India Deal (adi)

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

1

Politics-India Deal

Politics – India Deal Politics – India Deal.........................................................................................................................1 Bush Good – India Deal 1nc (1/2)...................................................................................................5 ***Political Process UQ***............................................................................................................7 UQ – Capital Down (1/2).................................................................................................................8 UQ – A2: Bush Cuts Now..............................................................................................................10 UQ – Bush = Lame Duck (1/2)......................................................................................................11 UQ – A2: Bush = Lame Duck (1/3)...............................................................................................14 UQ – Bipartisanship high (1/3)......................................................................................................17 UQ – Partisanship High (1/2)........................................................................................................20 UQ – Partisanship High - A2: Energy Proposal.............................................................................22 ***India Deal UQ***....................................................................................................................23 UQ – Will Pass – Congress (1/2)...................................................................................................24 UQ—AT: Overwhelms the Link....................................................................................................26 UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—Time (1/2)................................................................................................27 UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—India.........................................................................................................29 UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—NSG (1/2).................................................................................................30 UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—France/Russia/Japan................................................................................32 UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—Australia...................................................................................................33 UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—China (1/2)...............................................................................................34 UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—Pakistan (1/2)...........................................................................................36 UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—IAEA........................................................................................................38 UQ – AT: It Will Pass in the Next Administration (1/3)................................................................39 UQ – A2: Congress Not Key.........................................................................................................42 UQ – Won’t Pass – Congress (1/2)................................................................................................43 UQ – Won’t Pass—Democrats.......................................................................................................45 UQ – Won’t Pass—Time (1/3).......................................................................................................46 ***Links – General***..................................................................................................................49 Link—Delay..................................................................................................................................50 Link – Normal Means Spends Capital (1/2)..................................................................................51 Link – AT – Our Plan Is Popular....................................................................................................53 Link – Cuts Unpopular – Congress Subsidized.............................................................................54 Link – Cuts Unpopular – Congress (1/4).......................................................................................56 Link – Cuts Unpopular – Ag Lobby (1/5)......................................................................................60 Link – Cuts Unpopular – American Farm Bureau.........................................................................65 Link – Cuts Unpopular – A2: Democrats......................................................................................70 Link – Cuts Unpopular – A2: Food Manufacturers (Grocers).......................................................71 Link – Cuts Popular – Bipartisan Support.....................................................................................72 Link – Cuts Popular – Lobbies – Named Groups (1/2).................................................................73 Link – Cuts Popular – Lobbies – Named Groups (2/2).................................................................74 Link – Cuts Popular – Lobbies (1/2)..............................................................................................75 Link – Cuts Popular – Grocery Coalition/Heritage.......................................................................77 Link – Cuts Popular – Business Lobbies.......................................................................................78 Link – Cuts Popular – Dems..........................................................................................................79 Link – Cuts Popular – Anti-Spending............................................................................................80 Link—Trade Barriers Popular – Lobby.........................................................................................81

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 2

Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal ***Links – Ethanol***..................................................................................................................82 Link – Ethanol Cuts Popular (1/2).................................................................................................83 Link—Ethanol Cuts Popular – Lobby (1/2)...................................................................................85 Link—Ethanol Cuts Popular – Congress.......................................................................................87 Link – Ethanol Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (1/2)..............................................................................88 Link—Ethanol Cuts Unpopular – Congress..................................................................................90 Link—Ethanol Cuts Unpopular – Public (1/3)..............................................................................91 ***Links – Sugar***.....................................................................................................................94 Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (1/8).................................................................................95 Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular – Congress...................................................................................104 Link—Sugar Cuts Popular – General..........................................................................................105 Link – Sugar Cuts Popular – A2: Lobby......................................................................................106 Link—Sugar Cuts Popular—Democrats......................................................................................107 ***Links – Soy***......................................................................................................................109 Link—Soy Cuts Popular..............................................................................................................110 Link – Soy Cuts Unpopular..........................................................................................................111 Link—Soy Cuts Unpopular—Lobby...........................................................................................112 ***Links – Corn***.....................................................................................................................113 Link – Corn/Soy/Cotton/Dairy Cuts Unpopular – Harkin...........................................................114 Link—Corn and Sugar Cuts Unpopular—Lobby .......................................................................115 ***Links – Dairy***...................................................................................................................116 Link—Dairy Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (1/2)...............................................................................117 Link—Dairy Cuts Popular—Congress........................................................................................119 ***Links – Cotton***..................................................................................................................120 Link – Cotton Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (1/4).............................................................................121 Link—Cotton Cuts Unpopular—Republicans.............................................................................127 Link—Cotton and Rice Cuts Unpopular......................................................................................128 Link—Cotton Cuts Popular—Oxfam..........................................................................................129 ***Links – Fish***......................................................................................................................130 Link – Fisheries Cuts Popular – Bipart/Rangel Link Turn (1/2).................................................131 Link – Fisheries Cuts Popular – Oceana Lobby Link Turn.........................................................134 Link – Fisheries Cuts Unpopular – Lobby...................................................................................135 Link – Fisheries Cuts Unpopular – Food Industry Lobby...........................................................137 ***Links – Wheat***..................................................................................................................138 Link—Wheat Cuts Unpopular—Lobby.......................................................................................139 ***Links – CAFO***..................................................................................................................140 Link—CAFOs Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (1/2)............................................................................141 Link—CAFOs Cuts Popular........................................................................................................143 ***Links – Rice***.....................................................................................................................144 Link—Rice Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (1/2).................................................................................145 Link—Rice Cuts Popular.............................................................................................................147 ***Links – Misc***....................................................................................................................148 Link – Multilateral CP Popular....................................................................................................149 Link – Bush Supports the Plan.....................................................................................................150 ***Internal Links – Political Process***....................................................................................151 Internal Link – Winners Win (1/2)...............................................................................................152 Internal Link – Winners Lose (1/3)..............................................................................................154

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 3

Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Internal Link – Plan costs political capital...................................................................................157 Internal Link – Capital is finite....................................................................................................158 Internal Link – Popularity = Agenda (1/2)...................................................................................159 Internal Link – A2: Popularity = Agenda (1/6)............................................................................161 Internal Link – Olive Branch.......................................................................................................167 ***Internal Links – Lobbies***..................................................................................................168 Internal Link—Sugar Lobby = Agenda.......................................................................................169 Internal Link—Farm Lobby = Agenda........................................................................................170 ***Internal Links – Nuke Deal***..............................................................................................171 Internal Link—Political Capital = Nuke Deal (1/2)....................................................................172 Internal Link—Bush Pushing Nuke Deal....................................................................................174 Internal Link—Political Capital = Nuke Deal.............................................................................175 Internal Link—Democrats Key Nuke Deal.................................................................................176 Internal Link—Republicans Key Nuke Deal...............................................................................177 Internal Link—Bipartisanship Key Nuke Deal............................................................................178 ***India Deal Top-Level Aff Stuff***........................................................................................179 AFF UQ: Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link...............................................................................180 AFF UQ: Won’t Pass—Many Reasons........................................................................................181 AFF UQ: Obama Passes India Deal.............................................................................................182 ***India Deal – I-P NW Impacts***...........................................................................................183 Impacts – Indo-Pak NW (1/2)......................................................................................................184 Impacts – Indo-Pak NW – A2: Limited.......................................................................................186 ***India Nuke Deal Good***.....................................................................................................187 Nuke Deal Good – US/India Relations (1/3)...............................................................................188 Nuke Deal Good – US/India Relations – Impact: Indo-Pak War................................................193 Nuke Deal Good – Indian Economy/Warming............................................................................194 Nuke Deal Good – Indian Economy – India Key to World.........................................................195 Nuke Deal Good – Warming (1/2)...............................................................................................196 Nuke Deal Good – Russia-China Axis.........................................................................................198 Nuke Deal Good – Oil Prices.......................................................................................................199 Nuke Deal Good – US Nuclear Industry.....................................................................................200 Nuke Deal Good – US Econ........................................................................................................201 Nuke Deal Good – AT: Pollution.................................................................................................202 Nuke Deal Good – AT: Accidents (1/2).......................................................................................203 Nuke Deal Good – A2: US-Pakistani Relations – A2: Terror......................................................205 Nuke Deal Good – A2: Prolif Signal...........................................................................................206 Nuke Deal Good – A2: Proliferation – Safeguards .....................................................................207 Nuke Deal Good – A2: Indian Prolif...........................................................................................209 Nuke Deal Good—Proliferation = Slow......................................................................................210 Nuke Deal Good—Proliferation Deters War...............................................................................211 Nuke Deal Good—Proliferation Prevents Escalation..................................................................212 Nuke Deal Good – A2: Taiwan-China Conflict (1/2)..................................................................213 Nuke Deal Good – A2: Taiwan-China Conflict (2/2)..................................................................214 Nuke Deal Good – Warming........................................................................................................215 Nuke Deal Good – Warming – Impact.........................................................................................216 Nuke Deal Good – Warming – India Key (1/2)...........................................................................217 Nuke Deal Good – Warming – Modeling....................................................................................220

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 4

Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Nuke Deal Good – Indian Econ (1/3)..........................................................................................221 Nuke Deal Good – Indian Econ – Solves War (1/2)....................................................................224 Nuke Deal Good – Indian Econ – Key to World.........................................................................226 Nuke Deal Good – Terrorism – Deal Solves................................................................................227 Nuke Deal Good – Terrorism – Down.........................................................................................228 Nuke Deal Good – A2: Indo-Pak Relations – Turn.....................................................................229 Nuke Deal Good – A2: Indo-Pak Relations – Down (1/2)..........................................................230 ***India Nuke Deal Bad***........................................................................................................232 Nuke Deal Bad – Proliferation (1/2)............................................................................................233 Nuke Deal Bad – Prolif – A2: IAEA Inspections Solve Prolif....................................................235 Nuke Deal Bad – Prolif – A2: Safeguards...................................................................................236 Nuke Deal Bad—Proliferation = Extinction................................................................................237 Nuke Deal Bad—Proliferation Causes War.................................................................................238 Nuke Deal Bad—Nuclear Accidents Bad....................................................................................239 Nuke Deal Bad – Indo-Pakistan War...........................................................................................240 Nuke Deal Bad – Indo-Sino War.................................................................................................241 Nuke Deal Bad – Taiwan-China Conflict (1/2)...........................................................................242 Nuke Deal Bad – Taiwan-China Conflict – Link Ext. ................................................................244 Nuke Deal Bad – Taiwan-China Conflict – Brink.......................................................................246 Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – No Solvency...........................................................................247 Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – India Not Key (1/2)................................................................248 Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – No Solve: Transportation.......................................................250 Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – Turn: Nuke Power = Warming (1/2)......................................251 Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – Turn: Nuke Power = Warming (2/2)......................................252 Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Terrorism..................................................................................................253 Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Terrorism – Pakistan Relations.................................................................254 Nuke Deal Bad – Iranian Proliferation........................................................................................255 Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations (1/2)...........................................................................256 Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations (2/2)...........................................................................257 Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations – Resilient.................................................................258 Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations – A2: Terrorism (1/2)................................................259 Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations – A2: Terrorism (2/2)................................................260 Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Oil Prices..................................................................................................261 Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Nuke Industry...........................................................................................262 Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Indian Econ...............................................................................................263 Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Indian Econ – Growth Bad.......................................................................264 Nuke Deal Bad – Democracy......................................................................................................266 Nuke Deal Bad – Regional Instability.........................................................................................267 .....................................................................................................................................................267

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

5

Politics-India Deal

Bush Good – India Deal 1nc (1/2) Bush is using all of his remaining capital to pass the Indian nuclear deal – It will succeed after a fight India Today 7-21 (Raj Chengappa, India Today, “The Long Last Mile,” 2008, l/n) India's other concern is that the NSG may not give it "a clean exemption" and instead foist killer caveats. Given the domestic political opposition, India has requested the US to ensure that there were no hiccups or embarrassments at the NSG. It would need all of Bush's dwindling clout to get NSG clearance by September, just in time to have it listed for ratification by the US Congress before it adjourns. The deal is unlikely to get the US Congress' seal of approval without some debate. Many Congressmen are already seething that Bush used his presidential powers to waive some uncomfortable clauses that the Hyde Act could foist on India. Farm subsidy reform requires political capital Benbrook 3 (Charles, Kellogg Foundation Food and Society Networking Conference, April 24, ww.biotech-info.net/kellogg.pdf) About a third of the 17 changes discussed above are already on the table and/or progress is being made toward implementing them. About another third are conceivable, but will require some sort of national awakening or cataclysmic event to create political pressure and overcome entrenched political interests. And the last third will simply happen largely as a function of the other two-thirds. Implementing this sort of plan will not require a significant increase in federal expenditures nor will the price of food rise. New taxes, fees and penalties, reduced demand for imported foods, and other longer-term cost reductions will over time improve economic performance and help reduce federal budget deficits. Billions in medical expenditures, lost wages, and environmental harm will be saved. Public funding for federal agencies and programs is not the issue or what is holding back these sorts of changes. The problem is a lack of consensus and

clarity on what is wrong with the American food system and what steps are needed to make things “right”. Overcoming this problem is getting harder, not easier, because of increasingly successful efforts by entrenched interests to – Set the terms of debate and “spin” the messages reaching the public. Control the facts accessible to inform the debate. Muddle science, create gridlock in regulatory agencies and processes, and confuse the public regarding food safety, diet-health linkages, and farming’s impacts on the environment. Sidestep the will of the majority in Congress. Progress will depend on coordinated and systematic changes in federal fiscal, tax, environmental, research, regulatory and commodity policies. Reforms must establish new “rules of the road” for private enterprise. State and local government initiatives, and much stronger regulatory presence and capabilities, will also be needed to – Stimulate innovation and create new market channels and better performing markets, and Enforce compliance with worker and food safety rules, water quality laws, and resource conservation requirements. Collectively, policy reforms must change the factors governing the flow of agricultural and food system income streams. Income streams set the values of assets and wage structures. Income streams determine where capital flows, the terms and cost of capital, and drive the ability to carry out research and development. In general, the bigger the income stream, the more political capital and clout in play and at stake.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 6

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Bush Good – India Deal 1nc (2/2) Reversal of the deal would crush relations and US safeguards Chicago Tribune 7-28 Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh took a political risk recently when he affirmed his support for the nuclear cooperation pact he negotiated in 2005 with President Bush . The Communists, key allies to Singh's ruling Congress Party, hate this deal. They had threatened to pull their support from Singh's government if he pressed forward with it. But Singh called their bluff. He opted to face a no-confidence vote in parliament rather than bow to the Communists' demand to scuttle the nuclear pact. After harsh debate, and even allegations of bribery on the parliament floor, Singh's government prevailed with a 275256 vote Tuesday. Now it's time for the U.S. Congress to ensure that Singh's risk wasn't for naught. Congress needs to approve the nuclear deal. If Congress stalls, it will alienate a key ally and hand away billions of dollars in potential U.S.-Indian trade, which will go to other exporters of nuclear technology, such as France and Russia. The deal would reopen civilian nuclear trade between India and the U.S. In exchange, India would open its civilian nuclear facilities to international inspection. Strong US-India relations are critical to prevent a nuclear war Dugger, New York Times 2 (Celia Dugger, 6-10-02, “Wider Military Ties With India Offer U.S. Diplomatic Leverage,” p. A1)

Military cooperation between India and the United States has remarkably quickened since Sept. 11, with a burst of navy, air force and army joint exercises, the revival of American military sales to India and a blur of high-level visits by generals and admirals. The fledgling relationship between American and Indian military leaders will be important to Mr. Rumsfeld in talks intended to put to rest fears of war between India and Pakistan. "We can hope this translates into some influence and trust, though I don't want to overstate it," a senior American defense official said in an interview on Thursday. "I don't want to predict this guarantees success." The American diplomatic efforts yielded their first real gains on Saturday when India welcomed a pledge by Pakistan's military ruler to stop permanently the infiltration of militants into Kashmir. India indicated that it would soon take steps to reduce tensions, but a million troops are still fully mobilized along the border -- a situation likely to persist for months -- and the process of resolving the crisis has just begun. India has linked the killing of civilians in Kashmir to a Pakistan-backed insurgency there and has presented its confrontation with Pakistan as part of the global campaign against terrorism. India itself made an unstinting offer of support to the United States

after Sept. 11, and Washington responded by ending the sanctions placed on India after its 1998 nuclear tests. With that, the estrangement that prevailed between the world's two largest democracies during the cold war, when India drew close to the Soviet Union and the United States allied with Pakistan, has eased. India, for decades a champion of nonalignment, seeks warmer ties with the United States in hopes of gaining access to sophisticated military technology and help in dealing with Pakistan. From the start of President Bush's term, some influential officials in his administration saw India as a potential counterweight to that other Asian behemoth, China, whose growing power was seen as a potential strategic threat. But since Sept. 11, the priority has been terrorism. The United States is hoping its deeper military and political ties with India will give

it some measure of leverage to prevent a war between India and Pakistan that could lead to a nuclear holocaust and would play havoc with the hunt for Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

7

Politics-India Deal

***Political Process UQ***

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 8

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

UQ – Capital Down (1/2) Bush lost all political capital early on Asia Times 8 (7-16, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JG16Dj05.html) Shortly after his re-election victory in 2004, George W Bush apparently thought so, for he immediately staked his political capital on a laissez-faire free-market restructuring plan for the gem in the Roosevelt crown, old-age Social Security. That, and the unpopularity over the Iraq war, drove the Republicans from control of both branches of Congress in the 2006 mid-term elections. Former Republican Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, defeated in 2006, now probably wishes that he did not have supporters at a 2005 rally that included elderly Social Security pensioners chanting the phrase "Hey hey! Ho ho! Social Security's got to go!" Bush lost political capital by attending the Olympics Guardian 8 (7-12, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/12/olympicgames2008.humanrights) George Bush has undoubtedly wasted his political capital, by saying he would be attending as a sports fan. Just before he did so, a court in Shanghai granted parole to a Chinese-born US citizen, Jude Shao, who had served half of a 16-year sentence on tax evasion and fraud charges. His supporters said he had refused to pay a bribe sought by tax officials. If Washington's pressure can effect the release of a US citizen, what is its responsibility to Chinese human rights activists like Hu Jia, who got three and a half years in prison in April for publishing an open letter, "The Real China and the Olympics"? More ev… Lightman 8 (7-20, David, David Lightman was the Hartford Courant's Washington Bureau Chief for 23 years before joining the McClatchy Washington Bureau, http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/610912.html) The White House wants the American public to think it's on the rebound, scoring important triumphs in Iraq and North Korea and on domestic spying while taking tough stands on oil drilling and relief for homeowners. The White House, the experts and the polls say, however, is wrong. President Bush hasn't begun a comeback. ''All this is pretty much a lot of noise. He's going out with a whimper,'' said Erwin Hargrove, presidential scholar at Vanderbilt University and the author of The Effective President. Adam Warber, professor of political science at Clemson University, had similar thoughts. ''It's very difficult for him now. His public approval is so poor, he doesn't really have a lot of political capital,'' Warber said. Congress is run by Democrats reluctant to give Bush any domestic victories, and his approval ratings have remained at or near a dismal 30 percent for about a year. Bush is the nation's fifth lame duck since the 22nd Amendment limited presidents to two terms, beginning with Harry Truman's successor in 1952. One was Richard Nixon, who resigned because of Watergate-related scandals 19 months into his second term. The others left office with strong approval ratings. Bill Clinton's was 59 percent in a July 2000 Gallup poll. Ronald Reagan's number when he left office was 64 percent. Dwight D. Eisenhower hit 59

Bush's achievements, which are fueling the White House PR machine, flow from his recent tendency to compromise more on national security issues. percent approval just before stepping down.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

