’s impact.

Champion Briefs

59

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

PRO: Saudi airstrikes worsen the famine in Yemen Argument: Attacks with US weapons in Yemen have worsened the deathtoll in the civil war, not only by killing people directly, but by making it harder to access food. Warrant: The famine in Yemen is one of the worst in history Graham-Harrison, Emma. “Famine in Yemen Could Become One of Worst in Living Memory, UN Says.” The Guardian, 24 Oct. 2018. www.theguardian.com, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/25/famine-in-yemen-couldbecome-one-of-worst-in-living-memory-un-says. Yemen is sliding fast toward what could become one of the worst famines in living memory, the UN’s top emergency relief official has warned. The country is in “clear and present danger” of mass deaths from starvation, and as many as 14 million people – half the population – could soon be entirely dependent on aid to survive, the undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs, Mark Lowcock, said. Fighting is blocking shipments from getting into the country, let alone to those who need it. Even after expanding relief operations to help an estimated 8 million people, it is not possible to reach all those in need. The looming disaster could be “much bigger than anything any professional in this field has seen during their working lives,” he said. Food prices have also nearly doubled in the country, Save the Children said in a new report. Yemen has been at civil war for three years after Houthi rebels backed by Iran seized much of the country, including the capital, Sana’a. Saudi Arabia and allies including the United Arab Emirates joined the war in 2015. Warrant: Saudi airstrikes destroy sanitation facilities

Champion Briefs

60

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Lemon, Jason. “13 Million People May Starve in the ‘Worst Famine in 100 Years’ If SaudiLed Coalition Keeps Bombing Yemen: U.N.” Newsweek, 15 Oct. 2018, https://www.newsweek.com/worst-famine-yemen-bombing-saudi-starve1171063. The conflict began when Iran-backed Houthi rebels seized control of the majority of the country, including the capital, Sanaa. Saudi Arabia and its coalition allies have fought to support the internationally recognized government, which has gone into exile. The U.S. has provided military assistance to the coalition, expanding the support under the administration of President Donald Trump. In three years, at least 10,000 people have died and millions have been displaced. Civilians have found themselves caught in the middle, trapped between airstrikes, land mines and bullets. The country is also suffering from the worst cholera outbreak in the world, with 10,000 new suspected cases each week, a crisis made worse due to sanitation facilities being destroyed by airstrikes. “There’s no question we should be ashamed,” Grande said, directing her comments at the international community. “And we should, every day that we wake up, renew our commitment to do everything possible to help the people that are suffering and end the conflict.” Warrant: Stopping the sale of weapons could promote peace Bazzi, Mohamad. “The United States Could End the War in Yemen If It Wanted To.” The Atlantic, 30 Sept. 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/09/iran-yemen-saudiarabia/571465/. Days later, Yemeni forces loyal to the Saudi-UAE alliance launched a new offensive aimed at forcing the Houthis out of Hodeidah port, which is the major conduit for humanitarian aid in Yemen. UN officials warn that a prolonged battle for the port and its

Champion Briefs

61

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

surroundings could lead to the death of 250,000 people, mainly from mass starvation. After the Trump administration’s endorsement this month, the Saudi-UAE alliance has even less incentive to prevent civilian casualties and new humanitarian disasters. Saudi Arabia and its allies are more likely to accept a peace process if it is clear that the United States won’t support an open-ended war in Yemen and won’t provide the military assistance required to keep the war apparatus going. But Trump has shown little sign of pressuring his Saudi and Emirati allies, least of all over Yemen. The only realistic check left is in Congress, where more voices are asking why the world’s most powerful country is helping to perpetuate the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Impact: 13 million could starve if the Saudis keep bombing Lemon, Jason. “13 Million People May Starve in the ‘Worst Famine in 100 Years’ If SaudiLed Coalition Keeps Bombing Yemen: U.N.” Newsweek, 15 Oct. 2018, https://www.newsweek.com/worst-famine-yemen-bombing-saudi-starve1171063. Between 12 and 13 million people are at risk of starvation within the next three months if the Saudi Arabian-led coalition continues its bombing of Yemen, the United Nations has warned. The Yemeni Civil War, which began in 2015, has led to what could likely become the worst famine in a century. Activists and U.N. monitors have long warned of the growing humanitarian crisis in the country, but the assault has continued. “I think many of us felt as we went into the 21st century that it was unthinkable that we could see a famine like we saw in Ethiopia, that we saw in Bengal, that we saw in parts of the Soviet Union—that was just unacceptable,” Lise Grande, the U.N.’s humanitarian coordinator for Yemen, told the BBC on Sunday. “Yet the reality is that in Yemen that is precisely what we are looking at,” she warned.

Champion Briefs

62

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Analysis: This is a good argument because of the mere scale of the impact. Millions of people starving, one of the worst famines ever— this couldn’t get worse and yet it still does. Any impact that helps to stop this increasing death toll is easily the most important in the round, and will definitely outweigh any con argument.

Champion Briefs

63

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

A/2: Saudi airstrikes worsen the famine in Yemen Response: Stopping military support will not do much Warrant: The blockade is the main cause of the famine Carey, Glen. How Saudis, Allies Made Yemen a Humanitarian Crisis. 19 Oct. 2018. www.bloomberg.com, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-1019/how-saudis-turned-yemen-war-into-humanitarian-crisis-quicktake. In principle, the coalition says the purpose of the blockade is to stop Iranian weapons from entering Yemen to supply the Houthi rebels who are in control of much of the north, including the capital Sanaa. But in practice, it has cut the amount of desperately needed food, medicine and fuel getting into the country by more than half, according to aid groups. What does come through is heavily taxed along the way, as it passes through territory controlled by different warring factions. Driving along, you pass markets flush with fresh fruit that no one can afford, while children starve a half mile down the road. It's a surreal and jarring image, one of many I carried home with me from Yemen. A doctor in the neo-natal ward of the main government hospital rinsing his hands with bottled water because there is no soap or working tap. Warrant: This war is for dominance of the Arabian peninsula and Saudis will keep fighting CNN, Clarissa Ward, Salma Abdelaziz and Scott McWhinnie. “In Yemen, the Markets Have Food, but Children Are Starving to Death.” CNN, 19 Dec. 2017, https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/19/middleeast/yemen-intl/index.html.

Champion Briefs

64

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Broadly, on one side are Houthi rebels, members of a Shiite Muslim tribe from the mountains of northern Yemen, who took control of the capital, Sana’a, and other cities in 2015. They complain of marginalization of their community and are supported by Shiite-majority Iran. On the other side stand forces of the internationally recognized Yemeni government and allied militias backed by Saudi Arabia and its coalition of mainly Sunni Muslim nations. The U.S. and U.K. support the coalition with weapons sales and logistical help. Its leaders say they feared that Houthi control of Yemen would give Iran a foothold in the Arabian peninsula that would threaten Saudi interests. Iran and Saudi Arabia are engaged in a larger battle for dominance in the Arab world. The recorded civilian death toll from fighting was estimated in August at about 7,000, although UN officials believe the actual number is substantially higher. Most casualties have been the result of coalition air strikes, according to the Aug. 28 report of investigators commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council. The panel reviewed coalition air strikes that hit residential areas in 60 cases; marketplaces in 11 cases; civilian boats in 11 cases; and medical, educational, cultural or religious sites in 32 cases. It said such strikes may amount to war crimes. The investigators said they gathered reports of shelling into civilian areas by Houthi forces that required further investigation. Analysis: This is a good response because it means you can grant the pro the entirety of their impact and still there is no reason to vote for them because there will continue to be famines in the future, but also this famine will not be alleviated much given its other causes. Response: Saudi Arabia can get weapons from someone else Warrant: Saudi Arabia has already began talking to Russia over the US Woody, Christopher. “The Saudis Still Haven’t Locked in the Massive Arms Deals Trump Touted, and They’re Still Talking to Russia about Its Advanced S-400 Air Defense

Champion Briefs

65

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

System.” Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-arabia-hasntsigned-us-arms-deals-talking-to-russia-about-s-400-2018-10. Accessed 8 Jan. 2019. Perhaps more concerning for US officials is Saudi Arabia's continued interest in the Russian-made advanced S-400 air-defense system. According to The Post, the Saudis have resisted US requests to disavow their interest buying the S-400 and have continued talks with Moscow. Saudi Arabia would be only the latest ally with interest in the Russian-made air-defense system. Turkey has already bought the S-400, earning rebuke from the US Congress and creating concerns within the NATO alliance. India also recently agreed to buy the air-defense system during a summit earlier this month — a deal that raises the prospect of US sanctions on New Delhi. The news of Riyadh wavering on the THAAD deal comes amid increasing scrutiny on Saudi Arabia over the disappearance and alleged killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Warrant: Many countries currently sell weapons to Saudi Arabia Dewan, Angela. “These Are the Countries Still Selling Arms to Saudi Arabia.” CNN, 23 Nov. 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/22/middleeast/arms-exports-saudiarabia-intl/index.html. Arms deals are often done in secret or with little publicity. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) tries to track deals involving major weapons, and a database of Saudi imports from the last decade shows the United States as the biggest supplier, followed by the United Kingdom, France, Spain and then Germany. But a lot of exporters still selling to the Saudis have dramatically decreased their supply in recent years. The United Kingdom, for example, transferred arms worth an estimated $843 million in 2016 but almost halved that value to $436 million last year, according to SIPRI. (The database uses values constant with 1990 prices

Champion Briefs

66

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

to eliminate currency fluctuations and inflation.) French exports of major weapons to Saudi Arabia were worth $174 million in 2015 but dropped to $91 million in 2016 and $27 million last year. The value of Spanish exports also dramatically decreased in that time period, but the Spanish government confirmed this year it would go ahead with arms deals it had previously suggested it would freeze, bowing to pressure from Spanish manufacturers, according to reports. Analysis: This is a good response because even if the US does all it can to stop Saudi airstrikes, this doesn't mean they can’t get the same support from a different ally, which effectively neutralizes the effect of US action. This takes out the pro’s link and leaves them without an argument,

Champion Briefs

67

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

PRO: Propping up Saudi Arabia is bad for the environment Argument: Stopping selling arms to Saudi Arabia may hurt our relationship with Saudi Arabia, which is good because it may affect how much oil they are willing to sell us, which has effects on emissions and climate change. Warrant: Saudi Arabia is the second largest supplier of oil to the US Egan, Matt. “Saudi Arabia Is No. 2 Supplier of Oil to the United States.” CNN, 15 Oct. 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/investing/saudi-arabia-oil-importsunited-states/index.html. But that doesn't mean it can afford to ignore Saudi Arabia's threat to retaliate against possible sanctions related to the disappearance of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The United States still imports 7.9 million barrels of foreign crude per day and a sizable chunk comes from Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter. Despite soaring US oil production, the United States still imported 876,000 barrels of crude a day from Saudi Arabia in July, according to the most recent government statistics. Even though imports from Saudi Arabia have declined sharply from 10 years ago, the kingdom remains the No. 2 supplier to the United States, behind only Canada. Saudi oil represents about 11% of total oil imports, roughly on par with 1973, the year the kingdom sent oil prices spiking by launching an embargo that crippled the American economy. "Anyone who thinks our shale oil boom means we can rely less on Saudi Arabia, doesn't understand how the oil market works," said Bob McNally, president of consulting firm Rapidan Energy Group and an energy official under President George W. Bush. In fact, even as US oil production ramped up in September, so did purchases of Saudi oil. The United States imported 1.1 million barrels per day of Saudi oil last month, a 16-month high, according to unofficial statistics from research firm ClipperData.

Champion Briefs

68

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Warrant: We provide weapons and they provide oil HENNIGAN, WJ. “What Makes the U.S.-Saudi Relationship So Special? Weapons, Oil and ‘An Army of Lobbyists.’” Time, 18 Oct. 2018, http://time.com/5428669/saudiarabia-military-relationship/. The 75-year alliance between the two nations has been built on a simple arrangement: American demand for Saudi oil and Saudi demand for American firepower. It is a relationship that is not easily unwound as a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators found out earlier this year when they moved to cut off military assistance to the Saudis in their war against Houthi rebels in Yemen. The United Nations has said that more half of the more than 10,000 people who have been killed in the three-year old war are civilians, and the lives of millions are potentially at risk from famine. The U.S. government has provided intelligence, munitions and midair refueling to Saudi warplanes since operations kicked off in 2015. Attempts by American lawmakers to stop that aid have thus far failed. Saudi Arabia has spent at least $5.8 million on lobbying Congress this year, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a government watchdog. But recently filed documents detailing expenses and reimbursements put the actual number closer to $9 million, said Lydia Dennett, investigator with the Project on Government Oversight. Warrant: The US began selling weapons to Saudi Arabia in order to get oil Campbell, Alexia Fernández. “Trump Says Selling Weapons to Saudi Arabia Will Create a Lot of Jobs. That’s Not True.” Vox, 17 Oct. 2018, https://www.vox.com/policyand-politics/2018/10/17/17967510/trump-saudi-arabia-arms-sales-khashoggi. Trump is hardly the first US president to agree sell fighter jets, missiles, and other military equipment to Saudi Arabia. President Barack Obama did it, and so did every

Champion Briefs

69

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

other president going back to the Truman administration. The United States was desperate for Saudi oil and a military ally in the Middle East, so US politicians have been willing to sell the kingdom all the war weapons it wants, ignoring the regime’s record of human rights abuses. In 2016, as Obama ended his last term, his administration notified Congress about plans to sell $5 billion worth of military equipment to Saudi Arabia. That included deals brokered by the Pentagon, State Department, and those handled directly by the US defense companies that make the equipment. Saudi Arabia wanted to buy missiles and jet fighters. But concerns were mounting about Saudi Arabia’s ruthless war in Yemen, where the kingdom has been fighting the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels since 2015. Human rights groups and the United Nations expressed concern that Saudi airstrikes were killing thousands of civilians at schools, clinics, markets and weddings.

Impact: Global warming will push millions into poverty Carter, Rebecca. Climate Change Could Force 100 Million People into Poverty by 2030. 4 Ways We Can Step Up Adaptation | World Resources Institute. 15 June 2018, https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/06/climate-change-could-force-100-millionpeople-poverty-2030-4-ways-we-can-step. Last month, a blistering heat wave killed at least 60 people in Karachi, Pakistan. Across East Africa, severe flash flooding displaced hundreds of thousands, and just days into this year’s hurricane season, a tropical depression off the coast of Mexico exploded into a Category 4 storm overnight. In the next 12 years, these climate change impacts could push another 100 million people into extreme poverty. While we must continue stepping up efforts to limit global temperature rise, we must also rapidly scale up adaptation action. This is the challenge that over 1,000 policymakers, business leaders, experts and practitioners will take on next week as they gather in Cape Town – a city

Champion Briefs

70

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

grappling with its own climate-related water crisis – for the biannual Adaptation Futures conference. What solutions will they come up with? Here’s a preview of four changes that must happen to prepare the world, especially the poorest and most vulnerable communities, for the intensifying climate impacts that lie ahead. Many countries are already advancing innovative adaptation actions: cyclone shelters across Bangladesh, rehabilitated mangroves in Fiji and early warning systems for heavy rain in Rio de Janeiro. But these efforts aren’t adding up. Analysis: This is a very strong argument because of how big of an impact climate change is. With rising temperatures and more extreme weather patterns, not only are storms killing millions but also it becomes harder to plant crops and feed populations. This is undoubtedly the largest impact in the round if you can link into it, making it easy to win the ballot.

Champion Briefs

71

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

A/2: Propping up Saudi Arabia is bad for the environment Response: Climate change is irreversible Warrant: We have passed the point to return to a stable climate Wanganui Chronicle. Gwynne Dyer: Passed Point of No Return to Stable Climate. 15 Aug. 2018. www.nzherald.co.nz, https://www.nzherald.co.nz/science/news/article.cfm?c_id=82&objectid=12107 540. The hard numbers simply weren't available yet - and if you go public without that evidence, you will be torn to pieces by your scientific colleagues (who are also your rivals, of course). So the climate scientists didn't make grand assertions but they did manage to get the threshold of 2 degrees Celsius higher global temperature adopted as the never-exceed target for the IPCC's efforts to get the warming under control. The scale and trigger points of the feedbacks have finally been calculated, more or less. We have already passed the point where a return to the stable climate of the past 14,000 years is possible, and we are on course for "Hothouse Earth". The best we can do is try to stabilise the warming at or just below +2C, and that will not be possible without major human interventions in the climate system. Gwynne Dyer's book "Climate Wars" was published in 2010. Unfortunately, almost every word in it is still true. Warrant: Glacial recession is impossible to reverse Moreno, Piero. “Glacier Shrinkage Is Past the Point of No Return.” Nature, vol. 555, Mar. 2018, p. 562. www.nature.com, doi:10.1038/d41586-018-03356-5.

Champion Briefs

72

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

The dramatic shrinkage of the world’s glaciers is likely to continue in the coming century even if greenhouse-gas emissions are slashed in the next few decades. Warming since the late nineteenth century has led to a marked retreat of most of the world’s glaciers. Ben Marzeion at the University of Bremen in Germany and his colleagues simulated the long-term response of thousands of glaciers to recent and projected climate change. The researchers found that glaciers are already committed to enough shrinkage to raise global sea levels by about 10 centimetres, even if global temperatures do not rise any further for centuries. The Paris climate accord, adopted by 195 countries in 2015, aims to limit long-term warming to 1.5–2 °C above preindustrial levels. But such a temperature rise is likely to accelerate ice loss until at least the middle of the twenty-first century. Sustaining today’s glaciers would require a prompt return to pre-industrial climate conditions, the authors say. Analysis: This is a good response because it means that even if the pro is able to win all the links, there is no way for them to access the impact since it is nonunique. If climate change has passed the point of no return, then reducing our oil intake from Saudi Arabia will not affect the outcome in any way. Response: The US is a drop in the bucket Warrant: China’s emissions continue to increase Hornby, Lucy, and Leslie Hook. “China’s Carbon Emissions Set for Fastest Growth in 7 Years.” Financial Times, 29 May 2018, https://www.ft.com/content/988395046334-11e8-90c2-9563a0613e56. China’s carbon emissions are on track to rise at their fastest pace in more than seven years during 2018, casting further doubt on the ability of the Paris climate change

Champion Briefs

73

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

agreement to curb dangerous greenhouse gas increases, according to a Greenpeace analysis based on Beijing’s own data. Carbon emissions in the country, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, rose 4 per cent in the first quarter of this year, according to calculations by the environmental group based on Chinese government statistics covering coal, cement, oil and gas. If that pace continues it would be the fastest increase since 2011. The latest finding comes as climate researchers express concern over rising emissions in China, which accounts for more than a quarter of global carbon dioxide output. Global emissions were flat from 2014-16 but began rising again in 2017 as the Chinese economy recovered and as emission grew in the EU and the rest of Asia. Scientists are concerned the trend in China will continue this year. Warrant: Fossil fuels are only a small facet of climate change Wanganui Chronicle. Gwynne Dyer: Passed Point of No Return to Stable Climate. 15 Aug. 2018. www.nzherald.co.nz, https://www.nzherald.co.nz/science/news/article.cfm?c_id=82&objectid=12107 540. What the authors are saying is that global warming driven directly by human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is only part of the problem. In fact, it's the smaller part. The real threat is the unstoppable natural feedbacks triggered by the warming that we have caused that will take us up to the killing temperatures of "Hothouse Earth”. They list 10 of them, the biggest being the loss of Arctic sea-ice, the melting of the permafrost zone, dieback in both the boreal and the Amazon forests, and changes driven by warming in the ocean circulation system. Just triggering one or two of these feedbacks could cause enough additional warming to set off others, like a row of toppling dominoes, and take us up to those lethal temperatures within this century. Now, this is not really news to climate scientists.

Champion Briefs

74

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Analysis: Even if the US were to reduce our emissions it doesn’t matter because so many other countries are emitting carbon and are even increasing the rate at which they do. This means that even if the pro is able to win the link to their argument, they will not access the impact.

Champion Briefs

75

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

PRO: Ending arms sales will help end the war in Yemen Argument: Ending arms sales will help to end Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the war in Yemen, which should reduce the length of the conflict overall. Warrant: The war in Yemen has erupted due to internal conflict Staff. Yemen Crisis: Why Is There a War? 18 Dec. 2018. www.bbc.com, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29319423. The conflict has its roots in the failure of a political transition supposed to bring stability to Yemen following an Arab Spring uprising that forced its longtime authoritarian president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, to hand over power to his deputy, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, in 2011. As president, Mr Hadi struggled to deal with a variety of problems, including attacks by jihadists, a separatist movement in the south, the continuing loyalty of security personnel to Saleh, as well as corruption, unemployment and food insecurity. The Houthi movement, which champions Yemen's Zaidi Shia Muslim minority and fought a series of rebellions against Saleh during the previous decade, took advantage of the new president's weakness by taking control of their northern heartland of Saada province and neighbouring areas. Disillusioned with the transition, many ordinary Yemenis - including Sunnis - supported the Houthis and in late 2014 and early 2015, the rebels took over Sanaa. Warrant: Saudi Arabia has instituted horrible economic measures against Yemen Walsh, Declan. “The Tragedy of Saudi Arabia’s War in Yemen.” The New York Times, 26 Oct. 2018. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/26/world/middleeast/saudi-

Champion Briefs

76

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

arabia-war-yemen.html, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/26/world/middleeast/saudiarabia-war-yemen.html. Under the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi-led coalition and its Yemeni allies have imposed a raft of punitive economic measures aimed at undercutting the Houthi rebels who control northern Yemen. But these actions — including periodic blockades, stringent import restrictions and withholding the salaries of about a million civil servants — have landed on the backs of civilians, laying the economy to waste and driving millions deeper into poverty. Those measures have inflicted a slow-burn toll: infrastructure destroyed, jobs lost, a weakening currency and soaring prices. But in recent weeks the economic collapse has gathered pace at alarming speed, causing top United Nations officials to revise their predictions of famine. “There is now a clear and present danger of an imminent and great, big famine engulfing Yemen,” Mark Lowcock, the under secretary for humanitarian affairs, told the Security Council on Tuesday. Eight million Yemenis already depend on emergency food aid to survive, he said, a figure that could soon rise to 14 million, or half Yemen’s population. Warrant: Stopping arms sales will help end the war Bruton, Brinley. “The U.S. Wants the Saudis to End War in Yemen. And It Has Leverage.” NBC News, 5 Nov. 2018, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-wantsyemen-war-end-will-it-stop-selling-n929921. Senior U.S. officials have gone further than ever before in calling for an end to the Saudi-led war in Yemen — a conflict that has pushed 14 million people to the brink of starvation. “Coalition airstrikes must cease in all populated areas in Yemen,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said last Tuesday. The same day, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis

Champion Briefs

77

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

said all sides needed to take meaningful steps toward a cease-fire and begin negotiations in the next 30 days. The comments raised the prospect that the Trump administration is getting tougher with the Saudis over their military campaign against Iran-linked Houthi rebels, which has killed more than 10,000 people in the desperately poor country since 2015. All sides have been accused of violating international law and committing war crimes Washington supports Saudi Arabia and its ally, the United Arab Emirates, through billions in arms sales. It also refuels their jets mid-air, provides training and shares intelligence. So if the U.S. wants to try to force the Saudis' hands, it has leverage.

Impact: Two thousand more people die a month in Yemen after Saudi involvement Cockburn, Patrick. “‘The Yemen War Death Toll Is Five Times Higher than We Think – We Can’t Shrug off Our Responsibilities Any Longer.’” The Independent, 26 Oct. 2018, https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/yemen-war-death-toll-saudiarabia-allies-how-many-killed-responsibility-a8603326.html. One reason Saudi Arabia and its allies are able to avoid a public outcry over their intervention in the war in Yemen, is that the number of people killed in the fighting has been vastly understated. The figure is regularly reported as 10,000 dead in three-and-ahalf years, a mysteriously low figure given the ferocity of the conflict. Now a count by a non-partisan group has produced a study demonstrating 56,000 people have been killed in Yemen since early 2016. The number is increasing by more than 2,000 per month as fighting intensifies around the Red Sea port of Hodeidah. It does not include those dying of malnutrition, or diseases such as cholera. “We estimate the number killed to be 56,000 civilians and combatants between January 2016 and October 2018,” says Andrea Carboni, who researches Yemen for the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), an independent group formerly associated with the University

Champion Briefs

78

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

of Sussex that studies conflicts and is focusing attention on the real casualty level. He told me he expects a total of between 70,000 and 80,000 victims, when he completes research into the casualties, hitherto uncounted, who died between the start of the Saudi-led intervention in the Yemen civil war, in March 2015, and the end of that year. Analysis: This is a good argument because it is undoubtedly the most important in the round, given how many people have died in Yemen as a result of the war and as a result of Saudi Arabia’s involvement. If Saudi Arabia were to curb their activity in Yemen, millions will be saved.

Champion Briefs

79

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

A/2: Ending arms sales will help end the war in Yemen Response: Saudi Arabia helps stop terrorism Warrant: Saudi Arabia has gotten better on the issue of counter terrorism Byman, Daniel L. “The U.S.-Saudi Arabia Counterterrorism Relationship.” Brookings, 30 Nov. 2001, https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-u-s-saudi-arabiacounterterrorism-relationship/. I argue that Saudi Arabia has made considerable progress on counterterrorism in the last 15 years but still has a long way to go. Before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and really until Al Qaeda began to attack the Kingdom directly in May 2003, Saudi Arabia was often uncooperative on counterterrorism and more part of the problem than part of the solution. Since 2003, the Saudi regime has emerged as a vital counterterrorism partner, and several important successes against Al Qaeda in particular are due in large part to Saudi cooperation. Complicating this picture, however, is that much of Saudi ‘support’ for terrorism involves actors outside the Saudi government: the regime has at times supported, at times deliberately ignored, and at still other times cracked down on these actors. Some of these figures are important for regime legitimacy, and it is difficult for the regime to openly oppose them. As a result, the Saudi Kingdom still spews out material that is anti-Semitic, sectarian, glorifies several conflicts in which jihadists play an active role, and otherwise contributes to a climate of radicalization. Washington’s ability to influence the Kingdom is limited, however, given the Saudi domestic sensitivities of these issues. In the end, policymakers would do well to remember that Saudi Arabia is a key partner but not a friend: the United States and Saudi Arabia share many common interests, but they do not share common values or a common worldview.

Champion Briefs

80

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Warrant: Saudi Arabia has one of the best counter terrorism programs in the world Washington Times Staff. “The Myth of Saudi Support for Terrorism.” Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, 21 July 2016, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/myth-saudi-support-terrorism. And this is where the martial perspective comes in: To respond to these terrorist attacks, Saudi Arabia has created one of the largest and most efficient counterterrorism programs in the world, both in its own right and in collaboration with the United States and its other strategic allies. Major military and security reconfigurations and appropriations have taken place over the last two decades at the cost of tens of billions of dollars. The crowning moment of this new Saudi Defense Doctrine came a few months ago when the kingdom announced a 34-state Islamic coalition to combat terrorism. As the statement from Riyadh said, the coalition will “protect the Islamic nation from the evils of all terrorist groups and organizations, whatever their sect and name, which wreak death and corruption on earth and aim to terrorize the innocent.” Analysis: This is a good response because even if this particular war is not going well with Saudi Arabia’s involvement, it is good to keep Saudi Arabia on our side for future instances of terrorism. Arms sales to Saudi Arabia will on net save more lives than it costs us. Response: Arms sales help keep back Iran Warrant: A nuclear Iran could be very dangerous Staff. “The Iranian Nuclear Threat: Why It Matters.” Anti-Defamation League, 2018, https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheets/the-iranian-nuclear-threat-why-itmatters.

Champion Briefs

81

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian regime will have severe repercussions for American security and the security of our allies. A nuclear-armed Iran would embolden Iran's aggressive foreign policy, resulting in greater confrontations with the international community. Iran already has a conventional weapons capability to hit U.S. and allied troops stationed in the Middle East and parts of Europe. If Tehran were allowed to develop nuclear weapons, this threat would increase dramatically. Iran is one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism through its financial and operational support for groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and others. Iran could potentially share its nuclear technology and know-how with extremist groups hostile to the United States and the West. While Iranian missiles can't yet reach America, Iran having a nuclear weapons capability can potentially directly threaten the United States and its inhabitants. The U.S. Department of Defense reported in April 2012: "With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran may be technically capable of flight-testing an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015.” Warrant: The arms deal will keep Iran at bay Jerome, Deborah. “Is Big Saudi Arms Sale a Good Idea?” Council on Foreign Relations, 24 Sept. 2010, https://www.cfr.org/expert-roundup/big-saudi-arms-sale-good-idea. Congress will closely scrutinize the proposed arms deal with Saudi Arabia to make sure it does not threaten Israel or otherwise destabilize the region. The package appears to be a careful reconciliation of Saudi requirements with Israeli fears, while also offering a strategic balance against Iran. The biggest component of the transaction involves new and refurbished F-15 fighters, which are designed for both air dominance and attack of ground targets. The fighter sale could have been a serious problem for Israel if Saudi Arabia had been offered stealthy F-22s or F-35s, because those aircraft would have been suitable for executing a surprise attack. The F-15 is not stealthy, and although its movements can be masked through the skillful application of tactics and electronic-

Champion Briefs

82

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

warfare technology, Israeli defenders should have no difficulty detecting any threatening moves. Analysis: This is a good response because a nuclear attack from Iran could mean the destruction of all humanity. Ultimately, this matters more than the death toll in Yemen, even though it is high. This functions as a disadvantage, which is capable of winning the round based on how big the impact is.

Champion Briefs

83

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

PRO: Saudi Arabia uses these arms to kill innocent civilians Argument: It is bad to sell arms to Saudi Arabia because they will use these arms to kill innocent civilians. Warrant: Saudi Arabia continues to kill in Yemen “Opinion | Why Are U.S. Bombs Killing Civilians in Yemen?” The New York Times, 30 Aug. 2018. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/opinion/usyemen-saudi-arabia-trump-civilian-casualties.html. The top American air commander in the Middle East voiced frustration in an interview last week over the murderously incompetent Saudi-led air campaign in Yemen. Though welcome, his sentiment was far too mild. It should have been more like horror — and shame over American complicity in what a new United Nations report views as criminal carnage. Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies intervened in Yemen more than three years ago to rout Iran-backed Shiite rebels who had driven the internationally recognized government out of the capital and into Saudi exile. As the conflict has dragged on, the rebels have also been accused of atrocities, but the United Nations body and human rights groups say it is the Saudi-led air war that has done the most to turn an already impoverished country into a humanitarian nightmare and an indiscriminate killing field. Again and again, Saudi-led airstrikes have struck civilian targets, slaughtering innumerable innocents. Last Friday, the United Nations said the coalition killed at least 22 children and four women as they fled a battle zone. Two weeks earlier, on Aug. 9, a coalition air assault struck a school bus, killing dozens of children. Countless more civilians have been killed by bombs at markets, weddings, funerals — more than 6,500 by the official count, but certainly many, many more. Millions more civilians are suffering from shortages of food and medical care.