9

Politics-India Deal

UQ – Capital Down (2/2) Don’t be fooled by bush’s recent accomplishments, he still has no political capital Lightman 8 (7-20, David, David Lightman was the Hartford Courant's Washington Bureau Chief for 23 years before joining the McClatchy Washington Bureau, http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/610912.html) Bush was upbeat recently as he recalled his recent string of accomplishments. 'People say, `Aw, man, you're running out of time. Nothing's going to happen,' '' he said. He rattled off his list and looked ahead. ''What can we get done?'' he asked. ``We can get good housing legislation done. We can get good energy legislation done. We can get trade bills done. And there's plenty of time to get action with the United States Congress.'' But outside the White House, few were as optimistic. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dismissed Bush's energy policies, saying, ''Really, the president's done nothing.'' His call for more drilling, Reid said, ``underlines and underscores that the main organization he's trying to help are the oil companies.'' Congress needs to approve any end to the drilling ban, and with Democratic leaders opposed, that's unlikely. There are more ominous signs for Bush that his power remains diluted. This week, Congress overrode his veto of Medicare legislation, and in the House of Representatives, Republicans, who fear a rout in November's elections, put some polite distance between themselves and the White House.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

10

Politics-India Deal

UQ – A2: Bush Cuts Now Bush’s cuts are too modest to cause political fight Powell 5 (Benjamin, Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and Assistant Professor of Economics at Suffolk University, PhD in Economics From George Mason University, March 28, http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1477) President Bush’s modest proposal to reduce farm subsidies will not cause a partisan fight between Democrats and Republicans, but make no mistake about it: the fight that does occur will be interest-group politics-as-usual. Unfortunately, absent from that fight is any consideration of whether farmers should get subsidies at all. Bush has proposed decreasing the subsidy an individual farmer can receive from $360,000 to $250,000. If adopted, the proposal would lower federal spending on agriculture by a paltry $587 million in 2006. Big corporate farms are most affected by the reform. Also, growers of crops that receive large subsidies, like rice and cotton, will face greater cutbacks than growers of crops such as corn, wheat, and soybeans, which generally receive smaller subsidies. Not surprisingly, the debate in Congress pits representatives in cotton- and rice-growing regions against others.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

11

Politics-India Deal

UQ – Bush = Lame Duck (1/2) Bush is a lame duck Frank 8 (7-9, Thomas He has received a Lannan award and been a guest columnist for The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121556041111937489.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) Over at the executive branch, strangely, it is the opposite of panic that reigns. Indeed, the Bush administration seems to have moved up the date for its own extinction. Outgoing administrations traditionally step on the gas in their final months, rushing through all manner of new regulations. This time, however, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten has announced that there will be no new regulations at all come Nov. 1 – that this lame-duck administration will try to achieve a state of Zen-like lameness surpassing all precedent. But even this quiet bid for nullity is really a strident declaration of the administration's true loyalties. After all, Bush & Co. have fought the regulators all along, warring against their own scientists and shooting down their own agencies' work. Earlier this year, for example, they nixed the more restrictive ozone standards proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. The coming elections merely give

them an excuse to close up shop early, to sigh, "laissez faire, laissez passer," and impose a blanket veto on the whole regulatory enterprise. And what of the conservative legislators themselves? With little hope of a GOP comeback, they see it's now or never to redeem the equity they have accumulated with the lobby boys. Twenty-eight House Republicans have announced their retirement since the last goround: The retreat has become a rout, the trickle a hemorrhage. Bush is a lame duck Harris 8 (5-11, Paul, The Guardian, www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/11/georgebush.usa) For Bush, who is fast becoming the forgotten man of America's political landscape, it has been a rare moment back in the spotlight. The fact is that for months Bush has been largely irrelevant in American politics. "He is

an extremely lame duck. Nothing he does is really worthy of any attention at this moment," said Professor Shaun Bowler, a political scientist at the University of California at Riverside. "It seems like he is just counting down the clock." The term "lame duck" is always given to two-term American presidents in their final year of office. As the political scene shifts to their inevitable successor, it becomes difficult for any president to have a meaningful impact. Simply put: everyone waits for the new man (or woman) to take power. But for Bush the

problem has become particularly acute. He began his second term with a radical domestic agenda to change social security and reform taxes. That was defeated, and then the Democrats won control of Congress, meaning they could stymie any fresh legislation Bush puts forward. At the same time, Bush's main legacy is the disastrous war in Iraq. That has seen his popularity ratings plunge to historic lows, further reducing his waning political influence. "He is one of the least popular presidents we have ever had. Even if he had an agenda now, he would not be able to enact it," said professor Seth Masket of Denver University. The result has been a surreal situation for much of the past year. Though he remains the most powerful man on Earth and will continue to occupy the Oval Office until January 2009, Bush has been reduced to a marginal figure. In recent weeks his most high-profile appearance was on the TV game show Deal or No Deal. Yet ratings for the episode slumped. That prompted the New York Post tabloid to crow in a headline: "Bush cameo sinks game show". Bush's toxic popularity ratings mean that he has played almost no role in the Republican election campaign so far. Though the Democrats continually link Bush with the Republican nominee, John McCain, McCain has tried to distance

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

12

Politics-India Deal

himself from his own president. Indeed, McCain recently launched a blistering attack on Bush's "disgraceful" handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

13

Politics-India Deal

UQ – Bush = Lame Duck (2/2) Republicans are abandoning Bush making him even more lame Rogers 8 (7-16, David, Senior Congressional Reporter for Politico, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11785.html) From Medicare to mortgages, President Bush’s lame-duck status is more and more evident in Congress, as restless Republicans defect and power shifts to activist Cabinet members, such as Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, willing to engage with Democrats. Within hours of receiving Bush’s veto message on Medicare legislation on Tuesday, lawmakers overrode the president, putting into law a bill that many Democrats — only weeks ago — didn’t think had enough votes to get through Congress. Instead, Republican defections tipped the scales dramatically, and on the veto override, 153 members of the president’s party joined 230 Democrats on the 28341 vote. The Senate followed, 70-26, with 21 Republican defections. The current crisis over the mortgage finance industry shows the other side of the coin. The president used a televised news conference Tuesday to endorse Treasury’s plan to shore up investor confidence in the two troubled giants: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But again, Republicans are defecting, prompting delays in the House and forcing Paulson to rely on Democrats to see the bill through Congress.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

14

Politics-India Deal

UQ – A2: Bush = Lame Duck (1/3) Recent Bush victories proves he still has moves Sobczyk 8 (7-21, Joe, Catherine Dodge, Washington Post, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aRa4aqPAsv9o&refer=home) July 19 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush, a lame duck with approval ratings under 30 percent, still managed to roll up a few victories in recent weeks. He won the battle with the Democratic majority in Congress over a $162 billion funding measure for the Iraq War; he got an overhaul of a terrorist surveillance law he championed; lawmakers approved an expansion of a program Bush established in 2003 to fight AIDS in Africa. On foreign policy, Bush's troop surge is getting credit for improving security in Iraq. North Korea has agreed to disable its nuclear plant and allow experts to inspect the site under an agreement with the U.S. and five other nations. ``Because he's stuck to it, he's been able to pull off a few things,'' said Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas in Austin. Bush can still get things done through olive branching Eggen 8 (7-13, Dan, and Paul Kane, Washington Post staff writers, “Recent Bush victories smell of compromise”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/12/AR2008071201616.html)

President Bush has racked up a series of significant political victories in recent weeks, on surveillance reform, war funding and an international agreement on global warming, but only after engaging in the kind of conciliation with opponents that his administration has often avoided. With less than seven months left in office, Bush is embracing such compromises in part because he has to. Faced with persistently low public approval ratings, a Democratic Congress and wavering support among Republicans,

he and his aides have given ground on key issues to accomplish broader legislative and diplomatic goals, according to administration officials, legislative aides and political experts. "To get something done or to get what you want or most of what you want, you've got to compromise," said Nicholas E. Calio, who served as Bush's first legislative affairs director. "The president and the White House are very focused on getting things done, and they don't abide the notion that he's a lame duck." Bush's willingness to compromise remains limited, and he has threatened to veto several key measures winding through Congress, from Medicare payments to housing reform. Yet any hint of accommodation is notable for a president who has often pursued a confrontational strategy with Congress -- even when it was in GOP hands -- and who has stood behind an unpopular war and go-it-alone policies abroad. "There hasn't been wholesale change, but there has been definite movement toward

compromise," said Thomas E. Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution. "What you're seeing is a willingness to bend some when you're getting a broader objective. On other things, you finesse it." Two weeks ago, for example, Bush signed a $162 billion spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that he hailed as a product of bipartisan cooperation. But the final legislation was far more expensive than Bush had said he would accept, and it included expanded G.I. Bill college benefits and other provisions that he had opposed. A new surveillance bill signed into law Thursday also marked a significant victory for Bush, largely because the White House won legal immunity for telecommunications firms that helped in eavesdropping after the Sept. 11 attacks. Yet even there, the compromise legislation included reforms that the administration had

initially opposed, including language making clear that the measure is the exclusive legal authority for government spying. The changes allowed the bill to easily overcome opposition from Democratic leaders and civil liberties groups. Bush's conciliatory mood extended to the Group of Eight summit last week in Japan, where the United States for the first time joined the other major industrialized countries in agreeing to try to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Although environmental groups said the deal lacked vital specifics, it marked a long journey for a U.S. president who came to office questioning the science of climate change.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

15

Politics-India Deal

UQ – A2: Bush = Lame Duck (2/3) Bush still has the political power to advance policies concerning security such as the India Deal Associated Press 08 (7-10, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j0pvISNafxE8dxMzz2F9UVgjngrwD91R7EQ00) For an unpopular guy on his way out of his office, President Bush still has some juice. When Bush signed a law Thursday to broaden the government's eavesdropping power, he served notice of how much sway he still holds on matters of national security. Yes, he is relevant in the twilight of his second term, even with anemic public approval ratings and much of the country tuning him out. Bush got the anti-terrorism spying legislation largely on his terms. He also has won fight after fight to keep the Iraq war going without a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops. He vetoed a bill that would have banned waterboarding for terror suspects, then watched as Democrats failed to override him. Contrast this to Bush's domestic agenda, which is all but ignored by the Democratic-controlled Congress. He keeps pushing for items that seem to be going nowhere, from offshore drilling to tax cuts to a trade deal with Colombia. Lawmakers blew right by him in approving a massive farm bill. Why the difference on security? Because protecting the country is, in fact, a different matter. The president commands the military in a time of war. He leads a nation that was infamously attacked — and no one has forgotten 9/11. So going against him can mean being labeled as soft on terrorism or unsupportive of the troops. In an election year, try going to the voters with that around your neck. Sen. Barack Obama, the Democrats' presidential contender, didn't want to take that risk. He backed the eavesdropping bill on grounds that it was imperfect but better than losing a tool against terrorism. The measure targets terrorists, though it has raised alarms about sweeping in innocent Americans. But opponents in Congress were hemmed in by time. Wiretapping orders approved last year would start expiring in August without congressional action. Plus, there was Bush, offering a credible veto threat. So Congress agreed on new surveillance rules. Including a provision Bush

demanded: immunity for telecommunications companies that helped the U.S. spy on Americans. "You'd have to say it's a clear win for President Bush, but I don't think it happened just because of President Bush," said Norman Ornstein, a scholar on the presidency and Congress at the American Enterprise Institute. "An awful lot of Democrats just did not want this issue to drag into the summer and beyond with the possibility that something could happen out there, and this could have been put out there against them as a contributing factor." Democrats,

historically, have a tougher job of winning over voters when it comes to protecting the country. It seems true again this year: Republican Sen. John McCain has better than a two-to-one edge over Obama on handling terrorism, according to an Associated PressYahoo News poll conducted last month. Bush, often a forgotten man this year, clearly reveled in his latest victory. Right after returning from Japan on Wednesday, Bush held a Rose Garden event to praise the passage of the eavesdropping legislation. The good news was essentially there waiting for him, as the Senate had passed the bill earlier in the day. "Good timing," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. Then Bush went back to the Rose Garden on Thursday to sign the bill, this time flanked by members of Congress. He thanked his own administration. He thanked lawmakers of both parties. He even thanked congressional staffers. Bush evoked the memory of Sept. 11, 2001, one of the worst times in the country's history. It was also a time when the nation was united behind Bush. "I vowed to do everything in my power to prevent another attack on our nation," Bush said. "I believe this legislation is going to help keep that promise." To be sure, Bush has had a second term of big setbacks, even on security. The White House is grappling with how to do respond to a rebuff from the Supreme Court, which ruled that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, can challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. Bush's own former spokesman, in a stunning book, said Bush favored propaganda over honesty in leading the nation into war in Iraq. Bush's approach to Congress, though, does not change. Nine times he has vetoed bills. Congress has had the muscle to override him only twice, and never on a matter of war or terrorism. Bush bashes Congress for inaction, then glosses over all the bitter words if a compromise with lawmakers emerges. He makes big promises. Sometimes he delivers, like staring down Congress on mandatory troop withdrawals from Iraq. Sometimes he doesn't, like overhauling immigration or Social Security. And

he just keeps talking of what he plans to get done, no matter how unlikely. Like a Middle East peace deal before he leaves office. The message: I'm still in charge here. "Being a lame duck means you have less clout," Ornstein said. "But you're still the president of the United States." sometimes,

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

16

Politics-India Deal

UQ – A2: Bush = Lame Duck (3/3) Bush’s recent victory proves he can still win battles Associated Press 08 (7-10, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJKgeE0Z-SivATjokutYBdh9wDwD91RFJAG1) President Bush signed a bill Thursday that overhauls rules about government eavesdropping and grants immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the U.S. spy on Americans in suspected terrorism cases. He called it "landmark legislation that is vital to the security of our people." Bush signed the measure in a Rose Garden ceremony a day after the Senate sent it to him, following nearly a year of debate in the Democratic-led Congress over surveillance rules and the warrantless wiretapping program Bush initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It was a battle that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks and Democrats' fears of being portrayed as weak when it comes to protecting the country. Its passage was a major victory for Bush, an unpopular lame-duck president who nevertheless has been able to prevail over Congress on most issues of national security and intelligence disputes.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

17

Politics-India Deal

UQ – Bipartisanship high (1/3) Recent energy proposal proves bipartisanship is high Talley 8 (8-1, Ian, Associated Press, http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200808011623DOWJONESDJONLINE0 00859_FORTUNE5.htm) As Democrats and GOP leaders excoriate each other's energy policies as key tenets of their election-year strategies, a bipartisan group of lawmakers may be charting a solution that could attract the majorities needed to push their energy proposal into law. The proposal, which the politicians expect could be brought to the floor in September, appeals to both parties by taxing Big Oil and funneling those funds into alternative and renewable fuels but opens up major portions of the Outer Continental Shelf currently closed to exploration. Party leaders may have difficulty whipping members into line to support their presidential candidates' policy positions after lawmakers come back from the August recess, where

"Nothing gets done in this body without 60 votes, and you don't get 60 votes without a true bipartisan effort," said Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., who along with Kent Conrad, D-N.D., led the "Gang of Ten" Senators - five Democrats and five Republicans - who formed the proposal. "It hopefully does break down some of the barriers around here," said Sen. John they'll likely receive an earful from voters angry at Congress for not passing any legislation to cut record oil prices.

Thune, R-S.D. Conrad said a number of Senators had already expressed interest in the proposal. The campaign office for presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., posted a statement that stopped short of an endorsement but praised the proposal as "a good faith effort" and "an important step in the process of reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil." Although Obama said he remained " skeptical" that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short term, his comments opened the door toward working with the group, saying he welcomed "the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact." While Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he didn't agree with all of the provisions in the proposal, he said, "I am hopeful this

plan can begin to break the current legislative stalemate on the Senate

floor." He later told reporters the package stood little chance of passing, indicating the comprehensive energy bill was unlikely to be voted into law in the run-up to November elections. Specifically, the proposal would open up sections of the OCS 50 miles off the shores of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia and off Florida's west coast in the Gulf of Mexico. All of those states except Florida would be able to opt for leasing of the acreage off their coasts, and revenue from the leases from 50 to 100 miles out would be shared between the federal and state governments. Revenue from leases beyond 100 miles would be federal funds. The proposal would fund a conversion of the nation's petroleum-guzzling vehicles to 85% non-oil fuel sources such as batteries and alternative fuels within 20 years, contributing $15 billion for research and development and helping auto manufacturers retool their plants. It would offer a $7,500 tax credit to purchase advanced vehicles. It also would extend renewable energy and efficiency tax credits through 2012, some of which expire at the end of this year. To pay for the $84 billion proposal - and give Democrats another lure for support - besides leasing and royalty revenues, the gang offers to repeal a manufacturing tax credit to oil companies and require oil firms that haven't paid royalty fees from faulty 1998-1999 leases in the Gulf of Mexico to ante up the billions lawmakers believed is owed the government. Karen Matusic, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based American Petroleum Institute, said while the group commended the bipartisan effort to expand production, "we remain concerned some proposals in this broad energy plan would impede efforts to maximize U.S. energy supplies." It immediately drew the ire of Florida Republican Sen. Mel Martinez: "The proposal would eliminate Florida's 2006 Gulf protections and give Floridians absolutely no voice in determining where exploration could occur," the Senator said in a statement.

In the House, another bipartisan group of legislators has offered a similar proposal and has said they would work with their Senate colleagues to gather support.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

18

Politics-India Deal

UQ – Bipartisanship high (2/3) Recent mortgage bill proves current bipartisanship NLC 8 (7-30, National League of Cities, http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/nlcpraises-bipartisanship-in-enacting-housing-reform,486930.shtml) "The National League of Cities congratulates the Administration and Congress for enacting legislation that will help thousands of Americans stay in their homes, provide cities with the funding they need to stop the downward spiral of home vacancies and neighborhood deterioration, and stabilize the home financing system. "The Administration and Congress are often criticized for partisanship and stalemates on the most vexing problems facing our nation, so it is particularly important to acknowledge when the system works as the framers of the Constitution intended. The legislation signed today gives local governments the federal assistance they need to bolster and expand the measures they have begun on a city-by-city level. "With Americans expected to lose $1.14 trillion in housing wealth by the end of 2008, Congress and the Administration finally did what our local officials must do every day in cities across America - they put aside partisanship and focused on getting the job done. "As a result of this legislation, municipalities all across the country will have access to $3.9 billion in neighborhood stabilization funds through Community Development Block Grants. The current housing crisis has led to large numbers of foreclosures across the country and the side effect has been abandoned and unkempt properties that further drive down home values. This legislation provides funds for municipalities to purchase, rehabilitate and resell these homes in an effort to keep entire neighborhoods from falling into decline."A large part of the credit for enactment of the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act goes to Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. While approaching the debate from vastly different perspectives and ideologies, these two leaders developed a constructive working relationship guided by a focus on solutions not politics. "Senate Banking Committee Chair Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and the Committee's Ranking Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) are also to be commended for their ability to work out a compromise that could garner the support of their colleagues.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

19

Politics-India Deal

UQ – Bipartisanship high (3/3) Energy proposal proves current congressional bipartisanship Diamond 8 (8-1, Robbie, Diamond has a Masters in Law and Diplomacy from The Fletcher School, http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/safe-applauds-bipartisan-energyproposal/story.aspx?guid=%7BC3266EAB-C1A9-4FBE-8A1B2D6231290490%7D&dist=hppr) "This bipartisan collection of leaders has put forward a serious vision to end oil as our primary source of transportation fuel, and to meet our energy needs in the interim," General P.X. Kelley (Ret.), 28th Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps and co-chairman of SAFE's Energy Security Leadership Council (ESLC) said. "We worked closely with members of both parties last year to draft and pass legislation that included the first improvement in vehicle fuel economy standards in three decades. In recent weeks, we have worked with the Gang of 10 and their staffs to take the next important steps. "We share the same goals with this bipartisan group of senators, and though we may not agree on all of the steps to reach those goals, this proposal includes several key policy elements that SAFE and the ESLC are advocating," Kelley added. "It leads our nation toward the long-term transformation to an electrified transportation system that is no longer dependent on oil. It also details the necessary steps -- including research and development and environmentally responsible domestic supply -- to support that effort and meet our current critical energy needs. This is a strong proposal, and SAFE is eager to continue working with members of the Group of 10 and the entire Congress to refine it and pass it into law." The proposal includes policies that will put the U.S. on a long-term course toward dramatically reducing its dependence on oil, primarily by electrification of the transportation system. It includes several provisions that SAFE is advocating, including: increasing research and development funding for alternative fuel vehicles (including batteries); financial support to help U.S. automakers retool factories to produce these vehicles; consumer tax credits to encourage the purchase of these vehicles; expanding transmission capacity for power from renewable sources; and others. To fund these measures and to meet crucial energy needs in the interim, the proposal includes provisions to lift congressional moratoria to allow environmentally responsible energy production in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, as well as a carbon sequestration credit for use in enhanced oil recovery in existing wells. "There are few more important national security priorities for the United States than energy security," Kelley continued. "Time is short. There are very few legislative days remaining in this election year. It is time for both the House and the Senate to move forward, and this proposal provides a solid framework with which to do so."