Champion Briefs

84

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Warrant: A single US bomb has killed 40 school children Borger, Julian. “US Supplied Bomb That Killed 40 Children on Yemen School Bus.” The Guardian, 19 Aug. 2018. www.theguardian.com, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/19/us-supplied-bomb-thatkilled-40-children-school-bus-yemen. The bomb dropped on a school bus in Yemen by a Saudi-led coalition warplane was sold to Riyadh by the US, according to reports based on analysis of the debris. The 9 August attack killed 40 boys aged from six to 11 who were being taken on a school trip. Eleven adults also died. Local authorities said that 79 people were wounded, 56 of them children. CNN reported that the weapon used was a 227kg laser-guided bomb made by Lockheed Martin, one of many thousands sold to Saudi Arabia as part of billions of dollars of weapons exports. Saudi Arabia is the biggest single customer for both the US and UK arms industries. The US also supports the coalition with refuelling and intelligence. The investigative journalism site Bellingcat identified bomb fragments, on photographs and videos taken soon after the bombing, as coming from a laser-guided version of a Mk-82 bomb called a GBU-12 Paveway II. Based on marking on a fin segment of the bomb, Bellingcat traced the bomb to a shipment of a thousand of such bombs to Saudi Arabia, approved by the state department in 2015, during the Obama administration. Warrant: Other efforts have not curbed killing Shesgreen, Deirdre. “With U.S. Bombs, Saudis ‘recklessly – and Likely Intentionally – Killing Innocent Civilians’ in Yemen, Senator Says.” USA TODAY, 12 Sept. 2018, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/09/12/lawmakers-alarmedu-s-support-bombing-campaign-yemen/1283798002/.

Champion Briefs

85

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

The State Department on Wednesday tried to assuage the growing concerns by sending Congress a “certification” stating that the governments of Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates – which have led the bombing campaign with U.S. assistance – are actively working to reduce civilian deaths and to limit damage to Yemen’s infrastructure. But that State Department missive, which was mandated by Congress as part of a broader defense bill passed in August, did not satisfy lawmakers. Some said the State Department’s report did not match reality and suggested the U.S. should end its military role in Yemen. “It is as clear as day that the Saudi-led coalition is recklessly – and likely intentionally – killing innocent civilians and children, and they’re doing it with U.S. bombs and so-called targeting assistance,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, DConn., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “These certifications are a farce, and we should all be ashamed that our government is turning a blind eye to likely war crimes,” Murphy said. The State Department did not publicly release the certification sent to Congress. In a statement, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the Trump administration “has been clear that ending the conflict in Yemen is a national security priority.” Impact: Removing arms sales can put pressure to stop the killing of innocents Correspondent, Barbara Starr, CNN Pentagon. “Mattis Warns Saudi Arabia US Support in Yemen ‘Not Unconditional.’” CNN, 28 Aug. 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/27/politics/us-saudi-arabia-warningyemen/index.html. US Defense Secretary James Mattis warned Saudi Arabia on Tuesday that support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen is "not unconditional" and urged them to "do everything humanly possible to avoid any innocent loss of life.” His remarks came after the Pentagon issued a warning to the Saudis that it is prepared to reduce military

Champion Briefs

86

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

and intelligence support for its campaign against rebels in neighboring Yemen if the Saudis don't demonstrate they are attempting to limit civilian deaths in airstrikes following a strike on a school bus that killed 40 children earlier this month. Two officials directly familiar with the Pentagon's thinking tell CNN frustration is rising. Mattis and General Joseph Votel, head of US military operations in the Middle East, are particularly concerned that the US is supporting a Saudi-led campaign of airstrikes that have killed large numbers of civilians. Human rights groups, some members of Congress and the United Nations have expressed concern about Saudi Arabia's actions for months to little avail. But after a series of recent strikes in which large numbers of civilians were killed, the Pentagon, as well as the State Department, have now delivered direct messages to the Saudis about limiting civilian casualties. "At what point is enough enough?" one official remarked to CNN. Analysis: This is a good argument because the impact hits home on an emotional level, which allows you to convince the judge not only with logos but with pathos. This will help do implicit weighing for the argument without the judge even noticing. On a logical level, it is also clearly the most important impact in the round because you can’t gain a life back once you lose it.

Champion Briefs

87

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

A/2: Saudi Arabia uses these arms to kill innocent civilians Response: Arms sales create good diplomatic relations Warrant: Our relationship with Saudi Arabia helps to stop terrorism Ryan, Missy. “As Crisis Intensifies, What’s at Stake in America’s Military Partnership with Saudi Arabia?” Washington Post, 12 Oct. 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-crisis-intensifieswhats-at-stake-in-americas-military-partnership-with-saudiarabia/2018/10/12/3ce0994e-cd75-11e8-a3e6-44daa3d35ede_story.html. The president’s comments may say as much about his transactional view of foreign relationships, elevating economic concerns over human rights, as they do about the centrality of arms sales to the two countries’ defense relationship. For decades Saudi Arabia has been an important American military partner in the Arab world, where its status as the home to Islam’s holiest sites boosts its leadership credentials. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, the kingdom has played a critical role in U.S. counterterrorism efforts, supplying the government with valuable intelligence about extremist threats. Most significantly, Saudi Arabia has used petrodollars to build up the Arab world’s most sophisticated military arsenal. With one of the world’s largest military budgets, the kingdom boasts a large fleet of F-15 and Tornado fighter jets, Apache helicopters and other advanced aircraft. Warrant: Our relationship with Saudi Arabia helps create jobs DeYoung, Karen. “For Trump, the Relationship with Saudi Arabia Is All about Money.” Washington Post, 19 Nov. 2018,

Champion Briefs

88

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/for-trump-therelationship-with-saudi-arabia-is-all-about-money/2018/11/19/74a2bef8-ec2811e8-8679-934a2b33be52_story.html. When President Trump talks about the U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia, he rarely mentions any Saudi role in achieving his stated objectives in the Middle East — bringing Iran to heel, forging an Israeli-Palestinian peace, and vanquishing Islamist terrorism. Instead, he mostly talks about how much money the Saudis are spending here. “They give us a lot of jobs. They give us a lot of business,” Trump said Saturday when asked about the CIA’s conclusion that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto Saudi leader, had ordered the killing of U.S.-based Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. “They have truly been a spectacular ally in terms of jobs and economic development,” he said, referring primarily to Saudi arms purchases. “You know, I’m president; I have to take a lot of things into consideration.” Analysis: This is a good response because diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia can be used to help save lives in other ways that are more profound, like treaties and helping in other regional conflicts. This means that the benefits of alliance outweigh the short term harms of killing innocent civilians. Response: Supporting Saudi Arabia helps protect against Iran Warrant: Iran could get nuclear weapons soon Haltiwanger, John. “Here’s How Quickly Iran Could Build a Nuclear Weapon.” Business Insider, 17 May 2018, https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-quickly-irancould-build-a-nuclear-weapon-2018-5.

Champion Briefs

89

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

He tweeted, "As of yesterday, Iran is one year from being able to build a weapon. Now, all bets are off thanks to Trump. The pace is now set in Tehran, not Washington.” Before the deal, experts believed Iran had the technical capacity to become a nuclear power and was perhaps only three to four months away from developing the required bomb fuel. Iran had roughly 20,000 centrifuges prior to the pact, but the agreement saw that number go down to approximately 6,000, and it was primarily only allowed to keep outdated models. If Tehran reneges on the deal — which includes other global powers as well — now that Trump has pulled the US out if it, Iran could probably get the roughly 13,000 centrifuges it dismantled and put into storage up and running rather quickly, effectively jump-starting its nuclear program. Based on what was known about Iran's nuclear capabilities before the deal this means it could theoretically develop bomb fuel within months — if it chooses to go this route. Some experts have suggested it would take Iran at least eight to 10 months to get to this point. Warrant: Arms sales signal to Iran that the US will not be intimidated Jerome, Deborah. “Is Big Saudi Arms Sale a Good Idea?” Council on Foreign Relations, 24 Sept. 2010, https://www.cfr.org/expert-roundup/big-saudi-arms-sale-good-idea. Fourth, the proposed arms sale package creates a level of interdependence that gives both the current Saudi government as well as Saudi governments for the next fifteen to twenty years a strong incentive to work with the United States. Saudi Arabia will need continuing support from the United States during the entire lifecycle of every major system sold, and no future Saudi government can ignore this fact. Moreover, the sales are large in dollar terms, but not in terms of numbers of weapons. This will not be some kind of massive build-up. Saudi Arabia had an air force with some 417 combat aircraft in 2000, and it now has only 219. The Saudi F-15 buy will not even restore the force to 2000 numbers. It will take some three to five years to deliver and put fully in

Champion Briefs

90

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

service, replace some eighty-seven obsolete F-5A/Bs and F-5EIIs that were in service in 2000, and help Saudi Arabia compensate for the serious performance limits on 107 aging Tornados still in service. On the face of it, the proposed arms deal with Saudi Arabia is a win-win situation: The United States gets jobs at a time of high unemployment; Saudi Arabia gets to bolster its military and further cement its relationship with its main protector; and Israel gets the promise of equipment superior to anything transferred to the Saudis. Best of all, say the deal’s advocates, it sends a signal to Iran that the United States and its Persian Gulf allies will not be intimidated. Analysis: This is a good response because you can argue that a rogue Iran is much worse than a rogue Saudi Arabia, which means that it is on net still better to support Saudi Arabia, even if it comes at the expense of a few civilian casualties in the process.

Champion Briefs

91

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

PRO: Arms sales make US complicit in war crimes Argument: Arms sales to Saudi Arabia are being used for war crimes in Yemen, which the US is morally complicit in and which likely violate international law. Warrant: Saudi Arabia is using American arms deals and American refueling services to kill civilians in mass quantities in Yemen. William Hartung. “There’s Less than Meets the Eye in Trump’s Saudi Arms Deal” May 22 2017. Defense One. https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/05/theres-lessmeets-eye-trumps-saudi-arms-deal/138055/ “But whatever the size of Trump’s big deal, it raises serious human rights and foreign policy concerns. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut, put it best when he expressed concern about the regional impact of the deal: “What do we have to gain by going in so enthusiastically with the Sunnis against the Shia in their fight for power in the Middle East? This isn’t our fight, and history suggests the U.S. military meddling in the Middle East ends up great for U.S. military contractors, but pretty miserable for everyone else.” The administration’s decision to revive a deal for precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia is particularly troubling, as these are the kind of weapons that have been used in Riyadh’s brutal bombing campaign in Yemen, which has killed thousands of civilians in strikes that independent human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have suggested could be war crimes—crimes in which the United States may be complicit, given their provision of arms and refueling services for the Saudi bombing campaign.” Warrant: Arms sales to Saudi Arabia have allowed the country to perpetuate extensive violations of human rights in Yemen.

Champion Briefs

92

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain, “Report of the HRC on the impact of arms transfers on human rights”. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/RuleOfLaw/ArmsTransfers/American sDemocracyAndHumanRightsInBahrain.pdf “Arms transfers to Saudi Arabia negatively impact the enjoyment of human rights. This is particularly the case in regard to Saudi Arabia’s ongoing involvement in the conflict in Yemen. Saudi Arabia has led an international coalition of armed forcesfighting in Yemen since March 2015. The coalition has the backing of the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK), which have both supplied Saudi Arabia, and other members of the coalition, with military goods including combat aircraft, bombs, assault weapons, and ammunition. The UK has provided more than £3 billion of arms to Saudi Arabia since the onset of Saudi Arabia’s involvement in Yemen.1 The US has provided close to $3 billion to Saudi Arabia to replenish its weaponry “damaged or used up in Yemen” over the same period, while providing more $115 billion in arms transfers to Saudi Arabia since 2009.2 The Saudiled coalition has used these weapons to attack residential areas. The Saudi-led coalition has consistently engaged in practices that violate international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including the unlawful attack on homes, refugee camps, markets, hospitals, schools, civilian businesses, and mosques.3 Human Rights Watch (HRW) has documented 61 airstrikes carried out by the Saudi-led coalition that it believes may violate international law. 4 As of 25 January 2017, the UK Ministry of Defence was “tracking” 252 possible coalition violations of international humanitarian law.5 A number of these attacks have been carried out using bombs supplied by the US and UK. In addition to using weapons supplied through arms transfers, the US has supplied more than half of Saudi Arabia’s 300+ combat capable aircraft. These include the F-15S fighter jet, which has played a central role in the Saudi bombing campaign.6 UK-supplied Tornado aircraft, of which Saudi Arabia has 69, have played a similarly important role.7 The influx of these weapons and their use in Yemen has led to consistent violations of the right to life, the

Champion Briefs

93

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

right an adequate standard of living, including medical care, the right to education, and the right to work.” Warrant: By supplying the weapons used by Saudi Arabia in unlawful strikes, the United States is making itself complicit with and party to these war crimes. Human Rights Watch. “Yemen: US-Made Bombs Used in Unlawful Airstrikes” Dec 8 2016. https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/08/yemen-us-made-bombs-usedunlawful-airstrikes “The Saudi Arabia-led coalition killed several dozen civilians in three apparently unlawful airstrikes in September and October 2016, Human Rights Watch said today. The coalition’s use of United States-supplied weapons in two of the strikes, including a bomb delivered to Saudi Arabia well into the conflict, puts the US at risk of complicity in unlawful attacks. The attacks underscore the urgent need for foreign governments to suspend all arms sales to Saudi Arabia and for the United Nations human rights office to send additional investigators to Yemen to carry out credible investigations of alleged abuses by the coalition, the Houthis and their allies, and all other parties to the conflict, Human Rights Watch said. “Saudi-led forces are bombing civilians in Yemen with newly supplied US weapons,” said Priyanka Motaparthy, senior emergencies researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The Obama administration is running out of time to completely suspend US arms sales to Saudi Arabia or be forever linked to Yemen wartime atrocities.”” Impact: Full compliance to the Arms Trade Treaty is the best pathway toward ending the conflict in Yemen. Thomas Potter. “Racing to War: Arms Competitions, Military Spending, and the Tendency of Nations to Engage in Armed Conflict. Gettysburg College. Fall 2016.

Champion Briefs

94

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google. com/&httpsredir=1&article=1542&context=student_scholarship “One of the tragedies of the war in Yemen is that there is no military solution possible in the current Yemini conflict. This finding has been repeatedly documented by UN agencies and humanitarian organizations. And yet, the constant supply of arms to Yemen continues to prolong hostilities. Yemen will only achieve peace through international diplomacy and the political will of all the Yemeni parties involved. The ATT offers an avenue for all State Parties to reexamine and reassess their arms exports to coalition members. In this way, they could live up to the spirit and objective of the ATT, which is to prevent human suffering. Some governments, including those of the Netherlands, Finland, Norway, the Flemish and Waloon regions of Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, and Germany have stopped all sales to parties involved in Yemen. But these changes, although welcome, have come too slowly. In the meantime, the human cost has only gone up in Yemen. The Yemen war has served as another stark reminder that the approach to the global arms trade cannot be business-as-usual. State Parties of the ATT should strive for full compliance to ensure the maximum effectiveness of the ATT. Complying can only help to bring an end to the ever-worsening humanitarian crisis in Yemen.” Analysis: Not only are the war crimes committed by Saudi Arabia gruesome and life-ending, they are also in violation of international law. By continuing to send weapons to Saudi Arabia, the US violates the Arms Trade Treaty which can is most likely be successful if full compliance is in effect with it. Otherwise, the likelihood of achieving a political or diplomatic solution to the Yemen crisis is extremely low.

Champion Briefs

95

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

A/2: Arms sales make US complicit in war crimes Answer: Although there are some issues with how the Yemen intervention is occurring, ending

arms sales is unnecessary and likely counterproductive. Warrant: Saudi Arabia has decreased military spending for a second year in a row, signaling that the war in Yemen is drawing down. Alaa Shahine, Dec 18 2018, “Saudis to Cut Military Spending as Trump Touts Weapons Sales”, Bloomberg News, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-0112/trump-organization-answers-on-foreign-payments-irk-key-democrat “Saudi Arabia will cut military spending for a second straight year in 2019, when education is set to overtake it as the budget’s biggest item, according to official projections published on Tuesday. The Saudi armed forces are among the world’s leading weapons buyers, a role often cited by President Donald Trump to defend America’s close alliance with the kingdom. But they’ll have 12 percent less to spend next year, after getting allocated a budget of 191 billion riyals ($51 billion). Spending on education will also drop, by 6 percent to 193 billion riyals. Overall outlays are projected to rise 7 percent as the kingdom boosts capital investment. The cutbacks on defense may reflect expectations that Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen is drawing to a close. Earlier on Tuesday, King Salman didn’t include soldiers fighting in the war in his decision to renew a package of cost-of-living allowances for another year. Spending Shift Saudi Arabia's overall outlays are rising, but the two biggest budget items saw cuts Source: Saudi Ministry of Finance Note: Actual spending figures for 2017, projected spending for 2018/19 Saudi Arabia heads a coalition that intervened in Yemen in 2015 to support the government against pro-Iranian rebels. The two sides agreed to a ceasefire in a key port city this month, in a rare step toward ending what has turned into the world’s worst humanitarian disaster.”

Champion Briefs

96

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Warrant: The Saudi Arabian presence in Yemen is necessary to prevent human rights abuses by the current government in Yemen. Madyson Posey “Ending U.S. Military Support for Saudi Arabia in Yemen Would Trigger Dangerous Consequences”. Dec 6 2018. The Heritage Foundation. https://www.heritage.org/middle-east/commentary/ending-us-military-supportsaudi-arabia-yemen-would-trigger-dangerous “The killing of Khashoggi was certainly abhorrent, but ending U.S. support for the multinational coalition in Yemen is not the proper solution. It risks dangerously conflating two separate issues and would inevitably trigger unintended consequences that would undermine U.S. national security interests in the region. Senators must remember that Saudi Arabia is not the only belligerent in Yemen. A cutoff of U.S. support would also hurt the elected and internationally recognized government of Yemen, which was ousted by Iran-backed Houthi rebels in 2015 in a bloody coup that violated a U.N.-brokered ceasefire. Withdrawing U.S. support would also harm the interests of other U.S. allies fighting in Yemen, including the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. The war in Yemen is complex. Those who rush to blame Saudi Arabia entirely for the suffering of the Yemeni people ignore the war crimes and heavy-handed treatment meted out by the Houthis to their opponents and the ruthless role that Iran plays in supporting the Houthi Ansar Allah (“Supporters of Allah”) movement, a Shia Islamist extremist group. The Saudis are rightly criticized for not doing more to prevent civilian casualties as they target Ansar Allah positions. But the Houthis should not be given a free pass for deliberately targeting civilian targets in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates with increasingly sophisticated Iranian ballistic missiles.” Impact: Arms sales to Saudi Arabia give us substantial leverage over the country, which we can use to request reforms in how they use their military power.

Champion Briefs

97

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

David French. " Arms Deals Give Leverage to America, Not the Saudis." National Review. Oct 18 2018. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/arms-deals-give-americaleverage-not-the-saudis/ “Of all the talking points justifying American inaction in response to the indescribably brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, perhaps the worst is the idea that the Saudis somehow have leverage over America because of their large-scale arms deals. The truth is exactly the reverse. The Saudi military is highly dependent on advanced American weaponry. American F-15s comprise close to half the Saudi fighter force, and the Saudi variant of the F-15E Strike Eagle represents a substantial portion of the air force’s striking power. On land, the Saudi army is dependent almost exclusively on American M1 Abrams tanks and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles. They can’t just waltz over to a different country and transform their armed forces — not without suffering enormous setbacks in readiness and effectiveness during a years-long transition. A fundamental reality of arms deals is that a major arms purchase essentially locks the purchasing nation in a dependent posture for training, spare parts, and technical upgrades. Indeed, one of the reasons for engaging in an arms transaction — aside from the economic benefit — is that the transaction gives America enormous power over the national defense of the purchasing nation. You buy our weapons, and we gain power over you. Well, we gain potential power. The question is whether we have the will to exercise that power.” Analysis: Given that Saudi Arabian involvement in Yemen appears to be declining, it does not make sense to completely stop backing Saudi Arabia in the country. Instead, through our arms sales, we actually gain leverage over Saudi Arabia and a potential pathway to ask them to reform how their military acts in the region. Choosing to stop backing Saudi Arabia would instead allow the Houthi government to essentially gain control of Yemen, which would provoke more human rights violations in the long-run as an abusive regime takes control of the country.

Champion Briefs

98

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

PRO: Arms sales create a risk of an arms race Argument: Arms sales to Saudi Arabia create an imbalance of power in the Middle East and create the risk of worsening a regional arms race. Warrant: The massive quantities of weapons imports by Saudi Arabia create an imbalance of power and a trend of rising arms purchases in the Middle East. Stasa Salacanin. “The Growing Arms Deals in the Gulf: Existential Need or Fear Politics?” Jan 22 2018. AlJazeera Center for Studies. http://studies.aljazeera.net/en/reports/2018/01/growing-arms-deals-gulfexistential-fear-politics-180122092552473.html “This militarisation trend in the Gulf region implies another comparison of the arms spending ratio vis-à-vis the respective gross domestic product (GDP) in these countries. Seven Middle Eastern countries are among the top 12 countries with the highest proportion of their GDP on military spending in the world. In 2015, Oman was on the top of the list with 14.58 percent of its GDP, followed by Saudi Arabia with 13.50 percent. The 2016 data show a similar pattern: Oman with 16.75% and Saudi Arabia with 10.41%, firmly holding the two top positions. Diederik Cops, an expert on international conventional arms transfers at the Flemish Peace Institute in Belgium, considers the growing arms expenditure a direct result of the involvement of some countries in the Yemeni conflict. Another reason derives from the perceived sense of insecurity in the region and the perceived existential needs of those countries. Cops also argues that Saudi Arabia, and its allies namely the United Arab Emirates, aspire to be the regional power, which implies a strong military capability vis-à-vis Iran. Most Gulf States consider the benefits of the Nuclear Agreement signed between Iran and six Western nations a potential threat to the regional balance of power. This IranianWestern nuclear detente has become another precursor of the military speeding in the region. Still, business is booming for the world’s major arms exporters. U.S. exports

Champion Briefs

99

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

grew by 21 percent. Highly sophisticated systems accounted for part of that increase, including missile defense systems and long-range airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems.” Warrant: Accelerating arms purchases in Saudi Arabia have prompted counterbalancing on behalf of Iran. Aaron Miller. Oct 12 2018, “The U.S.-Saudi Relationship Is Out of Control”. The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/trump-fault-jamalkhashoggis-disappearance/572797/ “While the world’s attention remains focused on the nuclear brinkmanship and missile launches on the Korean peninsula, the Middle Eastern arms race, pitting Saudi Arabia and its ally the United Arab Emirates against Iran has been slowly heating up and could soon reach a boiling point. The spending boom among the gulf states, the Saudis and Emiratis chief among them, has accelerated in recent years but is not a wholly new phenomenon. Careful observation can discern that increases in Saudi military spending appear to be linked to moments when the House of Saud feels threatened by the growing power of its Persian neighbor. Following the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979—a moment that also coincided with the takeover of the Great Mosque in Mecca by extremists and Saudi financial involvement in repelling the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan—the Saudis embarked on a spending spree, buying sophisticated weapons from Western countries in the billions. Saudi Arabia has long feared that its leading position in the Muslim world would be threatened after the clerics took power in Iran. Between 1978 and 1982, Saudi Arabia doubled its military expenditures. Again, in 2003, after the collapse of the Saddam Hussein government in Iraq and signs that it would be replaced by a Shia-led government far friendlier to Iran, Riyadh again boosted its arms purchases. Between 2003 and 2015, the Saudis quadrupled their military budget, persisting in large outlays despite the effect that depressed petroleum prices have had

Champion Briefs

100

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

on other areas of the government’s budget. With Saudi Arabia feeling new pressures from Iran in recent years, particularly in Yemen, it’s no surprise that its leaders have once again opened the coffers to acquire the latest in military hardware.” Warrant: Saudi Arabia is reliant on US technology to maintain their military dominance in the region and switching to other sources would be difficult. Terrence Guay. “Arms sales to Saudi Arabia give Trump all the leverage he needs in Khashoggi affair” Oct 19 2018. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia-give-trump-all-theleverage-he-needs-in-khashoggi-affair-104998 “While it’s true that Russia and China are indeed major exporters of armaments, the claim that U.S. weapons can easily be replaced by other suppliers is not – at least not in the short term. First, once a country is “locked in” to a specific kind of weapons system, such as planes, tanks or naval vessels, the cost to switch to a different supplier can be huge. Military personnel must be retrained on new equipment, spare parts need to be replaced, and operational changes may be necessary. After being so reliant on U.S. weapons systems for decades, the transition costs to buy from another country could be prohibitive even for oil-rich Saudi Arabia. The second problem with Trump’s argument is that armaments from Russia, China or elsewhere are simply not as sophisticated as U.S. weapons, which is why they are usually cheaper – though the quality gap is quickly decreasing. To maintain its military superiority in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia has opted to purchase virtually all of its weapons from American and European companies.” Impact: Arms races are empirically shown to be a large predictor and precursor to instability and violence.

Champion Briefs

101

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Thomas Potter. “Racing to War: Arms Competitions, Military Spending, and the Tendency of Nations to Engage in Armed Conflict. Gettysburg College. Fall 2016. https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google. com/&httpsredir=1&article=1542&context=student_scholarship “Overall, it seems clear that nations are at increased risk for war and global tension by engaging in higher levels of military spending in the form of arms races. It is also clear that military spending can, but not often, have no correlation with the hypothesis, as increased military spending following the war on terror was not characteristic of an arms race. In light of these conclusions, I agree with the many scholars arguing that war and conflict occur much easier when there is an arms buildup. In light of the factors, as Wallace argues, “It is difficult to argue that arms races play no role in the process of leading to the onset of war.” (Wallace 1979) Indeed, arms buildups may not always lead to war, but they certainly seem to play an unavoidably major part. Massive military spending meant to counteract an adversary nearly always has the negative effect of simultaneously raising the necessary equipment or technology for destructive conflict and heightening tensions, which provides the ingredients necessary to initiate violent conflict; in this scenario, whether or not war actually occurs isn’t even relevant in light of the damage already done by buildups.” Analysis: As Saudi Arabian builds up its military, other countries in the region (especially Iran) attempt to counterbalance Saudi Arabian military might by building up their own militaries. Cutting out arms sales from the US would substantially hinder Saudi Arabian attempts to strengthen their own military, in turn preventing a dangerous arms race that could turn the Middle East into a powder keg.

Champion Briefs

102

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

A/2: Arms sales create a risk of an arms race Answer: Saudi Arabian arms purchases are not the primary driver of an arms race and other countries would be building up their arms regardless. Warrant: Iran is pursuing a domestic military build-up, which is creating domestic instability on its own. Marwan Asmar, April 30 2018, “Iran spurs regional arms race”, Gulf News, https://gulfnews.com/opinion/op-eds/iran-spurs-regional-arms-race-1.2214288 “President Hassan Rouhani was quoted as saying Iran “would produce or acquire any weapons we need” without the approval of the world, which is a clear snub to the world powers. “We are surrounded by aggressive world powers who intervene in the region’s affairs in defiance of international law and invade countries without the consent of the UN and against its charter,” he said. But he quickly sought to allay the concerns of the states in the region, saying: “Our weapons are not against you. It’s for deterrence.” The regional powers don’t seem to have taken in by the talk of deterrence, fully aware of Iran’s expansionist ambitions. Tehran has repeatedly sought to spread its influence in the region, so the Arab states are very wary of its designs. Israel had started the arms race in the Middle East long ago, and Iran has only accelerated the proliferation of weapons in the region. Iran’s arsenal and its hegemony has forced Saudi Arabia to buy weapons to ward off the threat. Israel upset the balance of power in the region with huge handouts of money and weapons from the United States. Iran, not to be undone, beefed up its military hardware with domestic production. Global sanctions over its nuclear research didn’t hold back Tehran, which used its oil wealth spread its tentacles in the region. Hezbollah in Lebanon, various factions in Iraq, President Bashar Al Assad in Syria and the Al Houthis in Yemen benefited enormously from Iran’s weapons largesse. The result is instability in the region.”

Warrant: Allowing a unilateral build-up of the military by Iran is no better than allowing the two countries to balance against each other.

Champion Briefs

103

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Thomas Potter. “Racing to War: Arms Competitions, Military Spending, and the Tendency of Nations to Engage in Armed Conflict. Gettysburg College. Fall 2016. https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google. com/&httpsredir=1&article=1542&context=student_scholarship “Massive military spending meant to counteract an adversary nearly always has the negative effect of simultaneously raising the necessary equipment or technology for destructive conflict and heightening tensions, which provides the ingredients necessary to initiate violent conflict; in this scenario, whether or not war actually occurs isn’t even relevant in light of the damage already done by buildups. Unfortunately, there is no real solution to this problem. Since unilateral arms buildups only embolden a nation to attack by altering the balance of power, as what occurred with Germany during the 1930’s, it seems necessary for nations to always counteract this possibility by building up arms of their own. As the international system is anarchical at heart, it is impossible to build the trust necessary to achieve meaningful arms reduction. While this is a pessimistic reality, it is still the most important lesson of this research: While high military spending can and does contribute to war, it is hard to reduce arms spending from present levels to avoid becoming a weaker nation. As Thucydides once rightfully stated, the strong will always do as they will at the expense of the weak, and reducing military strength will surely condemn nations to fall from their perch at the top and be exposed to the whims of the world.” Impact: An arms race actually makes conflict less likely compared to only one country building up their armaments because it makes the cost of conflict far greater.

Paul Diehl of the Journal of Peace Research. "Arms races and escalation: a closer look." Journal of Peace Research 20.3 (1983): 205-212. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/68822/10.1177_002 23433830?sequence=2

Champion Briefs

104

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

“The determination of a mutual military buildup or its absence for each dispute was combined with the outcome of that dispute and the aggregated results are presented in Table II. No meaningful covariation exists here between mutual military buildups and dispute escalation. Only 25 % of the disputes which were preceded by a mutual military buildup escalated to war, while almost 77% of the major power wars constituting this sample population were preceded by periods in which there was no incidence of joint and rapid spending increases by the protagonists. Of the three disputes which fit the escalation hypothesis, one is World War I and the other two led to the Second World War. However, even these cases raise questions about the impact of mutual arms buildup on the outbreak of war. There were five other disputes prior to World War II which were preceded by this type of buildup and yet did not escalate to war. This suggests that the cases which support the escalation model might only be the product of a spurious association. Overall, it appears that most serious disputes do not involve previous dual military spending increases and most serious disputes do not escalate to war; but there does not seem to be any connection between these facts. The Yule’s Q value is .36 indicating a much weaker positive relationship than Wallace reported. However, the more conservative 0 coefficient is only .11 and the Chi-square value is not significant at any meaningful level.” Analysis: The alternative to allowing an arms race to occur is that Iran builds up its weapons unilaterally, which would likely be far worse for regional stability. Instead, allowing Saudi Arabia to counteract against Iranian aggression is more likely to maintain the current balance of power in the region. Ultimately, teams should frame the debate by stating that Iran is a far greater threat to United States national security interests than Saudi Arabia, and in the affirmative world Iran grows dominant over Saudi Arabia.