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

20

Politics-India Deal

UQ – Partisanship High (1/2) Partisanship is up Harris Interactive 8 (7-10, http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/partisanship-hostilitycast-shadow-over/story.aspx?guid=%7B93D8EDF7-D2AF-4FF4-8F066CF54F7BBF54%7D&dist=hppr) With each U.S. presidential candidate claiming that they can reduce the hostility in Washington, D.C., a new Harris Poll of 2,454 U.S. adults and 1,009 Canadian adults surveyed online by Harris Interactive(R) between June 9 and 16, 2008 suggests that there is a very large amount of hostility that needs to be reduced. Specifically: Three in five Americans (60%) believe there is a great deal of hostility and political partisanship in Washington, D.C. with Republicans even more likely than Democrats to believe this (65% versus 59%); Just over two in five (44%) U.S. Echo Boomers (those aged 18-31) say there is a great deal of hostility compared to just over three quarters (78%) of U.S. Matures (those aged 63 and older); Nine in ten Americans (89%) say it is important that the next president reduce political partisanship and hostility in Washington, D.C. with 63 percent saying it is very important he do this. Interestingly, just over half of Republicans (56%) say it is very important compared to seven in ten (70%) Democrats. The elections are provoking partisanship- Iraq proves The Atlantic 8 (7-15, http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/on_iraq_partisanship_is_back.php) There's a bit of an irony in this: Iraq is the issue that defines Barack Obama; more than any single factor, it propelled him to the Democratic nomination; his 2002 speech represents the intellectual quality that his supporters find most attractive: his capacity to see around corners. And yet: sixteen weeks before the election, after 16 months of campaigning, the man who is most identified with The Surge -- John McCain -- is just as trusted by Americans to figure out what to do about it. Three options: my best guess is that partisan differences are reasserting themselves -- Republicans and Republicanleaning independents are coalescing around their nominee and his position. Or maybe this is a tribune to McCain's astonishing personal brand; or, the American people have moved on Iraq from 2006 and tend to accept the premise that The Surge is working.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

21

Politics-India Deal

UQ – Partisanship High (2/2) Partisanship in congress is causing utter stalemate Washington Times 8 (7-27, Gary Andres, Special to the Washington Times, Lexis) The House majority leadership has pulled out all the stops to block votes on measures aimed at increasing domestic supply. The entire appropriations process has virtually ground to a halt because of Democratic leadership concerns that Republicans might offer amendments aimed at expanding energy resources. The majority has canceled markups in committee and restricted the types of bills the House considers, using its considerable procedural power to exclude amendments and other legislative ideas from consideration. All of these efforts are aimed at blocking one thing: congress working its will. Lawmakers could come together on legislative proposals aimed at more domestic production, expanding refining capacity and investing in renewable resources. But these days, the House is more likely to name a post office than pass energy legislation. It is a pattern that reinforces Americans' worst stereotypes about the institution. House Republicans feel emboldened by their successes so far. "This is the most unified and energized I have seen our members all year," a senior Republican leadership aide told me. The House Democratic leadership is making a common error: failing to produce legislative achievement by compromising with the minority. In today's polarized environment on Capitol Hill, party politics is a zero sum game. If Republicans develop a popular new idea, Democrats bury it. The notion of sharing political accomplishment is not in the congressional leadership's lexicon. A former Democratic senator once told me, "Party leadership now approaches legislation like the Super Bowl; there's only winners and losers." Lawmakers found a model for legislative success earlier this year with the bipartisan economic stimulus legislation. The economy needed a boost; Congress came together to do what it could. If Democrats reached out and repeated this pattern several more times - on issues such as energy, for example, voters would take notice. That would boost congressional popularity and probably solidify the Democratic majority. Democrats are starting to talk more about domestic production, but it sounds more like a buffer against blame than a bipartisan solution. This week, the House may consider Democratic legislation to expedite production in the National Petroleum Reserve - an area of Alaska where drilling is already approved as well as a plan to force oil companies to "lose" leases they don't use and possibly some other minor measures. Yet all these ideas have two things in common: Republicans did not dream them up, and they would do little if anything to address our nation's energy problems.

Congressional rules and procedures provide many ways for the minority to frustrate the majority's ability to pass these superficial measures that would not address our nation's energy needs. So the default is a stalemate until Democrats decide they are willing to confront the energy problems and their environmental-interest-group supporters. The House majority appears either unwilling or unable to do this - leading to continuing declines in approval. It also means nervous rank-and-file Democrats have a tough time explaining how their leadership's obsession with scuttling Republican legislative ideas eases the pain at the pump. Taken together, these actions send a clear message to voters: Congress is dysfunctional and more interested in accommodating narrow, private interests or partisan aspirations than coming together to address the big problems of the day. Circumstances rarely provide lawmakers with a chance to address the desires of a focused public. Energy policy does just that - giving the majority a chance to rise above expected patterns of partisanship. Good-faith compromise could help refill the tanks of public confidence. So far, the House Democratic leadership is running on empty.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

22

Politics-India Deal

UQ – Partisanship High - A2: Energy Proposal Parties are butting heads over the energy issue Taylor 8 (8-1, Andrew, Associated Press writer, http://www.newsweek.com/id/150233) Lawmakers sped for the exits Friday as Congress was to begin a five-week recess after a summer session noteworthy for bitter partisanship and paralysis on the issue topmost in the minds of many voters: the cost of gasoline. As its last major act, the House passed by a 409-4 vote its first spending bill, a $72.7 billion measure awarding generous increases to veterans programs and military base construction projects. More noteworthy however, was what Congress failed to do: pass energy legislation and other measures aimed at lowering the price of gasoline. Senate Republicans blocked a bill aimed at

curbing speculation in oil markets, while a similar bill and several others by House Democrats — including a plan to encourage drilling in already available coastal areas and in Alaska — failed to advance after party leaders brought them to the floor under procedures that required supermajorities to pass. That procedure blocked Republicans from forcing a vote on opening new areas to oil drilling. Republicans have been pressing to allow oil exploration in areas that are currently off limits, including the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. They have been relentless in their assault on Democrats over the topic, even though opening the Outer Continental Shelf to new exploration wouldn't put any oil on the market for a decade or more. Democratic leaders have been resolute in blocking new offshore exploration, even as oil patch members and moderates in the party support the idea. It's clear that if a vote were allowed, new offshore drilling plans would be allowed.

The energy proposal proves partisanship is spilling over to other issues Sunnucks 8 (7-25, Mike, Phoenix Business Journal, https://www.linkedin.com/secure/register?authToken=M3SX&authType=name&lnk=vw_pprofil e&id=5226265) Partisan divisions and maneuvers have stymied two federal plans aimed at easing high gasoline and crude oil prices. A proposal backed by the airline industry to release oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve failed to get enough votes in the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday and a filibuster is blocking movement on a Senate bill aimed at putting some stops on oil price speculation. In the House, the SPR plan failed to get two-third approval with Republicans (including Arizona's four GOP congressman) opposing. The state's four Democratic congressional members voted for the measure. But House Democrats required two-thirds approval instead of majority approval because they worried Republicans would add on provisions for new domestic offshore drilling and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. That could have passed with a majority vote and Democratic House leadership opposes ANWR and offshore drilling. The House vote was 268-157, falling short of the two-thirds requirement. The Air Transport Association airline industry group backed the oil reserve release plan and was disappointed by the partisan gridlock. "We sincerely hope that Congress can put aside its partisan differences and agree on a comprehensive package before recessing for the summer," said ATA chief executive James May. ATA members include major U.S. airlines including Tempe-based US Airways Group Inc. (NYSE: LCC). Arizona's eight House members all voted along party lines. Republicans Trent Franks, John Shadegg, Rick Renzi and Jeff Flake voted "no" and Democrats Harry Mitchell, Gabrielle Giffords, Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva voted "yes." In the U.S. Senate, the same

partisan scenario is playing out with an airline-backed bill aimed at curtailing oil price speculation. Airlines (including US Airways, American Airlines and United Airlines) favor legislation putting more rules and restrictions on oil price speculation. They contend that commodity speculators are driving up crude oil prices. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,, D-Nev., has a bill aimed at oil price speculation but the plan is being blocked by Republicans (including U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona). The Republicans favor offshore

and ANWR drilling to boost domestic oil supplies and want those ideas added to other energy bills. Democrats tend to oppose increased domestic drilling and do not want floor votes on such proposals. GOP Senators have been successfully filibustering the speculation plan, including via a vote Friday.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

23

***India Deal UQ***

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

24

Politics-India Deal

UQ – Will Pass – Congress (1/2) Political will and bipart are critical to swift passage in the SQ Hindustan Times 7-22 (“N-Deal Full Throttle Ahead,” 2008) And, as and when the NSG gives the green signal, then US President George W. Bush would have to determine that all obligations - on the US and India had been fulfilled - and with this determination, the 123 agreement would then be sent to the US Congress. Saran was of the view that given the political will and bipartisan support, the nuclear deal could clear the 90-day requirement to lie before the US Congress, before being voted on. The India Deal will pass the IAEA and will make it through Congress before Bush leaves office Times of India 7-25 (“NSG Clearance: Menon to Work on German Leadership,” 2008) Pakistan has indicated that it might ask for a vote hoping to put divisions in the IAEA to the fore. But analysts here said that IAEA was a UN body so voting on a decision is not unknown. However, sources here believe the IAEA agreement should not be a difficult achievement for India . Even the secretary of Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), Anil Kakodkar, expressed confidence that the safeguards agreement would be through. The US wants the Indian nuclear agreement to be in the Congress by the end of the first week of September, Mulford said. This would give the deal a fighting chance of going through before president George Bush leaves office. The deal has the support of the majority of congress but it will be tight Wilson 7-25 (Joe, United States Congressmen, http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080058654) I feel very good. We certainly are going to have a challenge because of the lateness of the legislative session and the upcoming elections. The focus indeed would be the members of the Congress campaigning in their home district. But there is a chance that we may come back for a special session after the elections. But whether we do or not, I am confident that there is a strong support in the Congress - a majority (of the members) support the agreement. Bipartisan support means the deal will pass in the lame duck session Outlook India 8-11 (http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20080811&fname=Nuclear+%28F%29&sid=1 &pn=1) Citing bipartisan support for the N-deal, Heritage Foundation's analyst Lisa Curtis says, "It is within the realm of possibility that the (congressional) leadership could change its mind and call a lame-duck session for the deal."

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 25

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

UQ – Will Pass – Congress (2/2) The deal will pass but it will be tight IANS 7-16 (http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEP20080716001346&Page=P&Title=Nation&Topic=0) The lawmaker, who is expected to play a key role in moving it forward, said the landmark agreement could still be completed before the current Congress adjourns. "It's possible, but it's very, very tight. Broad bipartisan support for the deal Reuters 7-14 (http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-34665120080724) The agreement has fairly broad bipartisan support in Congress, but its passage could be complicated by the short legislative calendar ahead of the November U.S. election. For the deal to go through, it has to be ratified by Congress.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

26

Politics-India Deal

UQ—AT: Overwhelms the Link There will be controversy over the deal but it still will garner support Wilson 7-25 (Joe, United States Congressmen, http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080058654) I believe that there would be some level of controversy, but over all, people understand India has extraordinary potential to be a very important partner of the United States. It is a country with a dynamic economy, but it has extraordinary needs. During my visits to India, I saw the power interruptions; I could see that people are using primitive way of heating or cooking. So by having a stable power supply source, this would actually help the economy grow and create new jobs. It would be safe and secure and also benefit the health of the people of India.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

27

Politics-India Deal

UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—Time (1/2) The deal will get approval from the IAEA and NSG—Even if time runs out Congress will hold a lame-duck session to get the deal through. Washington Post 7-23 (“India’s Outstretched Hand-New Delhi Does its Part to Salvage a Nuclear Pact – Now it’s Congress’ Turn,” 2008) There isn't much time; under U.S. law, Congress must be in session continuously for 30 days to consider the deal. Before that clock can start, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group must give India a green light. While those approvals are likely, they won't happen instantaneously. And because of the long August recess, there may not be more than 30 "legislative days" left before Congress adjourns on Sept. 26. The deal raises many legitimate questions. But, on balance, it is in the United States' interest, and Congress should find the time to say yes -- in a lame-duck session after the November election, if necessary. The deal will get through the IAEA and NSG and be in Congress in the beginning of September Economic Times 7-24 (“India, US put nuclear deal on fast track,” 2008, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/PoliticsNation/India_US_put_deal_on_fast_track/articleshow/3272154.cms)

NEW DELHI: Putting the nuclear deal negotiations on the fast track the US said it was planning to seek a meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group in the second week of August and send the nuclear deal to the US Congress by early September. This comes a day after Mr Manmohan Singh removed the domestic political hurdles to the deal. With the UPA government surviving the trust vote, both India and the US are now working furiously to meet these tight deadlines. The main focus on both sides is to win over the handful of NSG countries which are still uncomfortable about allowing India into the nuclear mainstream. These countries, including Ireland, New Zealand and Sweden, will now be the target of diplomatic initiatives by the US and India. The strategy is to call a NSG meeting immediately after the meeting of IAEA board of governors on August 1. The US doe not see any problems at the IAEA stage and expects the governors, including Pakistan, to give the approval. US ambassador David Mulford said the Bush administration would talk to Pakistan, which has been trying to block India's civilian nuclear aspirations. He further hoped that Pakistan would "see things in the right light". But it is the NSG stage that has both US and India concerned. "Our hope is that following the IAEA meeting, we would like the NSG meeting to take place within a week to 10 days. We feel that it is important to immediately address whatever concerns there are and if necessary have a second NSG meeting," said Mr Mulford. The assessment at this stage is that it will take time to convince all the NSG members to support a waiver for India. But the US is determined to complete the NSG step in August. "...So we'll have enough time to be in a position to give the legislation on the very first days of the US Congress in September," said Mr Mulford.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

28

Politics-India Deal

UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—Time (2/2) The NSG process will be completed in August and the deal will be signed by Congress in September Indo-Asian 7-26 (NDTV, “India may wrap up N-deal by September: Sibal,” 2008, http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080058805&ch=7/26/2008%206:33:00%20PM)

A couple of days ago, US ambassador David Mulford had said that the US was keen to convene the meeting of the NSG in the first week of August after the approval of the India-specific safeguards agreement by the IAEA board at its meeting August 1.,The NSG process is likely to be completed in August so that the 123 agreement can be endorsed by the Congress in September before Washington and New Delhi ink the bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreement. There’s enough time—the deal will be in front of Congress before September IANS 7-23 (“With vote won, India and US fast-track n-deal diplomacy,” 2008 http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20080723/812/tnl-with-vote-won-india-and-us-fast-trac_1.html)

New Delhi/Washington, July 23 (IANS) A day after the government won the trust vote, India and the US Wednesday fast-tracked the nuclear deal, with New Delhi sending emissaries to key NSG countries and Washington planning an NSG meeting early next month so that the deal can be wrapped up by September. 'We will like the NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group) meeting to take place within a week or 10 days after the approval (of the India-specific safeguards pact) by the IAEA board,' US ambassador David C. Mulford told reporters in New Delhi in a telephonic interaction from Ohio. The 35-member IAEA board of governors is expected to meet August 1 to approve the safeguards pact that assures India uninterrupted fuel supplies for the lifetime of its reactors and the right to take corrective action in case of disruption in foreign-sourced fuel. 'We feel it's important to address their concerns (of NSG countries) immediately. If it is necessary to have a second meeting of the NSG, we will do so that we can present it (123 agreement) to the US Congress in early days of September,' he said. No risk of their timeframe arguments—the deal will be on the table by September The Economic Times 7-25 (“India, US Put Nuclear Deal on Fast Track,” 2008) Putting the nuclear deal negotiations on the fast track the US said it was planning to seek a meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group in the second week of August and send the nuclear deal to the US Congress by early September. This comes a day after Mr Manmohan Singh removed the domestic political hurdles to the deal.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

29

Politics-India Deal

UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—India Singh won the no confidence vote—now he can push the deal without opposition domestically South China Morning Post 7-26 (Kevin Rafferty, “Singh Savours Victory, For Now,” 2008) It was hardly the finest hour for Indian democracy, but Prime Minister Manmohan Singh finally called the bluff of his leftist so-called allies this week and won a vote of confidence in Parliament after two days of stormy debate and widespread allegations of bribery and corruption. The way is now clear for Dr Singh to press ahead with plans for India to come in from the nuclear cold by pursuing the deal struck with President George W. Bush in 2005. Equally important is the still-open question of whether the victory will boost Dr Singh's own confidence and inspire him to revive the stalled economic reform programme. It would be nice to think that the government will seize the opportunity to put the economy into second gear, but there are still too many contradictions and too much red tape restraining what is potentially the most exciting country in the world. The margin of victory in the no-confidence vote in the 541-member lower house was 19 votes - 275 against 256. But this was a triumph for Dr Singh, given the widespread predictions of defeat in the vote, defeat for the nuclear deal and an early election. Both government and opposition pulled out all their resources: jails were opened to allow six convict MPs to vote, while ambulances delivered others from hospitals, some of them on stretchers; allegations of vote-buying abounded. Lal Krishna Advani, leader of the principal opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, claimed the nuclear deal makes India "subservient" to the US, a rich claim from a party that tried hard for a similar nuclear deal when it formed the government. Victory means Dr Singh has the authority to press ahead with the deal, which still needs the backing of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and then the US congress. Congress may be tougher than the Indian Parliament. American nuclear experts have vociferously protested that the deal allows India to drive a coach and horses round the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and offers an appalling example in trying to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. Brazil and South Africa had to give up their nuclear weapons programmes before being allowed a deal; India is being allowed to keep its nuclear weapons untouched.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

30

Politics-India Deal

UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—NSG (1/2) The deal will get NSG approval and be placed before Congress by the end of August Financial Express 7-24 (“US Wants NSG Process to be Over in August,” 2008) The US wants the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) process to be completed in August so that the US Congress can endorse the 123 agreement in September before Washington and New Delhi ink the bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreement. "We would like the NSG meeting to take place in a week or 10 days after the IAEA Board's after the approval of the India -specific safeguards agreement by the IAEA board at its meeting August 1,'' US ambassador David Mulford told reporters here in a telephonic conversation from Cleveland. The envoy, who is currently in the US holding consultations with the Bush administration on India , said the US, is expecting to get a clean' waiver from the NSG for India by the end of August. "This is a historic moment and countries are expected to take a political decision on which side of the history they are-whether they want to engage themselves with India or not,'' Mulford said in response to a question. According to him, the Bush administration, is working on the time-line, which would see the NSG clearing a waiver for India by the end of August so that the Indo-US civil nuclear agreement could be placed before the US Congress by September. "Some countries might ask for a second meeting of the NSG, which could be held in the later part of the months. But even then we have enough time to place the deal before the Congress in time,'' Mulford said. The NSG is on board for the India Deal Now—its been endorsed by all of the G8 countries India Today 7-21 (Raj Chengappa, India Today, “The Long Last Mile,” 2008, l/n) Also the G8 Summit in Toyako, Japan, was an ideal place for Manmohan to canvass for the deal with not only Bush but other leaders belonging to NSG countries including China. Judging from the unequivocal endorsement he got from the G8 countries as also from China, indicating that it would not be an obstacle at the NSG, the gamble was well worth the effort. In his 50-minute meeting with Bush, the prime minister also got assurances that the US President would go all out to move the deal through the remaining hoops.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