Champion Briefs

105

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

PRO: Arms sales weaken Saudi Arabian governance Argument: Arms sales to Saudi Arabia strengthen the military regime in Saudi Arabia and help to fortify an abusive and authoritarian government. Warrant: Saudi Arabian government is one of the most authoritarian in the world, with a profound history of human rights abuses. Jeffrey Fields. “Saudi Arabia is a repressive regime – and so are a lot of US allies” Oct 22 2018. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/saudi-arabia-is-arepressive-regime-and-so-are-a-lot-of-us-allies-105106 “The alleged assassination of Khashoggi by Saudi operatives may seem surprising because of the 31-year-old crown prince’s reputation as a moderate reformer. Salman has made newsworthy changes in the conservative Arab kingdom, allowing women to drive, combating corruption and curtailing some powers of the religious police. Still, Saudi Arabia remains one of the world’s most authoritarian regimes. Women must have the consent of a male guardian to enroll in college, look for a job or travel. They cannot swim in public or try on clothes when shopping. The Saudi government also routinely arrests people without judicial review, according to Human Rights Watch. Citizens can be executed for nonviolent drug crimes, often in public. Forty-eight people were beheaded in the first four months of 2018 alone. Saudi Arabia ranks just above North Korea on political rights, civil liberties and other measures of freedom, according to the democracy watchdog Freedom House.” Warrant: Bowing to the government of Saudi Arabia emboldens their abusive and authoritarian stance.

Champion Briefs

106

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Aaron Miller. Oct 12 2018, “The U.S.-Saudi Relationship Is Out of Control”. The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/trump-fault-jamalkhashoggis-disappearance/572797/ “Possible Saudi involvement in the disappearance—and alleged murder—of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi presents the U.S.-Saudi relationship with its greatest crisis since 9/11. If the Saudis are proven guilty of this heinous crime, it should change everything about the United States’ long-standing relationship with Saudi Arabia. Regrettably, it probably won’t. The administration’s identification with the 33-year-old crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, as a modernizer determined to open up the kingdom and tame its religious extremism has now been undermined by a crueler reality—that of a ruthless, reckless, and impulsive leader willing to repress and silence his critics at home and abroad. Whatever happened to Khashoggi is first and foremost on the Saudis. But in kowtowing to Riyadh in a fanciful effort to make it the centerpiece of U.S. strategy in the Middle East, the Trump administration has emboldened MbS, as the crown prince is known; given him a sense of invincibility; and encouraged him to believe there are no consequences for his reckless actions. And it is likely, unless confronted with incontrovertible evidence of Saudi responsibility for Khashoggi’s death or serious pressure from Congress, the president would be reluctant to impose those consequences even now.” Warrant: Empirically, military aid to countries is known to worsen human rights abuses and entrench authoritarianism. Gibb,Arthur, “Arms for Reforms: The Effectiveness of U.S. Military Assistance at Encouraging Human Rights Reforms”, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2010. http://ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/docview/750059427?accountid=14677.

Champion Briefs

107

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

“The findings of the study, however, are disappointing for those who are seeking evidence of American policy makers’ commitment to the promotion of human rights. Across all time periods evaluated, except for the years following 9/11, military aid demonstrated a consistent and statistically significant negative effect on human rights in recipient countries. While the smaller negative effect of military aid on human rights after 1989 compared to the Cold War years lends some support to our hypothesis and the greater importance of human rights outside of a competitive structural dynamic, the lack of a positive relationship even in the 1990s indicates either that military aid is an ineffective tool to influence human rights policy, or that policy makers do not use it as such even at times when it should be effective. There are at least three possible inferences to be drawn from the statistical results. The first is that U.S. military aid actually encourages human rights abuses by recipient regimes. During the Cold War, this can be understood in the context of American support for regimes fighting communist or socialist insurgencies, regimes whose abusive practices were overlooked by the U.S. in light of the policy of Containment and fear of the spread of communism. The negative results in the post-Cold War era are troubling, however. Given the emphasis placed on human rights practices by both the legislation governing military aid and the military aid programs themselves, the fact that recipients of military aid still appear to get worse rather than better after receiving American equipment and training provides strong ammunition for critics of military aid.” Impact: By empowering the Saudi Arabian military, the government becomes more able to shut down and hinder progress toward democratization. Savage, Jesse Dillon. “Military Size and the Effectiveness of Democracy Assistance.” Journal of Conflict Resolution. Feb 26 2014. https://jessedsavage.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/demassist_feb25.pdf

Champion Briefs

108

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

“Countries interested in the promotion of political development often provide aid in the form of democracy assistance. However, some regimes resist these attempts to promote democracy, introducing repressive measures to counteract their effectiveness. Hence, democracy assistance sometimes has the unintended consequence of curtailing democracy. This paper explains how the size of the targeted regime’s military determines the effectiveness of democracy assistance, and why it can sometimes result in lower levels of political freedom. Large militaries, often holding a privileged position in authoritarian regimes, will be threatened by political liberalization and its associated redistribution of resources. They will thus work with the regime to limit the effect of democracy assistance, while their size makes this repression more feasible. In states with smaller militaries regimes have less incentive and capacity for repression, and democracy assistance is more successful at empowering democratic opposition. Cross-national statistical analysis of USAID democracy assistance supports the argument.” Analysis: This argument targets how the Saudi Arabian government’s use of repressive force is a disaster for human rights in Saudi Arabia, resulting in executions and the subjugation of women. Selling weapons is shown empirically to perpetuate and exacerbate those issues rather than improve them. Cutting off arms sales to Saudi Arabia over their human rights abuses would properly punish the government and limit the strength of their military.

Champion Briefs

109

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

A/2: Arms sales weaken Saudi Arabian governance Answer: Saudi Arabia government is already improving and arms sales give us a key bargaining chip to influence its governmental development.

Warrant: Weapons sales give the US substantial leverage in dealing with Saudi Arabia, which is necessary to promote reform. Trevor Thrall. “Risky Business: The Role of Arms Sales in U.S. Foreign Policy”, Cato Institute, March 13 2018, https://www.cato.org/publications/policyanalysis/risky-business-role-arms-sales-us-foreign-policy

“American influence is thought to be most potent in cases where the United States provides a nation with a large share of its military capabilities. In the wake of U.S. pressure to halt Israeli defense exports to China, for example, an Israeli official acknowledged, “If the United States, which provides Israel with $2 billion in annual military aid, demands that we will not sell anything to China — then we won’t. If the Americans decide we should not be selling arms to other countries as well — Israel will have no choice but to comply.”41 The United States has used arms sales to try to encourage states to vote with the United States at the UN, to support or adopt proWestern and pro-U.S. foreign policies, to convince Egypt and Israel to accept peace accords, and to gain access to military bases in places such as Greece, Turkey, Kenya, Somalia, Oman, and the Philippines. After the Cold War, the United States also sought to tie arms transfers to human rights and democratization efforts in client states.42” Impact: The status of women is improving in Saudi Arabia, with numerous substantial changes to women’s rights in the country.

Champion Briefs

110

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Benjamin Bishin. “The big gains for women’s rights in the Middle East, explained”. July 23 2018. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkeycage/wp/2018/07/23/womens-rights-are-advancing-in-the-middle-east-thisexplains-why/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ada937759446 “Saudi Arabia, under the initiative of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, gave women in the kingdom the right to drive. Saudi Arabia has been the only country in the world to ban women from driving — an internationally recognized symbol of unequal status. Along with the ability to drive has come new rights and freedoms: the ability to join the military, work in intelligence services and attend sporting events and concerts. A senior cleric even commented that women should not be required to wear the abaya. Saudi Arabia is in good company. Across the Middle East and North Africa, countries have been upgrading women’s rights. Since 2011, nearly every country in North Africa has adopted a gender quota, in which parties are required to nominate a minimum percentage of women as candidates for office, to increase women’s representation in politics. In Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq, Yemen and Morocco, women can now pass on citizenship to their children, and Lebanon may soon join this list. The region has seen widespread repeal of laws letting rapists escape punishment if they marry their victims. And nine countries adopted laws against domestic violence.” Analysis: The first piece of evidence provides affirmation that other factors contribute strongly to authoritarianism in Saudi Arabia, and that ending sales alone would do little to promote governance. The second piece of evidence demonstrates how the US can use weapon sales as a bargaining chip to influence policy, whereas we would lose that leverage if we ended all sales. Finally, the last piece of evidence shows that Saudi Arabia is becoming less restrictive over time.

Champion Briefs

111

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

PRO: Arms Sales Embolden Saudi Arabia Argument: By selling arms to Saudi Arabia, the United States makes the state more aggressive which has negative consequences. Warrant: American weapons are key to Saudi Arabian military effectiveness and they would be mostly unable to transition away from American artillery. Terrence Guay. “Arms sales to Saudi Arabia give Trump all the leverage he needs in Khashoggi affair” Oct 19 2018. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia-give-trump-all-theleverage-he-needs-in-khashoggi-affair-104998 “While it’s true that Russia and China are indeed major exporters of armaments, the claim that U.S. weapons can easily be replaced by other suppliers is not – at least not in the short term. First, once a country is “locked in” to a specific kind of weapons system, such as planes, tanks or naval vessels, the cost to switch to a different supplier can be huge. Military personnel must be retrained on new equipment, spare parts need to be replaced, and operational changes may be necessary. After being so reliant on U.S. weapons systems for decades, the transition costs to buy from another country could be prohibitive even for oil-rich Saudi Arabia. The second problem with Trump’s argument is that armaments from Russia, China or elsewhere are simply not as sophisticated as U.S. weapons, which is why they are usually cheaper – though the quality gap is quickly decreasing. To maintain its military superiority in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia has opted to purchase virtually all of its weapons from American and European companies.” Warrant: Saudi Arabian war tactics in Yemen are highly reliant on US machinery and weapons and are indiscriminate.

Champion Briefs

112

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Derek Watkins. Dec 27 2018, “Saudi Strikes, American Bombs, Yemeni Suffering”. New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/27/world/middleeast/saudiarabia-war-tactics-yemen-humanitarian-crisis.html “The Saudis and their chief ally, the United Arab Emirates, fight principally from the air. Armed with American-made warplanes and bombs, they have carried out thousands of airstrikes on Houthi targets but also on hospitals, weddings and funerals. Their pilots typically fly high to avoid enemy fire, which reduces the accuracy of strikes. They regularly ignore a voluminous no-strike list. The United States backed the coalition from the start with sales of weapons and bombs, midair refueling of warplanes over Yemen, and intelligence. After the funeral attack in 2016 killed 155 people, the Obama administration blocked sales of precision-guided munitions. But the United States continued to refuel coalition warplanes. In May 2017, the Trump administration overturned the missile ban, amid a new weapons deal. Mr. Trump said he did not want to lose the benefit of multibillion-dollar arms sales for the American economy. But the war was ravaging the economy of Yemen.” Warrant: Empirically, selling weapons to countries increases their rates of brutality and civilian killings. Omelicheva, Mariya, et al. “Military Aid and Human Rights: Assessing the Impact of U.S. Security Assistance Programs.” Political Science Quarterly. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/polq.12575 “As can be seen from the results, the total amount of dollars spent on all U.S. Foreign Military and Department of Defense Engagement Activities is negatively associated with the number of civilian atrocities, whereas the total number of trainees participating in all U.S. programs shows a positive correlation with the number of civilian casualties. Both

Champion Briefs

113

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

results are statistically significant (p < .05). A positive correlation between the number of trainees and civilian deaths attributed to the militaries of states that received U.S. military assistance reflects the fact that some of the largest security assistance programs, which are also positively correlated with civilian casualties, were included in the total. FMS, for example, one of the largest programs in terms of both total dollars spent and total number of trainees, is positively associated with civilian casualties. In other words, states that buy higher amounts of U.S. defense equipment as well as services and training associated with those sales are more likely to experience higher numbers of civilian deaths by the state military and police. This is hardly surprising; the majority of U.S. arms sales in recent years went to the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council and Iraq. Saudi Arabia, for example, is one of the largest customers of the U.S. defense industry, with$29 billion of arms sales in 2012 alone. The total amount of U.S. military aid, too, has a positive and statistically significant impact on civilian deaths, suggesting that greater amounts of overall U.S. military assistance are associated with more civilian atrocities committed by state security forces. Holding all other variables constant, the expected number of deaths increases by a factor of 1.06 (calculated as the exponential of the co efficient 0.06) for each unit increase in U.S.military assistance (measured in logged U.S. dollars per capita). The total dollars spent on FMF and students participating in the FMF program also show a positive and statistically significant impact on the civilian deaths. These findings are consistent across the models, where these measures are lagged by one and two years, respectively.” Impact: Saudi Arabia is creating and perpetuating a humanitarian crisis in Yemen primarily through the use of US weaponry, endangering millions. Zeeshan Aleem. “Saudi Arabia’s new blockade is starving Yemen " 22 Nov 2017. Vox. https://www.vox.com/world/2017/11/22/16680392/saudi-arabia-yemenblockade-famine-casualties

Champion Briefs

114

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

“"Saudi Arabia’s new blockade of Yemen is threatening to exacerbate what the United Nations has deemed the “worst humanitarian crisis in the world.” For more than two and a half years, Saudi Arabia has spearheaded a brutal military operation in Yemen in support of its exiled government, which was ousted from power after Iranian-backed Houthi rebels seized control of the capital, Sanaa, in 2014. That military campaign — which is getting significant US funding, logistical support, and arms — has caused enormous suffering in what was the poorest nation in the Arab world even before the conflict broke out. The Saudi Arabia-led operations, which have included various restrictions on Yemen’s airspace and seaports, have caused the deaths of over 5,000 civilians, more than 20 percent of whom are children. They’ve helped cause the worst outbreak of cholera in modern history. And they’ve contributed to a malnutrition crisis of colossal proportions: Close to 80 percent of Yemen’s population lacks reliable access to food, and the United Nations estimates that 7 million of the country’s population of 28 million people are facing famine. Analysis: This is a simple and straightforward argument that shows how the US backing the Saudi Arabian military creates a more aggressive and capable state. After showing how US military technology is critical for the Saudi Arabian army and makes their military only more powerful, teams can then show how Saudi Arabian aggression is a threat to the lives of millions and regional stability.

Champion Briefs

115

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

A/2: Arms Sales Embolden Saudi Arabia Answer: Saudi Arabia generally does not use its military for purposes that are counter to United States interests, and cutting off weapons sales would create unintended consequences. Warrant: Saudi Arabian actions in Yemen, although not perfect, are in line generally with United States interests in the region.

Madyson Posey “Ending U.S. Military Support for Saudi Arabia in Yemen Would Trigger Dangerous Consequences”. Dec 6 2018. The Heritage Foundation. https://www.heritage.org/middle-east/commentary/ending-us-military-supportsaudi-arabia-yemen-would-trigger-dangerous “The killing of Khashoggi was certainly abhorrent, but ending U.S. support for the multinational coalition in Yemen is not the proper solution. It risks dangerously conflating two separate issues and would inevitably trigger unintended consequences that would undermine U.S. national security interests in the region. Senators must remember that Saudi Arabia is not the only belligerent in Yemen. A cutoff of U.S. support would also hurt the elected and internationally recognized government of Yemen, which was ousted by Iran-backed Houthi rebels in 2015 in a bloody coup that violated a U.N.-brokered ceasefire. Withdrawing U.S. support would also harm the interests of other U.S. allies fighting in Yemen, including the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. The war in Yemen is complex. Those who rush to blame Saudi Arabia entirely for the suffering of the Yemeni people ignore the war crimes and heavy-handed treatment meted out by the Houthis to their opponents and the ruthless role that Iran plays in supporting the Houthi Ansar Allah (“Supporters of Allah”) movement, a Shia Islamist extremist group. The Saudis are rightly criticized for not doing more to prevent civilian casualties as they target Ansar Allah positions. But the Houthis should not be

Champion Briefs

116

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

given a free pass for deliberately targeting civilian targets in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates with increasingly sophisticated Iranian ballistic missiles.”

Warrant: Saudi Arabia has generally acted in line with the strategic and political goals of the United States, so their aggression is not necessarily bad. Gregory Gause. “Saudi Arabia in the New Middle East”, Council on Foreign Relations’ Center for Preventive Action, Dec 2011, https://www.cfr.org/report/saudiarabia-new-middle-east “The United States' relationship with Saudi Arabia has been one of the cornerstones of U.S. policy in the Middle East for decades. Despite their substantial differences in history, culture, and governance, the two countries have generally agreed on important political and economic issues and have often relied on each other to secure mutual aims. The 1990-91 Gulf War is perhaps the most obvious example, but their ongoing cooperation on maintaining regional stability, moderating the global oil market, and pursuing terrorists should not be downplayed. Yet for all the relationship's importance, it is increasingly imperiled by mistrust and misunderstanding. One major question is Saudi Arabia's stability. In this Council Special Report, sponsored by the Center for Preventive Action, F. Gregory Gause III first explores the foundations of Riyadh's present stability and potential sources of future unrest. It is difficult not to notice that Saudi Arabia avoided significant upheaval during the political uprisings that swept the Middle East in 2011, despite sharing many of the social and economic problems of Egypt, Yemen, and Libya. But unlike their counterparts in Cairo, Sanaa, and Tripoli, Riyadh's leadership was able to maintain order in large part by increasing public spending on housing and salaries, relying on loyal and well-equipped security forces, and utilizing its extensive patronage networks. The divisions within the political opposition also helped the government's cause.”

Champion Briefs

117

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Impact: Ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia would make one of the United States’ most critical geopolitical partners considerably less powerful and useful.

Missy Ryan, “As crisis intensifies, what’s at stake in America’s military partnership with Saudi Arabia?”, October 12 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ascrisis-intensifies-whats-at-stake-in-americas-military-partnership-with-saudiarabia/2018/10/12/3ce0994e-cd75-11e8-a3e644daa3d35ede_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a654d78dfb57 “For decades Saudi Arabia has been an important American military partner in the Arab world, where its status as the home to Islam’s holiest sites boosts its leadership credentials. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, the kingdom has played a critical role in U.S. counterterrorism efforts, supplying the government with valuable intelligence about extremist threats. Most significantly, Saudi Arabia has used petrodollars to build up the Arab world’s most sophisticated military arsenal. With one of the world’s largest military budgets, the kingdom boasts a large fleet of F-15 and Tornado fighter jets, Apache helicopters and other advanced aircraft. About $14.5 billion in major sales have been concluded with Saudi Arabia since Trump became president, but much or all of that was initiated before he took office.”

Analysis: It’s important to clarify that what may seem like wanton acts of aggression on behalf of Saudi Arabia are actually generally in line with US foreign policy goals, and the above evidence demonstrates that Saudi Arabia generally cooperates with the United States on most major issues. Negative teams should try to paint the picture of Saudi Arabia as a useful and productive ally for the United States rather than a regional threat to stability.

Champion Briefs

118

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

PRO: Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia weaken US soft power Argument: By ending arms sales, the United States demonstrates that allied states cannot act maliciously without consequence, thereby increasing soft power. Warrant: Ending arms sales signals that the United States is not morally flexible and that countries seeking our business need to respect our standards. Emily Weber. "The United States Should End Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia”. Nov 20 2018. http://www.iar-gwu.org/content/united-states-should-end-arms-sales-saudiarabia “In 2016 the United States canceled a million-dollar weapons sale to Saudi Arabia as a result of a Saudi-led coalition airstrike on a funeral that killed over a hundred Yemeni civilians. Even though the United States had already sold Saudi Arabia millions of dollars’ worth of weapons by that point, the canceled sale demonstrated consequences for the Saudis’ complete disregard of civilian casualties. It also showed that a country’s ability to pay for weapons was not the only factor the United States would consider when selling arms. The United States should continue suspending current arms sales and abandon any promise of future arms sales to Saudi Arabia while this proxy war in Yemen continues. The United States should consider foreign arms sales on a case by case basis, instead of offering a “blank check” to a government without considering their foreign policy and human rights record. U.S. supporters of arms deals with Saudi Arabia argue that the revenue generated from these sales are too beneficial to end. However, the arms sales and continued conflict create larger and fartherreaching costs. The U.S. government should redirect its involvement towards humanitarian actions in Yemen. This policy would help to stabilize Yemen and enhance U.S. soft power in the region.”

Champion Briefs

119

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Warrant: States who receive military aid from the United States are, empirically, not any more cooperative because we typically do not enforce our standards. Sullivan, P., Tessman, B., and Li, X. (2011), US Military Aid and Recipient State Cooperation. Foreign Policy Analysis, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bf4e/e4125c4d788098a9fc326cb32856b49df5 b7.pdf “In several ways, the Reverse Leverage model was quite accurate: (i) states receiving military aid from the United States exhibit lower levels of cooperation than states that do not receive military aid, (ii) in the population of all states, higher levels of military aid appear to produce more defiant behavior, and (iii) the United States does not punish defiance with reductions in aid or reward greater cooperation with increases in military aid. Together, these results suggest that US military assistance is allocated for reasons that are largely independent of overall recipient state behavior toward the United States. The Reverse Leverage model contends that military aid is delivered to states that the United States depends on for security reasons. Realizing their leverage over Washington, states that receive high amounts of aid are actually more able to engage in uncooperative behavior than are states that the United States does not depend so heavily upon. We attempted to test for the effects of an aid recipient’s ‘‘security value’’ directly by comparing US allies to nonallies. Consistent with the Reverse Leverage model, we find that states with a defensive alliance with the United States are more likely to receive US military aid but less likely to respond to aid by increasing their cooperation with American preferences.” Warrant: Following the killing of Khashoggi, choosing to continue selling arms to Saudi Arabia demonstrates that the United States is not committed to morality.

Champion Briefs

120

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Terrence Guay. “Arms sales to Saudi Arabia give Trump all the leverage he needs in Khashoggi affair” Oct 19 2018. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia-give-trump-all-theleverage-he-needs-in-khashoggi-affair-104998 “That is why the U.S. has significant leverage in this aspect of the relationship. Any Saudi threat to retaliate against a ban on U.S. arms sales by buying weapons from countries that have not raised concerns about the Khashoggi disappearance would not be credible. And is probably why, despite worries in the White House, such a threat has not yet been made. Since the end of World War II, the U.S. has developed a global reputation as a moral authority championing human rights. Yes, there have been many times when realpolitik took priority. But despite these moments, the U.S. managed also to maintain its authority by advocating respect for human rights as a global norm during the Cold War, and within many repressive regimes ever since. With Khashoggi, Trump is choosing to give up that mantle completely by showing his priority is purely economic, regardless of the impact on the United States’ global reputation. Such a bald-faced strategy, in my view, sells American values short and weakens U.S. global credibility.” Impact: Saudi Arabia is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, and aligning ourselves with them only perpetuates extremism. Ben Norton. “Saudi Arabia funds and exports Islamic extremism: The truth behind the toxic U.S. relationship with the theocratic monarchy" 7 Jan 2017. Salon. https://www.salon.com/2016/01/06/saudi_arabia_funds_and_exports_islamic_ extremism_the_truth_behind_the_toxic_u_s_relationship_with_the_theocratic_ nation/ “"In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other," Daoud continued. "This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that

Champion Briefs

121

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on." Since the November Paris attacks, in which 130 people were massacred in a series of bombings and shootings for which ISIS claimed responsibility, the West has constantly spoken of the importance of fighting extremism. At the same time, however, the U.S., U.K., France, and other Western nations have continued supporting the Saudi regime that fuels such extremism. Saudi political dissidents like Turki al-Hamad have constantly argued this point. In a TV interview, al-Hamad insisted the religious extremism propagated by the Saudi monarchy "serves as fuel for ISIS." "You can see [in ISIS videos] the volunteers in Syria ripping up their Saudi passports," al-Hamad said. "In order to stop ISIS, you must first dry up this ideology at the source. Otherwise you are cutting the grass, but leaving the roots. You have to take out the roots," he added. In the wake of the November 2015 Paris attacks, scholar Yousaf Butt stressed that "the fountainhead of Islamic extremism that promotes and legitimizes such violence lies with the fanatical 'Wahhabi' strain of Islam centered in Saudi Arabia." "If the world wants to tamp down and eliminate such violent extremism, it must confront this primary host and facilitator," Butt warned. Analysis: This argument can powerfully demonstrate that the US alliance and partnership with Saudi Arabia is antithetical to our national security and foreign policy goals. Instead, it legitimizes an authoritarian, belligerent, and terrorist-sponsoring state that ultimately undermines United States soft power and strategy. By cutting off arms sales, we can demonstrate that our allies need to align with our strategic and moral goals rather no matter how much money they are willing to spend.

Champion Briefs

122

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

A/2: Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia weaken US soft power Answer: Our alliance with Saudi Arabia gives us an invaluable strategic and geographic partner in the Middle East. Warrant: Saudi Arabia is at the centerpiece of many relationships between non-Muslim and Muslim societies. Generally, Saudi Arabia works alongside the United States to achieve political and foreign policy goals, rather than being counterproductive.

Council on Foreign Relations. “Saudi Arabia Remains Indispensable U.S. Ally, Argues New CFR Book”. Jan 13 2012. https://www.cfr.org/news-releases/saudi-arabiaremains-indispensable-us-ally-argues-new-cfr-book “On the Muslim world, "Saudi Arabia’s historic primacy in Islam makes it indispensable to a constructive relationship between the non-Muslim West and the Muslim world," he concludes. "The kingdom is a central arena in the worldwide struggle within Islam between forces of tradition and xenophobia, which oppose all change and wish to turn backward, and advocates of modernization who believe that Islam must adapt to a changing world and can do so without surrendering its ideals and values." On Iran, the Saudis have "made no secret of their anxiety about the prospect of such a rival acquiring nuclear weapons, but they also recognize that for all their wealth they cannot do much to prevent it." The prospect of a nuclear Iran will only make the alliance with the United States stronger, he argues. If there is one certainty about policy change in Saudi Arabia, "it is that the rules governing female behavior will be relaxed and that women will find new opportunities in the country’s workplace and in its social and economic life," he writes. "Saudi Arabia is coming to the collective realization that it can no longer afford to pump vast resources into educating women at enormous expense without recovering the constructive energy and economic productivity of those educated graduates," Lippman explains. Basing his work on

Champion Briefs

123

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

interviews and field research conducted in the kingdom from 2008 through 2011 while an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Lippman, now at the Middle East Institute, dissects the central paradox of the U.S.-Saudi relationship: both countries need each other, yet they both remain fundamentally different. A related Council Special Report by Gregory Gause, Saudi Arabia in the New Middle East, echoes many of these findings. He suggests that there is no more unlikely U.S. ally than Saudi Arabia, yet despite divergent views on policy, "the two countries have generally agreed on important political and economic issues and have often relied on each other to secure mutual aims.".”

Warrant: Saudi Arabia’s geographic location and wealth of natural resources makes it a powerful and crucial ally for the US. Spross, Jeff. “America is going to pay a lot of interest soon. But don't fear a debt crisis.”, The Week, Oct 1 2018, https://theweek.com/articles/798463/america-goingpay-lot-interest-soon-but-dont-fear-debt-crisis “This power over oil makes Saudi Arabia one of the key lynchpins in the global economy, as swings in the global economy since the 1970s have been strongly influenced by the price of oil (Moran 1981, Amuzegar 2001, Faucon and Said 201, Gause and Jones 2012, and Rifkin 2011). Both the Kingdom’s special role in the global economy and the geo-politics of the Middle East has brought it into a critical relation with the US. While there has been much to disrupt this relation, still the relation is strongly set in soft bilaterialism. The interests of the two nations have accorded on many fronts, often due to the willingness of the Saudis to accommodate American foreign policy goals. The Kingdom has consistently interceded in OPEC arrangements to prevent ruinous energy prices for the West, accommodated American security interests in allowing American air bases and military passage for its operations, served

Champion Briefs

124

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

effectively as a balancer in the Middle East, offered its services to quell regional friction in peace initiatives pushed by the US, and taken a strong stand against terrorism (Gause 2002).” Impact: Arms sales are crucial to maintaining the bilateral relationship between America and Saudi Arabia, along with its strategic benefits.

Committee for a Responsible Budget, “Could Faster Growth Solve Our Debt Woes?”, October 28 2013, http://www.crfb.org/blogs/could-faster-growth-solve-ourdebt-woes “It’s a cold financial calculation: Saudi money for U.S.-made weaponry results in American jobs. This is President Donald Trump’s rationale in dismissing calls in Congress to halt future arms sales to Saudi Arabia following the mysterious disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi journalist and American resident. “I don’t like the concept of stopping an investment of $110 billion into the United States,” Trump said last week. “All they’re going to do is say, ‘That’s OK. We don’t have to buy it from Boeing. We don’t have to buy it from Lockheed. We don’t have to buy it from Raytheon and all these great companies. We’ll buy it from Russia. We’ll buy it from China,” he said. The 75-year alliance between the two nations has been built on a simple arrangement: American demand for Saudi oil and Saudi demand for American firepower. It is a relationship that is not easily unwound as a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators found out earlier this year when they moved to cut off military assistance to the Saudis in their war against Houthi rebels in Yemen. The United Nations has said that more half of the more than 10,000 people who have been killed in the three-year old war are civilians, and the lives of millions are potentially at risk from famine. The U.S. government has provided intelligence, munitions and midair refueling to Saudi warplanes since operations kicked off in 2015. Attempts by American lawmakers to stop that aid have thus far failed.”

Analysis: Analytically, teams can argue further that ending arms sales entirely would force the United States to lose a major bargaining chip with Saudi Arabia, and that maintaining our relationship to some degree is preferable to get them to agree to policy changes. The above pieces of evidence demonstrate

Champion Briefs

125

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

that Saudi Arabia is generally willing to cooperate with America on foreign policy goals and that arms sales are critical for that relationship to continue. Without Saudi Arabian cooperation, achieving foreign policy goals in the Middle East and elsewhere would be much more difficult.

Champion Briefs

126

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

PRO: The US should end its arms sales because of Saudi Arabia’s actions in Yemen Argument: The United States should end its arms sales to remove its contribution to the war in Yemen. Warrant: Saudi Arabia is committing atrocities in Yemen Human Rights Watch, "What Military Target Was in My Brother’s House", 11/26/15, https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/11/26/what-military-target-was-mybrothers-house/unlawful-coalition-airstrikes-yemen On March 26, 2015, a coalition of Arab countries led by Saudi Arabia, with United States participation, began a military campaign in Yemen that has so far resulted in the deaths of more than 2,500 civilians, mostly by coalition airstrikes. This report documents 10 coalition airstrikes from April through August that appear to have violated international humanitarian law, the laws of war. The laws of war are intended to minimize harm to civilians and other non-combatants during armed conflict. While not all civilian casualties indicate laws-of-war violations, attacks that deliberately target civilians, that do not discriminate between civilians and combatants, or that cause disproportionate loss of civilian life or property, are all unlawful. Individuals who commit such violations with criminal intent are responsible for war crimes. In the cases discussed in this report, which caused at least 309 civilian deaths and wounded at least 414 civilians, Human Rights Watch found either no evident military target or that the attack failed to distinguish civilians from military objectives. Under international law, states have an obligation to investigate alleged violations of the laws of war, and appropriately punish those individuals responsible for war crimes. Human Rights

Champion Briefs

127

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Watch is unaware of any investigations by Saudi Arabia or other coalition members in these or other reported cases. Warrant: The United States is supplying weapons for this conflict Patrick Wilcken, The Guardian, "Britain and the US must stop fuelling the bloody Saudi ‘war on Yemen", 03/20/18, https://www.theguardian.com/commentis free/2018/mar/20/yemen-arms-saudi-arabia The end of this week marks three tragedy-filled years for the people of Yemen, who have suffered from the Saudi-led military coalition’s devastating – and often indiscriminate – bombing of their country. Fleets of fighter jets, the bulk from Saudi Arabia itself, have wreaked havoc on an impoverished country, with thousands of airstrikes on targets including hospitals, markets, homes, factories and funeral halls. Thousands of civilians have been killed, thousands more horribly injured. Collapsed infrastructure, coupled with a partial blockade, have deprived most of the population of clean water and proper healthcare, unleashing the worst cholera outbreak in modern history. Despite all this, western countries, led by the US and the UK, have supplied the Saudi-led coalition with huge amounts of advanced military equipment, facilitating a military campaign characterised by repeated violations of international humanitarian law, including possible war crimes. This conflict has revealed in the starkest possible terms the real cost of the lucrative global arms trade, not to mention the challenge of implementing the UN arms trade treaty. Beyond the US and the UK, many other countries – including France, Spain and Italy – profess their support for human rights and adherence to the treaty while similarly lavishing hi-tech weaponry on the Saudi coalition.

Warrant: The best way to condemn the crisis in Yemen is to stop arms sales

Champion Briefs

128

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

F. Brinley Bruton, NBC, "The U.S. wants the Yemen war to end. Will it stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia?", 11/5/18, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-wantsyemen-war-end-will-it-stop-selling-n929921 Washington supports Saudi Arabia and its ally, the United Arab Emirates, through billions in arms sales. It also refuels their jets mid-air, provides training and shares intelligence. So, if the U.S. wants to try to force the Saudis' hands, it has leverage. The best way to force the Saudis to change their ways is to stop sending weapons, according to Human Rights Watch’s Yemen researcher Kristine Beckerle. “You’ve gotten so many violations already over the past three and a half years, so what Pompeo and Mattis should be doing is saying, ‘These are the benchmarks. We’re going to hold up weapons sales until you actually fulfill these tasks,’" she said, referring to the apparent bombing of civilian sites by the coalition. Impact: The children of Yemen have suffered the greatest consequences because of US arms sales Yuliya Talmazan, NBC, "Yemen crisis: Three stats that reveal the scale of world's worst humanitarian crisis", 10/28/18, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/yemencrisis-three-stats-reveal-scale-world-s-worst-humanitarian-n923741 A total of almost 50,000 kids are believed to have perished from such causes during 2017, with a similar number expected this year, according to Save the Children and the U.N. Save the Children spokesman Bhanu Bhatnagar called the situation in Yemen "a stain on the world’s conscience." UNICEF's operation in Yemen estimates there are 1.8 million children currently facing malnutrition, including 400,000 who are severely malnourished and at risk of death if not urgently treated. More than 8 million children are cut off from regular access to basic water, sanitation and hygiene services.

Champion Briefs

129

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Analysis: This argument is strategic because it outlines a concrete goal to ending arms sales. Additionally, you could weigh this argument by arguing that no matter what the United States should not be complicit in a conflict with human rights abuses of this proportion. For example, this would work particularly against an economic or political leverage argument, as neither one is relevant if the nation has to sacrifice its integrity.

Champion Briefs

130

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

A/2: The US should end its arms sales because of Saudi Arabia’s actions in Yemen Response: Saudi Arabia could upset the oil market if the US halted arms sales Warrant: The nation has threatened to retaliate Shawn Langlois, MarketWatch, "Call of the day: Don’t rule out $400 oil if the U.S. sanc tions Saudi Arabia", 10/15/18, https://www.marketwatch.com/story/call-of-theday-dont-rule-out-400-oil-if-the-us-sanctions-saudi-arabia-2018-10-15 U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, however, is said to still be planning to attend. That flow of Saudi cash is apparently pretty hard to resist. Nevertheless, mounting threats from around the world to punish Saudi Arabia, including the possibility of U.S. sanctions, are rattling the oil-soaked nation and drawing sharp words in response. “The Kingdom affirms its total rejection of any threats and attempts to undermine it, whether by threatening to impose economic sanctions, using political pressures, or repeating false accusation,” a government source reportedly told the official Saudi Press Agency. “The Kingdom also affirms that if it receives any action, it will respond with greater action.” Warrant: Saudi Arabia has a particularly influential hold on the oil market Tom DiChristopher, CNBC, "Why the market is suddenly concerned Saudi Arabia will weaponize oil in Khashoggi dispute", 10/15/18, https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/15/saudi-statement-sparks-concern-the-

Champion Briefs

131

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

kingdom-will-weaponize-oil.html Saudi Arabia produces about 10.5 million barrels of oil per day, equal to more than 10 percent of global crude demand. It exports about 7 million barrels a day of oil, depending on the month. Given those figures, the kingdom is a central pillar of the global oil market at any time. But its influence is especially pronounced right now. Analysis: This is a good response because even if the US does hault arms sales, instead of simply giving in and halting the conflict in Yemen, the Saudi government could live up to its threats and disrupt the global oil market. Response: Saudi Arabia is posturing to produce its own arms Warrant: Outside criticism is pushing the country towards developing its own weapons industry Stratfor, "Saudi Arabia Lays the Foundation for a Defense Industry of Its Own", 11/09/18, https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/saudi-arabia-defense-industryweapons-imports-vision2030 As Saudi Arabia pursues its regional interests, it has increasingly sought to insulate itself from outside influence. To guard against dependence on arms imports, which could subject it to political pressure, it has worked to build up the capabilities of its own defense industry. This shift in philosophy comes as the kingdom's usual arms suppliers increasingly reconsider the extent of their weapons trade with Riyadh because of mounting casualties from Yemen's civil war and outrage over the apparent murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Besides lessening dependence on foreign weapons sources, a mature local defense industry could also play a key role in diversifying the Saudi economy while Riyadh is working to ease its overreliance on energy exports. If the Saudi defense sector can be successfully built out, it could provide

Champion Briefs

132

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

jobs for a large number of citizens and help address concerns about growing unemployment. Warrant: Saudi Arabia is already receiving help in this endeavor from Russia Glen Carey, Bloomberg, "Saudis Want to Make Their Own Weapons. Russia Is Eager to Help", 03/02/18, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-0105/mcconnell-hunkers-down-on-the-sidelines-as-shutdown-grinds-on In case they’re reluctant to do so, the Saudis are making it clear that they have other options. They’re already planning to buy the Russian S-400 air-defense system, under a deal that would let them manufacture related products at home. The prospect of more such agreements is likely to alarm American policy makers, who worry about losing ground to Russia and China in the Middle East. Analysis: This is a good response because even if the US stops providing arms to Saudi Arabia this only pushes them to develop their own arms industry even more. Additionally, this postures them to get closer with American enemies like Russia.

Champion Briefs

133

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

PRO: The US should halt arms due to the UN Arms Treaty Argument: The United States has a responsibility as a signatory of the UN treaty to halt arms sales. Warrant: The arms treaty holds arms exporters accountable for the actions of the countries who purchase their arms United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, "Arms Trade", https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/att/ Governments remain central providers of security. This is their sovereign right and responsibility, to be performed in conformity with the rule of law. To effectively execute these tasks, their armed and security forces legitimately employ a range of weaponry, which they acquire through national production or through import. Exporters and importers need to ensure those weapons are transferred and stored safely, and not end up in the wrong hands. Governments also have a responsibility to ensure public safety and have a vested interest in providing human security and development to their citizens. Therefore, ensuring that arms in private ownership do not enter illicit circuits must be part of the equation for every country. Warrant: War crimes are being reported in the conflict United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, "Yemen: United Na tions Experts point to possible war crimes by parties to the conflict", 08/28/18, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=2347 9

Champion Briefs

134

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Information documented by the Group of Regional and International Eminent Experts on Yemen strongly suggests that parties to the armed conflict have perpetrated, and continue to perpetrate, violations and crimes under international law. The findings are detailed in a 41-page report published on Tuesday by the Group Experts, which was mandated by the United Nations Human Rights Council to carry out a comprehensive examination of the human rights situation in the country. The Group of Experts’ report, which covers the period from September 2014 to June 2018, analyses the main patterns of violations and abuses of international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law committed by parties to the conflict. The report also identifies significant areas where violations and abuses may have been committed but further investigation is required. Among their conclusions, the experts say individuals in the Government of Yemen and the coalition, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and in the de facto authorities have committed acts that may, subject to determination by an independent and competent court, amount to international crimes. Warrant: With knowledge of human rights abuses, signatories are supposed to halt weapons sales The Economist, "A UN treaty to regulate the global arms trade has little impact", 08/18/18, https://www.economist.com/international/2018/08/18/a-un-treatyto-regulate-the-global-arms-trade-has-little-impact IF ALL—or even most—countries abided by the letter and spirit of the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), the world might be rather less grim. Governments that sign up are supposed to halt exports of weapons if they have good reason to think they will be used to flout international humanitarian law. That could cover both internal repression and waging wars by inhumane methods.

Champion Briefs

135

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Impact: The United States needs to adhere to the treaty to set a precedent for the rest of the World Anna Macdonald, The Guardian, "UN arms trade treaty can save many lives – if it is ro bustly enforced", 09/25/14, https://www.theguardian.com/globaldevelopment/poverty-matters/2014/sep/25/un-arms-trade-treaty-exports-sales But this misses the point. Once the treaty enters into force and becomes binding international law, it will create a strong deterrent for all countries – even those not a party to it – to end uncontrolled arms transfers. It has happened before, for example, following the development of the mine ban treaty and it will happen again. A comprehensive treaty will help accelerate and develop a specific international norm, which, over time, simply cannot be ignored – even by Moscow. This will not happen overnight, but with proper enforcement by states that have ratified, it has the potential to help transform the arms trade. The ATT will not be able to turn back the clock. It cannot bring back lives lost already through armed violence. But, with robust enforcement, it will prevent future suffering and save lives. Analysis: This argument is helpful because it binds the United States to a treaty they have already signed. Additionally, you could weigh this in the long term as how the judge should want all countries to act when faced with knowledge of human rights abuses.

Champion Briefs

136

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

A/2: The US should halt arms due to the UN Arms Treaty Response: Adhering to this treaty would violate national sovereignty. Warrant: If other countries don’t adhere to the treaty, it’s an undue burden on US sovereignty. Theodore Bromund and Steven Groves, The Heritage Foundation, "The U.N.'s Arms Trade Treaty: A Dangerous Multilateral Mistake in the Making", 08/21/09, https://www.heritage.org/report/the-uns-arms-trade-treaty-dangerousmultilateral-mistake-the-making Like most human rights treaties, the arms trade treaty is an example of aspirational treaty making. It aspires to end practices in which most states engage. As these practices are entirely under national control, the states are evidently uninterested in abandoning them. Treaties are commitments by states to do or not to do certain things. As such, treaties constrain the inherent right of self-government that is the basis for national sovereignty. In the international context, such constraints can be justified only by an agreement that other states will similarly constrain themselves. That agreement is embodied in a treaty, but if other countries refuse to abide by it after signing it, the constraint on the right of self-government--and U.S. sovereignty-becomes one-sided. Because the behavior of the world's states testifies that they do not want to curtail the practices that the treaty would seek to control, this treaty would be an unbalanced and therefore illegitimate constraint on American sovereignty. Warrant: The US is blamed for any fault in the treaty Theodore Bromund, The Heritage Foundation, "The U.S. Cannot Fix the U.N. Arms

Champion Briefs

137

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Trade Treaty", 03/13/13, https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/report/theus-cannot-fix-the-un-arms-trade-treaty

Since the conference closed, the drumbeat of anti-U.S. criticism has continued. In August, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report noting that U.S. contracts for future deliveries of weapons reached a record high of $66.3 billion in 2011. The U.S. celebrated these sales as “truly remarkable” and as an exemplary success for the Administration’s “economic statecraft initiative.”[14] These sales were approved by the U.S. export control system, which the ATT supposedly would leave unchanged. The U.S. export control system is widely regarded as the most comprehensive in the world, and the State Department calls it the “gold standard.”[15] Yet these facts did not stop the Arms Control Association from implying that the U.S. had ruined the July conference because of its position as “the world’s largest arms producer and exporter.”[16] The CRS report’s assessment that Russia exported almost 8,000 surfaceto-air missiles to the developing world between 2008 and 2011 and that Italy had sold three times more arms to Africa than the U.S. over the same period went unremarked.[17] Instead, after The Washington Post published a stinging article on China’s lack of responsibility in selling into the worst African conflicts, the Chinese People’s Daily cited the CRS report as evidence for its contention that it was the U.S. that lacked “any principles or responsibilities in arms export” and was responsible for the failure of the ATT.[18] Analysis: This is a good response because it shows that the treaty unduly burdens the United States. Both because other states don’t follow it, and they continually blame the US for the world’s problems through the treaty, it would not be in America’s best interest to adhere to the treaty.

Champion Briefs

138

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Response: Even if other countries were to adhere to the treaty, it’s not strict enough to make a difference Warrant: Nations set their own standards, and are not pushing for stricter guidelines Ted Bromund, The Daily Signal, "5 Fundamental Flaws in the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty", 07/23/12, https://www.dailysignal.com/2012/07/23/5-fundamental-flaws-inthe-u-n-arms-trade-treaty/ Any nation is free to set its own standards for the import, export, and transfer of arms. If the nations of the world genuinely want higher standards, they can have them right now. The fact that they do not means that many of them are not negotiating the ATT in good faith. And that, in turn, means that the treaty will not constrain them after they sign it. The idea that there is a vast illicit arms trade in the world is a myth: Most arms trafficking is done with the knowledge and the connivance of governments, which describe it as illicit to conceal their culpability (or, on occasion, their administrative incapacity). The U.S. should never negotiate, support, sign, or ratify treaties that are based fundamentally on a lie. Warrant: The treaty is difficult to enforce, and thus, rarely applied. Ben Knight, DW Akademie, "UN's Arms Trade Treaty 'too weak to make a difference'", 11/09/17, https://www.dw.com/en/uns-arms-trade-treaty-too-weak-to-make-adifference/a-40452550 Attending the third Conference of States Parties to the ATT was Amnesty's Rasha Abdul Rahim, who explained that diplomats there still considered the treaty "in its infancy." "I tend to agree that it's too early to tell what the full impact of the treaty is," she told DW. "However, we are really concerned with the business-as-usual approach that we're

Champion Briefs

139

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

seeing with some state parties. We're frustrated that we're not seeing as robust and transparent regulation of the arms trade as we would like." Andrew Smith, spokesman for the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), said there had always been problems with the ATT. "We aren't aware of any arms exports that have actually been stopped by the ATT," he said. "It's evident that the treaty is too weak to make any meaningful difference." But, as Amnesty's Rahim pointed out, "it's really difficult to tell" whether the ATT has had any effect, because "when states don't authorize an arms transfer, they don't usually give a reason for doing so." Several countries including Germany, which ratified the ATT in 2014, have guidelines that the government is supposed to follow when it approves weapons exports, but they remain just that – guidelines, not laws. CAAT were skeptical because the major arms exporting countries had been getting behind the ATT while maintaining, like Germany, that they already had robust arms export controls. The treaty was also being championed by arms companies - not exactly a sign that it was particularly tough. "But there are also major shortcomings in the treaty itself," Smith of the CAAT said. "It's not entirely clear from reading it who would enforce the rules or how they would be enforced, or what would happen to anyone who broke them." Analysis: This mitigates the impact of the argument as the treaty is only as strong as it is enforceable. So, even if the United States adheres to the treaty and that puts pressure on other countries, that does not change that there still isn’t much consequence if a country chooses not to.

Champion Briefs

140

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

PRO: The United States should halt arms sales to punish Saudi Arabia for the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi Argument: The United States should halt arms sales because Saudi government officials murdered an American journalist. Warrant: A journalist was killed in the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul BBC, "Jamal Khashoggi: All you need to know about Saudi journalist's death", 12/11/18, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45812399 On 2 October, Jamal Khashoggi, a well-known journalist and critic of the Saudi government, walked into the country's consulate in Istanbul, where he was murdered. Saudi Arabia's public prosecutor has said Khashoggi was killed inside the building on the orders of a rogue intelligence officer. Turkish officials however say they have evidence, including gruesome audio recordings, that the journalist was killed by a team of Saudi agents on orders that came from the highest levels. His body has not yet been found. The steady stream of disturbing allegations, along with the complex diplomatic situation, means that it can be difficult to keep track of the full story. So here is what we know about the case. Who was Jamal Khashoggi? As a prominent journalist, he covered major stories including the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the rise of Osama Bin Laden for various Saudi news organisations. For decades, the 59-year-old was close to the Saudi royal family and also served as an adviser to the government. But he fell out of favour and went into self-imposed exile in the US last year. From there, he wrote a monthly column in the Washington Post in which he criticised the policies of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS. In his first column for the newspaper, Khashoggi said he feared being arrested in an apparent crackdown on dissent overseen by the prince since he became first in line to succeed his father, King Salman.

Champion Briefs

141

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Warrant: The CIA conclude that the Saudi Crown Prince ordered the assassination Shane Harris, Greg Miller and Josh Dawsey, The Washington Post, "CIA concludes Saudi crown prince ordered Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination", 11/16/18, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-concludes-saudicrown-prince-ordered-jamal-khashoggis-assassination/2018/11/16/98c89fe6e9b2-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html?utm_term=.e9f2d2eec679 The CIA has concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul last month, contradicting the Saudi government’s claims that he was not involved in the killing, according to people familiar with the matter. The CIA’s assessment, in which officials have said they have high confidence, is the most definitive to date linking Mohammed to the operation and complicates the Trump administration’s efforts to preserve its relationship with a close ally. A team of 15 Saudi agents flew to Istanbul on government aircraft in October and killed Khashoggi inside the Saudi Consulate, where he had gone to pick up documents that he needed for his planned marriage to a Turkish woman. In reaching its conclusions, the CIA examined multiple sources of intelligence, including a phone call that the prince’s brother Khalid bin Salman, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, had with Khashoggi, according to the people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the intelligence. Khalid told Khashoggi, a contributing columnist to The Washington Post, that he should go to the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul to retrieve the documents and gave him assurances that it would be safe to do so. Warrant: This situation only reveals the extend of Saudi suppression and violence Bethan McKernan and Julian Borger, The Guardian, "Khashoggi mourners demand jus

Champion Briefs

142

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

tice as Congress urges full US investigation", 10/20/18, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/20/khashoggi-mournersdemand-true-justice-after-saudi-disclosures At the consulate in Istanbul, TuranKışlakçı, president of the Arab Turkish Media Association, said in a speech: “We want Jamal’s murderers to be punished … and punishment also for the authority that gave the orders.” The deputy head of Turkey’s ruling party, Numan Kurtulmuş, vowed that Turkey would “never allow a cover-up” of the killing. “We don’t immediately blame anyone. But we won’t go along with leaving details buried,” he said. Separately, a senior Turkish official told Reuters investigators were close to finding out what happened to Khashoggi’s body. Police were searching Belgrad forest, north of Istanbul, and farmland near Yalova, 55-mile drive south of the city, after using CCTV footage to track two vehicles owned by the Saudi consulate after Khashoggi was killed. Khashoggi’s fiancée, Hatice Cengiz, wrote in a tweet: “The heart grieves, the eye tears, and with your separation we are saddened, my dear Jamal.” Tawakkol Karman, a Yemeni Nobel peace prize laureate, told the Guardian: “Personally I have lost a friend and adviser. But the world has lost an important voice and the Arab Spring one of its most important defenders. “Saudi Arabia wanted to silence him forever but instead he has become an international icon for freedom of expression. This crime cannot go unpunished. Spilling his blood has only made the case stronger against the cruelty and repression of Saudi Arabia.” Impact: The international community will follow our lead Annabelle Timsit, Quartz, "Despite the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, most countries con tinue to sell arms to Saudi Arabia", 10/27/18, https://qz.com/1440586/countries-keep-selling-arms-to-the-saudis-despitekhashoggis-murder/

Champion Briefs

143

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

US allies could impose a significant financial penalty on Saudi Arabia—if they chose to do so. The UK exported at least $1.4 billion worth of arms and equipment to Saudi Arabia in 2017, according to The Washington Post , but this number is probably underestimated, given the British government’s use of an opaque licensing system that makes tracking arms sales more difficult. And in 2017, the French government approved more than $14.7 billion of potential arms sales to the Saudis, and Germany authorized exports worth about $290 million, according to the Post. It’s difficult to expect US allies to lead the way when even the US is continuing to sell arms to the Saudis, despite the fact that Khashoggi was a US resident, with three American children. Saudi Arabia has been the single biggest buyer of US arms since 2013—by far. As such, President Trump has repeatedly ruled out suspending arms exports to the kingdom, despite bipartisan calls to do so, invoking the economic toll of cancelling what he insists is a $110 billion arms deal with the Saudi government.

Analysis: This argument is strategic because it shows how Saudi Arabia’s undemocratic government is harming American citizens as well. You could weigh this argument by asserting that the United States can’t do nothing when presented with evidence that another leader murdered an American citizen.

Champion Briefs

144

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

A/2: The United States should halt arms sales to punish Saudi Arabia for the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi Response: The Saudi Arabian government rejects any connection to the killing. Warrant: The government reported that the objective of the mission was to bring the journalist back to Saudi Arabia alive. The Irish Times, "Saudi prosecutor distances crown prince from Khashoggi killing", 11/15/18, https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/saudiprosecutor-distances-crown-prince-from-khashoggi-killing-1.3698715 Saudi Arabia has absolved Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of any blame in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi but admitted that the veteran journalist was drugged and his body dismembered. As it struggles with its biggest diplomatic crisis in years, Riyadh said on Thursday that it was seeking the death penalty for five of 11 suspects charged in connection with the killing in the kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul last month. The state prosecutor said a team of Saudi officials were sent to the diplomatic mission on October 2nd with the goal of negotiating with Khashoggi and convincing him to return to the country. But a fight broke out between the team and the journalist, who was injected with a sedative and given an overdose that caused his death. Khashoggi’s body was then cut into pieces and moved outside the consulate with the help of a collaborator, said Sheikh Shalaan al-Shalaan, the deputy attorney-general. Warrant: The government also stated the operatives had gone rogue Euan McKirdy, CNN, "Saudi foreign minister says killing of Khashoggi was 'tremendous

Champion Briefs

145

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

mistake'", 10/22/18, https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/21/middleeast/jamalkhashoggi-international-pressure-builds-intl/index.html Saudi Arabia Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir has said the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi was a "tremendous mistake" and part of a rogue operation, adding that his government would punish those responsible for his "murder." "The individuals who did this did this outside the scope of their authority," he told Fox News on Sunday. "There obviously was a tremendous mistake made, and what compounded the mistake was the attempt to try to cover up. That is unacceptable in any government." Jubeir said that Saudi Arabia was taking action to investigate how Khashoggi died and hold those responsible accountable. "We are determined to uncover every stone. We are determined to find out all the facts. And we are determined to punish those who are responsible for this murder," he said. Analysis: This is a good response because it would be unreasonable for the US government to do something so drastic as to cut off all arms sales to Saudi Arabia if there was reasonable doubt that the Saudi Arabian government had anything to do with the murder. Response: Saudi Arabia is already being punished and making changes without US pressure Warrant: Other countries are pressuring Saudi Arabia Daniel Otis, CTV News, "As others condemn Saudi Arabia, Germany takes action", 10/23/18, https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/as-others-condemn-saudi-arabiagermany-takes-action-1.4147222 France joined Germany and the U.K. in a joint Oct. 21 statement condemning Khashoggi’s slaying. “Nothing can justify this killing and we condemn it in the strongest possible terms,” the statement read. “The quality and significance of the

Champion Briefs

146

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

relationship we have with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia also rests with the respect we have for the norms and values to which the Saudi authorities and us are jointly committed under international law.” At an Oct. 22 press conference, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian hinted at potential punitive measures over the Khashoggi affair without elaborating on what they could be. France, Le Drian explained, is awaiting results of further investigations into Khashoggi’s death before taking “necessary measures, if required.” Warrant: Saudi Arabia has already begun to punish those responsible Kevin Sullivan, Loveday Morris, Tamer El-Ghobashy, MSN, "Saudi Arabia fires 5 top officials, arrests 18 Saudis, saying Khashoggi was killed in fight at consulate", 10/20/18, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/saudi-arabia-fires-5-topofficials-arrests-18-saudis-saying-khashoggi-was-killed-in-fight-at-consulate/arBBOCzzO?amp%3Bpage=5 The announcement, which came in a tweet from the Saudi Foreign Ministry, said that an initial investigation by the government’s general prosecutor found that the Saudi journalist had been in discussions with people inside the consulate when a quarrel broke out and escalated to a fatal fistfight. The Saudi government said it fired five top officials and arrested 18 other Saudis as a result of the initial investigation. Those fired included Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s adviser Saud al-Qahtani and deputy intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Ahmed al-Assiri.

Analysis: This is a good response because it shows that the US halting arms sales is not the only thing that can bring about a response from the Saudi government. Additionally, it emphasizes that international condemnation alone has already been enough to get a reaction from the nation.

Champion Briefs

147

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

PRO: Saudi Arabia needs to be punished for their many human rights abuses Argument: The United States should end its arms sales because Saudi Arabia commits many human rights abuses. Warrant: Saudi Arabia continues to repress their citizens Kenneth Roth, World Report, "Saudi Arabia Events of 2017", https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/saudi-arabia Saudi Arabia continued to repress pro-reform activists and peaceful dissidents. In early 2017, authorities arrested human rights activists Essam Koshak, Issa al-Nukheifi, Ali Shaban, and Ahmed al-Musheikhis. Authorities eventually referred Koshak and alNukheifi for trial in the country’s notorious Specialized Criminal Court, the country’s counterterrorism tribunal, on charges solely related to their human rights work. Saudi Arabia continues to use 2014 counterterrorism regulations to suppress political expression and dissent. Over a dozen prominent activists convicted on charges arising from their peaceful activities were serving long prison sentences. Prominent activist Waleed Abu al-Khair continued to serve a 15-year sentence imposed by Saudi Arabia’s Specialized Criminal Court that convicted him in 2014 on charges stemming solely from his peaceful criticism in media interviews and on social media of human rights abuses. Prominent blogger Raif Badawi served the fourth year of his 10-year sentence, but authorities did not flog him in 2016 and 2017, as they previously did in January 2015. Warrant: Selling arms to the Saudi government is more than an economic decision, it is an act of political support.

Champion Briefs

148

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

Noha Aboueldahab, The Globe and Mail, "How can we defend human rights while sell ing arms to Saudi Arabia?", 09/09/18, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-how-can-we-defend-humanrights-while-selling-arms-to-saudi-arabia/ “Arms deals are not merely a financial transaction. They are a powerful expression of political support and partnership between two governments. When Stephen Harper signed the $15-billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia in 2014 – the largest contract in Canada’s history – he attempted to justify the controversial deal by pointing to Saudi Arabia as a partner in the fight against Islamic State. He also argued that cancelling the contract would unjustly punish the 3,000 Canadian workers who manufacture the weapons in London, Ont.” […] Regardless of whether Canadian weapons are actually used in the war on Yemen or not, the fact that the Mr. Trudeau government continues to defend this arms deal sends a very troubling message: Canada supports the protection of human rights, only insofar as it does not harm Canada’s business interests. One would be hard pressed to expect, then, that Saudi Arabia or any other country would take Canada’s statements regarding human rights seriously. Warrant: The best way to condemn the human rights abuses is to stop arms sales Jonathan D. Caverley, The New York Times, "Want to Punish Saudi Arabia? Cut Off Its Weapons Supply", 10/12/18, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/opinion/saudi-arabia-arms-sales.html If American officials really want to encourage a change in Saudi policy, they should begin by looking at Saudi Arabia’s largest imports from the United States: weaponry. Cutting off the flow of American arms to Saudi Arabia would be an effective way to put pressure on Riyadh with little cost to the American economy or national security. President Trump, however, is skeptical. “I don’t like stopping massive amounts of money

Champion Briefs

149

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

that’s being poured into our country,” he said on Thursday. “They are spending $110 billion on military equipment and on things that create jobs for this country.” This figure is vastly inflated, but there’s a reason Mr. Trump is inclined to believe it. While the amount of new deals approved under President Trump is closer to $20 billion, the Saudi government has visibly linked itself as the foremost client of the administration’s export push. Impact: In order to protect America’s moral standing we must punish Saudi Arabia for their illiberal actions Hal Brands, Bloomberg, "Saudi Crisis Shows the U.S. Needs a New Way to Deal With Dictators", 10/15/18, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-1015/khashoggi-crisis-shows-u-s-needs-new-way-to-deal-with-dictators Yet neither should America do what the Trump administration often seems included to do: Give its allies a green light to violate human rights and flout the rule of law. Doing so simply gives incentive for further misdeeds. It erodes U.S. moral standing by leaving Washington vulnerable to charges of selective morality and outright hypocrisy. And as illiberalism spreads, it weakens the liberal ideological glue that helps bind the U.S. to its closest allies; it creates ideological affinities between Washington's friends and its rivals (just look at the warm relationship between Vladimir Putin and Hungary’s strongman, Viktor Orban); it raises the longer-term dangers of serious domestic instability and even revolution. One can hardly look at Turkey or Saudi Arabia today and wonder whether harsh, autocratic rule is not driving up the likelihood of debilitating internal strife. The U.S. must therefore exact a cost, measured but real, on the illiberal actions of its allies. This could mean reducing — but not fully halting — arms sales, speaking out more strongly against repressive behavior, and perhaps even excluding quasi-authoritarian allies such as Hungary from NATO exercises. Also helpful would be quiet but consistent advocacy of respect for basic human rights in bilateral diplomatic

Champion Briefs

150

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

discussions, and — where feasible — increased support for embattled democratic actors through institutions such as the National Endowment for Democracy.

Analysis: This argument is strategic because it extends further than the current issues at hand with Saudi Arabia. It allows you to stretch this topic to a moral question of how the United States should act when faced with immoral allies. This could be easily weighed by arguing that no matter the ends, the means of supporting an illiberal government are not justified.