31

Politics-India Deal

UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—NSG (2/2) The India deal will get approval from the IAEA and NSG—Momentum and Goodwill Economic Times 7-28 (Nirmala Ganapathy, “Government Hopes Pakistan Won’t Push For IAEA Vote,” 2008) Pakistan's attempt to inject delay and dissent into the process cannot torpedo the nuclear deal. But India does not want the safeguards agreement to be put to vote at the board of governor's meeting this Friday. An official said that it remains to be seen if Pakistan pushes for a vote on August 1. Usually, IAEA board of governors takes decisions based on consensus. But in case a governor pushes for a vote, then the principle of simple majority is followed. Significantly, the last time a vote took place in the board of governors was two years ago and that too over Iran and its nuclear programme. New Delhi definitely does not want a vote as it would send out a wrong message and give India the dubious distinction of facing a vote in the IAEA after Iran. New Delhi thinks that such a linkage is completely avoidable. But officials also warned against overestimating the effects Pakistan's efforts will have on the IAEA board, where there is enough support for the nuclear deal, or indirectly on the NSG. Prime minister's special envoy Shyam Saran, who left for Latin America on Sunday, maintained that the NSG countries, including the keen supporters of the non-proliferation regime, would not be affected by Pakistan's note, which has warned that the nuclear deal will lead to an arms race between India and Pakistan and raised non-proliferation concerns. But the government is fairly confident that the IAEA step will be completed by the end of this week. Significantly, US ambassador David C Mulford said last week that the US would talk to Pakistan and hoped that Islamabad would 'see things in the right light'. Pakistan prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani is scheduled to meet US president George W Bush on Monday. Meanwhile, Mr Saran, who had left for Ireland the day the government won the trust vote, said that the nuclear deal has more support among NSG countries today than a year ago. Without going into any specific details, Mr Saran, who gave a climate change talk on Saturday in between diplomatic initiatives in Ireland and Latin America, said, "whatever demarches we have made with members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group today we are confident of a much more positive sentiment in the group then perhaps would have been the case about a year ago." Mr Saran, who refused to go into details of whether India had Ireland's support, maintained that the ongoing diplomatic initiatives were whipping up a pro- India momentum. "There is tremendous goodwill for India and I, for one, am confident we should get the kind of waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group," he added.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

32

Politics-India Deal

UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—France/Russia/Japan France, Japan, and Russia all support passage of the India deal—especially france. Rediff 7-15 (http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jul/15ndeal14.htm) France will support India during the forthcoming meeting of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency convened to consult and ratify Indiaspecific safeguards agreement for the Indo-US nuclear deal. Member of Indian Atomic Energy Commission Dr M R Srinivasan on Tuesday told PTI from Ooty that he was assured by the Director of External Relations of French Atomic Energy Agency Caron Olivera that France will back India at IAEA and the Nulcear Suppliers Group. Olivera is also part of the board of governors of the IAEA. Srinivasan had met the French diplomat during an international meeting on 'Plutonium and Security' held near Paris last week. Srinisavan said he also met High Commissioner of French Atomic Energy Commission Bernard Bigot during the meeting and both Bigot and Olivera said they were all waiting for India to speed up the process so that they could support India at both the IAEA board as well as the subsequent meeting of the 45-member NSG to facilitate India's entry into world nuclear commerce. The international meet was attended by several specialists in plutonium and even countries like Russia [Images], Japan [Images] are keen to support to India, he said. France, which has already given the green signal to build EPR 1650 MW nuclear power plant early this month, is looking forward to the Indo-US deal to be completed as soon as possible so that they could go ahead with their cooperation with India, Srinivasan said. France and India had almost entered into an agreement, but did not finalise it as they had to wait for the Indo-US deal to be completed.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

33

Politics-India Deal

UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—Australia Australia won’t oppose the India Deal—they want to build a strategic relationship with India. Rediff 7-9 (www.rediff.com/news/2008/jul/09ndeal3.htm) Australia was unlikely to oppose the Indo-US deal at the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a crucial step in the completion of the agreement, sources in Melbourne said as the opposition pushed the Kevin Rudd government to reverse its "hypocritical" stand of not selling uranium to New Delhi. The Labour government was against uranium sale to India as it is not a NPT treaty signatory, but the sources told The Age daily that Canberra was not expected to obstruct approval of the Indo-US deal at the 45member Nuclear Suppliers Group. The report came as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] met his Australian counterpart Kevin Rudd for the first time on the sidelines of the G-8 Summit in Toyako. Rory Medcalf, an international security analyst at the Lowy Institute for International Policy, said the Rudd government needed to balance Australia's increasingly important relationship with India with its strong stance on nuclear non-proliferation.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

34

Politics-India Deal

UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—China (1/2) China will back India at the IAEA and NSG meetings—they want to build bilateral nuclear energy cooperation Vembu 7-9 (Daily News and Analysis India, http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1176527) HONG KONG: China will almost support India’s case when it goes before the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) to operationalise the Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement, according to an influential member of a Chinese think-tank. The day PM Manmohan Singh met Chinese president Hu Jintao at the outreach session of the G-8 meeting in Japan, the analyst told DNA that China’s support would be consistent with a bilateral cooperation agreement between India and China on civilian nuclear energy, during Singh’s visit to Beijing, earlier this year. At Tuesday’s meeting with Singh in Japan, Hu spoke in general terms about the need to strengthen “win-win cooperation” between their countries. China, he said, was “willing to work with the Indian side to promote cooperation and exchanges in various fields, substantialise the China-India strategic partnership and advance the stable, sound and long-term development of bilateral relations,” reported Xinhua. Beijing’s support is critical for India, which is not a signatory to the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, when it approaches the NSG to seek a “clean exemption” while seeking nuclear supplies. Since the NSG, works on consensus, China can cite nonproliferation concerns to block the grant of an exemption to India. Although China has never explicitly come out against the Indo-US nuclear agreement, in the past it criticised it on grounds that it would go against the the objective of nuclear nonproliferation. During Singh’s visit to China earlier this year, he and premier Wen Jiabao signed a document on ‘A Shared Vision for the 21st century’, which envisages bilateral cooperation in nuclear energy among other things, notes the analyst. Here, both pledged to promote bilateral cooperation in nuclear energy, consistent with their respective international commitments, which will contribute to energy security and dealing with climate change risks. It also articulates China’s “intention to cooperate with India” in the area of nuclear energy, the analyst noted. Asked if it meant China would back India at the NSG, he added, “When an NSG member commits to cooperating with India on a bilateral basis in nuclear energy, it has implications for its response at the NSG

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

35

Politics-India Deal

UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—China (2/2) China won’t be an obstacle in the approval process Times of India 7-23 (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/US_hopes_China_to_back_nuke_deal_in_NSG/rssarticlesho w/3271319.cms) NEW DELHI: The US on Wednesday said it has spoken to China about support for its nuclear deal with India and expressed hope that Beijing will take a positive view of global nuclear cooperation with New Delhi. Yes, we have had conversations with China. China has agreed to review carefully the necessary documentation before taking a decision," US Ambassador David Mulford told reporters here in a conference call from Cleveland. "I have a feeling they will take a positive view. But I can't speak for China," he replied when asked whether the US was confident that China will back India in the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). The telephonic interaction was arranged by the US embassy at the American Centre. The US is keen to convene a meeting of the NSG in the first week of August after the approval of the India-specific safeguards agreement by the IAEA board at its meeting on August 1. The US wants the NSG process to be completed in August so that the 123 agreement can be endorsed by the US Congress in September before Washington and New Delhi ink the bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreement. China, one of the five recognised nuclear weapon states and influential member of the NSG, has been ambivalent about the India-US nuclear deal and has yet to take a formal position on it. However, during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao July 9 on the sidelines of the G8 summit in Japan, Beijing indicated it will not be a hurdle in the path of India in the NSG, said Indian officials.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

36

Politics-India Deal

UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—Pakistan (1/2) Pakistan has no leverage to block passage of the India deal. Heavy aid from the United States means they can be strong-armed into cooperation. The Australian 7-25 (Bruce Loudon, “Pakistan: Nuke Deal to Spark Arms Race,” 2008) The NSG bans exports to nuclear weapons states such as India and Pakistan that have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and do not have full safeguard agreements allowing the IAEA to inspect their facilities. But the NSG is ready to consider a waiver for India , in part due to lobbying from Washington. Moving to block consensus and stall a process that both India and the US are seeking to expedite, Pakistan warned the deal ``threatens to increase the chances of a nuclear arms race in the sub-continent''. The agreement, unveiled in 2005, will allow the US to sell nuclear plants and related technology to India once it has separated its civil and military programs and accepted a certain level of UN inspections. Islamabad warned the deal was ``likely to set a precedent for other states which are not members of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and have military nuclear programs''. Predominantly Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan have fought three wars since 1947. Relations have improved considerably since the start of a peace process in 2004. But progress at the talks has been slow and deep distrust remains between the two rivals, which developed their nuclear arms in secret. Pakistan's intervention yesterday came as a battery of New Delhi's top envoys were fanning out across the world following the Indian Government's spectacular win in a noconfidence motion in parliament this week brought by opposition parties who were against the deal. Scores of India 's most senior officials have embarked on urgent missions aimed at ensuring rapid approval of the so-called safeguards agreement by the board of the IAEA when it meets in Vienna on August 1, and the ``clean exemption'' agreement that is due to be rushed through the NSG immediately after that. There is consternation in the Indian capital that the move by Pakistan -- clearly aimed at appealing to those countries most concerned about nuclear proliferation, including the likes of Australia, Canada and New Zealand -- could seriously upset their calculations and cause major problems in trying to get US congressional approval of the final draft of the deal before President George W. Bush leaves office. Last night, Washington's ambassador in New Delhi, David Mulford, said the Bush administration had the ability to ``persuade'' Pakistan to ``co-operate''. There seems little doubt Islamabad's intervention will be high on the agenda when new Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani arrives in Washington next week to see Mr Bush . Given the extent to which Pakistan is tied to Washington after receiving $10 billion in aid over the past few years, its scope for independent initiatives is considered by most analysts to be limited. Indian hopes the Bush administration would be able to strong-arm Islamabad were boosted by a report in the The New York Times outlining plans to shift nearly $US230 million ($240million) in aid to Pakistan from counter-terrorism programs to upgrading Islamabad's ageing F-16 attack planes.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

37

Politics-India Deal

UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—Pakistan (2/2) Pakistan isn’t a problem—overwhelming good will for India and United States influence Webindia 7-30 (“India hopeful of positive response from IAEA, NSG (Lead),” 2008, http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/World/20080730/1013977.html) Pakistan has raised several objections to certain clauses in the proposed India-specific safeguards agreement, but New Delhi is confident that such efforts will not succeed as there is an overwhelming support and goodwill for India in the IAEA, the official said. The US has also spoken to the powers-that-be in Islamabad and exhorted them to see the India-US nuclear deal in the right perspective. The issue figured in discussions between US President George W. Bush and Pakistan Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani in Washington.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

38

Politics-India Deal

UQ – AT: Won’t Pass—IAEA The deal passed the IAEA The Indian News 8-1 (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/india-gets-iaea-passfor-global-nuclear-trade_10078838.html) Vienna, Aug 1 (IANS) The India-US civil nuclear deal Friday cleared its first global test as the 35-member board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) unanimously approved the India-specific safeguards agreement, a key step towards readmitting New Delhi into the privileged world of nuclear commerce. The 35-member IAEA board meeting lasted nearly four hours with an exhaustive discussion on different aspects of the safeguards agreement that aims at bringing 14 Indian nuclear power reactors under international safeguards over the next few years.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

39

Politics-India Deal

UQ – AT: It Will Pass in the Next Administration (1/3) If the deal fails it won’t pass in the future—no interests groups and future Administrations won’t spend the political capital Hindustan Times 8 (“Advantage Singh in US,” July 23, http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/FullcoverageStoryPage.aspx?sectionName=&id=7f10a8a2-fcd1-4d5a8c3931b085c5f2b3SinghisKing_Special&&Headline=Advantage+Singh+in+United+States)

The US reaction in case of a defeat, she said, would be "what does it say about India that the government fell over a deal that was so very favourable?" Future US administrations will be reluctant to expend political capital on behalf of India. Three, the nuclear deal took off in the US not only because of Indophile George W Bush. It had a strong run because many different domestic US interest groups came out in its favour. This included the Pentagon, big business and the Indian-American community .In Singh's failure, this coalition would break apart and could take years to come together again. Building such coalitions in Washington is very difficult and sustaining them even more so. The most successful has been the Israeli lobby. Neither McCain or Obama will spend their political capital—they’d have to completely redo the deal The Hindu 8 (K.V. Prasad, “U.S. Congressional clock ticks away; uncertainty over lame duck session,” http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/15/stories/2008071559781000.htm) If the deal does not go through this year, it will have to be the call of Senator Barack Obama or Senator John McCain, when one of them enters the White House in January 2009. The new President will have to make all the required determinations and then submit them to the new Congress for its consideration. In the opinion of Prof. Stevenson, the new President was unlikely to spend much political capital on a deal done by his predecessor until he achieved several of his own promised goals. The deal won’t go through if it isn’t finished with this administration Associated Press 7-10 (Foster Klug, “US-India Nuclear Deal Unlikely to be Reached Soon,” 2008, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjHnPz7XX0WpdjPiswhHLvaXj0pAD91QROR80) The next president could take up the accord when he takes over in January. Failure to secure approval under Bush, however, would leave it to an uncertain fate. Both leading candidates for president, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, have indicated support for the deal, but it is not clear that either would consider it a priority as president. The new administration also would be working without many of the high-level Bush officials who led painstaking talks with India and then persuaded skeptical U.S. lawmakers to give their approval. Christine Fair, a South Asia specialist at the RAND Corp. think tank, said "the underbelly of this deal, as Bush envisioned it, was that, with our help, India was going to become a global power, and that meant becoming a global nuclear power. I just don't know if McCain or Obama are going to embrace that."

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

40

Politics-India Deal

UQ – AT: It Will Pass in the Next Administration (2/3) India will just go elsewhere for nuclear materials Associated Press 7-10 (Foster Klug, “US-India Nuclear Deal Unlikely to be Reached Soon,” 2008, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjHnPz7XX0WpdjPiswhHLvaXj0pAD91QROR80) Democratic Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a leading critic, said the Bush administration is pressuring the IEAE and NSG for quick approval of the deal. That, he said, compromises the integrity of the review process of the deal's nonproliferation implications. If Congress cannot ratify the deal, and the IAEA and NSG approve it, Markey added in an interview, "nothing would stop India from signing deals with other international suppliers. After NSG approval France and Russia would make nuclear sales to India Rediff News 7-9 (“After NSG ok, India doesn't really need the US,” 2008 http://www.rediff.co.in/news/2008/jul/09ndeal15.htm) Given this, it seems likely that the US, and not India, may end up the loser. Once armed with the NSG approval, India can begin nuclear trade with other countries, US administration officials and congressional aides told the Post. What it means is that countries like France [Images] and Russian can make nuclear sales to India while American companies continue to face restrictions since the congressional approval has not been forthcoming. Sharon Squassoni, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, agrees as much to the Post. 'India doesn't need the US deal at all' after the NSG's approval, Squassoni told the newspaper. 'It was a fatal flaw in the logic of US Congress.'

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

41

Politics-India Deal

UQ – AT: It Will Pass in the Next Administration (3/3) New Committee makeup would make that impossible Thaindian news 3-11 (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/indian-americanseeks-early-action-on-n-deal_10026132.html) “One thing that needs to be remembered here is that among those who opposed the bill many of them chair some of the most important committees in the new Congress and can easily kill a similar bill if presented for approval today,” said Mago seeking early action on India’s part. “We will always be able and ready to support India’s cause as and when needed,” said Mago, who helped create the “Friends of India caucus” in the US Senate headed by former first lady Hillary Clinton and Republican Senator John Cornyn from Texas. No chance of a deal if it doesn’t get done now Business standard 3-17 (http://www.businessstandard.com/common/news_article.php?leftnm=lmnu5&subLeft=1&autono=317102&tab=r) These are complex issues, and the government initially overstated what India would gain from the agreement. But India’s negotiators have done an outstanding job — which is not to say that there have been no compromises. The deal itself would not have been possible without the political push given by President Bush. If it is not signed before Mr Bush’s term ends, and if he were to be succeeded by a Democrat president, it is a given that the whole thing will be dead and buried. Those hoping to re-negotiate better terms will then have to wait an awfully long time, during which the country can regret at its leisure a missed opportunity.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

42

Politics-India Deal

UQ – A2: Congress Not Key Congressional approval key to stable deal – congressional imprimatur provides more certainty Rivkin, BakerHostetler partner and constitutional law expert, 9-10-07

(David B., Jr., India Today, GUEST COLUMN: AN AMERICAN VIEW: The 123 Agreement Will Prevail, p. 30) Once India fulfils the preconditions that have been agreed upon, e.g., the IAEA safeguards, and the ban on nuclear trade is lifted by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the 123 Agreement is to be approved or disapproved by an up and down vote in the Congress, without providing Congress the opportunity to modify the Agreement. It is far better for India to have an Agreement that is blessed by Congress. This is because congressional approval makes it more difficult to change in the future and provides New Delhi with greater certainty. In contrast, a purely executive agreement could always be changed by the next President.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 43

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

UQ – Won’t Pass – Congress (1/2) Opposition to India deal increasing South China Morning Post 7-26 (Kevin Rafferty, “Singh Savours Victory, For Now,” 2008) Congress may be tougher than the Indian Parliament. American nuclear experts have vociferously protested that the deal allows India to drive a coach and horses round the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and offers an appalling example in trying to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. Brazil and South Africa had to give up their nuclear weapons programmes before being allowed a deal; India is being allowed to keep its nuclear weapons untouched. Regardless of its passage in India—the India deal won’t get final approval in Congress Thai-Indian News 7-9 (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/n-deal-may-not-passbut-india-can-turn-to-others-washington-post_10069655.html) (IANS) Despite clearing a key hurdle, the India-US civil nuclear deal may still not win final approval in the US Congress this year, but New Delhi can begin nuclear trade with other countries even without it, according to a US daily. The Bush administration’s signature deal “appears unlikely to win final approval in the US Congress this year, raising the possibility that India could begin nuclear trade with other countries even without” it, the Washington Post said Wednesday, citing administration officials and congressional aides. Growing opposition towards the India deal—fear of nuclear arms race Huffington Post 6-18 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/us-india-nuclear-dealnow_n_107764.html) The nuclear deal faces opposition in the U.S., too. Critics there, including some in Congress, say providing U.S. fuel to India would free up India's limited domestic supplies of nuclear material for use in atomic weapons, which they argue could spark a nuclear arms race in Asia.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

44

Politics-India Deal

UQ – Won’t Pass – Congress (2/2) Congress is opposed to the nuclear deal—objections to lack of restraints on India The Post 8-1 (http://thepost.com.pk/OpinionNews.aspx?dtlid=175311&catid=11) President Bush has his own problems, persuading Congress to pass the deal before it adjourns for the year on September 26. The Centre for Arms Control and NonProliferation, a Washington-based non-partisan policy organisation, has asked the suppliers group and Congress not to make a hasty decision on the nuclear agreement, saying it undermines global non-proliferation efforts. Both US presidential candidates Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama have indicated support for the deal. But it is not clear if they would present it to the Congress in its current form. Some analysts object to the deal because it fails to restrain India’s nuclear weapons programme. Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Non-proliferation Policy Education Centre, argues in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that “fuelling India’s civilian reactors with foreign fuel is not all that peaceful”. The Bush administration has tried to convince Congress that the US legislation for the nuclear deal, the Hyde Act, has mechanisms to check India’s nuclear weapons ambitions. However, the Indian government is indicating the opposite. To win over its parliamentary allies, the prime minister’s office insists the nuclear deal overrides the Hyde Act. A July 15 government statement says, “The agreement will in no way impinge on our strategic programme, which is entirely outside the purview of the IAEA safeguards agreement.” Congress won’t accept the deal—Washington caved too easily on India’s demands Curtis 8 (Lisa, Senior Research Fellow for South Asia in the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/wm2002.cfm) Some congressmen who are adamant about denying India nuclear fuel reprocessing rights may be reluctant to accept the language of the 123 Agreement, which seeks to bridge the divide between Washington and New Delhi on this issue. India has consistently defended its right to reprocess nuclear fuel. The Administration ultimately accepted Indian demands regarding this right but distinguished between the right and an entitlement to U.S. assistance in the pursuit of reprocessing activities. India, for its part, committed to create a dedicated, safeguarded reprocessing facility to ensure that U.S.-origin nuclear fuel is not diverted to its weapons program.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