Champion Briefs

151

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

A/2: Saudi Arabia needs to be punished for their many human rights abuses Response: Saudi Arabia is a critical ally in combatting Iran Warrant: Iran is the largest threat to American interests The Heritage Foundation, "Conclusion: Global Threat Level", 10/04/18, https://www.her itage.org/military-strength/assessing-threats-us-vital-interests/conclusionglobal-threat-level In the Middle East, Iran remains the state actor that is most hostile to American interests. The 2019 Index assesses Iran’s behavior as “aggressive” and its capability as “gathering.” In the years since publication of the 2015 Index, Iran has methodically moved closer to becoming a nuclear power, and it continues to enhance its capabilities relating to ICBMs, missile defense, and unmanned systems. Iran also continues to perpetuate and exploit instability to expand its influence in the region— both in its direct involvement in regional engagements and through its proxies, particularly in Syria. Warrant: Arm sales prevent a relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran The National, "Iran lacks a strategy to counter Saudi influence: Chatham House", 09/13/18, https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/iran-lacks-a-strategy-tocounter-saudi-influence-chatham-house-1.769970 Iran’s proposed route to regional harmony – the creation of a “security networking structure where small and large states in the Persian Gulf contribute together to a

Champion Briefs

152

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

regional security framework – could be seen a “worthy goal” but has so far failed to gain traction. But in light of President Trump’s support, Saudi Arabia has shown no appetite for such engagement. It instead hopes that greater multilateral pressure on Iran will weaken it and perhaps force it to abandon its support for proxy groups throughout the region, including its support for Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian civil war, its military support for the Houthis in the Yemen civil war, its ongoing relationship with Lebanon’s Hezbollah and its relations with Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) in Iraq. Analysis: This is a good response because you could weight that Iran is a bigger threat to United States interests and morality. Additionally, this argument is strategic as, presumably, an alliance between two countries known for their human rights abuses and suppression of their citizens would likely make Saudi Arabia’s current actions worse. Response: Saudi Arabia is a crucial ally in counter terrorism Warrant: Saudi Arabia plays a critical role in counter terrorism efforts US Department of State, "U.S. Security Cooperation With Saudi Arabia", 10/16/18, https://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/fs/2018/279540.htm Saudi Arabia plays a crucial role in maintaining security in the Middle East, due to its economic, political, and cultural importance and its strategic location. Given the complex and dynamic security challenges facing the region, which include countering violent extremism from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as well as other extremist groups, the United States works with Saudi Arabia to support counterterrorism efforts and our shared interest in regional stability. In addition, building on the May 2017 Riyadh Summit, we are working to increase cooperation on maritime security, military preparedness, arms transfers, and cybersecurity. As a result

Champion Briefs

153

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

of U.S. security cooperation, the Kingdom has foiled numerous terrorist attempts against Saudi and foreign targets, and has been able to successfully deter external attacks. The United States remains committed to providing the Saudi armed forces with the equipment, training, and follow-on support necessary to protect Saudi Arabia, and the region, from the destabilizing effects of terrorism, countering Iranian influence, and other threats. Toward that end, the United States will continue to collaborate with Saudi Arabia to improve training for special operations and counterterrorism forces, integrate air and missile defense systems, strengthen cyber defenses, and bolster maritime security. Warrant: Saudi Arabian cooperation has thwarted many attacks VOA, "US, Saudi Arabia Have Leverage on Each Other; Using It Has Costs", 10/16/18, https://www.voanews.com/a/us-saudi-arabia-have-leverage-on-each-otherusing-it-has-costs/4616830.html U.S. officials faulted Saudi Arabia for a slow response to al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, but much changed after bombers hit targets in Riyadh in 2003, prompting a joint campaign that drove al Qaeda from the kingdom. U.S. officials now regard Saudi cooperation on counter-terrorism as invaluable given the human intelligence Saudi operatives provide by exploiting an unrivaled network of tribal and family connections to infiltrate militant strongholds. Tipoffs from Riyadh helped foil a planned suicide bomb attack on a plane over Detroit in 2009 and revealed a bomb disguised as a printer cartridge loaded in Dubai onto a plane bound for Chicago in October 2010.

Analysis: This is a good response because one could argue that human rights abuses would only increase if the Middle East became further destabilized. Additionally, it would be persuasive to

Champion Briefs

154

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2019

argue that terrorist groups probably commit more human rights abuses than the Saudi Arabian government, thus military cooperation to aid in combatting a greater evil is morally justified.

Champion Briefs

155

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

CON: Saudi Arabia checks Iranian Aggression Argument: Saudi Arabia will prevent Iran from acting aggressively towards it neighbors. Warrant: Saudi Arabia is a key ally in Iran’s neighborhood. Cordesman, Anthony. “Saudi Arabia is a critical American security partner in the Middle East.” The Hill. 3/21/18. https://thehill.com/opinion/international/379542-saudiarabia-is-a-critical-american-security-partner-in-the-middle-east Somewhere along the line, we seem to have forgotten that our strategy in the Middle East is dependent on Saudi Arabia as our most important single security partner. Israel’s security is certainly a key American concern, but it does not play an active role in most of America’s ongoing military engagements in the region, in dealing with Iran, or in a direct fight against violent extremist movements like ISIS and Al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia’s role as a strategic partner has also been enhanced by the fact that Egypt and Algeria are focused on their own internal stability and their roles in the region have sharply diminished, and Iraq and Syria both must deal with major instability problems and are at war. Our European allies have declining power projection capabilities, and Turkey’s role in the region is increasingly problematic. Warrant: Saudi Arabia relies on U.S weapons, needs us to check Iran. Ivanova, Irina. “Saudi Arabia is America’s No.1 weapons customer. CBSNews. 10/13/18. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-arabia-is-the-top-buyer-of-u-s-weapons/ The U.S. remains the world's largest weapons exporter, a position it has held since the late 1990s. Our biggest customer? Saudi Arabia. That business reality came to the forefront this week in President Donald Trump's refusal to crack down on the kingdom

Champion Briefs

157

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

whose royal rulers have been accused of murdering a Saudi-born, U.S.-based dissident journalist who disappeared after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. The U.S. sold a total of $55.6 billion of weapons worldwide in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 — up 33 percent from the previous fiscal year, and a near record. In 2017, the U.S. cleared some $18 billion in new Saudi arms deals. Mr. Trump has dismissed the idea of suspending weapons sales to Saudi Arabia to punish its crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman, for any involvement in the alleged murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. "I don't like the concept of stopping an investment of $110 billion into the United States," Mr. Trump said this week.

Impact: Iranian aggression would be devastating for the middle east. Hutchinson, Madyson. “Four Ways Iran is Destabilizing the Middle East.” Newsweek. 10/16/17. https://www.newsweek.com/four-ways-iran-destabilizing-middle-east685960 Proxy wars and undermining of U.S. partners Iran has a long history of backing rebel groups and undermining established regional governments.In Yemen, Iran is seeking to weaken Saudi Arabia’s influence by supporting the Houthi rebels against Saudi and Yemeni forces and against a Saudi-led Arab expeditionary force. The Houthis have carried out attacks on U.S. and U.S.-allied ships in the Red Sea with Iranian-supplied weapons. Iran even threatened to take military action against Saudi Arabia Smuggling of weapons and soldiers Iran was able to capitalize on Iraq’s fight against ISIS and the instability that resulted. In particular, it has created transportation and logistical infrastructure to move soldiers and weapons through Iraq to its proxy forces in Syria and Lebanon. Iran is doing the same in Yemen. One U.S. officer noted that Iran has provided Houthi fighters with a

Champion Briefs

158

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

deadly arsenal of weaponry that has even been used to attack U.S.-allied ships in the Red Sea.Iran has also recruited thousands of Afghan refugees and deployed them as armed volunteer forces to fight alongside President Bashar al-Assad’s troops in Syria. Analysis: Iran has proven itself to be somewhat dangerous and unpredictable. Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest allies of the United States in the region, and they cannot continue to deter regional actors absent the weapons that we provide. To prevent this destabilization of the middle east, we must keep supplying Saudi Arabia with small arms.

Champion Briefs

159

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

A/2: Saudi Arabia checks Iranian Aggression Response: Iran isn’t a threat Stork, Christian. “8 reasons why Iran is NOT a threat.” Business Insider. 9/28/12. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-complete-idiots-guide-to-iran-and-thebomb-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-facts-2012-9 The United States military is the largest, most sophisticated machine of force and violence the world has ever seen. After factoring in foreign military aid and nuclear weapons maintenance, the U.S. spends over an estimated $1 trillion (that's >$1,000 billion) on defense annually. By contrast, Iran spends somewhere between $10-12 billion on defense annually, after factoring in foreign and domestic paramilitary units such as the Revolutionary Guards and Basij—Iran's domestic volunteer militia. This is "less than the United Arab Emirates, and only between 25% to 33% of Saudi defense spending," notes Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. It spends approximately 1/5 of the amount allocated by the six sheikdoms of the Gulf Cooperation Council—America's staunchest regional allies (save for Israel) and the guardians of Western access to crude. Response: Saudi Arabia destabilizes the middle east. Turak, Natasha. “Blame Saudi Arabia and the US for regional instability, Iran’s foreign minister says.” CNBC. 12/15/18. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/15/blamesaudi-arabia-and-the-us-for-regional-instability-irans-foreign-minister-says.html Iran called out its regional rival Saudi Arabia in response to accusations that Tehran is a leading state sponsor of terror, accusing Riyadh and the United States of fomenting 'dangerous escalations' in the Middle East.

Champion Briefs

160

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Speaking to CNBC's Hadley Gamble at the Doha Forum in Qatar, Iranian foreign Minister Javad Zarif rejected the label of the world's top sponsor of terrorism ascribed to it by Saudi Arabia and the U.S. "I think actions speak much louder than words; what is happening in our region, now people are witnessing the source of instability in region, be it in Yemen, be it elsewhere," the minister said. "It's the wrong policies that are being followed, not only by Saudi Arabia but by its allies in the West who have given it a blank check to continue to make these very dangerous escalations in the region," Zarif added. Zarif's hit at Saudi Arabia was unsurprising, given the recent years of escalation between the Shia and Sunni powerhouses grappling for greater influence in the Middle East. His comments referred to the four-year long civil war in Yemen, where a Saudi-led bombing campaign has contributed to thousands of deaths, economic collapse and what the U.N. has called the world's worst humanitarian crisis. For their part, the Saudis have blamed Yemen's Houthi rebels, who receive support from Tehran. Blame game over Yemen Regional analysts say that Iran's support for the Houthis was negligible when they first overtook the capital Sanaa in 2014. Yet the bombing campaign and the war's subsequent worsening greatly increased the scope for Iranian involvement, which includes provision of ballistic missiles — dozens of which have been fired at Saudi Arabia. But with thousands of Yemenis killed and more than 12 million facing starvation, international aid organizations and governments have been urging Saudi Arabia and its allies to halt its airstrikes, which the U.N. blames for the majority of the war's civilian deaths. The offensive is backed by the U.S., which supplies intelligence, logistics support, training and mid-air refueling to Saudi and UAE forces.

Champion Briefs

161

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Five international aid groups penned a statement earlier this month warning that if Washington did not end its support for the Saudi-coalition, it too "will bear responsibility for what will be the largest famine in decades." Response: They’ll get the weapons regardless. Carroll, Oliver. “Russia and Saudi Arabia ‘sign $3bn arms deal’ as King Salman visit shows how much relations have changed.” The Independent. 10/5/17. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-king-salman-visitsaudi-arabia-moscow-vladimir-putin-a7985161.html Russia first announced that it had brokered a $20m (£15m) deal back in 2012. But that deal had several strings attached, namely a demand that the Kremlin could not sell the C-300 missile system to Iran, the Saudis’ major regional rivals. Then, President Putin looked the other way, signing off on a new arms contract with Tehran worth $1bn (£762m).That move underlined the historical distrust between the two countries. The Saudis have been accused for supporting anti-Russian insurgency – whether in mujahedeens against Soviet troops in Afghanistan, or Wahhabist Islamic groups in Chechnya and Dagestan. The presence of Ramzan Kadyrov, Chechnya’s rascal president and keen promoter of rival Sufism ideology, at talks in the Kremlin served as a reminder of those differences. Analysis: Iran is likely not a threat to the U.S. at this time, and is unlikely to lash out at its regional allies. Even if Iran were a threat, Saudi Arabia would still be able to deter them because they’re still a strong nation with the ability to acquire weapons from any other country around the globe.

Champion Briefs

162

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

CON: Saudi Arabia invests in American infrastructure Argument: In exchange for weapons, Saudi Arabia agreed to invest billions in US infrastructure. Warrant: U.S infrastructure is failing. Thomas, Lauren. “Engineers give America’s infrastructure a near failing grade.” CNBC. 3/9/17. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/engineers-give-americasinfrastructure-a-near-failing-grade.html America's infrastructure is close to failing. That's the assessment of the American Society of Civil Engineers, which released its 2017 "infrastructure report card" Thursday, giving the nation's overall infrastructure a grade of D+. The report came a day after President Donald Trump held a high-profile meeting with a group of executives to discuss his campaign pledge to invest a trillion dollars to upgrade the nation's critical infrastructure, such as highways, bridges, airports and dams. Details of any spending plan have yet to be released, and it remains to be seen how the Trump administration will pay for the proposed spending. Warrant: Saudi Arabia has promised 40 billion in infrastructure investment. Dayen, David. “Trump’s ‘America First’ Infrastructure Plan: Let Saudi Arabia and Blackstone take care of it.” The Intercept. 5/27/17. https://theintercept.com/2017/05/27/trumps-america-first-infrastructure-planlet-saudi-arabia-and-blackstone-take-care-of-it/ T H R O UG H O UT T H E PR E S ID E NT I AL campaign, Donald Trump blasted his rival for taking money from Saudi Arabia, which, he regularly charged, has a horrific human rights record and was behind the attack on September 11.

Champion Briefs

163

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

“You talk about women and women’s rights? So these are people that push gays off buildings. These are people that kill women and treat women horribly. And yet you take their money,” he complained. Trump, of course, has never been married to anything he has said in the past. But even by Trumpian standards, a recent series of deals he struck with Saudi Arabia stand out. The two that made the news — a $110 billion arms deal and a $100 million gift to an Ivanka Trump-inspired endowment — are remarkable in their own right. But the third, which was rolled out much more quietly, is no less stunning: The Saudi kingdom joined forces with a top outside adviser to Trump to build a $40 billion war chest to privatize U.S. infrastructure. Impact: Improving American infrastructure would be huge for the economy. Puentes, Robert. “Why Infrastructure Matters: Rotten Roads, Bum Economy.” Brookings Institute. 1/20/15. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-infrastructurematters-rotten-roads-bum-economy/ Cities, states and metropolitan areas throughout America face an unprecedented economic, demographic, fiscal and environmental challenges that make it imperative for the public and private sectors to rethink the way they do business. These new forces are incredibly diverse, but they share an underlying need for modern, efficient and reliable infrastructure. Concrete, steel and fiber-optic cable are the essential building blocks of the economy. Infrastructure enables trade, powers businesses, connects workers to their jobs, creates opportunities for struggling communities and protects the nation from an increasingly unpredictable natural environment. From private investment in telecommunication systems, broadband networks, freight railroads, energy projects and pipelines, to publicly spending on transportation, water, buildings and parks, infrastructure is the backbone of a healthy economy.

Champion Briefs

164

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

A/2: Saudi Arabia invests in American infrastructure Response: Infrastructure investment fails. Smith, Carin. “Corruption can add 40% to infrastructure costs – expert.” Fin24. 11/2/17. https://www.fin24.com/Economy/corruption-can-add-40-to-infrastructurecosts-expert-20171102-2 Rooting out corruption was linked to better infrastructure, he said. “This is the only way African governments will get the private sector to come in and invest [in] infrastructure, because these projects are often just too huge to fund just from raising taxes,” he told Fin24.“It is estimated that corruption can add up to 30% or 40% to initial project estimates. If a country has all this waste due to corruption it might end up never having the economic growth an infrastructure project can bring and instead just battle to get out of its debt," he said. "Then infrastructure is not a solution but part of the problem.” Heathcote emphasised that infrastructure is vital to citizens of a country being able to enjoy their basic human rights like access to transport and electricity. Response: Blackstone is having to offer discounts to incentivize companies to take the Saudi infrastructure money. Vandevelde, Mark. “Blackstone offers discounts on Saudi-backed infrastructure fund.” Financial Times. 6/10/18. https://www.ft.com/content/49aa1610-6992-11e88cf3-0c230fa67aec

Blackstone is using discounts to coax investors into its Saudi-backed infrastructure fund, as the investment group toils to kick-start a $40bn initiative hailed as an early

Champion Briefs

165

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

success for President Donald Trump’s mercantilist foreign policy. Saudi Arabia’s pledge to match up to $20bn in contributions from other investors in power plants, toll roads and similar assets, mostly in the US, was a signature announcement of Mr Trump’s inaugural foreign trip to Riyadh in May 2017. Blackstone hopes to finalise the first investments from other sources this month. The concessions offered by Blackstone — which include introductory discounts, permanent fee breaks and the ability to make some investments without paying Blackstone anything for six years — have come to light as public pension funds in the US states of Pennsylvania and New Mexico reported on their commitments. Analysis: Infrastructure is certainly important, and funding for it has been lower than is desired in the U.S, but throwing money at the problem doesn’t guarantee an immediate solution. If anything, this money could end up at the hands of corrupt businessmen or wasted altogether.

Champion Briefs

166

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

CON: Saudi Arabia will look to other trading partners Argument: If the United States ends its arms deal with Saudi Arabia, they will look eastward for new allies who will sell to them. Warrant: Weapons are the core of the U.S.-Saudi relationship. Hennigan, WJ. “What makes the U.S.-Saudi Relationship So Special? Weapons, Oil, and an army of Lobbyists.” Time. 10/18/18. http://time.com/5428669/saudi-arabiamilitary-relationship/ It’s a cold financial calculation: Saudi money for U.S.-made weaponry results in American jobs. This is President Donald Trump’s rationale in dismissing calls in Congress to halt future arms sales to Saudi Arabia following the mysterious disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi journalist and American resident. “I don’t like the concept of stopping an investment of $110 billion into the United States,” Trump said last week. “All they’re going to do is say, ‘That’s OK. We don’t have to buy it from Boeing. We don’t have to buy it from Lockheed. We don’t have to buy it from Raytheon and all these great companies. We’ll buy it from Russia. We’ll buy it from China,” he said. The 75-year alliance between the two nations has been built on a simple arrangement: American demand for Saudi oil and Saudi demand for American firepower. It is a relationship that is not easily unwound as a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators found out earlier this year when they moved to cut off military assistance to the Saudis in their war against Houthi rebels in Yemen. The United Nations has said that more half of the more than 10,000 people who have been

Champion Briefs

167

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

killed in the three-year old war are civilians, and the lives of millions are potentially at risk from famine.

Warrant: China wants to improve relations with Saudi Arabia. Al-Quiasy, Ahmed. “Saudi-Chinese Rapprochement and Its Effect on Saudi-American Relations.” The Washington Institute. 2/2/18. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/fikraforum/view/saudi-chineserapprochement-and-its-effect-on-saudi-american-relations The first meeting between China and Saudi Arabia, which took place in Oman in 1985, was an initial gesture towards official bilateral relations between the two countries. Before 1990, there were no diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and China, and Saudi Arabia refused to recognize China as a government. However, full diplomatic relations were established after the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, visited Beijing. The two countries exchanged ambassadors, and organized meetings at the political and economic levels. Recently, Saudi Arabia has attempted to deepen its ties with China to widen its economic base and acquire important Chinese political position in regional transformations. This rapprochement has been made clear of by the recent visit of the Saudi monarch, King Salman bin Abdulaziz, to China in March 2017, where he signed deals worth $65 billion. The question poses itself: does Saudi-Chinese closeness indicate the beginning of problem in Saudi-U.S. relations, or can China fill the vacuum occupied by the United States? To answer this question, the nature of the Saudi-Chinese relationship should be examined at both the economic and the security level, and analyzed for its implications on Saudi-U.S. relations.

Champion Briefs

168

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Warrant: A pivot to China is looming. Al-Quiasy, Ahmed. “Saudi-Chinese Rapprochement and Its Effect on Saudi-American Relations.” The Washington Institute. 2/2/18. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/fikraforum/view/saudi-chineserapprochement-and-its-effect-on-saudi-american-relations Economically, the Chinese Deputy Minister for Commerce confirmed last October that both Beijing and Riyadh intend to establish an investment fund of $20 billion. Thus, Saudi Arabia is becoming China’s biggest commercial partner in the Middle East and Africa. Meanwhile, the Saudi Deputy Minister of Economy and Planning said that Saudi institutions are ready to fund partially in yuan, and China is ready to provide the funding. Saudi Arabia started using the yuan instead of U.S. dollar in its oil transactions with China as part of its pivot to China, and to compensate for the future fading role of Washington in the Middle East. During a phone call between the Chinese president and the Saudi King in November 2017, the Chinese President confirmed to the Saudi king that China’s intention to strengthen its strategic partnership with Riyadh. China wants to keep up with the changes occurring in the region, especially the drop in Saudi crude exports to the U.S. to their lowest level in thirty years. China will allow Saudi Arabia to increase its sales in the second-largest oil market in the world, whereas the U.S. has become energy independent. Security-wise, some analysts see Saudi Arabia as trying to create a strategic competition among the great powers to gain weapons and security support, especially after the U.S. appeared to respond weakly to Saudi security and military needs amidst security challenges. This might open the door to China and Russia to exert influence in the region, and coordinate their positions against Washington; thereby making the U.S. either an ineffective player or out of the game in the Middle East. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia is aware that it is impossible in the short term to relinquish the U.S. role in national security to China, which compared to the United States and even Russia, remains less committed

Champion Briefs

169

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

politically and militarily to its friends among the countries of the region. Washington can bear the burden of military deployment, military progress, and coalition building, while China has no such capacity nor the desire to clash with the United States in the Middle East. Rather, China wishes to benefit from American dominance there, which secures shipping routes for export oil to China without China having to make any major investments to protect the region. Amid the current Saudi-Iranian conflict, China is aware that there is no current alternative to American military presence in the Gulf to limit Iranian influence, particularly since relations between Saudi Arabia and the United States have progressed following the election of Donald Trump. Trump is partnering with Saudi Arabia to limit Iranian influence and supports Saudi reforms, whereby Saudi Arabia has begun to expand the number of American banks and other economic ties in the Kingdom. The goal of China’s foreign policy approach is to keep on friendly terms with all the major players and to avoid continual hostility from several risks, including increasing Chinese involvement in the region’s security that would affect American and Russian interests. Accordingly, the Chinese continue to work within their narrow economic self-interest, and they are likely to continue this strategy so long as regional conflicts do not pose a basic risk to Beijing’s plans. In addition, the “Silk Road” initiative is considered a way for China to influence global transformations, and establish economic and cultural partnerships between Beijing and other countries; thereby, strengthening China’s role as a main player in world affairs. Analysis: China has been attempting to curry favors with international leaders as part of their one belt one road policy. Additionally, the relationships between Beijing and Saudi Arabia have been easing after years of silence. If the United States backs away, China will likely fill the void and take the United States’ place as Saudi Arabia’s closest international ally.

Champion Briefs

170

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

A/2: Saudi Arabia will look to other trading partners Response: The U.S. Saudi relationship is strong, even despite the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Ward, Alex. “Why the US won’t break up with Saudi Arabia over Jamal Khashoggi’s murder.” Vox. 11/20/18. https://www.vox.com/2018/10/18/17990546/trumpjamal-khashoggi-saudi-arabia-history-murder President Donald Trump will stand by Saudi Arabia despite mounting evidence that its leadership was behind dissident and journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder last month. In a statement on Tuesday, the president said that “the United States intends to remain a steadfast partner of Saudi Arabia to ensure the interests of our country, Israel and all other partners in the region.” Last week, the CIA reportedly concluded Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the killing of the journalist, who was a US resident, inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Response: The relationship is symbiotic Ward, Alex. “Why the US won’t break up with Saudi Arabia over Jamal Khashoggi’s murder.” Vox. 11/20/18. https://www.vox.com/2018/10/18/17990546/trumpjamal-khashoggi-saudi-arabia-history-murder But Trump and members of his administration continue to back Riyadh because they don’t want to jeopardize billions of Saudi dollars flowing into the US economy through weapons purchases and investments. This isn’t that surprising — for decades, the US has quietly looked away from Saudi Arabia’s human rights abuses for material gain. Trump, however, is making this subtext explicit in a way that no administration has before.

Champion Briefs

171

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Analysis: The relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia goes back decades and will not be shattered by the failure of a single arms deal. If the relationship can survive the murder of American journalists, it can survive the failure of the arms deal.

Champion Briefs

172

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

CON: Saudi Arabia will cease reforms. Argument: Saudi Arabia is making social reforms, but they will stop if the U.S. loses its leverage over their leaders. Abdel Ghafar, Adel. “A New Kingdom of Saud?” Brookings Institute. 2/14/18. https://www.brookings.edu/research/a-new-kingdom-of-saud/ The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is undergoing a process of change in its social, economic, and political structures unseen since its founding in 1932. Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman and a group of close advisors, aided by an army of multinational consultants and investment bankers, have been driving this transformation. Prince Mohammed and his team are seeking to restructure the Saudi economy, lessening its dependence on oil and creating more socioeconomic opportunities for the Saudi people. In 2016, “Saudi Vision 2030” was launched, providing an ambitious blueprint to achieve these goals and more. What are the various dimensions of these ongoing reforms and what are their prospects and challenges? What impact will they have on state-society relations in Saudi Arabia? More importantly, are these reforms part of a genuine nation-building program, or are they a vehicle for Prince Mohammed to solidify his hold on power for decades to come? Warrant: The arms deal gives us leverage to influence policy. French, David. “Arms Deals Give Leverage to America, Not the Saudis.” National Review. 10/18/18. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/arms-deals-give-americaleverage-not-the-saudis/ Of all the talking points justifying American inaction in response to the indescribably brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, perhaps the worst is the idea that the Saudis somehow have leverage over America because of their large-scale arms deals.

Champion Briefs

173

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

The truth is exactly the reverse. The Saudi military is highly dependent on advanced American weaponry. American F15s comprise close to half the Saudi fighter force, and the Saudi variant of the F-15E Strike Eagle represents a substantial portion of the air force’s striking power. On land, the Saudi army is dependent almost exclusively on American M1 Abrams tanks and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles. They can’t just waltz over to a different country and transform their armed forces — not without suffering enormous setbacks in readiness and effectiveness during a years-long transition. A fundamental reality of arms deals is that a major arms purchase essentially locks the purchasing nation in a dependent posture for training, spare parts, and technical upgrades.

Impact: The arms deal can serve as leverage to end rights abuses. Sedaca, Nicole Bibbins. “The United States Should Use Its Leverage Over Saudi Arabia.” Foreign Policy. 11/5/18. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/05/the-unitedstates-should-use-its-leverage-over-saudi-arabia/ The global response to the journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s killing, which has Riyadh on the defensive in the face of international outcry, has opened a window of opportunity to exert leverage over Saudi policy. Last week, the United States began pressuring the kingdom over its role in the war in Yemen. Washington should use this moment to exert pressure on Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to extend his economic reform agenda to the Saudi domestic political and civil rights sphere as well. Khashoggi’s slaying inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last month has garnered two types of responses from U.S. officials and much of the media: up-to-the-minute comments on the investigation and the Saudi response or the contextualization (read: minimization) of his killing within the importance of the U.S.-Saudi relationship. The

Champion Briefs

174

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

former approach falls short of addressing the kingdom’s broader crackdown on journalists and activists, which Khashoggi wrote about and for which he wound up giving his life. The latter fails to recognize that the silencing of dissent undermines Saudi Arabia’s economy, stability, reputational goals, and the human rights of its citizens. U.S. President Donald Trump’s comments after Khashoggi’s death about the importance of the U.S.-Saudi economic and security partnership reflect his disregard or ignorance of the linkage between the political climate and Mohammed bin Salman’s economic goals.

Champion Briefs

175

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

A/2: Saudi Arabia will cease reforms. Response: Reforms are not working Dixon, Rodney. “The world can no longer ignore Saudi Arabia’s human rights abuses.” The Guardian. 10/15/18. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/15/saudi-arabiahuman-rights-jamal-khashoggi-disappearance For the dozens of women and other activists arrested in Saudi Arabia this past year alone, Jamal Khashoggi’s disappearance last week at the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul will not have come as a surprise. For those who have been able to leave the kingdom after speaking out, meanwhile, it has now become overwhelmingly clear that even on the outside they need to be extremely careful. The regime has a knack for using threats against family members as leverage in return for silence; these threats have taken on a new, alarming meaning. The thoroughness of the Saudi regime in silencing opponents has significantly increased since Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman came to power in 2017. I investigated this increase in detentions in a report I co-authored in January this year. We were requested by the families of some of those detained to release our findings in an attempt to get governments and the United Nations to act to have them released. The report found that more than 60 perceived opponents of the Saudi government had been arrested – including prominent human rights defenders – in a major crackdown by the Saudi authorities. To date, no concrete steps have been taken to free them. They remain detained, with the exact whereabouts of many still unknown. Response: The U.S. enables Saudi rights abuses.

Champion Briefs

176

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Yamani, Mai. “Reform in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Brookings Institute. 3/13/08. https://www.brookings.edu/events/reform-in-the-kingdom-of-saudiarabia/#cancel Yamani explained how the U.S.-Saudi Arabian relationship has helped to ensure the Kingdom’s survival in the face of external threats to al-Saud rule. The intimacy of the U.S.-Saudi Arabian relationship, she argued, provides cover for the ruling family’s repressive domestic policies. U.S. support, Yamani held, provides its own form of legitimacy: international standing and stature. Thus, she asserted, the survival of the Saudi regime is not dependent on domestic legitimacy, and the regime is able to shrug off both domestic and international criticism of its deviations from international human norms. However, Yamani noted that, though the United States has a degree of influence over the kingdom’s domestic policies, it is in no manner the country’s “puppeteer.” Yamani noted that the U.S.-Saudi Arabian relationship is likely to remain close as long as the United States believes that its national interests are better met by the familiar Saudi ruling family and the domestic security they guarantee than a more democratic polity.

Champion Briefs

177

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

CON: Arms deals allow for U.S. dominance in weapons trade Argument: Profits from the Saudi arms deal will allow for innovation in small arms and other exported weapons. Warrant: Saudi Arabia purchases more weapons from the U.S. than any other nation. Ivanova, Irina. “Saudi Arabia is America’s No.1 Weapons customer.” CBSNews. 10/13/18. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-arabia-is-the-top-buyer-of-us-weapons/ The U.S. remains the world's largest weapons exporter, a position it has held since the late 1990s. Our biggest customer? Saudi Arabia. That business reality came to the forefront this week in President Donald Trump's refusal to crack down on the kingdom whose royal rulers have been accused of murdering a Saudi-born, U.S.-based dissident journalist who disappeared after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. The U.S. sold a total of $55.6 billion of weapons worldwide in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 — up 33 percent from the previous fiscal year, and a near record. In 2017, the U.S. cleared some $18 billion in new Saudi arms deals. Mr. Trump has dismissed the idea of suspending weapons sales to Saudi Arabia to punish its crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman, for any involvement in the alleged murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. "I don't like the concept of stopping an investment of $110 billion into the United States," Mr. Trump said this week. Warrant: The weapons industry relies on the money from the arms deal. Spetalnick, Matt. “U.S. weapons makers rattled over Saudi Arabia deals.” Reuters. 10/12/18. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-politics-dissident-arms/u-sweapons-makers-rattled-over-saudi-arabia-deals-idUSKCN1MM1VF

Champion Briefs

178

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) and Raytheon Co (RTN.N) have been the most active U.S. defense companies with potential sales to Saudi Arabia since Trump announced the package as part of his “Buy American” agenda to create jobs at home. In Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike are alarmed by the disappearance of Khashoggi, a U.S. resident who wrote columns for the Washington Post. He entered the consulate on Oct. 2 to collect documents for his planned marriage. Saudi officials say Khashoggi left the building shortly afterwards, but his fiancee, Hatice Cengiz, said he never re-appeared. Even before Khashoggi’s unexplained disappearance, Democratic lawmakers had “holds” for months on at least four military equipment deals, largely because of Saudi attacks that killed Yemeni civilians. “This makes it more likely they’ll expand holds to include systems that aren’t necessarily controversial by themselves. It’s a major concern,” the senior administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Impact: U.S global arms dominance is at risk. Bowler, Tim. “Which country dominates the global arms trade?” BBC. 5/10/18. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-43873518 Brutal civil wars in Syria and Yemen, coupled with the return of great power rivalries between the US, Russia and China, have brought the world's arms trade into sharp focus. And unsurprisingly it is a thriving global industry, with the total international trade in arms now worth about $100bn (£74bn) per year, Pieter Wezeman, senior researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri), tells the BBC. In its latest figures, the defence industry think tank says that major weapons sales in the five years to 2017 were 10% higher than in 2008-12.

Champion Briefs

179

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

And it is the United States that is extending its lead as the globe's number one arms exporter, adds Sipri. It estimates that the US now accounts for 34% of all global arms sales, up from 30% five years ago, and are now at their highest level since the late 1990s. "The US has been open to supplying arms to a large variety of recipients, and there are a large number of countries ready to acquire weapons from the US," says Mr Wezeman. The US's arms exports are 58% higher than those of Russia, the world's second-largest exporter. And while US arms exports grew by 25% in 2013-17 compared with 2008-12, Russia's exports fell by 7.1% over the same period. It is Middle East states that have been among the US's biggest customers - Saudi Arabia tops the list - with the region as a whole accounting for almost half of US arms exports during 2013-17. Analysis: The U.S. is able to dominate the global arms market partly because Saudi Arabia purchases so many weapons from the U.S. American weapon manufacturers depend on these sales in order to maintain their current strength.

Champion Briefs

180

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

A/2: Arms deals allow for U.S. dominance in weapons trade Response: Saudi Arabia doesn’t buy as many weapons as suspected. Macias, Amanda. “Saudi Arabia is the top US weapons buyer – but it doesn’t spend as much as Trump boasts.” CNBC. 10/15/18. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/15/saudi-arabia-top-us-weapons-buyer-butdoesnt-spend-as-much-as-trump-boasts.html President Donald Trump has been hesitant to jeopardize U.S. arms deals with Saudi Arabia even as outrage grows over the disappearance of journalist and Saudi royal family critic Jamal Khashoggi. Saudi Arabia is America's No. 1 weapons buyer. Between 2013 and 2017, Riyadh accounted for 18 percent of total U.S. arms sales or about $9 billion, according to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. But a closer look reveals that the sales aren't quite as big as Trump has boasted. The president recently praised Riyadh's ambitions to buy $110 billion worth of U.S.-made arms. But that money hasn't come through yet, according to State Department or Defense Security Cooperation Agency announcements. The president has cited the importance of the nations' relationship, pushing back on potentially slapping retaliatory sanctions on Saudi Arabia over Khashoggi's fate. Saudi Arabia's oil-rich monarchy is one of America's most crucial strategic partners in the Middle East and a significant patron of U.S. defense companies. Response: Selling to Saudi Arabia angers others who bolster dominance in weapons trade like Israel. “Israeli minister expresses concern over U.S.-Saudi arms deal.” Reuters. 5/21/17. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-israel/israeli-minister-expressesconcern-over-u-s-saudi-arms-deal-idUSKBN18H0JW

Champion Briefs

181

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Although Israel also sees Iran as a threat to its security, it has a military advantage over the Arab states and has always been concerned about arms sales to them that could possibly narrow the margin separating them. “This is a matter that really should trouble us,” said Israeli Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz prior to the weekly cabinet meeting, although Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made no mention of the deal in his customary public remarks. A senior U.S. official traveling with Trump said Washington understands what he described as Israel’s “completely legitimate” concerns and pledged to help the Jewish state maintain its military advantage. “We’re taking a whole bunch of measures, some apparent some not so apparent, to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge. That will in no way be compromised,” the official told Reuters. “You’ll hear a really strong statement from the president on his commitment to Israel and to Israel’s defense,” the official added. Analysis: The weapons purchased by Saudi Arabia are not very substantial, and other allies who purchase weapons and defense systems from the U.S. may be angered by Americans supporting an abusive regime.

Champion Briefs

182

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

CON: Cutting arms would lead to Saudi oil retaliation Argument: Ending arms sales would make Saudi Arabia retaliate by cutting off their oil supply to the United States and the rest of the world. Warrant: Saudi Arabia oil supply defies expectations. Kemp, John. “Saudi Arabia's Oil Reserves: How Big Are They Really? Kemp.” Reuters, Thomson

Reuters,

11

July

2016,

www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-oil-

kemp/saudi-arabias-oil-reserves-how-big-are-they-really-kemp-idUSKCN0ZL1X6. If the government data is accurate, the kingdom has managed the remarkable feat of exactly replacing each produced barrel with new discoveries or increased estimates of the amount recoverable from existing fields. But most of the country’s giant and supergiant oil fields were discovered between 1936 and 1970 and no comparable discoveries have been made since then. The implied increase in reserves must therefore come from enhanced estimates of the amount of oil recoverable from existing reservoirs. The problem is that field-by-field production profiles and reserve estimates are state secrets known by only a small group of insiders, making it impossible to test or verify them. Analyzing Saudi reserves and trying to predict when the kingdom’s production will begin to decline has been a graveyard for the reputation of professional oil analysts. The kingdom is currently producing more oil than ever before, defying predictions that its output would peak and then fall (“Twilight in the desert”, Simmons, 2005).

Warrant: Saudi Arabia controls a lot of the global oil supply. Timsit, Annabelle. “Despite the Murder of Jamal Khashoggi, Most Countries Continue to Sell

Arms

Champion Briefs

to

Saudi

Arabia.”

Quartz,

Quartz,

27

Oct.

2018,

183

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

qz.com/1440586/countries-keep-selling-arms-to-the-saudis-despite-khashoggismurder/. According to the 2018 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, in 2017 Saudi Arabia produced 12 million barrels of oil per day. That accounted for 12.9% of the world's oil production, which is in the range of the world's two other major oil production superpowers -- Russia and the U.S. However, there is an important distinction when it comes to Saudi Arabia. In Russia, oil production is concentrated among a dozen or so companies. In the U.S., thousands of companies acting in their own self-interest produce oil. But in Saudi Arabia, all of the oil production is controlled by Saudi Aramco, the stateowned oil company and reportedly the most profitable company in the world. Warrant: Saudi Arabia is threatening the United States if it seeks to punish it. Torchia, Andrew. “Saudi Arabia Says Will Retaliate against Any Sanctions over...” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 15 Oct. 2018, www.reuters.com/article/us-saudipolitics-dissident-sanctions/saudi-arabia-says-will-retaliate-against-anysanctions-over-khashoggi-case-idUSKCN1MO0F1. “Saudi Arabia on Sunday warned against threats to punish it over last week’s disappearance of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, as European leaders piled on pressure and two more U.S. executives scrapped plans to attend a Saudi investor conference. Khashoggi, a U.S. resident and Washington Post columnist critical of Riyadh’s policies, disappeared on Oct. 2 after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Turkey believes he was murdered and his body removed. Saudi Arabia has denied that. U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened “severe punishment” if it turns out Khashoggi was killed in the consulate, though he said Washington would be “punishing” itself if it halted military sales to Riyadh. “The Kingdom affirms its total rejection of any threats and attempts to undermine it, whether by threatening to impose economic sanctions, using

Champion Briefs

184

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

political pressures, or repeating false accusations,” the official Saudi Press Agency (SPA) quoted an unnamed official as saying.”

Impact: Saudi Arabia cutting off oil supply in a similar fashion as to what they have done in the past would quadruple oil prices. Alkhalisi, Zahraa. “Saudi Arabia's Oil Is a Powerful Weapon. But Using It Has Big Risks.” CNN, Cable News Network, 15 Oct. 2018, www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/economy/saudi-arabia-oil-prices/index.html. Forty-five years ago, Saudi Arabia and its allies cut off oil supplies to the United States over its support for Israel. Oil prices quadrupled, delivering a huge shock to the global economy. Now the kingdom is facing threats of punishment over the unexplained disappearance of a Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, and is talking of retaliation if America imposes sanctions. A leading Saudi commentator has even hinted that oil could once again be used as a weapon. Writing in a personal capacity, Turki Aldakhil, general manager of the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya news channel, warned on Sunday that the United States would "stab its own economy to death" and oil prices would soar to $200 a barrel if Washington imposes sanctions on Riyadh.

Analysis: By stopping Arms sales to Saudi arabia, it is believable similarly as they have done in the past that they will retaliate against the United States by restricting their massive amounts of oil. This is devastating considering this resource lacks any competition and therefore scarcity will cause the price to skyrocket.

Champion Briefs

185

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

A/2: Cutting arms would lead to Saudi oil retaliation Answer: Saudi Arabia is transitioning away from oil. Warrant: Saudi government is investing heavily into green energy research. Saadi, Dania. “Saudi Leads Renewable Energy Developments with $7bn in New Tenders.” The National, The National, 23 June 2018, www.thenational.ae/business/energy/saudi-leads-renewable-energydevelopments-with-7bn-in-new-tenders-1.743124.

“Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil exporter, is expected to lead renewable energy developments this year with up to $7 billion worth of new tenders, according to an official from the International Renewable Energy Agency. “Saudi Arabia has huge potential because it has a big market and has very ambitious renewable energy targets,” said Rabia Ferroukhi, head of policy unit at the Abu Dhabi-based agency “The regulatory environment is well established now to conduct auctions and attract investors.” Saudi Arabia is expected to tender over 4 Gigawatts of renewable projects this year, which could be worth anywhere between $5bn to $7bn, she added. Saudi Arabia, which largely burns oil to generate power, has set ambitious targets to add 9.5GW of renewables by 2023, as it looks to sell more of its crude to export markets. The Saudi energy ministry’s renewables office is expected to tender 3.25GW of solar and 800 Megawatts of wind capacity this year alone. Warrant: Saudi Arabia is domestically transitioning to solar farms instead of relying on traditional oil energy to power homes.

Champion Briefs

186

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Saadi, Dania. “Saudi Leads Renewable Energy Developments with $7bn in New Tenders.” The National, The National, 23 June 2018, www.thenational.ae/business/energy/saudi-leads-renewable-energydevelopments-with-7bn-in-new-tenders-1.743124. The country’s government plans to invest up to $7 billion in seven new solar plants and a wind farm by the end of the year, with a goal to get 10 percent of its power from renewables by 2023, The New York Times reported. This week, the government made a deal with ACWA Power, a Saudi energy company, to build a $300 million solar farm in Sakaka, in northern Saudi Arabia, that will power 40,000 homes. The project received bids as low as 2 to 3 cents per kilowatt-hour — lower than the cost of electricity generated from fossil fuels, according to Turki al-Shehri, head of the kingdom’s renewable energy program. Analysis: Saudi Arabia is likely transitioning away from the production of oil as they invest more money into green energy research and implement green energy technology to power their country. This is significant as it means their share in the oil market is likely dwindling. Answer: United States has plenty of oil to supply the world. Warrant: US controls more oil than anyone else on the planet. Cunningham, Nick. “The US Has the Largest Oil Reserves in the World.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 6 July 2016, www.businessinsider.com/us-has-the-worldslargest-oil-reserves-2016-7. “The U.S. holds more oil reserves than anyone else in the world, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela. That conclusion comes from a new independent estimate from Rystad Energy, a Norwegian consultancy. Rystad estimates that the U.S. holds 264

Champion Briefs

187

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

billion barrels of oil, more than half of which is located in shale. That total exceeds the 256 billion barrels found in Russia, and the 212 billion barrels located in Saudi Arabia.”

Warrant: United States is accessing previously inaccessible oil reserves with its advanced technology. Saadi, Dania. “Saudi Leads Renewable Energy Developments with $7bn in New Tenders.” The National, The National, 23 June 2018, www.thenational.ae/business/energy/saudi-leads-renewable-energydevelopments-with-7bn-in-new-tenders-1.743124.

“Utah holds the largest reserves of oil sands in the United States, but up until now, no company had the technology to exploit these vast resources. Despite the potential, “only a few companies are pursuing the price-sensitive and water-intensive development of the state's oil shale and oil sand resources,” the EIA said in a 2017 report on the state, essentially writing off the region as a meaningful opportunity. But that could change in the very near future. Petroteq Energy hopes to bring the first commercially profitable oil sands production online in the United States in the next few weeks. “

Analysis: The United States would likely be able to face retaliation by Saudi Arabian government if they were to restrict oil trades to the United States or rest of the international community.

Champion Briefs

188

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

CON: Ending Saudi Sales risks crippling US-Saudi Alliance Argument: Arms sales allow for the United States and Saudi alliance to remain strong. Warrant: Weapon sales is a huge part of U.S. Saudi relations Hennigan, W.J. “U.S.-Saudi Relationship Built on Oil, Weapons, Lobbying.” Time, Time, 18 Oct. 2018, time.com/5428669/saudi-arabia-military-relationship/. The Saudi-U.S. relationship is peerless when it comes to arms sales. The kingdom buys more American weapons than any other nation. Saudi Arabia accounted for nearly one-fifth of American of all weapons exports over the past five years, according to a recent report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The Pentagon has a team of U.S. service members based out of the capital Riyadh wholly dedicated the “management and administration of Saudi Arabian Foreign Military Sales.” It serves as a direct pipeline to move weapons from U.S. arms manufacturers into the arms of the Saudi military. The U.S. military’s Joint Advisory Division works alongside commanders in each branch of the Saudi military to help fill their weapons needs. Once the Saudis commit to what they want — tanks, attack helicopters, missiles, ships, laser-guided bombs — the arms packages must be OK’d by the U.S. Defense and State Departments, and approved by Congress. The arrangement falls under the U.S. Military Training Mission to Saudi Arabia, which is led by a two-star American general. The mission is primarily designed to bolster Saudi Arabia against arch-rival Iran in order to assert power and influence in the Middle East. Warrant: Saudi Arabia is crucial ally in the Middle East. Gould, Joe. “Mattis, Pompeo Back Saudi Arabia Ahead of Vote to End Military Support in Yemen War.” Defense News, Defense News, 29 Nov. 2018,

Champion Briefs

189

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

www.defensenews.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/11/28/mattis-pompeoback-riyadh-ahead-of-vote-to-cut-off-military-support-in-yemen-war/. Mattis, in prepared remarks released by the Pentagon, said told senators that morning that cutting off U.S. military support would undercut diplomatic efforts to end Yemen’s civil war. It’s necessary to demand accountability for Khashoggi’s murder “while recognizing the reality of Saudi Arabia as a necessary strategic partner,” he said. “I must note we are seldom free to work with unblemished partners. Long-standing relationships guide but do not blind us,” Mattis said. “Saudi Arabia, due to geography and the Iranian threat, is fundamental to maintaining regional and Israeli security, and to our interest in Mid-East stability." Mattis and Pompeo both said the U.S. is on the verge of starting peace talks.

Impact: Saudi Arabia alliance provides crucial amount of oil to the United States. Alkhalisi, Zahraa. “Saudi Arabia's Oil Is a Powerful Weapon. But Using It Has Big Risks.” CNN, Cable News Network, 15 Oct. 2018, www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/economy/saudi-arabia-oil-prices/index.html. Forty-five years ago, Saudi Arabia and its allies cut off oil supplies to the United States over its support for Israel. Oil prices quadrupled, delivering a huge shock to the global economy. Now the kingdom is facing threats of punishment over the unexplained disappearance of a Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, and is talking of retaliation if America imposes sanctions. A leading Saudi commentator has even hinted that oil could once again be used as a weapon. Writing in a personal capacity, Turki Aldakhil, general manager of the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya news channel, warned on Sunday that the United States would "stab its own economy to death" and oil prices would soar to $200 a barrel if Washington imposes sanctions on Riyadh.

Champion Briefs

190

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Impact: Americans are safer from terrorism because of U.S. Saudi alliance. Pregent, Michael. “Saudi Arabia Is a Great American Ally.” Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy, 20 Apr. 2016, foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/20/saudi-arabia-is-a-great-americanally-not-iran/. U.S. intelligence and security officials have been particularly effusive in describing the important role Saudi Arabia has played in cutting off the sophisticated global network of illicit finance used by terrorists. According to the State Department, “Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s lack of success in Saudi Arabia can be attributed to the Saudi government’s continued domestic and bilateral efforts to … counter terrorism and violent extremist ideologies.” The truth is plain: Americans are safer today because the kingdom has foiled numerous al Qaeda terrorist plots targeting the U.S. homeland. Adam J. Szubin, Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, recently praised the kingdom’s aggressive stance against terrorism as reflecting “the strength of U.S. and Saudi cooperation on countering the financing of terrorism.”

Analysis: It may be true Saudi Arabia is not the best ally, it is still absolutely necessary we preserve the United Saudi Arabian alliance as it allows for greater security and intelligence in the United States’ quest to create stability within the Middle East. Ending arms sales would ultimately cripple this alliance.

Champion Briefs

191

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

A/2: Ending Saudi Sales risks crippling US-Saudi Alliance Answer: This alliance is obsolete. Warrant: We do not need Saudi Arabia for countering Iran Ward, Alex. “Why the US Won't Break up with Saudi Arabia over Jamal Khashoggi's Murder.” Vox.com, Vox Media, 20 Nov. 2018, www.vox.com/2018/10/18/17990546/trump-jamal-khashoggi-saudi-arabiahistory-murder. One thing you hear is that the Saudis are valuable allies against Iran. But that’s backward. The Saudi-Iranian rivalry is very intense, and we are valuable to Saudi Arabia as allies against Iran. The leverage here is entirely in our corner. As the country that’s located on another continent and that doesn’t admire either country’s political system, we have the option of moving to a more neutral position between these two countries unless the Saudis do what we want. Fear that Americans would realize this is what drove think tanks funded by the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates into such a frenzy of opposition to President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Resolving the nuclear issue would have set the stage to make a more neutral US posture at least theoretically possible, which, in turn, would have given the US a very strong upper hand vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia. But the Gulf states, working with Israel, got Republicans to scuttle the deal in a way that has made the world less safe from nuclear proliferation but serves their narrow regional political agenda. Warrant: The new leadership in Saudi Arabia is not interested in becoming more democratic. Henderson, Simon. “Saudi Arabia Hits the Brakes on Reforms.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 22 May 2018,

Champion Briefs

192

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/saudi-arabia-hits-thebrakes-on-reforms/560870/. “MbS, it seems, isn’t really interested in change. Arresting the activists is the way that Saudi Arabia would and did behave in the past: In 1990, several dozen women were arrested for driving through Riyadh. But today’s Saudi Arabia is meant to be different, and MbS is supposed to be a different kind of royal. The world’s hopes are on him to create a modern Saudi Arabia, able to detach itself from its conservative theocratic underpinnings. After these latest arrests, his ability to satisfy those hopes is in doubt.” Analysis: Rather than preserving an alliance that the United States and the global community gains very little from, the U.S. should seek to pressure Saudi Arabia into reforming its government and aggressive behavior in the Middle East. Only by cutting arms sales can we use our leverage to force the country to rethink their geopolitical role in the world Answer: Saudi Arabia is a bad ally. Warrant: There is evidence to show Saudi Arabia is partially responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Revesz, Rachael. “Saudi Government 'Funded a Dry Run' of 9/11'.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 10 Sept. 2017, www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/911-saudi-governmentembassy-dry-run-hijacks-lawsuit-cockpit-security-a7938791.ht “The Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington DC may have funded a “dry run” of the 9/11 attacks, according to evidence submitted to an ongoing lawsuit against the Saudi government. As reported by the New York Post, the embassy might have used two of its employees for the so-called dry run before a dozen hijackers flew two planes into the Twin Towers, killing nearly 3,000 people in 2001. The complaint, filed on behalf of 1,400

Champion Briefs

193

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

family members of the victims, stated that the Saudi Government paid two nationals, posing as students in the US, to take a flight from Phoenix to Washington and test out flight deck security before 9/11.” Warrant: A lot of U.S. given to Saudi Arabia ends up in the hands of the Islamic State. Mckernan, Bethan. “Isis Arms Traced Back to America and Saudi Arabia.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 15 Dec. 2017, www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-us-saudi-arabia-armsfighters-jihadis-military-capability-enhanced-weapons-syria-terrorisma8112076.html. An extensive field investigation into the origins of Isis’ weaponry in Syria and Iraq has found that weapons supplied by the US and Saudi Arabia to the Syrian opposition often ended up in the jihadis’ hands, enhancing the “quantity and quality” of their armaments. While most weapons in Isis’ arsenal were captured from the Syrian and Iraqi armies, Conflict Armament Research (CAR)’s report, published on Thursday, found that the number of US and Saudi supplied weapons in Isis’ arsenal goes “far beyond those that would have been available through battle capture alone”. “Iraq and Syria have seen Isis forces use large numbers of weapons, supplied by states such as Saudi Arabia and the United States, against the various international anti-Isis coalitions that the two states support,” researchers found. Analysis: Saudi Arabia is responsible for funding terrorist organizations that have in the past and still today preach hatred towards the United States and its allies. Rather than continuing to fund an enemy, the U.S. should seek to pressure the regime to stop them from taking actions against American interests.

Champion Briefs

194

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

CON: Sales help Saudi fight ISIS Argument: Saudi is currently helping us rebuild the Middle East and destroy the Islamic State, ending arms sales could hurt our alliance and ability to destroy the terrorist organization. Warrant: Saudi Arabia is effectively using its military to fight ISIS Kaja, Bill. “Saudi Arabia | Saudi Arabia Joins the Fight Against ISIS and Attacks Rebels in Yemen.” Saudi Arabia Joins the Fight Against ISIS and Attacks Rebels in Yemen, Infoplease, 2018, www.infoplease.com/world/countries/saudi-arabia/saudiarabia-joins-the-fight-against-isis-and-attacks-rebels-in-yemen. “In September 2014, Saudi Arabia joined the U.S.-led campaign in Syria against the radical Islamist group ISIS, which seeks to establish an Islamic state in the Middle East ruled by strict shariah law. Houthi rebels gained considerable ground in Yemen in 2014 and 2015. In January 2015, they took over the capital, Sana, placed Yemeni president Abdel Rabbo Mansour Hadi under house arrest. The rebels then moved further south, engaging in battles with government troops. In an attempt to stop the Houthis from advancing further, Saudi Arabia led a coalition of Arab states in an offensive on Houthi targets in Yemen in late March 2015. More than 100 Saudi jets were involved in the airstrikes. A Saudi-led airstrike hit a camp for displaced civilians on March 30, killing as many as 40 people. The operation, called Decisive Storm, continued well into April but failed to stop the Houthis' advance. The fighting claimed hundreds of civilian lives, displaced as many as 150,000, and destroyed neighborhoods. An embargo of food and medicine, which the Saudis enforced, created a humanitarian crisis. On April 21, Saudi Arabia said the campaign, having achieved its goals, was over and the country would focus on a political solution. However, the main goals of the operation, to return President Hadi to office and rout the Houthis, were not achieved. Saudi Arabia resumed airstrikes the next day.”

Champion Briefs

195

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Warrant: The relationship the United States has with Saudi Arabia allows it to help contribute to the fight against ISIS. Donati, Jessica. “Saudi Arabia to Contribute $100 Million to U.S.-Backed Efforts in Syria.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 17 Aug. 2018, www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-arabia-to-contribute-100-million-to-u-s-backedefforts-in-syria-1534469569. Saudi Arabia has agreed to contribute $100 million in aid to U.S.-backed coalition efforts in Syria, the State Department said Thursday, following attempts by the Trump administration to push Arab allies to play a greater role in the war. The sum appeared to fall short of U.S. requests for Arab money and troops earlier this year, but represented a step in Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the Syrian conflict that has drawn in rival powers, including Iran and Russia, and displaced millions of people. Warrant: Saudi Arabia is currently working to stabilize Syria. Sonne, Paul, and Karen DeYoung. “Trump Wants to Get the U.S. out of Syria's War, so He Asked the Saudi King for $4 Billion.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 16 Mar. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-wants-toget-the-us-out-of-syrias-war-so-he-asked-the-saudi-king-for4billion/2018/03/16/756bac90-2870-11e8-bc72077aa4dab9ef_story.html?utm_term=.1f440ffee192. “In a December phone call with Saudi Arabia’s King Salman, President Trump had an idea he thought could hasten a U.S. exit from Syria: Ask the king for $4 billion. By the end of the call, according to U.S. officials, the president believed he had a deal. The White House wants money from the kingdom and other nations to help rebuild and

Champion Briefs

196

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

stabilize the parts of Syria that the U.S. military and its local allies have liberated from the Islamic State. The postwar goal is to prevent Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his Russian and Iranian partners from claiming the areas, or the Islamic State from regrouping, while U.S. forces finish mopping up the militants. The Saudis, whose crown prince arrives in Washington on Monday for extensive meetings with the administration, are part of the anti-Islamic State coalition but have largely withdrawn from the fight in Syria in recent years. They are questioning the eye-popping sum even as U.S. officials at one point were drawing up line items totaling $4 billion.”

Impact: ISIS participates in the slave trade. “ISIS Fast Facts.” CNN, Cable News Network, 20 Dec. 2018, www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/world/isis-fast-facts/index.html. In 2014, ISIS controlled more than 34,000 square miles in Syria and Iraq, from the Mediterranean coast to south of Baghdad. At the end of 2016, ISIS territory had shrunk to about 23,320 square miles, according to IHS Jane's. In 2015, ISIS was believed to be holding 3,500 people as slaves, according to a United Nations report. Most of the enslaved were women and children from the Yazidi community, but some were from other ethnic and religious minority communities. ISIS's revenue comes from oil production and smuggling, taxes, ransoms from kidnappings, selling stolen artifacts, extortion and controlling crops. Analysis: The United States and Saudi Arabia have been working together to destroy the Islamic State by ending arms sales we risk hurting this key alliance that is critical for the future of Middle East security. The Islamic State trafficks thousands women and children and ensuring the defeat of the organization ensures their safety.

Champion Briefs

197

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

A/2: Sales help Saudi fight ISIS Answer: Saudi Arabia is helping ISIS gain more power Warrant: Many of the aid we give to Saudi Arabia ends up in the hands of the Islamic State. Mckernan, Bethan. “Isis Arms Traced Back to America and Saudi Arabia.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 15 Dec. 2017, www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-us-saudi-arabia-armsfighters-jihadis-military-capability-enhanced-weapons-syria-terrorisma8112076.html. An extensive field investigation into the origins of Isis’ weaponry in Syria and Iraq has found that weapons supplied by the US and Saudi Arabia to the Syrian opposition often ended up in the jihadis’ hands, enhancing the “quantity and quality” of their armaments. While most weapons in Isis’ arsenal were captured from the Syrian and Iraqi armies, Conflict Armament Research (CAR)’s report, published on Thursday, found that the number of US and Saudi supplied weapons in Isis’ arsenal goes “far beyond those that would have been available through battle capture alone”. “Iraq and Syria have seen Isis forces use large numbers of weapons, supplied by states such as Saudi Arabia and the United States, against the various international anti-Isis coalitions that the two states support,” researchers found. Warrant: Saudi Arabia has past of stoking anti American fears validating the Islamic State’s narrative. Byman, Daniel. “The U.S.-Saudi Arabia Counterterrorism Relationship.” Brookings.edu, The Brookings Institution, 10 May 2017, www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-us-saudi-arabia-counterterrorism-relationship/.

Champion Briefs

198

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Perhaps most important, Saudi Arabia is home to many preachers and religious organizations that embrace sectarianism and oppose a U.S. role in the Middle East. A number of prominent Saudi preachers regularly condemn Shi’a Muslims, thus validating the Islamic State’s sectarian campaign and otherwise increasing its legitimacy. Some also blame the United States for a host of ills, embracing conspiracy theories such as the Bush administration being behind the 9/11 attacks. There is relative progress, however, in that many senior religious leaders do urge Saudis not to be foreign fighters or otherwise participate in conflicts abroad, arguing instead that local Muslims or state authorities should be the ones to respond. Analysis: Rather than helping the United States destroy the Islamic State, the Saudi government has been helping the organization gain further power in the Middle East. By giving further aid to the Saudi government we risk empowering ISIS and putting further individuals at risk of violence in the region. Answer: ISIS is already weak Warrant: ISIS has lost a majority of its funds already The Economist. “The caliphate cracks.” The Economist. March 21, 2015. NP. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21646750-though-islamic-state-stillspreading-terror-its-weaknesses-are-becoming-apparent “America and its allies have bombed lucrative oil facilities. Most of the hostages have been sold or murdered in video-recorded beheadings. Now that IS’s forces are retreating, the loot of conquest has dried up. Some analysts reckon it may have lost up to 75% of its revenues. That makes it harder for IS to keep fighting and to provide services to the roughly 8m people living under its rule.”

Champion Briefs

199

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Warrant: Coalition airstrikes on ISIS have been effective. Barbara Starr, CNN Pentagon Correspondent, CNN, January 22, 2015, http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/22/politics/us-officials-say-6000-isis-fighterskilled-in-battles/ The coalition fighting ISIS has killed more than 6,000 fighters, including half of the top command of the terror group, U.S. diplomatic officials said Thursday. The number of fighters killed has not been publicly discussed before but was disclosed by the U.S. ambassador to Iraq Stuart Jones, who told Al Arabiya television earlier in the day that an estimated 6,000 fighters have been killed. Jones said the military effort was having a "devastating" impact on ISIS.” Analysis: ISIS has been effectively weakened in the status quo. This is important as it means it is no longer crucial for Saudi Arabia to cooperate in the fight against the Islamic State. Rather than supporting a government that commits human rights violations, we should pressure them to change their behavior towards their citizens.

Champion Briefs

200

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

CON: Arms sales help us balance the trade deficit Argument: Saudi arms sales help us balance our trade deficit which bring along numerous tangential benefits Warrant: The US is running a trade surplus with Saudi Arabia “Saudi Arabia.” Summary of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement | United States Trade Representative, Office of the US Trade Representative, ustr.gov/countriesregions/europe-middle-east/middle-east/north-africa/saudi-arabia. U.S. goods and services trade with Saudi Arabia totaled an estimated $45.6 billion in 2017. Exports were $25.5 billion; imports were $20.1 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade surplus with Saudi Arabia was $5.4 billion in 2017. Saudi Arabia is currently our 22nd largest goods trading partner with $35.2 billion in total (two way) goods trade during 2017. Goods exports totaled $16.3 billion; goods imports totaled $18.9 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Saudi Arabia was $2.5 billion in 2017. Trade in services with Saudi Arabia (exports and imports) totaled an estimated $10.4 billion in 2017. Services exports were $9.2 billion; services imports were $1.2 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with Saudi Arabia was $8.0 billion in 2017. Warrant: A trade surplus with Saudi Arabia presents unique strategic implications Roberts, Ken. “Bragging Rights For Trump: U.S. Has $1 Billion Trade Surplus With Saudi Arabia, 1st Foreign Stop.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 20 May 2017, www.forbes.com/sites/kenroberts/2017/05/19/bragging-rights-for-trump-u-shas-1-billion-trade-surplus-with-saudi-arabia-1st-foreign-stop/#450af13732df.