45

Politics-India Deal

UQ – Won’t Pass—Democrats Growing democratic opposition is threatening the India Deal. Gollust 7-10 (http://voanews.com/english/2008-07-10-voa51.cfm) Enabling action in the U.S. Congress, meanwhile is threatened both by resistance from some Democrats, who accuse the Bush the administration of diluting U.S. nonproliferation policy, and the political timetable. Democratic leadership is opposed to the deal—they’re unhappy about the lack of safeguards Hindustan Times 7-11 (“US Vows to Uphold Its End of Nuclear Deal,” 2008) While critics of the deal, including some Democrats accuse the Bush administration of diluting US non-proliferation policy, those in favour have warned that if Congress fails to act this year, India can turn to other suppliers and the US nuclear industry could potentially lose billions of dollars in business. Democrat Edward J. Markey, a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the founder and cochair of the House Bipartisan Task Force on non-proliferation, for one called the India-IAEA safeguards agreement as "worse than useless; it is a sham." Expressing shock at what he called "the loopholes" in the agreement, he said: "Safeguards agreements should ensure a bright red line between civilian and military nuclear facilities. Instead, this agreement lays out a path for India to unilaterally remove international safeguards from reactors." Contrary to everything the Bush administration has claimed about the US-India nuclear deal, if this safeguards agreement is approved, India will be allowed to make electricity one day and bombs the next," he alleged.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

46

Politics-India Deal

UQ – Won’t Pass—Time (1/3) The deal won’t make it through Congress—not enough time Thai Press Reports 7-24 (“Bush Administration promises full efforts on India Nuclear Deal,” 2008) Before the U.S. Congress can approve enabling legislation, the agreement must be cleared by both the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, the NSG, which governs trade in reactors and uranium fuel. At a news briefing, Acting State Department Spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said the Bush administration will work to move the agreement forward but said it remains to be seen if there is enough time, especially in the U.S. Congress which aims to finish its session by September 26. “We're going to be communicating to the Hill how important we believe this measure is for the United States, how important we believe this strategic partnership will be for India , for us, and for others concerned with security around the world. We understand that the calendar is tight. We have the situation that we have. But we do look forward to moving forward with this and will do so as quickly as we can," he said. Legislative rules require that the India deal must sit before Congress for 30 days of continuous sessions before a vote, and the 30-day clock can only begin after approval by both the IAEA and NSG. A key Congressional Democrat, Ed Markey, who chairs the House Bipartisan Task Force on Non-Proliferation, said earlier this month there is simply not enough time left and that administration hopes for action are just fiction. The India deal has broad support but some members from both parties, including Markey, contend that it undermines the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Democratic leaders have said they oppose re-convening Congress for a so-called "lame duck" session after the November election, partly because they anticipate election gains for Democrats and do not want the current Congress to be prolonged.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

47

Politics-India Deal

UQ – Won’t Pass—Time (2/3) The India Deal’s time has run out—there aren’t enough consecutive days left on Congress’ schedule and there will be no lame duck session. Kronstadt, 08 (Alan, Expert on South Asian Affairs and a Senior Analyst at the Congressional Research Service, “Not enough time in US Congress to pass deal: Expert,” July 8, http://in.rediff.com/news/2008/jul/08inter.htm) The key here is that, according to our laws, the Congressional calendar in US requires a continuous 30-day session once the president introduces the bill to Congress. The calendar is getting a little tough now. Congress is in recess in August.The session of the 110th Congress, which sat in January 2007, ends this year. The session is slated to end in late September unless a lame-duck session occurs after the November election. Congressmen may or may not decide to come back for the lame-duck session, specially this year, now that we have a presidential election going on too. This is very disruptive to the Congressional schedule. The entire 435 members of the House (of Representatives) and one-third of the members of the Senate are running for reelection. They are compelled to go back to their districts to campaign. Congress is likely to be not in session for (the remainder of the) year unless they choose to come back for the lame-duck session. What if President Bush decides to take it up? Then, there are ways of doing it, right? I am not aware of any steps the president can take to do away with the 30 days of continuous session that is required. It is part of the law. We have the Atomic Energy Act, which is relevant here (It deals with the regulation of nuclear materials and facilities in the US). There is the Hyde Act, which is an enabling act that is clear about the requirements (that come after the submission by the) president. That's why, in the last few months we saw State Department officials started referring... to Senator (Joseph) Biden's statements.As a senior (senator), Senator Biden's words should be taken as quite credible on the issue. Biden said we need to submit (the nuclear deal) sometime in June. When the administration started referring to Biden's statements I took it as a sign that the (Bush) administration itself was seeing the timeline the same way. Subsequent statements from the (US) ambassador (to India David Mulford) and even from some Congressmen suggest that the clock has run out. The 30 days' session starts when the president submits the India-US nuclear co-operation agreement to Congress. To do that, certain steps at have to be completed at the IAEA and NSG. If the necessary steps at the IAEA and NSG are completed by, say, the end of July, then do you think the nuclear deal has a good chance to pass Congress? The way I see it, there are just not enough days in the Congressional calendar without (including) a lame-duck session. As I understand a session is planned in September that only leaves whatever days are left in September and whatever days remain in July. I don't see how they (could) get 30 continuous days out of that.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

48

Politics-India Deal

UQ – Won’t Pass—Time (3/3) Passage of the India deal is impossible—there isn’t enough time. Washington Post 7-9 (Glenn Kessler, “Congress May Not Pass U.S.-India Nuclear Pact,” 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070801523.html) India's civil nuclear agreement with the United States may have cleared a key hurdle in New Delhi this week, but it appears unlikely to win final approval in the U.S. Congress this year, raising the possibility that India could begin nuclear trade with other countries even without the Bush administration's signature deal, according to administration officials and congressional aides. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has struggled to keep his coalition government intact over the controversial deal to give New Delhi access to U.S. nuclear technology for the first time since it conducted a nuclear test in 1974. This week, he secured an agreement with the Samajwadi Party to back the deal, giving him enough support to retain his majority even as the Communists bolted over fears that the pact would infringe on India's sovereignty. But the legislation passed in 2006 -- the so-called Hyde Act -- that gave preliminary approval to the U.S.-India agreement, requires that Congress be in 30 days of continuous session to consider it. Congressional aides said that clock can begin to tick only once India clears two more hurdles -- completing an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and securing approval from the 45 nations that form the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which governs trade in reactors and uranium. Because of the long August recess, less than 40 days are left in the session before Congress adjourns on Sept. 26. "At this point, both [the IAEA and NSG actions] have to take place in the next couple of weeks" for the deal to be considered by Congress, said Lynne Weil, spokeswoman for the House Foreign Affairs Committee. But the IAEA Board of Governors is not expected to take up the matter until August, whereas the NSG may take several months to reach a consensus. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has repeatedly insisted there will be no lame-duck session after the Nov. 4 elections. There would be little incentive for the Democratic majority to hold a lame-duck session if, as expected, the Democrats significantly gain seats.President Bush's agreement with India, considered a key part of his foreign policy legacy, is designed to solidify Washington's relationship with a fast-emerging economic power. Bush and Singh agreed to the pact in July 2005, but it has faced repeated delays and opposition in both countries.Now, with the near impossibility of congressional passage by year-end, officials and experts have begun to focus on the possibility that other countries -- such as France and Russia -- would rush in to make nuclear sales to India while U.S. companies still face legal restrictions.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

49

***Links – General***

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

50

Politics-India Deal

Link—Delay Bush has to solely focus on the deal—any delay will cause its death Outlook India 8-11 (http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20080811&fname=Nuclear+%28F%29&sid=1 &pn=1) Graham Wisner, a lobbyist with Patton Boggs, a Washington law firm hired by the USIndia Business Council (USIBC) to win support for the deal in Congress, says there has to be "a full diplomatic press by the Indian and US governments to get unanimous consent from the NSG by the first week of September." Any further delay, he warns, would close the very small window before the US election break. However, there is a slight possibility that the September 26 date for recess could be postponed until early October, thus enabling the deal to lie in Congress for 30 days of continuous session. The deal has to get done now—any further delay would cause its collapse India Today 7-21 (Raj Chengappa, “The Long Last Mile,” 2008, l/n) The Left's stringent objections and delaying tactics have left both the Indian and the US governments with little elbow room to consummate the deal during US President George Bush's tenure which ends in January 2009.Apart from the IAEA Board clearing the India-specific safeguards agreement, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) has to agree to make an exception in its rules that would permit its 45 members to carry out civilian nuclear trade with India even though it is not a signatory to the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT). After that the US President will make a determination that India has fulfilled its part of the deal and send it to the US Congress which will then have to take an up-or-down vote on it. Only after all these processes are completed to everyone's satisfaction, will the deal become operationalised and allow India to engage in nuclear trade with American entities. If Manmohan suddenly seemed in a hurry to push the deal through, it was because any further delay would mean that India would have to negotiate with a new President and a new Congress to seal the deal. And there was every danger that they may not be as responsive or enthusiastic as Bush and the current legislators are.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 51

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link – Normal Means Spends Capital (1/2) The plan crowds the agenda and burns capital Pastor, Emory political science professor, 91

(Robert, WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, Autumn 1991, p. Lexis) The third dysfunction in interbranch relations is the length of time and the amount of presidential capital needed to gain approval of a major foreign policy law or treaty. When the president makes a compelling case that the national security of the United States demands the approval of a particular bill or treaty, Congress rarely rejects him. This was true for the Panama Canal treaties and the war in the Persian Gulf. But if the policy is unpopular, the president will almost certainly have to devote a much larger proportion of his time and political capital to gaining approval for it, and he will have less time for and influence on other foreign policy issues. Also, if he needs to ask Congress repeatedly to approve an unpopular policy -such as contra aid -- he will deplete his political capital and is likely eventually to lose the votes, as Reagan did. The increasing complexity of the world and its growing interdependence with the United States means that the agenda will grow, the trade-offs between domestic and international interests will become more delicate, and the role of Congress will increase proportionately. A few difficult issues -- like the canal treaties or contra aid -- can delay consideration of the entire foreign policy agenda for prolonged periods. Given a fixed amount of time and a limited number of decision makers, this systemic delay might be among the most important problems that stem from interbranch politics. The president must be very conscious of his agenda and very selective in his approach.

Normal means ensures the plan spends finite political capital - policymaking and resource distribution require extensive use of White House resources Light, Brookings Center for Public Service director, 99

(Paul C., THE PRESIDENT'S AGENDA, 1999, p. 2. ) The President's domestic agenda also reflects the allocation of resources, which often are fixed and limited. As a President moves through the term, each agenda choice commits some White House resources - time, energy, information, expertise, political capital. Each agenda item also commits some policy options, whether federal funds or bureaucratic energy. The sheer number of participants in the policy process both inside and outside the White House has increased rapidly over the last two decades; interest groups and individuals have "discovered" Congress and the Presidency. This growing pressure has placed greater emphasis on the agenda as a topic of political conflict. Policy-makers increasingly turn to the agenda for the first battles over the distribution of scarce resources. Given the ever-tightening policy options, this pressure will not abate in the near future.

Controversial policies spend political capital Light, Brookings Center for Public Service director, 99

(Paul C., THE PRESIDENT'S AGENDA, 1999, p. 2. ) Presidential priorities also involve more conflict, both inside the administration and out. And the greater the conflict, the more time, information, expertise, and energy necessary to settle the disputes. "You'd be surprised how long it takes to iron out the differences," a Johnson legislative assistant argued. "Compromise doesn't usually happen overnight. It takes a heft investment of presidential influence and effort." Once again, welfare reform serves as an example. One highly placed Nixon observer maintained that "the [Family Assistance] plan could have been announced much sooner if there hadn't been such a struggle. With Burns and Moynihan at odds, we couldn't move. When one would attack, the other would counterattack. Sure, the issue was intricate, but it could have been handled much faster without the infighting. As it was, there was a stalemate for three months."

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 52

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link – Normal Means Spends Capital (2/2) Controversial decisions burn capital Thomas & Pika, Professors of Political Science, University of Cincinnati and Delaware, 97

(Norman & Joseph, THE POLITICS OF THE PRESIDENCY, 1997, pg. 215 "Political Capital" is the reservoir of popular and congressional support with which newly elected presidents begin their terms. As they make controversial decisions, they "spend" some of their capital, which they are seldom able to replenish. They must decide which proposals merit the expenditure of political capital and in what amounts.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

53

Politics-India Deal

Link – AT – Our Plan Is Popular Only a risk of a link – There’s always opposition to be overcome Rosati 4, University of South Carolina Government and International Studies professor

(Jerel A., THE POLITICS OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY, 2004, p. 388) The fragmentation of public ideological and foreign policy beliefs gives a president great opportunities but also creates great risks. Unlike those in the 1950s, presidents now are no longer driven to pursue only an anticommunist containment policy. Yet it is unclear how far a president may go in pursuing any policy before losing public support. Presidents no longer come to office with automatic majorities behind their policies. No matter what the president and his advisers believe, a substantial number of Americans – in the mass public and especially the elite public – disagree, or are open to disagreement, with presidential policy. Hence, the continual presidential search for, and frustration in obtaining, consensus and policy legitimation.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 54

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Unpopular – Congress Subsidized Members of Congress receive subsidies Utt 7 (Ronald D., Ph.D., is Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/agriculture/bg2045.cfm, 6/27) Exactly how many Members of Congress benefit directly from USDA subsidies has not been fully established, but several studies and articles have uncovered some information,[2] and the record indicates that some Members and their families receive substantial financial benefits. Some of these Members have been serving in Congress for many years, including extensive service on the agriculture committees. Others have just been elected to Congress and, while they have yet to take a stand on agriculture spending, nonetheless confront the challenge of a potential conflict of interest. The following examples represent a cross-section of Members of Congress who have received USDA subsidies between 1995 and 2005. The list is not intended to be definitive, and other examples will likely come to light, but this sample illustrates the extent to which these potential

conflicts of interest exist and the significant amounts of money that are involved. The information was compiled by the Environmental Working Group from USDA data.[3] Big Subsidies in Big Sky Country. Senator R. Jon Tester (D-MT), newly elected in November 2006, and his wife Sharla are equal co-owners of T-bone Farms, Inc., in Big Sandy Springs, Montana. Between 1995 and 2005, the farm received $232,311 in USDA subsidies for oats, wheat, barley, and dry peas and assistance for miscellaneous disasters.[4] Members of the family of Montana's senior Senator, Max Sieben Baucus (DMT), own the Sieben Ranch Company in Wolf Creek, Montana. Between 1995 and 2005, Sieben Ranch (co-owned by six members of the Baucus family) received $230,237 from the USDA.[5] There are conflicting reports on the Senator's financial ownership interest in the enterprise, and queries to his office on this matter were not answered. Dennis Rehberg (R-MT), Montana's lone Representative, and his wife Janice have received USDA subsidies in the past but nothing in recent years. Senator Gordon H. Smith (R-OR). Senator Smith and his wife Sharon co-own Smith Frozen Foods in Umatilla, Oregon. The company received $45,400 in wheat-related subsidies between 1995 and 2005.[6] The Salazars of Colorado. Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO), elected in November 2004, and his brother, Representative John T. Salazar (D-CO), also elected in November 2004, sit on the agriculture committees of their respective legislative bodies. From 1995 through 2005, the Representative received $161,084 in agricultural subsidies from the U.S. Treasury, and the Senator received $770 in 2002.[7] The Family of Senator Charles Grassley. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) has extensive

farm interests, as do some members of his immediate family. Listing his home address as Arlington, Virginia, Grassley received $225,041 in USDA subsidies for corn and soybeans and disaster assistance between 1995 and 2005.[8] In New Hartford, Iowa, Senator Grassley's son Robin has received $653,833 in subsidy payments, mostly for corn and soybeans.[9] Patrick Grassley, the Senator's grandson, who also lives in New Hartford, received $5,964 in subsidies in 2005.[10] The Herseths of South Dakota. Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD), elected in November 2002, was appointed to a seat on the House Agriculture Committee. While records indicate that she receives no USDA subsidies, her father and former South Dakota governor, Ralph Lars Herseth, is a major beneficiary of federal farm programs. Between 1995 and 2005, he received $789,575 in federal farm support for a diversified portfolio of crops and farm activities.[11] The Brownbacks of Kansas. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) received $40,403 in farm subsidies (mostly for conservation) between 1995 and 2005.[12] His father, Glenn Robert Brownback of Parker, Kansas, received $319,662 over the same period, and his brother, John R. Brownback, also of Parker, received $286,082.[13] Lugar Stock Farms, Inc. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), who is a senior member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and his wife Charlene own just over 12 percent of Lugar Stock Farms in Oxford, Indiana. The other 88 percent is owned by 13 other family members. Between 1995 and 2005, Lugar Stock Farms, Inc., received $126,555 in USDA subsidies.[14] Many More, Past and Present. These elected officials are among a number of Senators and Representatives--including Representative Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), and many others no longer in office[15]

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

55

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

56

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Unpopular – Congress (1/4) Cutting subsidies costs Bush political capital w Congress Weisman and Barrionuevo 6 (Steven R., Alexei, http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/26/business/trade.php, July 27) Though farmers make up a small percentage of the work force in the developed countries participating in the talks, their leverage is enormous, because of cultural and economic reasons. This year, with President George W. Bush and the Republican Party facing likely setbacks in the election in November, neither Democrats nor Republicans can afford to alienate farmers by agreeing to a trade deal that diminishes their subsidies and supports without offering gains in markets overseas in return. There is also the farmers' ability to play on cultural and romantic feelings that many in these countries have about people who work the land. The offer made by the chief European negotiator, Peter Mandelson, was deemed "unacceptable" by leading French politicians even as it was derided by the United States as minimal. "Agricultural is so emotional and so cultural for many nations, including ours," said John Engler, president of the National Association of Manufacturers and former Republican governor of Michigan. "We were all agrarian societies once upon a time. It leads to these enormously noncompetitive agriculture sectors that people are trying to protect." The failure of the recent trade talks was hailed throughout the U.S. Congress this week. Leaders on both sides of the aisle said in almost the same words that "no deal was better than a bad deal" in the current trade talks. In several states in the American farm belt, Republicans are

worried about losing votes and giving the Democrats an opening, so the Bush administration could not afford politically to compromise on lowering tariffs and farm supports. Indeed, the political situation is so fraught that some experts wonder why the administration scheduled a make- or-break session now. "This has been badly handled," said Mickey Kantor, a former trade envoy and commerce secretary under President Bill Clinton. "To have a trade negotiation at this point and try to get the Bush administration to make very difficult choices which will affect a number of congressional districts three or four months before an election doesn't make sense."

Strong bipartisan support for agriculture subsidies Sauer 1 (Peter, “The Monarch Versus the Global Empire: The butterfly and human rights,” Orion Magazine Spring) Between 1994 and 1997, 42,000 small farms in the U.S. disappeared, and suicide rates among American farmers spiked. However, during this same period, nearly 20,000 newly consolidated large farms were created. The net loss, 22,000 small farms, meant that when Congress voted for additional farm subsidies through the Market Loss Assistance Program in 1999, it actually increased the payments to large industrial farms. The farm crisis of the mid-nineties, which continues today, has brought the industrialization of American agriculture yet another leap forward. For decades, the de facto national farm policy has been to reduce the number of farms, farmers, farm-related jobs, and the farmers’ proportional share of agricultural profits, and to structure government farm support programs that encourage and reward the growth of big farms. These are consolidated, capital- and chemical-intensive corporate and factory farms that participate in and complement the methodologies of the food and fiber industry, which since the early nineties has been dominated by five or six multinational corporations. In spite of its contradictions and failures, this farm policy,

which costs taxpayers $28 billion in the current year, continues to receive enthusiastic bipartisan Congressional support. Republicans support it because most of the money goes to districts that elect Republicans to Congress. Democrats support it because several farm states—Iowa, Missouri, and Illinois—are important swing states in national elections. In a December 2000 New York Times article, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman candidly admits, “Maybe it is time we had some honesty in farm policy.” To put honesty in this policy would mean acknowledging that this policy exists to serve electoral politics; that the so-called rural economic development program subsidizes the loss of farms; and that it promotes agriculture’s spiraling dependency on toxins that damage the human and ecological health of the nation. These are precisely the same effects that agricultural industrialization has had on Mexico and other developing nations. The agrichemical corporations that support the current U.S. farm policy with campaign contributions to candidates in farm state elections also are the primary investors in and beneficiaries of the imposition of similar policies around the globe.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 57

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Unpopular – Congress (2/4) Farm Bill proves subsidies have bipartisan support AP 8 (“Politically popular farm bill gets election-year boost” 5/15) WASHINGTON (AP) - Rising food costs and the a politically popular $290 billion farm

upcoming election have fueled bipartisan support for bill full of extra money for food stamps and farm subsidies, despite strong opposition from President Bush. The Senate is expected to approve the five-year bill and send it to Bush on Thursday, one day after the House supported the legislation overwhelmingly. Supporters garnered 318 votes in that chamber, 28 more than needed to override his promised veto. 100 Republicans voted for the bill. Bush has said the legislation is fiscally irresponsible and pays too much money to wealthy farmers. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer reiterated Bush's veto threat Wednesday by saying it is a "bloated, earmark laden bill." About two-thirds of the bill would pay for nutrition programs such as food stamps and emergency food aid for the needy. An additional $40 billion is for farm subsidies while almost $30 billion would go to farmers to idle their land and to other environmental programs.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

58

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Unpopular – Congress (3/4) Both House and Senate support for pro-subsidy legislation: agriculture lobbies strong Riedl 2 (Brian M., Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/BG1534.cfm) Organizations representing the farmers of the subsidized crops are responsible for much of the $69.6 million that agribusinesses have donated to congressional and presidential candidates since 1999. 7 Several of these organizations were also represented on the 11-member Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture, which was established under the Freedom to Farm Act to review its performance and recommend changes. In January 2001, the commission released a report calling for the complete abandonment of Freedom to Farm through (1) the extension and expansion of Production Flexibility Contract (PFC) subsidies that were supposed to be phased out, (2) the creation of a new "counter-cyclical" farm subsidy program, and (3) the continuation of policies targeting subsidies to the largest farms and agribusinesses. 8 American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman, a commission member, reiterated these policy prescriptions before the House Agriculture Committee on February 28, 2001 9 and later called any vote against them a "slap in the face." 10 The Washington, D.C., office of the American Farm Bureau Federation backed up these calls for increased farm subsidies with political donations of a steady $4.5 million per year. Similarly, a member of the National Cotton Council's board of directors, claiming to represent the entire cotton industry, testified in favor of subsidy increases before the House Agriculture Committee on July 18, 2001. His suggestion was given added weight by $304,422 in political donations that the council contributed to federal political candidates since 1999. 11 The unprecedented farm subsidy increases proposed by these agriculture industry representatives were quickly written into farm legislation, and on October 5, 2001, the House of Representatives voted overwhelming to pass the most expensive farm bill in history. The 10-year, $171 billion bill contains virtually the same PFC expansions, new counter-cyclical farm subsidies, and further tilting of farm subsidies toward the largest farms that were proposed by the farm lobby. The Senate followed suit by passing an equally expensive bill with most of the same policy prescriptions. 12 Congressional opposition to the Bush veto demonstrates strong subsidy support Roberts 8 (Commercial Appeal, http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/Jun/03/brazilmay-meet-cotton-subsidies-with-tariffs/, 4/3) The farm bill proposed by the Bush administration whittled down farm subsidies. It was overridden when Congress "spoke rather boldly," said Mike Stevens, commodity futures broker with Swiss Financial Services in Mandeville, La. The new $290 billion bill largely keeps farm subsidies as they were, although it does reduce income eligibility thresholds from $2.5 million to $750,000. It also lowered the target price of cotton and altered the loan program, which could reduce the amount of money farmers get to cover expenses before they sell their cotton.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

59

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Unpopular – Congress (4/4) Subsidy cuts unpopular: Agricultural Interests too Strong, control key members of congress Heinisch 5 (Master Thesis, http://witsetd.wits.ac.za:8080/dspace/bitstream/123456789/195/1/main.pdf ) Governments use subsidies to ensure adequate food supplies and national selfsufficiency. However, there are other factors at work. “There is also no doubt that in many Western democracies, agricultural interests have a political clout that gives them a decisive influence on the political lives of their countries” (Delcros, 2002, p. 220). This is true, Delcros says, in most countries where the electoral system is based on representation according to geographical criteria rather than the size of the population in given regions. “This is the case in the United States where the thinly populated states of the farm belt have as many senators as densely populated states” (Delcros, 2002, p. 220). This section discusses the political dynamics underlying the strong support for cotton producers. Congress writes U.S. farm policy. At the time the 2002 Farm Bill was passed, the two most powerful members of the House Agriculture Committee were from Texas, the source of a fifth of the nation’s cotton, and five U.S. senators from cotton states sat on the other chamber’s agriculture committee (Thurow and Kilman, 2002). The Economist underlined this point, stating that the WTO response to a proposal put forth by the West Africans to end U.S. cotton subsidies “had American fingerprints all over it. Political realities in Congress (the chairman of the Senate agriculture committee is a close ally of the cotton farmers) made American negotiators fiercely defensive of their outrageous subsidies” (Economist, 2003b).

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

60

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Unpopular – Ag Lobby (1/5) Agricultural lobbies powerful in Congress – Opposition is weak Riedl 2 (Riedl, Brian. Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Agriculture Lobby Wins Big in New Farm Bill” 4/9. KK.) Producers of the five

largest subsidized commodities--wheat, corn, cotton, rice, and soybeans--have been responsible for much of the nearly $70 million that has been donated by agricultural interests to federal candidates since 1999. Leaders of organizations such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, which have also been multimillion-dollar campaign donors, were appointed to federal commissions where they proposed several new expensive farm programs to Congress. Not surprisingly, nearly all of the recommendations made by these organizations ended up in the House and Senate bills. The sugar industry donated

$4.3 million to federal political candidates in hopes of retaining federal sugar supports that triple the price American consumers pay for sugar. One-fourth of these donations came from just one company--FloSun, Inc., a sugar empire located in Florida and the Dominican Republic and owned by brothers Alfonso (Alfie) and Jose (Pepe) Fanjul. Although this corporation is scarcely in need and the Fanjuls' sugar fortune has been conservatively estimated to be worth $500 million, the government's sugar program provides them with approximately $125 million per year in federal benefits. In December 2001, a Senate amendment that would have saved consumers $1.9 billion per year by eliminating the federal sugar program was defeated by a vote of 71-25. Likewise, the peanut industry sought assurance that it would not be harmed by the elimination of price supports. Organizations including the Western Peanut Growers Association and the National Peanut Growers Group donated nearly $250,000 to candidates for national office and testified before Congress several times in favor of replacing peanut price supports with generous federal subsidies. Both the House and Senate voted to include $3.5 billion in peanut subsidies over 10 years, thereby shifting the cost of the peanut program from consumers to taxpayers. Meanwhile, dairy farmers have been defending milk price supports that impose a "milk tax" costing consumers $2.7 billion per year. Organizations such as the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), which told Congress that these milk tax policies are actually good for consumers, were responsible for much of the $3.3 million that has been donated by the dairy industry to federal political candidates. While Congress did allow one dairy price support program--the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact--to sunset in 2001, the Senate voted to provide a new $2 billion golden parachute payment for dairy farmers across the country. Many political scientists no doubt would consider agriculture policy a classic case of special-interest politics. The beneficiaries of farm subsidies may be few in numbers, but they have dedicated substantial resources to influencing the debate on farm policy because its outcome will result in massive gains or losses for them. On the other hand, while the vast majority of Americans are harmed by

subsidy policies, they have not felt a pressing call to action, given that the effects of subsidies on an individual level are relatively small and are hidden in food prices and tax bills. Consequently, the more active and impassioned farm lobby has succeeded in preserving its special-interest subsidies.

Farm interests strong: Key congressional allies The Kiplinger Agriculture Letter 7 (“Farm interests will fare well overall in the 110th Congress” 1/5, KK) Farm interests will fare well overall in the 110th Congress. Farmers have friends on key committees. Sen. Tom Harkin (D -IA) and Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) will head agricultural committees nearly split along party lines. Both panels often will be bipartisan. Ag interests also have allies on other important congressional panels, including those with control over the purse strings in both chambers.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 61

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Unpopular – Ag Lobby (2/5) The farm lobby empirically succeeds in gutting subsidy reductions McKenzie 8 (William, Dallas Morning News Writer, “Fresh Thinking dries up” 5/22) KK The old way of seeing farm bills was more in terms of domestic benefits. Capitol Hill thought mostly about helping farmers in the Texas Panhandle, on the plains of the Dakotas or across the fields of Kansas. Farmers, after all,

have political clout. There's a new way to see farm policy, however, and it revolves around connecting the developed world to the developing world. More than ever, ag policies shape everything from how crops grown in Texas and Kansas affect food prices in Egypt, Haiti and Cambodia. Bush gets the picture. So do some legislators, like Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana and Democratic Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin. They

pushed for a more economically efficient way of farming, including doing away with subsidies for farmers who make as much as $750,000, after expenses. Unfortunately, the farm lobby prevailed. David Beckmann, president of the hunger charity Bread for the World, told me that he met only one legislator who told him he was wrong to lobby for reforming farm payments. The rest told him he was right but that they couldn't go against the farm lobby.

Agriculture lobby too strong: Dems and GOP won’t cut subsidies Orden 2 (David, Professor of ag policy @ Virginia tech, “Reform’s stunted crop,” Cato Institute) KK As this article goes to press, several things are clear about the 2002 farm bill. First, neither recent budget considerations nor international commitments to wto rules have constrained farm spending levels

or policy instruments, despite markedly changed budget projections and the importance of foreign markets to U.S. agriculture. That unfortunate outcome is a testament to the continued power of the agricultural lobby and its advocates in Congress; neither party seems willing to restrain the farm subsidy juggernaut. Any prospect for reducing the levels of farm support expenditures has been lost in 2002. The Senate bill spends more in the next five years than the House bill, and the bidding war may not be over. Fiscal restraint on farm policy will have to wait for another day.

Farmers powerful: massive campaign contributions Heidorn 4 (Nicolas, public policy intern @ independent Institute of Oakland, http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/porkbarrel081804.cfm) Rich farmers are a powerful lobby in American politics. In the last election, crop producers gave $11.5 million in campaign contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and they are likely to give much more by this November. So don't be surprised that the GAO's report won't be taken too seriously on Capitol Hill. Farm subsidies are more than just payoffs for loaded, large landowners. They're subsidies for elected officials, too. Farm Lobby Strong: Congress caters to lobbies SF Gate 8 (4/30, http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/29/MNV410DQ89.DTL) "Congress is about to be grotesquely generous to big, subsidized farms that are now enjoying unprecedented prosperity," Cook. said. The list of recipients for payments last year "makes clear the disturbing degree to which congressional leaders are catering to the powerful farm subsidy lobby at the expense of ordinary American taxpayers."

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

62

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Unpopular – Ag Lobby (3/5) Farm Lobby Strong: lobbies form coalitions drawing public support Dorning and Martin 6 (Mike and Andrew, Chicago Tribune, http://www.floridafarmers.org/news/articles/Farmlobby%27spowerhasdeeproots.htm) Although the health-care industry and trial lawyers spend far more than Big Farm to influence Washington, the farm lobby is distinguished by a well-organized grass-roots network of organizations that extends throughout rural America. In the capital, farmers are represented by a core group of long-serving lobbyists who regularly band together, setting aside divergent interests to keep the dollars flowing to farm programs. And this lobby can draw on public sympathy for a stereotype of a quaint family farm. The political structure also works in its favor. The Senate's equal representation gives voters in sparsely populated rural states extra political weight. And it doesn't hurt that the first presidential caucus is held in Iowa, where candidates ritually pay homage to the myth of the family farm. Farm coalition strong: strong relations with key members of Congress Dorning and Martin 6 (Mike and Andrew, Chicago Tribune, http://www.floridafarmers.org/news/articles/Farmlobby%27spowerhasdeeproots.htm) The coalition of farm groups has been resilient, in part because none of the interests has waged war against another. Even when health advocates attacked tobacco subsidies, the coalition continued to support them until tobacco growers agreed to a federal buy-out. "It was made very clear to those of us on the committee," LaHood said. "I don't grow one leaf of tobacco in my area in Illinois. The point was, even if you don't like tobacco, you'd better be for tobacco if you want corn and (soy) beans to be taken care of." The farm lobby works hard to maintain chummy relations on Capitol Hill. When the sugar industry hosted Sens. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and five congressional staffers at its "sweetener symposium" in Vail, Colo., in 2004, the leisure activities included white-water rafting and golf. Three mornings of seminars on trade and sugar issues were spread over the five-day event. As a general rule, the more controversial the farm program, the more money its backers dole out in junkets and campaign contributions. And the biggest beneficiaries of agriculture's funding are the leadership of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, and the leadership of the agriculture appropriations subcommittees. Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee, has raised $300,000 from the farm sector, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, $287,000. The farm lobby also generates good will by offering jobs to members of Congress and their staffs. The committees overseeing agriculture have become a reliable farm system for the USDA, commodity organizations and lobbying firms. Dale Thorenson is a typical example.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

63

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Unpopular – Ag Lobby (4/5) Plan Unpopular: Farm Lobby Strong, massive investment in maintaining subsidies Riedl 2 (Brian M., Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/BG1534.cfm) Because the largest agribusinesses are the chief beneficiaries of agriculture policy, they have both the incentives and resources necessary to invest heavily in maintaining the current flow of subsidy dollars. Through representative organizations, they have served on federal commissions, testified before Congress, and donated millions of dollars to federal political candidates. Not surprisingly, the House and Senate farm bills include many of the provisions that these groups support, including massive farm subsidies and price supports. Plan unpopular: Ag lobbies strong control, wield support on House Agriculture Committee Maixner 6 (Ed, Editor of The Kiplinger Agriculture Letter, http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/farm_subsidies_will_be_cut_but _not_scuttled__.html) Of course, the large coalition of ag interests that receive the bulk of crop subsidies are still a formidable force. And they'll continue to wield power on Capitol Hill. For example, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), who will chair the House Agriculture Committee if the Democrats take over, flatly rejects reducing crop subsidies to win a new world trade liberalization deal. Although he supports more funding for rural development and conservation, he vows that subsidies "will be largely an extension of the 2002 farm bill." Farm Lobby Strong: Stranglehold on Congress Grunwald 7 (Michael, Time Magazine, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1680139,00.html) The story of this butt-kicking is a quin-tessential Washington tale, illustrating how a single special interest with a single-minded devotion to a cause can trump a broad coalition and the national interest. The Senate is considering a similar bill, and a reform effort led by Republican Richard Lugar of Indiana seems likely to meet a similar fate. The Bush Administration has made noises about a veto; Kind says the President, famously reluctant to admit mistakes, confided in a private chat that he regrets signing the lavish 2002 bill. But it's never wise to bet against the farm lobby, which spent $135 million on lobbying and donations last year and brilliantly portrays opponents as enemies of the heartland of America. "The game is always the same," says Oxfam America's Jim Lyons, a former U.S. Agriculture Under Secretary. "The big commodity groups have a stranglehold on policy. And there's not a lot of stomach for new ideas."

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

64

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Unpopular – Ag Lobby (5/5) The plan tanks political capital—the farm lobby has a stranglehold on policy making. This evidence assumes their turns Grunwald 7 (Michael, Time Magazine, November 2, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1680139,00.html.) Nevertheless, Congress is finalizing a $286 billion farm bill that will continue our basic farm policies, which means it will keep funneling money to farmers and pseudo farmers through a bewildering array of loans, price supports, subsidized insurance, disaster aid and money-for-nothing handouts that arrive when times are tough--or not tough. "What a joke," grumbles Congressman Ron Kind, a Wisconsin Democrat who led a failed bipartisan reform effort in the

the vast majority of the cash goes to five row crops--corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton and rice--more than 60% of our farmers receive no subsidies. House. "You're eligible as long as you're breathing." Actually, that's not quite true. Since

And a recent Government Accountability Office report identified $1.1 billion of subsidies whose recipients were no longer breathing. Franklin Roosevelt's

in Washington, the emergency has never ended. The government still gives farmers your money--more than ever over the past decade--along with research projects to expand their yields, restoration projects to clean up their messes, flood-control and irrigation projects to protect and enhance their land, visa programs to supply them with cheap labor, ethanol mandates and tariffs to boost their prices, and tax breaks by the bushel. The bipartisan farm bills that Congress passes every five to seven years reflect the power and savvy of the farm lobby, which parlays cue-the-violins stereotypes of struggling yeomen into giveaways to the planter class of the South and Great Plains. In Administration started farm aid in response to the Dust Bowl and the Depression, calling it "a temporary solution to deal with an emergency." But

reality, the top 10% of subsidized farmers collect nearly three-quarters of the subsidies, for an average of almost $35,000 per year. The bottom 80% average just $700. That's worth repeating: most farmers, especially the small farmers whose steadfast family values and precarious family finances are invoked to justify the programs, get little or nothing. This summer an unprecedented coalition, running the gamut of the advocacy world from rural development to

Editorials thundered for reform, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco--the city of organic kale and "meat is murder"--vowed to deliver it. The moment seemed ripe for Democrats to challenge the status quo. Agribusiness was steering two-thirds of its campaign donations to Republicans, and just 19 of the 435 congressional districts were vacuuming up half of all subsidies. Still, House Agriculture Committee chairman Collin Peterson of Minnesota had a warning for Kind. "I told him, 'Ron, you're a good guy, but you're way out of your league here,'" Peterson told TIME. "I knew we were going to kick his butt." He was right. Pelosi sided with the American Farm Bureau, the National Farmers Union and the Big Five commodity lobbies, spearheading a bill she called "a first step toward reform," an oblique way of saying it isn't reform at all. The Big Five would still hog the subsidies, while the influential sugar industry would retain its lucrative price supports. The one major "reform" was that farm families earning at least $2 million a year would supposedly be ineligible for subsidies, assuming none of them knew decent accountants. The story of this butt-kicking is a quin-tessential Washington tale, illustrating how a single special interest with a single-minded devotion to a cause can trump a broad coalition and the national interest. The Senate is health to business to the environment, emerged to help Kind and Republican Jeff Flake of Arizona try to shake up the system.

considering a similar bill, and a reform effort led by Republican Richard Lugar of Indiana seems likely to meet a similar fate. The Bush Administration has made noises about a veto; Kind says the President, famously reluctant to admit mistakes, confided in a private chat that he regrets signing the lavish 2002

. But it's never wise to bet against the farm lobby, which spent $135 million on lobbying and donations last year and brilliantly portrays opponents as enemies of the heartland of America. "The game is always the same," says Oxfam America's Jim Lyons, a former U.S. Agriculture Under Secretary. "The big commodity groups have a stranglehold on policy. And there's not a lot of stomach for new ideas." bill