Champion Briefs

201

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

I will get to the strategic implications in a minute but here's what is remarkable about that trade surplus: Two years before, in 2014, the trade deficit the United States had with Saudi Arabia was the sixth largest with any country in the world. In size, it trailed only U.S. deficits with China, Canada, Mexico, Japan and Germany, the nation's five largest overall trade partners. The U.S. deficit with Saudi Arabia stood at $28.34 billion. Two years later, in 2016, the United States ran a $1.10 billion trade surplus with Saudi Arabia, according to U.S. Census data analyzed by WorldCity, the company where I serve as president. I have been looking at trade data for well over a decade. I don't ever recall seeing such a significant turnaround in such a short period of time. So, in 2016, the United States was able to add Saudi Arabia to the list of 135 other nations with which it had a trade surplus. We had deficits with 101. But given its reduced economic stature with the United States could offer incentive for both sides on the political side, perhaps providing leverage to President Trump on arms sales or in dealing with Iran and Syria. Let's see..”

Warrant: A trade deficit carries massive consequences McBride, James. “The U.S. Trade Deficit: How Much Does It Matter?” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, 17 Oct. 2017, www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-trade-deficit-how-much-does-it-matter. Peter Navarro, a senior advisor to the president on trade and industry, believes that the deficit threatens national security in that the United States depends on foreign debt and foreign investment to finance it. The administration has made lowering the deficit with Mexico a priority in its current renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It has also signaled that it will move aggressively to combat practices the WTO considers unfair, such as dumping, in which countries subsidize products, such as steel, and sell them abroad for less than their market value. Some

Champion Briefs

202

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

economists worry about the consequences of large and persistant imbalances. The Peterson Institute’s Gagnon warns that the debt necessary to finance the deficit is heading toward unsustainable levels. Former Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke and Jared Bernstein, an economic advisor to Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, have argued that the large inflows of foreign capital that accompany trade deficits can lead to financial bubbles and may have contributed to the U.S. housing crash that began in 2006. Others note that a growing deficit has been associated with a weak economy, as in the early 2000s, which they say is evidence of the potential for a large deficit to drain demand from the domestic economy and slow growth when the economy is performing under its potential. Analysis: This argument offers a lot of inroads into a cool economic argument about the trade deficit. For those who competed on the January topic, prep pertaining to the national debt and the importance of prioritizing it could come in handy when reading this argument.

Champion Briefs

203

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

A/2: Arms sales help us balance the trade deficit Answer: Trade deficits don’t matter in the long run Warrant: Trade deficits are a normal aspect of trade and nothing to worry about Zarroli, Jim. “America Has A Large Trade Deficit, But Economists Aren't Too Concerned About It.” NPR, NPR, 28 Mar. 2018, www.npr.org/2018/03/28/597688347/america-has-a-large-trade-deficit-buteconomists-arent-too-concerned-about-it. The United States buys a lot of products from other countries, everything from oil and chemicals to shoes and automobiles, and when it does, it pays for them in dollars, she notes. As a result, countries such as China and Japan accumulate vast piles of U.S. currency. Those countries have to exchange those dollars for something, and for a long time they've used them to buy U.S. assets, such as stock, real estate and Treasury bills. Bilateral trade deficits — such as last year's $375 billion U.S. goods gap with China — are even less important, says Alan Blinder, a former Federal Reserve governor and a professor of economics. "They're absolutely normal components of trade. I now have a very large bilateral trade surplus with my employer, Princeton University, which gives me a paycheck, and I buy almost nothing from the university," Blinder says. "I have a bilateral deficit with the grocery store, where I buy lots of food and they buy nothing from me. That's the way trade goes," he says. Blinder says trade deficits can become a problem if foreigners suddenly stop wanting to invest in a country. That's what happened to Greece, he notes.

Warrant: Trade deficits are not an indication of poor economic performance, it’s quite the opposite

Champion Briefs

204

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Murphy, John G. “Trade Deficit Truths.” U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 6 Feb. 2018, www.uschamber.com/series/above-the-fold/trade-deficit-truths. The trade deficit is a poor measure of whether a particular set of trade policies—or trade agreements—is delivering benefits to the American people. The vast majority of economists agree that “foreign import barriers and exports subsidies are not the reason for the US trade deficit,” as Martin Feldstein, who chaired President Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1982 to 1984, recently wrote. In fact, a trade deficit is often a sign of economic good health, signaling that purchasing power is strong and consumers are optimistic enough to spend—just as we are seeing today. Historically, the U.S. trade deficit has expanded when the U.S. economy has grown faster than those of our major trading partners, as in the expansions of the 1980s and 1990s. By contrast, the U.S. current account has moved in the direction of a surplus in recessions, as happened in the Great Depression and the 2007-2009 recession. The U.S. trade deficit reflects broad macroeconomic factors, not foreign trade barriers. Examining the relationship between trade balances and trade barriers across 125 countries, researchers at the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that “between 2003 and 2014, those with higher tariffs generally had bigger current account deficits or smaller surpluses than others…. They couldn’t find any statistically meaningful link between the two.” Impact: Too much focus on trade deficits could be detrimental for the US McBride, James. “The U.S. Trade Deficit: How Much Does It Matter?” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, 17 Oct. 2017, www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-trade-deficit-how-much-does-it-matter.

Champion Briefs

205

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Many economists stress that trade boosts the overall economy by lowering prices and increasing productivity. As the Hoover Institution’s Russ Roberts writes, trade, by directing resources to where the economy is most competitive, creates new opportunities and society-wide advances that improve life for everyone in often unforeseen ways. Rather than protecting struggling industries, he says, policy should focus on giving people the skills to compete and flourish in an ever-changing world. Economists also note that traditional ways of measuring economic health, such as gross domestic product (GDP) and trade statistics, have difficulty accounting for the rapid growth of the digital economy and the new types of jobs it created. Irwin and others worry that too much focus on the trade deficit could lead to a revival of protectionism and a new global trade war that would make everyone worse off, especially in an era of supply chains that cross many borders. Promises that restrictions on imports from China or elsewhere will revive manufacturing, they say, ignore that technology plays a much larger role in deindustrialization than does trade, and that the U.S. economy began shifting away from manufacturing long before the proliferation of trade agreements in the 1990s. Instead, the Peterson Institute’s Hufbauer counsels, it is better to recognize that the trade deficit is neither all good or all bad, but rather consists of trade-offs: the U.S. economy benefits from foreign goods and investment even as a high deficit displaces some workers and adds to the national debt. Analysis: At the end of the day, the United States runs a trade deficit with 101 countries and it has contributed to no long term consequences. Trade deficits are a normal product of trade and shouldn’t be something that we base policy decisions on.

Champion Briefs

206

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

CON: Ending Arms sales incentivizes a Chinese Pivot Argument: Without US arms, Saudi Arabia would look to other trading partners such as China, which would carry seismic consequences. . Warrant: US retaliation over Khashoggi’s death could push the Saudi’s to China Zheng, Sarah. “Trump Fears China Could Replace US in Arms Sales to Saudi. He Shouldn't.” South China Morning Post, South China Morning Post, 18 Oct. 2018, www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2168849/china-may-seek-boostties-saudi-arabia-it-cant-fill-us-arms. “Saudi Arabia has long sought to diversify away from its reliance on the US and has increasingly stepped up its engagement with China, its largest trading partner with US$42.36 billion in bilateral trade in 2017. Last March, the two countries also signed US$65 billion worth of deals in areas ranging from energy to space technology. The Arab nation could turn to countries such as China and Russia to help fulfil its military needs if US sanctions were imposed, a step that would “create an economic disaster that would rock the entire world”, according to a widely cited opinion piece by the general manager of the Saudi-owned Al Arabiya news channel. “Part of the reason why [Saudi Arabia] is diversifying is there’s been so many kinds of structural changes in the relationship with the US,” Fulton said. “Another important part is just obviously the commercial relationship and economic relationship between these Gulf states and China, with these energy exports. We’re seeing a lot more engagement both ways.” Warrant: A Sino-Saudi alliance could be dangerous

Champion Briefs

207

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Ramani, Samuel. “The Risks of the China-Saudi Arabia Partnership.” The Diplomat, The Diplomat, 17 Feb. 2018, thediplomat.com/2018/02/the-risks-of-the-china-saudiarabia-partnership/. “While U.S. opposition is the largest immediate obstacle to China-Saudi Arabia economic cooperation, a shift in the economic conditions that have allowed Chinese investments to grow in Saudi Arabia could also weaken the partnership. In recent years, Chinese investors have made inroads in Saudi Arabia because of their willingness to directly cooperate with Saudi government enterprises, and provide capital to potentially risky economic diversification projects. While these advantages remain intact, the nature of Saudi Arabia’s privatization strategy and success of Riyadh’s “Look East” strategy could eventually erode China’s privileged position. Although China will likely benefit from the upcoming Aramco IPO deal, extensive privatization outside the energy sector could weaken Beijing’s competitive position relative to the United States. If Mohammed bin Salman exercises restraint and embraces a cautious privatization plan, China’s business interests will be given a critical boost. Chinese technology companies like Alibaba and Tencent are conglomerates that can more effectively withstand state interference than their American counterparts, and will be able to leverage this advantage to entrench their dominance over time. To compound China’s vulnerabilities in a rapid privatization scenario, Saudi policymakers view China as one of many potential investors in the Asia-Pacific region, and will work to prevent Beijing from gaining excessively large ownership stakes in infant industries developing within Saudi Arabia’s non-oil sectors. The Saudi monarchy’s circumspect attitude toward Chinese investment can be explained by Riyadh’s concerns that China will attempt to eventually convert its economic influence in Saudi Arabia into political influence, like it has in countries like Pakistan and the Philippines.”

Warrant: China is paving new roads in their partnership with Saudi Arabia

Champion Briefs

208

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Wagner, Daniel, and Giorgio Cafiero. “Is the U.S. Losing Saudi Arabia to China?” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 23 Jan. 2014, www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-wagner/is-the-us-losing-saudiar_b_4176729.html On the China question, Saudi Arabia has diversified its trading partners over the past quarter century - away from the U.S. and toward Asia. In 2009 Saudi exports to China exceeded those to the U.S. for the first time, and the Kingdom exports in excess of three times more to five Asian countries (China, Japan, South Korea, India and Singapore) than to Europe and North America combined. By 2030 Chinese demand for oil is expected to reach more than 16 million barrels per day, while U.S. demand is expected to decrease, and U.S. oil imports are expected to dwindle in the age of fracking. Within the context of Chinese demand, Saudi Aramco’s CEO stated a few years ago that “the writing is on the wall” and that China is the future growth market for Saudi petroleum. In doing so, Saudi Arabia is joining the world’s major Muslim powers (Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan and Turkey) that have also deepened their economic ties with China over the past decade. China’s military currently lacks the capacity to police the Persian Gulf and safeguard shipping, and no country other than the U.S. has the capacity to provide a security umbrella to countries in the region. The Saudis will therefore remain dependent on the U.S. in that regard, which also suits Beijing’s interest for the time being. China has been content not to be seen as actively promoting regional stability, but rather to ride the coat tails of the U.S. militarily. China is also happy to play the spoiler against U.S.-led efforts to isolate Iran from the international economy, having become Iran’s number one export partner — which points to an inherent contradiction in the Saudis’ approach to the Chinese.

Champion Briefs

209

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Analysis: I think that this argument is going to be something that teams will hear quite often. Trump has vocally come out and said that he believes that any decrease in US presence in Saudi Arabia will incentivize a country like China, which has maintained a healthy relationship with the Saudi’s, to come in and fill the gap. This argument offers some cool impacts that could have effects on a much larger geopolitical scale.

Champion Briefs

210

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

A/2: Ending Arms sales incentivizes a Chinese Pivot Answer: US is still miles ahead of China in terms of weapons development, China would not be able to fill the difference Warrant: China is still well behind the US Zheng, Sarah. “Trump Fears China Could Replace US in Arms Sales to Saudi. He Shouldn't.” South China Morning Post, South China Morning Post, 18 Oct. 2018, www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2168849/china-may-seek-boostties-saudi-arabia-it-cant-fill-us-arms. In the editorial, Turki Aldakhil said Saudi Arabia – the world’s largest oil exporter – was considering more than 30 countermeasures to be taken against the US, including trading oil in yuan instead of the US dollar. But in the military realm, China’s arms exports to Saudi Arabia lag far behind those of the US and its European allies. Beijing exported only around US$20 million in arms last year compared to US$3.4 billion from Washington, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a Swedish think tank. “I think China is likely to keep a low profile on this issue and see how it plays out before directly addressing it,” she said. “While its technology is developing, China still lags behind the US in the sophistication and capability of its military equipment. It simply can’t fill the gap.” Answer: Saudi Arabia has no intention of giving up the US for China Warrant: Saudi Arabia wants to balance itself between the two Turak, Natasha. “Threats of US Sanctions Could Accelerate a Saudi Shift Eastward .” CNBC, CNBC, 23 Oct. 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/10/23/threats-of-us-sanctions-

Champion Briefs

211

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

could-accelerate-a-saudi-shift-eastward.html.

Riyadh’s increasing engagement with eastern power centers is not necessarily new, but this diplomatic crisis could spur its acceleration, according to Saman Vakil, a research fellow at U.K. think tank Chatham House and a professor at Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies. “In Riyadh, diversification of relationships and not putting all their eggs in Washington’s basket has been a longstanding policy,” Vakil told CNBC, describing energy deals with China dating back to the 1990s. “And it could be in their continued interest, because if there are forthcoming sanctions from the EU or the U.S. on human rights issues, obviously China’s policy of non-interference would make sense for them, strategically speaking.” Still, the nearly 90-year-old alliance — deemed a “special relationship” when diplomatic ties were first established in 1933 — remains paramount to the kingdom’s stability, something Riyadh knows very well. “A break with the U.S., any obvious rupture in the relationship is also not in their interest,” Vakil added. “So they’re going to try to maintain these three different portfolios.” “The House of Saud would be much weaker without U.S. support,” said Eurasia Group’s Kamel, acknowledging Washington’s decades of military and diplomatic backing.

Warrant: China doesn’t want to disrupt tensions Al-Quiasy, Ahmed. “Saudi-Chinese Rapprochement and Its Effect on Saudi-American Relations.” Russia's Energy Goals in Syria - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, National Center for Investment Risk Assessment, 2 Feb. 2018, www.washingtoninstitute.org/fikraforum/view/saudi-chinese-rapprochementand-its-effect-on-saudi-american-relations.

Champion Briefs

212

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Security-wise, some analysts see Saudi Arabia as trying to create a strategic competition among the great powers to gain weapons and security support, especially after the U.S. appeared to respond weakly to Saudi security and military needs amidst security challenges. This might open the door to China and Russia to exert influence in the region, and coordinate their positions against Washington; thereby making the U.S. either an ineffective player or out of the game in the Middle East. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia is aware that it is impossible in the short term to relinquish the U.S. role in national security to China, which compared to the United States and even Russia, remains less committed politically and militarily to its friends among the countries of the region. Washington can bear the burden of military deployment, military progress, and coalition building, while China has no such capacity nor the desire to clash with the United States in the Middle East. Rather, China wishes to benefit from American dominance there, which secures shipping routes for export oil to China without China having to make any major investments to protect the region. Amid the current SaudiIranian conflict, China is aware that there is no current alternative to American military presence in the Gulf to limit Iranian influence, particularly since relations between Saudi Arabia and the United States have progressed following the election of Donald Trump. Trump is partnering with Saudi Arabia to limit Iranian influence and supports Saudi reforms, whereby Saudi Arabia has begun to expand the number of American banks and other economic ties in the Kingdom. The goal of China’s foreign policy approach is to keep on friendly terms with all the major players and to avoid continual hostility from several risks, including increasing Chinese involvement in the region’s security that would affect American and Russian interests. Accordingly, the Chinese continue to work within their narrow economic self-interest, and they are likely to continue this strategy so long as regional conflicts do not pose a basic risk to Beijing’s plans. Analysis: China is not a country who is actively seeking to disrupt American interests in an area where they do not maintain the upper hand. China’s interests in the region are to maintain their Silk Road initiative and lay low in the geopolitical sphere. Unless something occurs that threatens their interests, China has no qualms about letting the US occupy its role as an arms exporter to Saudi Arabia.

Champion Briefs

213

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

CON: THAAD exports key to prevent Iran attack Argument: US arms sales to Saudi Arabia include the sale of missile defense systems such as THAAD which are key to preventing attacks from Iranian forces. Warrant: Iran poses a major security threat to Saudi Arabia Cordesman, Anthony. “The Saudi Arms Sale.” Nuclear Stability in a Post-Arms Control World | Center for Strategic and International Studies, 7 Jan. 2019, www.csis.org/analysis/saudi-arms-sale. “Third, Iran already poses a missile and chemical weapons threat and may pose a nuclear one within the next three to five years. Upgrades of the Saudi Patriots create a base for an integrated approach to air and missile defense. They lay the groundwork for follow-on sales of advanced missile defense systems like THAAD, and an emphasis on defense (not Saudi purchases of missiles or nuclear systems). Coupled with recent U.S. offers of "extended regional deterrence" and the creation of a Saudi Air Force that is more of a threat to Iran than Iran’s conventional missiles are to Saudi Arabia, they offer the best hope of both giving Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states security and stopping a nuclear arms race in the region. Warrant: Saudi Arabia has invested heavily in US missile defense systems Macias, Amanda. “Saudis, US Take a Significant Step toward Closing $15 Billion Deal for Lockheed THAAD Missile System.” CNBC, CNBC, 29 Nov. 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/11/28/saudi-arabia-close-to-clinching-15-billion-deal-tobuy-thaad-missile-system.html.>

Champion Briefs

214

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

“The sale of the THAAD missile defense system benefits U.S. national security by supporting the long-term security of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region in the face of the growing ballistic missile threat from the Iranian regime and Iran-backed extremist groups,” the spokesperson added. Thomas Karako, director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, echoed those notions. “It’s a big step forward to strengthening missile defense capabilities in the Gulf, in a couple of ways,” he said. “Besides probably being the largest missile defense sale to date, it also represents an important political commitment by both the U.S. and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to counter Iranian ballistic missiles by every means possible.”

Warrant: The Iranian threat is real and credible McCuin, Tom. “Saudis Sign the THAAD Deal.” ClearanceJobs, 30 Nov. 2018, news.clearancejobs.com/2018/11/30/saudis-sign-the-thaad-deal/. The agreement is a big deal for Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, but it is a bigger deal for Saudi Arabia, which has faced a constant threat from Iranian-built missiles fired from the Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen. According to the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Saudi Arabia has intercepted 106 of those missiles through July 2018, primarily with the Patriot PAC-2 system. There have been 43 strikes, although CSIS stressed that a strike is not necessarily evidence of a failed intercept, as many of the strikes were in areas outside Saudi Arabia’s missile defense perimeter. Analysis: I think that this argument is pretty unique. For those who debated the South Korea topic last year, revisiting this topic could create some cool debates. By cherry-picking the sale of something like missile defense, you can kick out of a lot of responses that deal with weapons being sold for the purpose of humanitarian abuse.

Champion Briefs

215

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

A/2: THAAD exports key to prevent Iran attack Answer: THAAD has performed poorly when used and does not provide adequate security for Saudi Arabia. Warrant: THAAD failed miserably in Saudi Arabia Fisher, Max, et al. “Did American Missile Defense Fail in Saudi Arabia?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 4 Dec. 2017, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/04/world/middleeast/saudi-missiledefense.html. Instead, evidence analyzed by a research team of missile experts appears to show the missile’s warhead flew unimpeded over Saudi defenses and nearly hit its target, Riyadh’s airport. The warhead detonated so close to the domestic terminal that customers jumped out of their seats. Governments have overstated the effectiveness of missile defenses in the past, including against Scuds. During the first Gulf War, the United States claimed a near-perfect record in shooting down Iraqi variants of the Scud. Subsequent analyses found that nearly all the interceptions had failed. Had it failed in Riyadh as well? The researchers scraped social media for anything posted in that area and time frame, looking for clues. The pattern of missile debris littering Riyadh suggests missile defenses either hit the harmless rear section of the missile or missed it entirely. "You shoot five times at this missile and they all miss? That's shocking,” she said. “That's shocking because this system is supposed to work.”

Answer: Saudi Arabia has diverted its interest to buying missile defense from Israel Warrant: Saudi Arabia has purchased Israel’s Iron Dome

Champion Briefs

216

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Brummer, David. “Saudi Arabia Reportedly Purchases Israel's Iron Dome Missile System.” Breaking Israel News | Latest News. Biblical Perspective., Breaking Israel News | Latest News. Biblical Perspective., 13 Sept. 2018, www.breakingisraelnews.com/113759/saudi-arabia-israel-iron-dome/. Reports have surfaced – in Arabic language newspapers, such as the London-based AlKhaleej Online – as well as Israel-based news outlets that Saudi Arabia has purchased Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system. There are several elements to the supposed deal – which the Saudis sought – to better-protect them against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. It is thought that the United States helped mediate the deal, which included further plans to reach an agreement on broad military cooperation between the two countries. The Al-Khaleej story – published on Thursday – cited “high-level diplomatic sources” as revealing that Riyadh had purchased the Israeli system, with counter claims that Israel was highly reluctant to sell the Iron Dome to an Arab nation. There was no confirmation by Saudi officials, and Israeli security officials strongly denied the report, the Haaretz daily said. The deal is thought to be worth tens of millions of dollars, with the first stage of the deployment – along Saudi Arabia’s border with Yemen – to be completed by December. The Saudis are attempting to create either a deterrence or protective capability against Iran-backed Houthi rebels who have launched missile attacks against Riyadh and Saudi targets with increasing frequency. Warrant: THAAD has failed before, it will fail again Ritter, Scott. “U.S. Missile Defense: Not as Effective As We Think.” The American Conservative, 11 Sept. 2017, www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/u-smissile-defense-not-as-effective-as-we-think/.

Champion Briefs

217

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

The Patriot missile defense system successfully intercepted less that 10 percent of the SCUDs fired at Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab States during the Gulf War, and only 2 percent of those fired at Israel. The failure of the Patriot missile defense system to perform during the Gulf War has been largely ignored. The reasons for this are many and varied. There was an extensive and intensive effort undertaken by the Raytheon Company (the manufacturer of the Patriot missile), the Army, and the Department of Defense to challenge Postol’s findings, thereby muddying the waters. The fact that Iraq’s SCUDs were inaccurate and did not carry WMD likewise skewed public opinion—a dud warhead landing somewhere in the desert or ocean did not generate the kind of excitement of a chemical warhead landing in a densely populated area. In the quarter of a century that has passed since the Gulf War, the performance of the Patriot has improved, as has missile defense in general. (Witness the success of Israel’s “Iron Dome” system.) But the fact remains that, at the time of the Gulf War, the Patriot was a largely untested system which failed to perform as needed. Had Iraq had better missiles, or if they had been tipped with chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads, this failure could have been catastrophic. My experience with the Patriot missile during the Gulf War has colored my assessment of the deployment of America’s new front-line missile defense weapon, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD) to South Korea. The THAAD is intended to defend against the threat posed by North Korean short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. Like the Patriot missile of 1991, the THAAD has only been tested under carefully scripted peacetime conditions, with launch crews having the advantage of long flight times (easy to track) and medium speed closure rates (easy to kill) involving single missile launches. Analysis: For those who competed on the South Korea topic last year, it is important not to just throw random “THAAD bad” responses, given that much of the literature surrounding that is specific to South Korea. The better responses to this argument lie in the idea that US missile defense systems empirically do not work. Moreover, one can definitely make a topicality response that arms sales do not include missile defense systems.

Champion Briefs

218

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

CON: Other European Countries would pick up the slack Argument: Even if the United States were to stop supplying Saudi Arabia with arms, other countries would surely fill the Saudi demand. Warrant: British weapons also supply Saudi Arabia with airstrike capabilities Trew, Bell. “‘Irresponsible and Incoherent’: British-Backed Bombing Raids Destroy UK Aid in Yemen.” The Independent, 2 Nov. 2018, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/yemen-saudi-arabiaoxfam-aid-air-strikes-civilian-casualties-a8615081.html. “On the one hand, British aid is a vital lifeline, on the other, British bombs are helping to fuel an ongoing war that is leading to countless lives being lost each week to fighting, disease and hunger. “The UK continues to sell arms to Saudi Arabia, whose coalition bombing campaign in Yemen has cut off vital food supplies, destroyed hospitals and homes, and hit aid programmes funded by British taxpayers.” The UK Department for International Development (DFID) reported in June 2015 that coalition warplanes destroyed a warehouse of UK-funded aid in an airstrike. DFID declined to comment on the latest projects hit. Since Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies launched a bombing campaign to oust the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in the spring of 2015, the UK has sold an estimated £3.87billion worth of arms to Riyadh Warrant: The UK has already made clear its intentions to maintain a long term security agreement with Saudi Arabia Thompson, Andrea. “US Undersecretary of State for Arms Control: Creating a Flexible, Effective Foreign Policy Tool.” Defense News, Defense News, 10 Dec. 2018,

Champion Briefs

219

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

<www.defensenews.com/outlook/2018/12/10/us-undersecretary-of-state-forarms-control-creating-a-flexible-effective-foreign-policy-tool/.> Maintaining national security is the UK government’s primary objective for its relationship with Saudi Arabia. Its belief that it can achieve this is in part based on the premise that Islamist-inspired terrorism forms a significant threat to both countries, and as such, that cooperation on combatting terrorism and radicalisation is necessary to keep the UK safe. A second assumption is that the UK’s national security is linked directly to the security situation in Saudi Arabia, and the stability of the wider Gulf region: the phrase ‘Gulf security is our security’ is repeatedly used by British Prime Ministers and Foreign and Defence Secretaries. In November 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May stated that ‘the UK will continue to work in close partnership with Saudi Arabia as it builds on this progress and delivers its ambitious programme of reform, Vision 2030’.22 Then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson also spoke about Vision 2030 during his visit to the country in January 2018, saying: ‘... as a world leader across a wide range of sectors, the UK is well-placed to help Saudi Arabia deliver these changes’. Warrant: Saudi Arabia has already made a deal with Russia Carrol, Oliver. “Russia and Saudi Arabia ‘sign $3bn Arms Deal’ on King Salman Visit.” The Independent, 5 Oct. 2017, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-king-salman-visitsaudi-arabia-moscow-vladimir-putin-a7985161.html. According to the Kommersant newspaper, agreement has already been reached on a $3bn (£2.2bn) deal to supply the Saudis with Russia’s most advanced air defence missile system, the S400 Triumph. According to the publication, the deal will be signed off at a WTO meeting at the end of October. There may be other deals forthcoming on aircraft and helicopters – that depending on the success of talks. Defence is one of few

Champion Briefs

220

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

technological sectors where Russia can still claim to be a world leader, with over a fifth of all arms deals in 2016. But with China and India, Russia’s biggest markets, looking to move towards military self-sufficiency, Russia is with increasing urgency looking to open new markets. Impact: Deepening the Russia-Saudi alliance would significantly alter the middle eastern oil market Foy, Henry. “Russia-Saudi Arabia Rapprochement Reshapes More than the Oil Market.” Financial Times, Financial Times, 30 Oct. 2018, www.ft.com/content/aa39b74c4f0c-11e8-ac41-759eee1efb74 Collaboration between Russia and Saudi Arabia, once seen as impossible, but now holds sway over much of the global oil market. Amid crisis talks two years ago as the oil market collapsed, the two countries took a decision to regulate global crude supplies, propping up the market. The unexpected success and longevity of that oil deal, first signed in December 2016, has prompted talks about corporate tie-ups and cross-border investments, as well as deals for Russian companies to sell arms to one of Washington’s main allies in the Middle East. The new Saudi-Russian relationship, when seen alongside Moscow’s steadfast support of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and its oil and gas investments in Iran, Iraq and Egypt, is reshaping the geopolitics of the Middle East. At present, both sides appear keen to deepen the relationship. Saudi Aramco, the kingdom’s state-owned oil company, is in talks with Russia’s Sibur about setting up a joint petrochemicals factory, and is in discussions over buying a stake in Russia’s upcoming $25.5bn Arctic LNG 2 project. Rosneft and Gazprom Neft, two Russian statecontrolled oil producers, are in talks with Aramco about potential supply sharing, and joint research and development projects, while Riyadhhas agreed in principle to a multibillion-dollar deal to acquire Russia’s S-400 missile defence system. “The RussiaSaudi alliance has already demonstrated its leading role,” said Kirill Dmitriev, chief

Champion Briefs

221

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

executive of the Russian Direct Investment Fund. “In bilateral relations we expect that co-operation between Russia and Saudi Arabia in Opec+ format will double mutual investment between the two biggest oil producers within 3 years. Analysis: I think that this argument will be read as defensive in most rounds, most frequently as a block to the idea that Saudi Arabia would lose out on its weapons if the US pulled back. However, the unique links into oil and Russian collaboration present a unique offensive route to the ballot.

Champion Briefs

222

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

A/2: Other European Countries would pick up the slack Answer: This is false. Many of the US’ allies in fact have begun curbing their exports to Saudi Arabia. Warrant: Germany has ceased its arms sales to Saudi Arabia Rick Noack, The Washington Post, "Germany halts arms deals with Saudi Arabia, en courages allies to do the same", 10/22/18, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/10/22/germany-its-allies-wellhalt-future-arms-sales-saudi-arabia-until-we-have-clarity-khashoggi-so-shouldyou/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e13cd6cb1208

In a move that could put further pressure on President Trump to stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced Sunday evening that her government would not approve new arms exports to the kingdom until further notice. “There is an urgent need to clarify what happened — we are far from this having been cleared up and those responsible held to account,” she said at a news conference. “I agree with all those who say that the, albeit already limited, arms exports can’t take place in the current circumstances,” Merkel said. While the move affects future deals, exports that have already been approved to the second-biggest foreign market for German arms equip-ment will proceed for now but may be suspended in the coming days. Germany is the first major U.S. ally to cast doubts on future arms sales after the killing of Washington Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi, and the move is likely to put pressure on bigger exporters to do the same. President Trump has ruled out suspending arms exports but faces bipartisan calls to hold the alleged perpetrators behind the writer’s killing account-able. Warrant: Countries around the world are reducing arms sales as well

Champion Briefs

223

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Patrick Wilcken, The Guardian, "Britain and the US must stop fuelling the bloody Saudi war on Yemen", 03/20/18, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/20/yemen-armssaudi-arabia

This conflict has revealed in the starkest possible terms the real cost of the lucrative global arms trade, not to mention the challenge of implementing the UN arms trade treaty. Beyond the US and the UK, many other countries – including France, Spain and It-aly – profess their support for human rights and adherence to the treaty while similarly lavishing hi-tech weaponry on the Saudi coalition. However, on this grim anniversary for Yemen there are glimmers of hope. Across the world vocal criticism from cam-paigners, journalists and, crucially, some politicians has begun to bear fruit. In recent months, under growing public pressure, a host of European countries have suspended arms transfers to the Saudi coalition. In other countries where arms exports have continued, they are coming under intense scrutiny, with court challenges and growing criticism from parliamentarians and the wider public. It’s just possible the tide may be turning. In Greece, there was a storm of protest in December when news emerged of a deal to send 300,000 tank shells to Saudi Arabia. Amid mounting pressure, led by Amnesty Greece, a parliamentary committee broke with precedent and cancelled the deal.