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

65

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Unpopular – American Farm Bureau American Farm Bureau against subsidy reduction The Oregonian 7 (11/11, http://www.ewg.org/node/25626) The American Farm Bureau Federation, with help from lobbying groups for corn, wheat, rice and other commodities, is using all of its considerable muscle to derail efforts to change the subsidy system. "Farm Bureau strongly urges you not to adopt a farm bill that shifts money from the commodity title to increase funding for other programs including nutrition, conservation and rural development," the group's president, Bob Stallman, wrote last month to Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. It was a plea with power. In July, the Farm Bureau and other interests persuaded House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to support the current system. Pelosi said the move was necessary to protect vulnerable Democrats in rural and conservative districts that rely heavily on agriculture. Once her position was known, a proposal by Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., to limit subsidies -- also supported by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. -- was doomed. It lost 309-117.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

66

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Unpopular: Support Outweighs Opposition (1/2) Supporters of subsidies are vocal and powerful and opponents are small, unorganized, and don’t recognize salient effects Steenblik 98 (Ronald, Principal Administrator @ Fisheries Division, Directorate for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/62/1918086.pdf) The beneficiaries of a subsidy can become entrapped in a social sense as well. This is especially the case when subsidies are used to support employment in rural industries, such as agriculture, fisheries and mining, which require specialised skills but not necessarily much formal education. The resulting low mobility of the affected labour force itself becomes a barrier to reform, increasing subsidy dependency, and making structural adjustment all the more traumatic when it finally does come. Another factor working against reform is that subsidies themselves create a pool of money

out of which recipients can influence the very political process that channels money to them in the first place.13 In many instances subsidies redistribute wealth from a large number of unknowing contributors to a smaller number of beneficiaries. The latter lobby vigorously to defend their handouts; the former seldom bother, or are empowered, to prevent them.14 In any case, short-term bursts of public outrage

against particular subsidies are usually ineffectual; the offending programmes simply get renamed or cloaked in the latest policy fashion. Finally, the bureaucracy itself can present an obstacle. Government ministries rarely admit to having avested interest in the continuation of the support programmes they administer, but it is hard to imagine total disinterest being the norm. More subtly, the bureaucratisation

process often feeds a pervasive notion that the subsidised activity forms part of the natural order of things. Subsidies thus metamorphosise into entitlements, and any attempt to curb them becomes politically hazardous. This subversion of rational policy-making feeds the spread of derivative subsidies — for instance: Sympathetic support: When support is used to influence the direction of technological developments, it often does so in a manner designed to benefit domestic producers. Many examples can be found in the energy sector, such as when governments support the construction of coal-fired “demonstration” power plants that are dependent on coal from highcost domestic mines rather than on imported coal.15 · Compensatory support: When support leads to higher input prices for downstream consumers, especially those that derive a significant proportion of their sales from exports, compensation is often provided in order to keep them buying domestically produced raw materials. Subsidies to food processing industries (e.g., tomato canneries, producers of potato starch) are common examples. · Subsidy clusters: When support — or failure to consider opportunity costs — leads to lower prices for natural resources, a chain reaction can take place, whereby new investment occurs to take advantage of the cheap input. Often downstream consumers receive additional incentives from governments to do so. Hence aluminium plants are attracted to major hydroelectric projects, which are then followed by airframe manufacturers, and so forth.16

Our evidence is comparative: anti-subsidy lobbies don’t have a chance, farm lobby’s small agenda ensures support for subsidies Dorning & Martin 6 (Mike and Andrew, Chicago Tribune, http://www.floridafarmers.org/news/articles/Farmlobby%27spowerhasdeeproots.htm) The loose alliance working to reform American farm policy is broad and diverse. It includes the Environmental Defense, the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, the Cato Institute, a libertarian research group based in Washington, and the Food Products Association, a trade association fighting for market-oriented farm programs that would reduce sugar prices and accelerate trade talks. The groups have different reasons for trying to change farm policy - some want more money for conservation, others want to lower the federal budget deficit - but they all want to roll back subsidy payments. Even the most passionate reformers, however, acknowledge it will be hard to match the intensity of the farm lobby. "You get an association such as mine, we've got a lot of priorities," said Cal Dooley, a former California lawmaker and member of the House Agriculture Committee who is now president of the Food Products Association. "This is one of them, but it's not even a top priority. The farm lobby has a narrower agenda: They are all about perpetuating the farm bill."

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

67

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

68

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Unpopular: Support Outweighs Opposition (2/2) The Agriculture Committee can and will use their clout to squelch opposition. They have empirically used leverage on other legislative issues in order to gain support for farm subsidies. Grunwald 7 (Michael, Time Magazine, November 2, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1680139,00.html.) For all those reasons, Congressmen Kind and Flake proposed an amendment last summer to eliminate no-strings-attached direct payments, end subsidies to the rich, boost conservation funding and create a more targeted safety net for farmers having rough years. Kind thought they had a shot. A similar package had gotten 200 votes in 2002 without such a grand coalition, and this time Democrats--who had spent six years complaining about Republican giveaways to the rich--were calling the shots. Even the Bush Administration supported payment limits. During speeches to farm groups, Johanns kept displaying maps of all the subsidy recipients on Manhattan's swank Park Avenue. But Kind thought wrong. "I got a real lesson in how Washington works," he says. Game Over EVEN BEFORE THE Agriculture Committee began work on the farm bill, chairman Peterson took Pelosi to meet with farm groups and warned her that Democratic freshmen in rural districts might lose seats if farm programs were revamped. Reformers countered with polls showing support for strict payment limits in those districts, and an analysis showing that most of those districts would receive more money under Kind-Flake through conservation payments. But as a Pelosi aide told them, it didn't matter whether the danger was real; it only mattered that freshmen Democrats believed it. The aggies flew in hundreds of farmers to lobby for the status quo, and several "Blue Dog" Democrats agreed to support Pelosi's efforts to fund children's health insurance with tobacco taxes only if she supported the status quo. Berry once called Pelosi late at night to beg her not to allow strict payment limits or any cuts in subsidies. "She said, 'Marion, this stuff is complicated, but if you say it's that important, I'll take your word for it,'" Berry recalls. Pelosi ultimately pledged to support the work of the Agriculture Committee, whose members represent districts that receive 42% of the subsidies. "That was 'game over' right there," Kind says. "That committee is completely beholden to the status quo." The committee passed its bill without a dissenting vote. How did Peterson achieve this consensus? By buying off the reform factions. California Representative Dennis Cardoza and the fruit-and-vegetable lobby agreed to support the bill once Peterson threw $1.6 billion at specialty crops. He added $4.7 billion for nutrition, $4.5 billion for conservation and $100 million for black farmers, which brought progressives, sportsmen and the Congressional Black Caucus into the fold. Even the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition dropped its opposition for scraps: $5 million for organic research, $22 million for organic certification and $30 million to help farmers sell value-added products. "The programs that really benefit small farmers are tiny, but the unfortunate fact of the politics is, if you want anything from the committee, you have to play their game," says Kari Hamerschlag, a sustainable-agriculture consultant. Peterson still had to pay for the extras. He considered trimming the widely ridiculed direct payments, which were originally supposed to be transitional. But the methadone had become the heroin. "I don't like direct payments myself, but they're political reality," Peterson says. "I needed them in there to keep everyone on board." In fact, the House bill increased the maximum direct payment 50%. And cutting easier-to-defend payments for times of low crop prices was even less realistic. So instead of cutting farm spending--which accounted for less than nutrition spending--Peterson persuaded Pelosi to pry money out of the Ways and Means Committee by closing a loophole that helps foreign firms duck U.S. tax liabilities. Republicans denounced this back-door tax hike to no avail. "They had every right to scream foul," Kind says. "There was no vetting in Ways and Means, no hearings, no markup. My party

." Democratic leaders then squelched an amendment that would have forced an up-or-down vote on eliminating subsidies for farmers earning $250,000 a year. One lobbyist mused that General David Petraeus could learn something from Pelosi about crushing an insurgency. Pelosi allowed a vote on Kind-Flake--or, as the farm groups called it, "Kinda-Flakey"--but this time it was crushed, 309 to 117. "I had two members tell me they felt sorry for Ron, I was stomping him so bad," Peterson said with a grin. "If I had put down the hammer, I could've taken him under 100." As they watched the debate, with its predictable tributes to hardworking family farmers, frustrated just grabbed $10 billion to buy off the opposition

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 69

Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal reformers filled out "Farm Bill Bingo" cards with aggie catchphrases like "farmerfriendly," "dismantling the safety net" and "East Coast media."

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 70

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Unpopular – A2: Democrats Democrats wont take on subsidy cuts Sanchez 7 (Marcela, syndicated columnist, “Democrats want to reshape trade,” 4/6, Seattle Post-Intelligencer) Yet it is not very clear that the Democrats are committed to the fundamental aspect of trade that benefits poorer nations - free and fair access to the U.S. market. The Democratic proposal also lacks any mention of ending protections for U.S. producers, particularly the multibillion-dollar agricultural subsidies that

have historically obtained congressional passage with broad Democratic support.

Dems wont attack farm subsidies Crandall 7 (Bill, The New York Times, http://www.ronkind.org/clip.cfm?id=301, 6/22) The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, and the House majority leader, Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, both voted for Mr. Kind s bill in 2002. But now that they are in leadership positions, attacking farm subsidies could alienate voters in rural districts, particularly in the South and in the Corn Belt. Several Democratic lawmakers who represent rural, conservative districts, like Jim Marshall of Georgia and freshmen representatives like Zachary Space of Ohio and Nancy Boyda of Kansas support extending the current farm bill and the generous subsidies that go with it.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

71

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Unpopular – A2: Food Manufacturers (Grocers) Food manufacturers won’t lobby against agricultural subsidies Ndayisenga and Kinsey 99 (Fidele and Jean, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, Journal of Agribusiness 17.1, Spring http://www.agecon.uga.edu/~jab/Library/S99-02.pdf) The results (presented in table 2) indicate that the coefficient on the variable COST, which represents lobbying expenditures in the input markets, is not statistically different from zero. This is interpreted to mean that food firms do not spend a significant amount of their resources to lobby in their input markets and, by implication, do not exercise significant political influence in agricultural commodity markets. The significance of the coefficient on the variable REVENUE, which captures lobbying expenditure in the output market, is statistically significant. The result suggests that the direct lobbying through food firms' political contributions is primarily directed to their output market. The variables labeled DP1 through DP23 in table 2 represent firm1-23, respectively, identified by name in table 1. The coefficients on DP1-LIP23 (table 2) indicate whether the gross profit (as measured by R, - C,,) for an individual firm is significantly correlated with its total lobbying expenditures relative to the reference firm. The reference firm is the last film listed in table 1 (Wilson Food Corporation). The firms are entered into the estimating equation in the order they appear in table 1. The gross profits of only five firms are not significantly related to lobbying expenditures relative to Wilson Food Corporation (firms 1, 2, 6, 10. and 23). Four firms' profits have a significantly negative relationship between lobbying expenditures and profits (firms 13, 16, 17, and 20). For the remainder of the firms, increased profits are significantly correlated with greater lobbying expenditures. The last two coefficients in table 2 indicate that lobbying expenditures were less in 1983 and 1985 relative to the reference year. 1984. Failure to reject the hypothesis that food firms do not lobby in the input market (an important component of which is the supply of agricultural comn~odities) is consistent with the view that food firms have rnonopsony power in their input markets that allows them to negotiate lower prices despite government regulations, or they can pass through any cost increases to consumers, or both. Whatever the case may be, the ultimate implication is that the food processing sector had no serious incentive to act as a countervailing power to the farm lobby in the forming or reforming of agricultural policy in the early part of the 1980s.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 72

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Popular – Bipartisan Support Bipartisan support for subsidy cuts Environment and Energy Daily 7 (“AGRICULTURE: GOP stages mutiny on farm bill after Dems reveal offset plan,” Spotlight, Vol 10 No. 9, July 26) A bipartisan group of House members backing an amendment to scale back farm payments and increase conservation funding is hopeful the tax fracas might give them

more support for their proposal, which would avoid the tax offsets by decreasing farm spending. Their proposal includes many of the administration's proposals to scale back farm subsidies. Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) told the Rules Committee last night that his wideranging amendment to overhaul farm payments would "get ourselves out of this offset box." Reps. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) are cosponsors of the amendment to cut farm subsidies for anyone making more than $250,000. The proposal would invest more than $3 billion more in conservation programs. Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said "there is a lot of interest" in the amendment. In an interview after the markup of the farm bill rule, Kind described Goodlatte's remarks as a "bombshell" for the committee's bill. He said he is anticipating more Republican support for his measure, but "there are a lot of moving parts." No Political Capital Loss: Farm Bill proves little political interest in agriculture. Pollan 7 (Michael, a contributing writer, is the Knight Professor of journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. “You are what you grow,” NYT, April 22) KK

Given all this, you would think the farm-bill debate would engage the nation’s political passions every five years, but that hasn’t been the case. If the quintennial antidrama of the “farm bill debate” holds true to form this year, a handful of farm-state legislators will thrash out the mind-numbing details behind closed doors, with virtually nobody else, either in Congress or in the media, paying much attention. Why? Because most of us assume that, true to its name, the farm bill is about “farming,” an increasingly quaint activity that involves no one we know and in which few of us think we have a stake. This leaves our own representatives free to ignore the farm bill, to treat it as a parochial piece of legislation affecting a handful of their Midwestern colleagues. Since we aren’t paying attention, they pay no political price for trading, or even selling, their farm-bill votes. The fact that the bill is deeply encrusted with incomprehensible jargon and

prehensile programs dating back to the 1930s makes it almost impossible for the average legislator to understand the bill should he or she try to, much less the average citizen. It’s doubtful this is an accident.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

73

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Popular – Lobbies – Named Groups (1/2) Subsidy cut movement growing: Oxfam, Environmental Defense Fund, CATO and the WTO support Kilman & Thurow 6 (Scott and Roger, 3/14, http://lists.mutualaid.org/pipermail/mgj-discuss/2006-March/005316.html) A movement to uproot crop subsidies, which have been worth nearly $600 billion to U.S. farmers over the decades, is gaining ground in some unlikely places -- including down on the farm. In Iowa, one of the most heavily subsidized states, a Republican running to be state agriculture secretary is telling big farmers they should get smaller checks. Mark W. Leonard, who collects subsidies himself and campaigns in a white cowboy hat, told a room full of farmers recently that federal payments spur overproduction, which depresses prices for poor growers overseas. "From a Christian standpoint, what it is doing to Africa tugs at your heartstrings," Mr. Leonard told them. Last year, he helped humanitarian group Oxfam International in its anti-subsidy campaign by escorting a cotton farmer from Mali to church gatherings near his

the current anti-subsidy sentiment, rising over the last year in the U.S., is stirring attention because it is unusually broad. Students for Social Justice at Baylor University in Texas have dumped cotton balls on the ground to protest cotton subsidies. farm in Holstein. [Mark Leonard] There is a long history of mostly failed attempts to pare farm payments. But

The foundation of late Nascar legend Dale Earnhardt has teamed up with rock star Bono, whose movement wants to overhaul Western agriculture policies to boost African development. In Washington, D.C., the Alliance for Sensible Agriculture Policies is meeting to share ideas about changing the farm bill.

Participants include Oxfam and Environmental Defense from the left, the National Taxpayers Union on the right and the libertarian Cato Institute. Prominent philanthropic organizations, including the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, are financing some of this advocacy. "There are a growing number of people who want to weigh in on farm policy," says Rep. Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican who sits on the House Agriculture Committee. "They care about Africa. They care about the environment. They care about nutrition." Grass-

Another spur to the anti-subsidy movement comes from the World Trade Organization, where the U.S. is coming under increasing pressure to rein in farm spending. The movement is tilting against one of the most deeply entrenched federal entitlements. In 1996, a Republican-led Congress roots groups are riding the momentum that began with the push to forgive the debt of poor countries in the late 1990s.

passed legislation to wean farmers from subsidies over seven years. But Washington backed off as the farm economy entered one of its cyclical tailspins. The 2002 farm bill signed by President Bush is one of the most lavish ever, even as the economic cycle improved. Last year, the government paid a record $23 billion to farmers. There isn't any serious talk in Washington of wiping out subsidies entirely, and the powerful farm lobby has defended itself against attacks in the past. Legislators representing districts with farming interests, particularly states growing subsidy-rich cotton and rice, consider this a crucial issue and could well block any change in Congress. Because almost every state has farmers, virtually all 100 senators can sympathize with farming interests.

In addition, the Senate and House agriculture committees have dominated policy for decades and are largely given a free hand by the governing administration. But now, farm leaders, federal officials and politicians are seriously discussing alternatives, such as buying farmers out from subsidy programs, incentives to encourage farmers to save during good years and paying growers for environmentally friendly practices. The system could be changed during the current Doha Development Round trade negotiations at the WTO or in Congress during next year's renewal of the farm bill.

Oxfam is politically powerful – Checks farm lobbies Swanson & Bogardus 7 (Ian, Kevin, Hill Writers, 5/17, http://thehill.com/business-lobby/labor-unions-and-conservation-groups-team-up-in-bid-to-influence-farm-policy-200705-17.html) Another new player is Oxfam America, which recently hired Clinton administration Agriculture Undersecretary Jim Lyons as its vice president and is making the farm bill its U.S. agency priority for the year. It is also bringing Oscar-nominated actor Djimon Hounsou (“Blood Diamond”) to Washington today for a lobbying session with members of Congress. Oxfam “sends shudders down the spine of the agriculture community,” said one farm lobbyist, who noted the group’s influence in raising attention to U.S. farm subsidies.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

74

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Popular – Lobbies – Named Groups (2/2) The CATO institute is politically powerful UPI 1 (12-31) Both Cato and Reason have done a great deal to legitimize libertarianism as a serious political perspective that must be considered when formulating policy, says Charles Murray, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, one of Washington, D.C.'s top conservative think tanks. "The Cato Institute [in particular] has established itself as a major voice in Washington," agrees E.J. Dionne, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, Washington, D.C. The Environmental Defense Fund is politically powerful Charity Navigator 6 (www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3671) Since 1967 the Environmental Defense Fund has linked science, economics and law to create innovative, equitable and cost-effective solutions to society's most urgent environmental problems. Environmental Defense Fund became one of America's most influential environmental advocacy groups, now with over 500,000 members and more Ph.D. scientists and economists on staff than any similar organization. Guided by science, Environmental Defense Fund evaluates environmental problems and works to create and advocate solutions that win lasting political, economic and social support because they are nonpartisan, cost-efficient and fair.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

75

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Popular – Lobbies (1/2) New anti-subsidy groups counteract farm lobbies Pierce 7 (Neal, Seattle Times, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003525390_peirce15.html) The greatest number of farm-bill dollars flow to the big producers protected by the combined lobbying forces of the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Cotton Council, rural bankers, real-estate operators and tractor dealers. Many of the farm bloc's lobbyists are former lawmakers or congressional aides. But new players are demanding fundamental change. They range from the American Farmland Trust to Bread for the World, the Environmental Defense Fund to the Northeast-Midwest Institute. Working together through a new Farm and Food Policy Project that includes dozens of farm, rural, health and religious groups, they plan to announce a full reform agenda on Jan. 22. Subsidy cuts popular: lobbying groups support Farm Worker Justice News 7 (http://www.fwjustice.org/newsletters/FJNewSpring07_EN.pdf) Also involved in the Farm Bill negotiations are a broad array of groups with varying purposes, including conservative anti-subsidy groups, food manufacturers, antihunger advocates, and environmental groups, that want Congress to end or reduce agricultural subsidies paid to major-commodity farmers.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