Warrant: Saudi Arabia has already invested too much in lobbying US congressional officials to just turn a blind eye Hennigan, W.J. “U.S.-Saudi Relationship Built on Oil, Weapons, Lobbying.” Time, Time, 18 Oct. 2018, time.com/5428669/saudi-arabia-military-relationship/.

Champion Briefs

224

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

“Saudi Arabia has spent at least $5.8 million on lobbying Congress this year, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a government watchdog. But recently filed documents detailing expenses and reimbursements put the actual number closer to $9 million, said Lydia Dennett, investigator with the Project on Government Oversight. “The Kingdom has a veritable army of lobbyists and PR firms working to promote their interests in a wide variety of ways,” she said. The Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, recently compiled records filed under Foreign Agents Registration Act that show in 2017 Saudi lobbyists contacted over 200 members of Congress, including every Senator. The data also found the Saudi agents contacted officials in the State Department, which oversees foreign military sales, nearly 100 times.”

Analysis: With the current momentum that we are seeing in the status quo, most countries are beginning to shy away from the idea of selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. Cooperating with a country that just had a journalist murdered is not something that many European countries, such as Germany and France, want to be involved with.

Champion Briefs

225

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

CON: Foreign Arms sales are a critical foreign policy tool Argument: Arms exports to countries like Saudi Arabia are a key foreign policy tool that the US often utilizes to bolster security cooperation, intelligence gathering, and even domestic economic goals. However, their role in strengthening diplomatic relations cannot be understated. Warrant: Foreign arms sales are a critical foreign policy tool that binds partners to the US while increase the interoperability of US systems Mehta, Aaron, and Pierre Tran. “Mixed Signs for Foreign Military Sales Under Trump.” Defense News, Defense News, 8 Aug. 2017, <www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2016/11/28/mixed-signs-for-foreignmilitary-sales-under-trump/.> “WASHINGTON AND PARIS — Foreign military sales (FMS) are a critical foreign policy tool, one used to bind partners to America while bolstering interoperability on US systems — and providing a boost to domestic industry. The administration of US President Barack Obama has made good use of FMS, setting records for foreign weapons sales in 2015 and coming close in 2016. But as President-elect Donald Trump’s administration spins up, the future of US sales abroad is unclear. As with everything related to the Trump administration at this point, there is little hard evidence to go by. But analysts are watching closely for signs of what might come. In particular, there is concern that two areas of strong sales — the Gulf region and Europe — could be impacted by either the policies of the next administration or the statements of the next president. Analyst Byron Callan, of Capital Alpha Partners, wrote to investors the day after the election, noting some of Trump’s campaign positions could impact foreign weapon sales. “We would expect if countries increase spending, it would be to the

Champion Briefs

226

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

benefit of their own industries and not necessarily favor US defense firms,” Callan wrote to investors, adding: “If a Trump administration takes a harder line on Muslims, that may also bear on US defense exports to some Middle Eastern and Asian countries.” Warrant: Weapon sales can bolster the security of the US and our allies, forge and strengthen long-term relationships, and enhance military interoperability Thompson, Andrea. “US Undersecretary of State for Arms Control: Creating a Flexible, Effective Foreign Policy Tool.” Defense News, Defense News, 10 Dec. 2018, <www.defensenews.com/outlook/2018/12/10/us-undersecretary-of-state-forarms-control-creating-a-flexible-effective-foreign-policy-tool/.> “Arms transfers are a central pillar of America’s international security cooperation, and they are also an important part of the American economy. This dual role as a tool of both foreign policy and economic security — combined with the unique nature of the goods and services involved — makes arms transfer policy uniquely complex. Wellconsidered arms transfers can bolster the security of the United States and our allies and partners. Examples include defending against external coercion and providing capabilities in support of shared security objectives, such as countering terrorism, trafficking and transnational organized crime. They can forge and strengthen longterm relationships and enhance military interoperability. Arms transfers can help maintain the U.S. military’s technological advantages and lower its own procurement costs, strengthen America’s manufacturing and defense-industrial base, and even facilitate ally and partner efforts to reduce the risk of military operations causing civilian harm. In making transfer decisions, and in following up with our partners after a transfer, the departments of State and Defense work to ensure that U.S. arms transfers are used appropriately and that they deliver significant foreign policy benefits, contributing to both regional stability and U.S. national security. Such positive outcomes

Champion Briefs

227

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

were very much in evidence to me when I traveled to Europe and the Middle East this fall.” Warrant: Arms sales to Poland has spurred vital security cooperation which is already manifesting into results Thompson, Andrea. “US Undersecretary of State for Arms Control: Creating a Flexible, Effective Foreign Policy Tool.” Defense News, Defense News, 10 Dec. 2018, <www.defensenews.com/outlook/2018/12/10/us-undersecretary-of-state-forarms-control-creating-a-flexible-effective-foreign-policy-tool/.> “In Poland, I found a close ally whose location at the eastern edge of NATO has given it a front row seat to Russia’s occupation of Crimea, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as its military buildup in Kaliningrad. In this context, the U.S.-Poland defense trade relationship mirrors the closeness of our alliance and demonstrates how we work together to address shared security objectives. For instance, Polish procurement of the Patriot air and missile defense system will increase the defensive capabilities of the Polish military to guard against hostile aggression while also shielding NATO allies who often train and operate within Poland’s borders. Poland’s investment in its F-16 fighter program enhances Poland’s ability to provide for its own territorial defense and support coalition operations. In a gesture that is emblematic of our defense trade relationship, the Polish government has invited the United States to be the lead nation in the 2019 International Defence Industry Exhibition in Kielce, a role we have enthusiastically accepted.” Impact: Foreign Military sales help bring stability to areas of the world craving it, and helps fortify alliances between the US and emerging partners. Goure, Daniel. “Foreign Military Sales Remain An Important Tool Of U.S. National Security.” RealClearDefense, 29 Feb. 2016,

Champion Briefs

228

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/03/01/foreign_military_sales_remain_ an_important_tool_of_us_national_security.html The FMS program serves many other purposes. The sales of U.S. arms and related items to foreign countries helps reduce the cost of those systems to our own military. FMS sales help to ensure the ability of U.S. allies to defend themselves and support the maintenance of stable regional military balances. Equally important, FMS sales over time establish enduring relationships between foreign governments and their militaries and the U.S. When the U.S. military trains alongside those of allies equipped with the same hardware, it helps to cement the bonds between our countries. Moreover, it improves communications and understanding among these militaries, often helping to inculcate U.S. values related to the use of military force. Foreign militaries dependent on access to U.S. hardware, spare parts, software upgrades and training are more likely to listen to this country when there is a dispute regarding regional politics or defense issues. FMS has been particularly important as an instrument for influencing foreign governments and shaping regional balances of power in the Middle East. Following the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, the United States completely reequipped the Egyptian military. The Egyptian-Israeli border has been remarkably stable ever since. Sales of military aircraft, missile defense systems and precision munitions to the nations of the Persian Gulf have been instrumental in ensuring a stable balance of forces in that area. Impact: Suspending arms sales to Saudi Arabia risks jeopardizing the US’s role as an arms exporter in other markets by damaging their credibility. Bissacio, Derek. “Examining U.S. Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia.” Army Leaders Recommend Canceling Comanche Helicopter Program, Forecast International, 23 Oct. 2018, <www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/196962/us-arms-salesto-saudi-arabia%3A-policy-options.html.>

Champion Briefs

229

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

"A more aggressive approach, however, would not be guaranteed to produce a better effect on Saudi policy. A useful comparison may be the U.S. response to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s overthrow of Egypt’s previous government and the subsequent massacre of protestors in Rabaa. The U.S. criticized the government of President Sisi and cut a significant amount of arms cooperation pending improvement toward a more democratic system. Moreover, regularly resorting to playing hardball with arms equipment can convince importers that a degree of diversification is in order if the supplier is unreliable, hurting the supplier’s sales position and defense sector – more so if the supplier is seen as making arms sales only to use them years or decades later to coerce the importer over domestic policy. States do not tend to approve of external criticism, regardless of whether on a moral basis their policies might call for such criticism. It is true that the junior partner in an alliance does not have a habit of bandwagoning,[vii] but when it does break with its ally, it can do so in spectacular fashion.”

Analysis: This argument presents one of the most direct avenues to a neg ballot in any round. Being that this argument presents an impact that can jeopardize the US’s position and credibility on a global scale, its becomes really easy to weigh against a lot of the aff impacts. Moreover, the empirics provided by the Poland example in the Thompson card and the Egypt example in the Bissacio card lend significant credibility to the argument.

Champion Briefs

230

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

A/2: Foreign Arms sales are a critical foreign policy tool Answer: Supplying the Saudi’s with weapons has directly fueled the conflict in Yemen, leading to mass human rights violations and other atrocities. Warrant: The United States is supplying weapons for this conflict Patrick Wilcken, The Guardian, "Britain and the US must stop fuelling the bloody Saudi ‘ war on Yemen", 03/20/18, https://www.theguardian.com/commentis/free/2018/mar/20/yemen-armssaudi-arabia “Despite all this, western countries, led by the US and the UK, have supplied the Saudiled coalition with huge amounts of advanced military equipment, facilitating a military campaign characterised by repeated violations of international humanitarian law, including possible war crimes. This conflict has revealed in the starkest possible terms the real cost of the lucrative global arms trade, not to mention the challenge of implementing the UN arms trade treaty. Beyond the US and the UK, many other countries – including France, Spain and Italy – profess their support for human rights and adherence to the treaty while similarly lavishing hi-tech weaponry on the Saudi coalition.” Warrant: The best way to condemn the crisis in Yemen is to stop arms sales F. Brinley Bruton, NBC, "The U.S. wants the Yemen war to end. Will it stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia?", 11/5/18, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-wants-yemen-war-end-will-it-stopselling-n929921

Champion Briefs

231

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Washington supports Saudi Arabia and its ally, the United Arab Emirates, through billions in arms sales. It also refuels their jets mid-air, provides training and shares intelligence. So, if the U.S. wants to try to force the Saudis' hands, it has leverage. The best way to force the Saudis to change their ways is to stop sending weapons, according to Human Rights Watch’s Yemen researcher Kristine Beckerle. Warrant: Saudi attacks have wrecked economic development in Yemen Walsh, Declan. “The Tragedy of Saudi Arabia’s War in Yemen.” The New York Times, 26 Oct. 2018. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/26/world/middleeast/saudiarabia-war-yemen.htm . “The devastating war in Yemen has gotten more attention recently as outrage over the killing of a Saudi dissident in Istanbul has turned a spotlight on Saudi actions elsewhere. The harshest criticism of the Saudi-led war has focused on the airstrikes that have killed thousands of civilians at weddings, funerals and on school buses, aided by American-supplied bombs and intelligence. But aid experts and United Nations officials say a more insidious form of warfare is also being waged in Yemen, an economic war that is exacting a far greater toll on civilians and now risks tipping the country into a famine of catastrophic proportions. Under the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi-led coalition and its Yemeni allies have imposed a raft of punitive economic measures aimed at undercutting the Houthi rebels who control northern Yemen. But these actions — including periodic blockades, stringent import restrictions and withholding the salaries of about a million civil servants — have landed on the backs of civilians, laying the economy to waste and driving millions deeper into poverty. Those measures have inflicted a slow-burn toll: infrastructure destroyed, jobs lost, a weakening currency and soaring prices. But in recent weeks the

Champion Briefs

232

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

economic collapse has gathered pace at alarming speed, causing top United Nations officials to revise their predictions of famine.”

Analysis: Given that nobody can deny the fact that the weapons being given to Saudi Arabia are being used to fuel the Yemeni conflict, it becomes easy to weigh the atrocities of conflict over maintaining one avenue of foreign relations. By stunting Yemen’s long term development, you have a link into the long term stability in the middle east which can easily be painted as the most important impact in the round.

Champion Briefs

233

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

CON: Saudi Arabia will just buy arms from Russia Argument: Stopping arms sales to Saudi Arabia will have no effect because the Saudis will simply buy weapons from Russia Warrant: The Saudis could afford to change suppliers Deirdre Shesgreen. “Weapons sales a flashpoint as President Trump presses Saudi Arabia over missing journalist” Oct. 16, 2018. USA Today, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/10/16/u-s-weapons-salessaudis-flashpoint-debate-over-missing-journalist/1661290002/ “If we canceled, they would buy from the Russians and the Chinese because they can afford it and it would send us a message,” Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for foreign and defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right think tank, said Saudi Arabia. “It would decrease our leverage and we don’t have someone else” in the region to partner with on other vital foreign policy matters. Caverley said there’s a middle ground between canceling all sales and renegotiating the broader U.S.Saudi alliance. “Arms deals are part of an overall bargain between two countries,” he said. “You can change the terms of a bargain.” Warrant: Cancelling weapons sales has geopolitical implications Walsh, Declan. “The Tragedy of Saudi Arabia’s War in Yemen.” The New York Times, 26 Oct. 2018. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/26/world/middleeast/saudiarabia-war-yemen.html,

Champion Briefs

234

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

“This isn’t just about military capacity,” said Jonathan D. Caverley, an expert on the global weapons trade with the Naval War College. He said Saudi Arabia has purchased almost all its weapons from the U.S. as a way to cement the U.S.-Saudi alliance and “to bind the United States towards a large forward-operated presence in the Gulf.” “… It would be weird if we did not take advantage of this (leverage) to execute our national interest, without rupturing our relationship entirely,” Caverley added. Khashoggi vanished two weeks ago while visiting the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Turkish officials say they have evidence Khashoggi was killed and dismembered inside the diplomatic compound. Saudi officials have called the allegations “baseless” and have asserted that Khashoggi left the consulate unharmed. Warrant: Saudi Arabia is on the brink of buying major Russian weapons Bruton, Brinley. “The U.S. Wants the Saudis to End War in Yemen. And It Has Leverage.” NBC News, 5 Nov. 2018, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-wantsyemen-war-end-will-it-stop-selling-n929921. A Saudi official told The Post that the kingdom was still "highly interested" in the deal. "Like any military purchase," the official added, "there are negotiations happening which we hope will conclude in the quickest means possible." But Trump administration officials told The Post they worried the THAAD price would now increase as US willingness to agree to co-production provisions Saudi Arabia has requested in the contract will decrease. Perhaps more concerning for US officials is Saudi Arabia's continued interest in the Russian-made advanced S-400 air-defense system. According to The Post, the Saudis have resisted US requests to disavow their interest buying the S-400 and have continued talks with Moscow. Saudi Arabia would be only the latest ally with interest in the Russian-made air-defense system. Turkey has already bought the S-400, earning rebuke from the US Congress and creating concerns within the NATO alliance. India also recently agreed to buy the air-defense

Champion Briefs

235

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

system during a summit earlier this month — a deal that raises the prospect of US sanctions on New Delhi.. Warrant: The Saudis might also buy American armaments Christopher Woody. “The Saudis still haven't locked in the massive arms deals Trump touted, and they're still talking to Russia about its advanced S-400 air defense system” Business Insider. October 21, 2018. https://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-arabia-hasnt-signed-us-arms-dealstalking-to-russia-about-s-400-2018-10 According to The Washington Post, among the agreements still up in the air is the $15 billion purchase of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System, made by US defense contractor Lockheed Martin. In a sign of Trump's continued emphasis on arms sales as a component of US foreign policy, White House senior adviser and Trump sonin-law Jared Kushner personally intervened with Lockheed to secure a 20% discount for the air-defense system. Yet Riyadh let a September 30 deadline to wrap up that purchase come and go, according to The Post. Impact: Arms deals with the US are stabilizing and the best option considering the alternatives Deborah Jerome. “Is Big Saudi Arms Sale a Good Idea?” CFR, September 10 2010, https://www.cfr.org/expert-roundup/big-saudi-arms-sale-good-idea Is the deal a good idea for the United States and the Middle East? Three of four experts contributing to this CFR.org roundup basically thought so. Anthony Cordesman argues that arms sales makes sense in terms of U.S. oil interests, the U.S. need for an ally in the region that can ease the burden on the U.S. military, and helping to stop a nuclear arms race in the region. Loren Thompson and F. Gregory Gause III said the Saudis will

Champion Briefs

236

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

buy arms elsewhere if the United States refuses to move forward on the sale. Thompson notes the package carefully balances Saudi requirements and Israeli fears, and Gause suggests that even if the sale doesn’t create long-term stability in the region, there’s likely to be some foreign policy benefit for the United States and for the Saudis. Analysis: This argument is very powerful because it functions as both offense and defense. “They will just buy from Russia” de-links aff from getting impacts off of changes in Saudi behavior. Then, neg can win by extending the stabilizing advantages of having US influence in the Middle East.

Champion Briefs

237

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

A/2: Saudi Arabia will just buy arms from Russia Response: Saudi Arabia will capitulate Warrant: Stopping arms sales will help end the war in Yemen Bruton, Brinley. “The U.S. Wants the Saudis to End War in Yemen. And It Has Leverage.” NBC News, 5 Nov. 2018, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-wantsyemen-war-end-will-it-stop-selling-n929921. “Coalition airstrikes must cease in all populated areas in Yemen,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said last Tuesday. The same day, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said all sides needed to take meaningful steps toward a cease-fire and begin negotiations in the next 30 days. The comments raised the prospect that the Trump administration is getting tougher with the Saudis over their military campaign against Iran-linked Houthi rebels, which has killed more than 10,000 people in the desperately poor country since 2015. All sides have been accused of violating international law and committing war crimes Washington supports Saudi Arabia and its ally, the United Arab Emirates, through billions in arms sales. It also refuels their jets mid-air, provides training and shares intelligence. So if the U.S. wants to try to force the Saudis' hands, it has leverage. Warrant: Experts claim the US has leverage Bruton, Brinley. “The U.S. Wants the Saudis to End War in Yemen. And It Has Leverage.” NBC News, 5 Nov. 2018, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-wantsyemen-war-end-will-it-stop-selling-n929921.

Champion Briefs

238

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

The best way to force the Saudis to change their ways is to stop sending weapons, according to Human Rights Watch’s Yemen researcher Kristine Beckerle. “You’ve gotten so many violations already over the past three and a half years, so what Pompeo and Mattis should be doing is saying, ‘These are the benchmarks. We’re going to hold up weapons sales until you actually fulfill these tasks,’" she said, referring to the apparent bombing of civilian sites by the coalition. American arms deliveries to the Saudis reached $5.5 billion last year, up from $1.7 billion in 2009, according to the U.K.based Campaign Against Arms Trade which compiled the figures using Department of Defense statistics. The U.S. government agreed to sell more than $79 billion in arms to Riyadh over that period. Analysis: This response attacks the link of the argument on a fact level. It contends that it is simply not true that the US lacks the leverage to stop Saudi Arabia, thereby disproving the neg. Response: There is a moral imperative to distance ourselves from the Yemen conflict Warrant: America is steeped in the ongoing war Declan Walsh and Eric Schmitt. “Arms Sales to Saudis Leave American Fingerprints on Yemen’s Carnage.” New York Times. 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/25/world/middleeast/yemen-us-saudicivilian-war.html And at a flight operations room in the capital, Riyadh, Saudi commanders sit near American military officials who provide intelligence and tactical advice, mainly aimed at stopping the Saudis from killing Yemeni civilians. American fingerprints are all over the air war in Yemen, where errant strikes by the Saudi-led coalition have killed more than 4,600 civilians, according to a monitoring group. In Washington, that toll has stoked impassioned debate about the pitfalls of America’s alliance with Saudi Arabia

Champion Briefs

239

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who relies on American support to keep his warplanes in the air. Warrant: Support implicates the US in war crimes Declan Walsh and Eric Schmitt. “Arms Sales to Saudis Leave American Fingerprints on Yemen’s Carnage.” New York Times. 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/25/world/middleeast/yemen-us-saudicivilian-war.html Obfuscation and impunity continue to characterize the coalition’s airstrike campaign. The coalition rarely identifies which country carries out an airstrike, although the vast majority are Saudi and Emirati, officials say. In July, King Salman of Saudi Arabia issued an order lifting “all military and disciplinary penalties” for Saudi troops fighting in Yemen, an apparent amnesty for possible war crimes. Over the summer, as Emirati warplanes pounded the Red Sea port of Hudaydah, General Votel and the defense secretary at the time, Jim Mattis, held at least 10 phone calls or video conferences with Saudi and Emirati leaders, urging them to show restraint, a senior American military official and a senior Western official said. Analysis: This argument is strong because moral claims (if weighed correctly) can supersede material consequences. Arguments about war crimes and the American obligation to not participate in such atrocities may be persuasive, even in the face of some material losses.

Champion Briefs

240

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

CON: Stopping sales will hurt Saudi domestic reforms Argument: Saudi Arabia is rapidly modernizing. This process is good for human rights and economic development. Cutting US support stops this. Warrant: The Saudis are modernizing. Ian Black. “Saudi crown prince's modernization drive: How real is it?” Oct. 25, 2017. CNN, https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/25/opinions/can-bin-salman-reallychange-saudi-opinion-ian-black/index.html “Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia's young crown prince, has made headlines across the world after promising the kingdom will return to a "moderate" form of Islam. He also guaranteed a brighter future for his people, as he promoted modernization plans to wean the country off oil, attract foreign investment and diversify the economy. Bin Salman's strategy, Vision 2030, has looked stunningly ambitious since it was unveiled last year, at a time when he was still deputy crown prince and not set to inherit the throne. It has been accompanied from the start by a slick PR campaign, which seeks to improve the kingdom's poor international image by emphasizing the positive, the forward-looking and the needs of young people.” Warrant: Salman’s changes are remarkable Ian Black. “Saudi crown prince's modernization drive: How real is it?” Oct. 25, 2017. CNN, https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/25/opinions/can-bin-salman-reallychange-saudi-opinion-ian-black/index.html “The latest message from bin Salman included a reference to being "open to all religions," a remarkable pledge in a deeply conservative country that is the birthplace of Islam and where

Champion Briefs

241

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

churches are banned and Jews not tolerated. It should perhaps come as no surprise that these comments were made at an international investment conference -- tellingly dubbed "Davos in the Desert" -- with a glittering VIP guest list and a large delegation of foreign journalists, who would normally struggle to obtain visas. Last month's royal decree allowing women to drive was an equally eye-catching element of bin Salman's national makeover. It certainly makes sense economically, as it boosts female participation in the work force. And women can now also go to sports stadiums.” Warrant: The changes are real and substantial David Ignatious. “Are Saudi Arabia’s reforms for real? A recent visit says yes..” Was ington Post, 5 March 1, 2018., https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/are-saudi-arabiasreforms-for-real-a-recent-visit-says-yes/2018/03/01/a11a4ca8-1d9d-11e8-9de1147dd2df3829_story.html?utm_term=.d21d46e4de76 “This is the beginning of justice. The prince is the same as any other citizen. That’s something!” said Rakan al-Dossery, 26, a counselor at a local high school, of the anticorruption drive. “The entire world is changing. It’s not a surprise for the kingdom to be changing,” said Abdul-Aziz al-Faraj, 29, a bank teller. One young man named Moab said that in addition to his bank job, he has just opened a shop selling mobile-phone accessories, a business once dominated by Yemeni expatriates. Explained Faraj: “A while ago, the average Saudi wouldn’t think of starting a business. All he wanted was a government job.” This is the door that seems to be opening in the kingdom — toward a more modern, more entrepreneurial, less-hidebound and more youth-oriented society. It’s a top-down, authoritarian process, for now. But it seems to be gaining momentum. Warrant: Cutting support would be incredibly destabilizing

Champion Briefs

242

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Michael Doran and Tony Badran “Trump Is Crude. But He’s Right About Saudi Arabia.” New York Times. Nov. 21, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/opinion/trump-saudi-arabiakhashoggi.html Let’s imagine Mr. Trump’s critics get their wish. This would serve only to validate Al Qaeda’s anti-Saudi ideology, which depicts the royal family as American stooges. Would a compromised crown prince be a more reliable partner for the United States in stabilizing the Middle East? In all likelihood, sanctions would simply embitter Prince Mohammed, who would respond by tacking toward Russia and China. The United States could console itself by celebrating its staunch commitment to principle, but its influence would diminish considerably. Less likely but worth keeping in mind is the worst-case scenario. Prince Mohammed’s enemies, inside and outside the kingdom, are numerous, and American sanctions on him would put a target on his back. In a violent succession battle, what horrific forces would be unleashed? Outside actors, such as Iran and Russia, coveting control of the kingdom’s oil wealth and influence over the Islamic holy cities, would rush in. The United States would find itself embroiled in another civil war as in Syria. Impact: The slowly reforming Saudi Arabia is preferable to the alternatives Michael Doran and Tony Badran “Trump Is Crude. But He’s Right About Saudi Arabia.” New York Times. Nov. 21, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/opinion/trump-saudi-arabiakhashoggi.html This is a false analogy. The Saudis are not the moral equivalents of Iranians and the Russians. The kingdom has sheltered comfortably for over 75 years under the American security umbrella, which the United States happily extended not least because the

Champion Briefs

243

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Saudis and their oil have played a pivotal role in American economic strategies. Mr. Trump’s statement acknowledged that the Saudis are assisting him with stabilizing global oil prices as he seeks to quash Iranian oil sales. Whatever Prince Mohammed’s faults may be, he actively supports the American regional order that the Iranians openly seek to destroy. Mr. Trump’s critics are asking us to believe that the priority for stabilizing the Middle East today is distancing the United States from one of its oldest allies and instead working to achieve a balance of power between Riyadh and Tehran. The Saudis, they claim, need us far more than we need them. Analysis: This argument is powerful because it establishes the alternative to the status quo. If Saudi Arabia becomes a worse actor after we freeze arms sales, we should not take such well intentioned but short-sighted actions. Weigh this by reminding the judge that as bad as the status quo is, a more illiberal Saudi Arabia would be worse.

Champion Briefs

244

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

A/2: Stopping sales will hurt Saudi domestic reforms Response: Cutting weapons sales is the best way America can realize its foreign policy objectives compared to other realistic measures Warrant: Other measures would be even less effective Bruton, Brinley. “The U.S. Wants the Saudis to End War in Yemen. And It Has Leverage.” NBC News, 5 Nov. 2018, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-wantsyemen-war-end-will-it-stop-selling-n929921. “On Oct. 10, Bob Corker and Bob Menendez, the top Republican and Democrat in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, triggered the Global Magnitsky Act, a bipartisan bill to punish human rights violators, to force the Trump administration to investigate and consider sanctions against Saudi Arabia. The crisis over Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance piles on to growing — if belated — concern over Saudi Arabia’s disastrous war in Yemen, which has produced little geopolitical gain and much human suffering. If American officials really want to encourage a change in Saudi policy, they should begin by looking at Saudi Arabia’s largest imports from the United States: weaponry. Cutting off the flow of American arms to Saudi Arabia would be an effective way to put pressure on Riyadh with little cost to the American economy or national security.” Warrant: The US can afford to lose Saudi weapons money Jonathan Caverley. “Want to Punish Saudi Arabia? Cut Off Its Weapons Supply.” New York Times, Oct. 12, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/opinion/saudi-arabia-arms-sales.html

Champion Briefs

245

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

Despite recent increases, Saudi arms orders remain a manageably small part of the United States’ exports. According to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, in 2017, a near-record year for annual purchases, the United States delivered $5.5 billion worth of arms, 20 percent of all foreign military sales. That may sound like a lot, but the United States exports only 25 to 30 percent of its defense industry production, so exports to Saudi Arabia clearly remain a relatively small slice of the enormous defense industrial pie. And contrary to President Trump’s statement, exports to Saudi Arabia create relatively few American jobs. Based on Commerce Department figures, releasing the billion dollars of munitions currently on hold in the Senate would “create or sustain” fewer than 4,000 jobs. Here’s a more specific example: Publicizing a recent $6 billion helicopter deal with Saudi Arabia, Lockheed Martin predicted that it would “support” 450 American jobs. Analysis: This argument is smart because it frames the resolution in the context of its alternatives. There are enormous political pressures to take action against Saudi Arabia. The choice is not ‘cut weapons sales’ or ‘nothing’, it is ‘cut weapons sales’ or something much worse. By framing the withdrawal of weapons as the best possible options, aff teams change the neg narrative. Response: Weapons sales would be very effective at producing change Warrant: Saudi Arabia massively relies on US weapons Jonathan Caverley. “Want to Punish Saudi Arabia? Cut Off Its Weapons Supply.” New York Times, Oct. 12, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/opinion/saudi-arabia-arms-sales.html Saudi Arabia is in the middle of a major war, and more than 60 percent of its arms deliveries over the past five years came from the United States. The Saudi military

Champion Briefs

246

Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2019

relies not just on American tanks, planes and missiles but for a daily supply of maintenance, training and support, such as intelligence and refueling. In the longer term, almost all of Saudi Arabia’s remaining exports come from Europe. To truly squeeze Saudi Arabia, a coordinated embargo — much like the one now in place against Russia — would be necessary but relatively easy. European governments already feel strong domestic political pressure not to export to regimes like Saudi Arabia. Transforming the Saudi military to employ Russian, much less Chinese, weapons would cost a fortune even by Gulf standards, would require years of retraining and would greatly reduce its military power for a generation. Russia cannot produce next-generation fighter aircraft, tanks and infantry fighting vehicles for its own armed forces, much less for the export market. China has not produced, never mind exported, the sophisticated aircraft and missile defense systems Saudi Arabia wants. Warrant: The US has provided diplomatic cover to Saudi Arabia for paltry amounts of money Jonathan Caverley. “Want to Punish Saudi Arabia? Cut Off Its Weapons Supply.” New York Times, Oct. 12, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/opinion/saudi-arabia-arms-sales.html Last month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo certified that Saudi Arabia was minimizing civilian casualties in the Yemen air campaign apparently to avoid jeopardizing $2 billion in weapons sales. That small number does not show how powerful the Saudis are so much as how cheaply the United States can be bought. Given these sales’ low domestic economic impact and the enormous costs of going elsewhere for Saudi Arabia, the United States has the preponderance of influence in this arms trade relationship. It should act accordingly Analysis: This argument is strong because it demonstrates the effectiveness of American action. Once this link is won, an aff team only needs to weigh the massive loss of human life in Yemen against the small reforms happening in Saudi Arabia. It should be simple to claim that stopping an ongoing civil war outweighs some domestic reforms.

Champion Briefs

247