76

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Popular – Lobbies (2/2) Plan popular: anti-subsidy sentiment growing Sugar Alliance 6 (August, http://www.sugaralliance.org/library/resourcedocs/Sugar_Subsidy_Checks.pdf) Not to mention, there are powerful lobbying groups looking to send current farm spending levels spiraling. From foreign countries, to environmental groups, to think tanks, opponents of farm subsidies are more optimistic than ever that agricultural spending will be reduced in the 2007 Farm Bill. A front-page article in the March 14, 2006 edition of The Wall Street Journal summed it up by saying, “The current antisubsidy sentiment, rising over the last year in the U.S., is stirring attention because it is unusually broad…Participants include Oxfam and Environmental Defense from the left, the National Taxpayers Union on the right and the libertarian Cato Institute. Prominent philanthropic organizations, including the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, are financing some of this advocacy.” Farm subsidy payments will undoubtedly be the target of an aggressive and well-funded lobbying effort—this is not the atmosphere to make a pricey sugar policy transition from no cost to subsidy checks. Plan Popular: Environmental lobbies and White House oppose subsidies Maixner 6 (Ed, Editor of The Kiplinger Agriculture Letter, http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/farm_subsidies_will_be_cut_but_not_scuttled__.html)

Leading the charge against subsidies are the White House and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, environmental groups, consumer interests plus the two-thirds of American farmers and ranchers who produce crops and livestock that do not receive direct government payments. But traditional farm groups, which account for more than 75% of all subsidies totaling well over $20 billion a year, still have lots of lobbying muscle. Moreover, they enjoy rock-solid support from agricultural committees. Odds are that farm subsidies will be trimmed, but not as much as opponents want. However, any change will be significant, considering that government programs for just a handful of crops have been the status quo for 70 years.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 77

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Popular – Grocery Coalition/Heritage Grocery coalition and the Heritage Foundation support subsidy reduction The Oregonian 7 (11/11, http://www.ewg.org/node/25626) The grocery manufacturers are part of an improbable coalition that includes environmental groups, religious organizations and Republican-leaning tax groups, as well as conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation that have close ties to the White House. All are demanding that subsidies be dramatically reduced and that the money -- by some accounts $16 billion -- be used for nutrition programs and conservation. Grocers are politically powerful Organic Consumers Association 7 (http://www.futuresfoundation.org.au/documents/wellbeingproject/supporting%20articles/Congress%20Poised%20t o%20Pass%20Bill%20Taking%20Away%20Right%20to%20Know.pdf)

The House will vote March 2, 2006 on a bill that would gut state food safety and labeling laws. H.R. 4167, the "National Uniformity for Food Act," lowers the bar on food safety by overturning state food safety laws that are not "identical" to federal law. Hundreds of state laws and regulations are at risk, including those governing the safety of milk, fish, and shellfish. The bill is being pushed by large supermarket chains and food manufacturers, spearheaded by the powerful Grocery Manufacturers of America. The Heritage Foundation is powerful Source Watch 8 (6-4, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heritage_Foundation) The Foundation wields considerable influence in Washington, and enjoyed particular prominence during the Reagan administration. Its initial funding was provided by Joseph Coors, of the Coors beer empire, and Richard Mellon Scaife, heir of the Mellon industrial and banking fortune. The Foundation maintains strong ties with the London Institute of Economic Affairs and the Mont Pelerin Society. With a long history of receiving large donations from overseas, Heritage continues to rake in a minimum of several hundred thousand dollars from Taiwan and South Korea each year.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 78

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Popular – Business Lobbies Cuts popular – Business lobbies Kilman & Thurow 6 (Scott and Roger, 3/14, http://lists.mutualaid.org/pipermail/mgjdiscuss/2006-March/005316.html) The White House has the support of other businesses that would like to see the subsidy question settled in order to spur the lowering of overseas trade barriers on their goods. During a recent meeting in a private club on Chicago's Michigan Avenue, business executives, bankers and economists dined on stuffed chicken served on bone china while preparing a report arguing for an overhaul of the farm program. Several participants are executives of Fortune 500 companies. The task force was assembled by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, an 84-year-old nonprofit group that includes many of the Midwest's biggest firms.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

79

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Popular – Dems Democrats support subsidy cuts Pierce 7 (Neal, Seattle Times, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003525390_peirce15.html) Could that change in 2007? Most farm economists expect that the reauthorization, which Congress has to pass this year, will mirror the same-old subsidies. But not Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. He's urging the Democratic House leadership to take on the challenge of major farm-bill reform, insisting it's just as important as new energy legislation and "may have more impact, dollar for dollar, acre for acre, than the transportation bill." A bipartisan accord with President Bush on farm reform is possible, Blumenauer said last week: "Now the president is in a different situation. It's all about legacy now." There's a strong parallel, Jonathan Rauch suggests in National Journal, to 1996 when a newly elected Republican Congress ended welfare as we knew it and got a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, to agree. Just as the Republicans back then identified themselves with reform of an archaic, dependency-forming New Deal-born program, Rauch notes the Democrats now have a chance to earn their reformist spurs by ending farm welfare as we know it, and to get a president of the opposite party to sign the bill.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 80

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cuts Popular – Anti-Spending Republicans support spending cuts International Herald Tribune 6 (3/13, http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/13/news/gop.php) MEMPHIS, Tennessee: As prospective Republican presidential candidates search for themes to distinguish their prospective campaigns, and distance themselves from the embattled incumbent in the White House, they appear to be in agreement on one central issue for 2008: Curbing the U.S. government spending that has soared under President George W. Bush. For two days before an audience of Southern Republicans here, the party's potential candidates for 2008 called for cutting or slowing government spending across the board and retooling bedrock entitlement programs - Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security - that have become a drain on the Treasury. They called for a presidential line- item veto and a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. And with varying nuance, they attacked earmarking, the budget tactic some members of Congress use to channel money to favorite projects, outside the scrutiny of the normal budget process. "Yes, these last five years, we've been hit with unexpected challenges: a recession, 9/11, homeland security, the war on terror, Katrina," said Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, a likely candidate for 2008. "But they're not justification for a one-way ticket down a wayward path of wasteful Washington spending." Senator John McCain of Arizona, another likely candidate, declared: "We need to pass a line-item veto. But we also should have the willpower to stop this. We have to stop this." Republicans support cuts in spending Fisher 6 (Patrick, Aug 31, http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p151918_index.html) Why do members of Congress make the decisions regarding federal spending that they do? Utilizing the spending votes that comprise the congressional vote score rankings of the Concord Coalition, an anti-deficit interest group, this study classifies spending votes from the 104th-107th Congresses (1995-2002) into three different spending categories: entitlement spending, discretionary spending, and defense spending. Each of the three spending categories is measured separately as a dependent variable in ordinary least square regression models with political and constituency factors that may have influenced members of Congress as independent variables. The findings of this study indicate that a legislator's partisanship and the degree by which a legislator is a party loyalist have a very strong impact on spending cut votes. At the same time, political, demographic, and cultural characteristics of one's constituency also influence legislative behavior on spending votes. In terms of specific types of spending cuts, votes to cut entitlement spending and discretionary spending share many of the same explanatory features. Republican legislators and legislators who come from Republican-leaning constituencies are much more likely to support cuts in entitlement and discretionary spending. Reductions in defense spending, however, see a very different type of political calculus, with Democratic legislators and representatives who come from Democraticleaning districts much more likely to support cuts in defense spending.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

81

Politics-India Deal

Link—Trade Barriers Popular – Lobby Reducing trade barriers is political suicide—farm lobby backlash Christian Science Monitor 6 (July 27, http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0727/p02s01wogi.html) The United States, Japan, and members of the European Union - all of them rich nations that are food importers or exporters - were willing to cut some of their farm-support spending as a concession to developing nations. But the deal collapsed, analysts say, in part because the rich nations didn't win enough concessions in return to counterbalance the weight of opposition from their own local farm lobbies. The breakdown doesn't mean a new global trade accord won't happen. But it could take months or years to jump-start the dead talks. "We have seen stoppages like this in the past," Dr. Hart says. "Eventually there was a breakthrough, and an agreement was reached." Those past agreements have cut trade barriers worldwide. The result, economists say, has been new commercial activity that has added several trillion dollars to the world economy in the past few decades. But throughout it all, agriculture has remained highly protected, with tariffs, import duties, and subsidies restraining the free flow of cotton, sugar, and other crops. With so many areas of trade already liberalized, the Doha Round could hardly avoid putting farm goods at the forefront when talks began in 2001. But despite years of serious work, the effort fell apart like a comedy of errors. The US and European Union are now trading jabs at each other for not offering deep enough cuts in farm protections. India refused to stop shielding its farmers from global competition. And the agriculture minister for Japan, which has long protected its rice farming industry complained that "I was not given the opportunity to show all of my cards" in negotiations. How did it get to this? The short answer is that agricultural lobbies enjoy a political clout that far outweighs their economic weight, economists say. Their influence is often felt in every region of nations such as France and the US, with corresponding influence in legislatures. So once farmers have won government entitlement benefits, they're often very hard to remove. "You take that cotton land down in Mississippi.... That land would probably drop in value by half" without subsidies, says Gary Hufbauer, a trade specialist at the Institute for International Economics in Washington. Thus, it takes a formidable argument on the part of free-traders to overcome the opponents to big cutbacks in farm supports.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

82

***Links – Ethanol***

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 83

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link – Ethanol Cuts Popular (1/2) Package food lobby oppose ethanol use Dow Jones Newswire 8 (http://www.flex-newsfood.com/pages/16181/Biofuel/Corn/Food/food-makers-lobby-congress-limit-corn-usagebiofuels-dj.html) Filings with the Senate's Office of Public Records reveal that several large packaged-food companies have hired Washington lobbyists or are using their internal teams to help them make a stronger case against the use of corn to produce biofuels like ethanol. A March lobbying registration form shows that Kraft Foods Inc. (KFT) has hired Washington D.C. firm DLA Piper to lobby on "energy policy and initiatives related to biofuels." An April lobbying report filed by Kellogg Co. (K) discloses that the company has been lobbying on the subject of "ethanol production", among others. Earlier this week Kraft which makes its namesake cheese singles, Philadelphia cream cheese and Oscar Mayer meats - posted a 13% drop in first-quarter net income amid surging costs for dairy, wheat and other commodities. Kellogg posted a 1.9% drop in first-quarter net income as price hikes didn't completely offset the surging costs for ingredients and a higher tax rate. Food companies' profits are being nicked by a variety of commodities, not just corn. But their willingness to take on an active role in the ethanol debate highlights just how big an issue commodity prices have become to the packaged-food makers. "The food and feed people are beginning to realize what it means to have subsidies and tax breaks for the ethanol plants. They weren't alert to this particular issue," says James Thurber, a professor of political science who teaches a course on public advocacy at American University in Washington, D.C. "They now are entering a period of active lobbying against the cornbased ethanol people." Opposition to ethanol outweighs support Etter 7 (Lauren, http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119206474778855491.html) The stalling ethanol industry wants Congress to mandate greater use of the biofuel. But many of the industry's former friends have turned against it amid soaring prices for corn and other grains. Congress gave a big boost to ethanol in 2005, when it mandated that oil refiners blend 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels such as ethanol into the nation's gasoline supply by 2012. The farm lobby was united behind ethanol as a way to strengthen rural economies. Environmental groups backed it as a way to fight global warming and lessen the nation's dependence on foreign oil. Even the petroleum industry was supportive. Since then, dozens of ethanol plants have sprouted around the country, turning corn into fuel. The rise of the industry has helped to boost grain prices and create jobs in farm states. But ethanol production today is close to reaching the 7.5-billion-gallon level in the 2005 law. Oversupply has forced down prices and driven some ethanol producers into trouble. Producers and corn farmers are lobbying hard for Congress to boost the requirement anew to ensure that demand can soak up the rising production.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

84

Politics-India Deal

Link – Ethanol Cuts Popular (2/2) Ethanol losing support, barnyard lobby opposes Etter 7 (Lauren, http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119206474778855491.html) Opposition to the ethanol industry's goals has grown significantly stiffer. The so-called barnyard lobby -- representing the meat, livestock and poultry industries -- says high corn prices are hurting its profits. The price of corn-based animal feed has increased about 60% since 2005, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Our single biggest priority is for Congress to reject a new renewable-fuels mandate," says Jesse Sevcik, vice president of legislative affairs at the American Meat Institute, a meat and poultry trade association. Other groups that were originally sympathetic to ethanol are drifting away. They fear that the fuel's advantages are outweighed by the rise in corn prices, which they say increases the cost of foods ranging from steak to cereal. "Many policy makers were seduced by ethanol," says Cal Dooley, president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association. He opposes increasing federal support for ethanol. Farm lobby oppose ethanol subsidies: cutting into profit margins Associated Press 7 (9/13, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20760839) ST. LOUIS - As a chief advocate for corn farmers around the country, Rob Litterer will be working the halls of Congress this fall to push for increased ethanol production. But he’s facing stiff opposition from what on the surface seems an unlikely source — the farm lobby. The burgeoning ethanol industry is creating a wave of prosperity for rural towns throughout the Midwest, but the energy bonanza is also pitting farming groups on separate sides of the fence. Corn farmers are pushing for more ethanol production as the industry creates an enormous new market for their crop, giving corn prices the kind of lift they haven’t seen in years. But the corn farmer’s win is the hog farmer’s loss. Meat, dairy, and other food producers are pushing back against the ethanol boom as higher grain prices cut into their already slim profit margins. So as Litterer, incoming president of the National Corn Growers Association, visits with members of Congress in coming months, he knows that meat and dairy lobbyists will be close behind, delivering the opposite message.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

85

Politics-India Deal

Link—Ethanol Cuts Popular – Lobby (1/2) There’s growing opposition to ethanol subsidies and tariffs—environmental and meat lobbies Business Week 7 (March 19, http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2007/db20070316_016207.htm?cam paign_id=rss_topStories) The ethanol movement is sprouting a vocal crop of critics. While politicians including President George W. Bush and farmers across the Midwest hope that the U.S. can win its energy independence by turning corn into fuel, Hitch and an unlikely assortment of allies are raising their voices in opposition. The effort is uniting ranchers and environmentalists, hog farmers and hippies, solar-power idealists and free-market pragmatists (see BW Online, 02/2/07, " Ethanol: Too Much Hype—and Corn"). They have different reasons for opposing ethanol. But their common contentions are that the focus on corn-based ethanol has been too hasty, and the government's active involvement—through subsidies for ethanol refiners and high tariffs to keep out alternatives like ethanol made from sugar—is likely to lead to chaos in other sectors of the economy. "The government thinks it can pick a winner, but they should allow consumers to pick their own," says Demian Moore, senior analyst for the nonprofit Taxpayers for Common Sense. "Corn ethanol has failed to prove itself as a reliable alternative that can exist without huge subsidies." Ethanol has plenty of support in Washington. Besides Bush's call for sharply boosting output during his State of the Union (see BusinessWeek.com, 1/24/07, "Salesman In Chief"), Hillary Clinton, senator from New York and Presidential contender, has reversed her previous position to support ethanol subsidies. Barack Obama, another Democratic Presidential hopeful, is on board. Even John McCain, a vocal critic for years, is reconsidering his opposition as he tries to snare the Republican nomination. Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the agribusiness giant and the largest ethanol producer, is a formidable lobbying force in the capitol, after having handed out millions of dollars in political contributions over the last three decades. Yet while the influence of ethanol's enemies isn't great now,

their cohesiveness, and their power, is growing. For two days earlier this month, the NCBA, the National Chicken Council, the National Turkey Federation, and the National Pork Producers' Council testified before Congress, calling for the end of corn ethanol subsidies. Left-leaning economists such as Princeton University's Paul Krugman are joining free-market fundamentalists at the Cato Institute in pointing out the economic pitfalls of ethanol. And green groups worry that aggressive production of corn could have dire consequences for the environment, because of the heavy use of pesticides, fertilizer, and machinery that burns fossil fuels. "There's great concern," says Doug Koplow, who analyzes energy policy for Earth Track, a Boston consultancy. The opposition groups haven't worked together before this year, but Hitch says the NCBA is now beginning to reach out to other groups in an effort to coordinate lobbying and other activities. On Mar. 16, representatives of the ranchers, chicken farmers, pork processors, and milk producers held a joint conference call to discuss strategies for addressing the ethanol issue. They agreed to form an ad hoc group, which has not been publicly announced, to launch an informational Web site and to work toward the inclusion of measures to eliminate domestic ethanol subsidies and tariffs on Brazilian ethanol in the Farm Bill expected later this year. Ranchers and other opponents say they're determined to get the government to change its policies, however long it takes. "This ethanol thing is driving everybody half nuts," says Hitch. "As far as presenting a united front on this issue, we certainly can and will."

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 86

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link – Ethanol Cuts Popular – Lobby (2/2) Oxfam and Grocery Manufacturers lobby against ethanol Red Orbit 8 (5/30, http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1409607/washington_ethanol_fuels_food_fight/) Groups as disparate as the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the National Restaurant Association, the Heritage Foundation, the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association and Oxfam America, an international aid organization, have banded together to lobby members of Congress to consider repealing the ethanol mandate. Ethanol subsidies piss off the farm lobby MSNBC 7 (September 13, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20760839) As a chief advocate for corn farmers around the country, Rob Litterer will be working the halls of Congress this fall to push for increased ethanol production. But he’s facing stiff opposition from what on the surface seems an unlikely source — the farm lobby. The burgeoning ethanol industry is creating a wave of prosperity for rural towns throughout the Midwest, but the energy bonanza is also pitting farming groups on separate sides of the fence. Corn farmers are pushing for more ethanol production as the industry creates an enormous new market for their crop, giving corn prices the kind of lift they haven’t seen in years. But the corn farmer’s win is the hog farmer’s loss. Meat, dairy, and other food producers are pushing back against the ethanol boom as higher grain prices cut into their already slim profit margins.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

87

Politics-India Deal

Link—Ethanol Cuts Popular – Congress Support for subsidized ethanol is wavering in face of growing opposition Wall Street Journal 7 (November 12, http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119482533176389532.html) Like water seeping out of the giant High Plains Ogallala aquifer, support for corn ethanol seems to be ebbing in Congress. As political news goes, this is of the miracle variety, but apparently the market distortions caused by ethanol mandates are finally having an impact. "We're in a strong position," says Senator John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who is blocking a conference on the energy bill because the House version contains billions in new oil taxes to be spent on ethanol subsidies. Meanwhile, in the House, there's opposition to the Senate's mandate to increase ethanol production by 30 billion gallons annually by 2022. Let's review: the House energy bill taxes oil to subsidize ethanol, drawing Senat opposition, while the Senate bill forces U.S. consumers to buy more ethanol, drawing House opposition. Seems to us that the two chambers could simply agree that expanding on the already enormous subsidies for ethanol is a costly mistake and go home to enjoy Thanksgiving dinner, but we don't pretend to fully understand the ways of Congress. What we do understand is that opposition to corn-based ethanol from environmentalists has Speaker Nancy Pelosi seeking a rewrite of the Senate's mandate. As the speaker attempts to fashion a stripped-down bill that can move in both houses, the House's tax-and-subsidy scheme for ethanol also doesn't appear to be part of the package. And with good reason. Last month, the National Academy of Sciences reported on the impact of ethanol production on water supplies. A University of Iowa professor chaired the report committee, so Big Corn might have hoped for a home-court advantage. But NAS reported that, "in some areas of the country, water resources are already significantly stressed . . . Increased biofuels production will likely add pressure to the water management challenges the nation already faces as biofuels drive changing agricultural practices, increased corn production, and growth in the number of biorefineries." When ethanol is criticized by scientists at Iowa's two largest state universities, you have to wonder who is for it. Meanwhile, investors are figuring out that these government policies are turning water into an increasingly scarce resource on which money can be made. Last week brought news that legendary oilman T. Boone Pickens has purchased 400,000 acres of water rights in the Texas panhandle. This will allow him to dip a straw into the Ogallala aquifer, portions of which "show water table declines of over 100 feet since about the 1940s," according to the NAS report. When oil barons decide there's money in drilling for scarce water in the American West, it's time for Congress to stop subsidizing an inefficient and thirsty energy source that soaks up more of that water. Ethanol has prospered on taxpayer subsidies fed by political panic over oil prices and old-fashioned Congressional log-rolling. It's about time that some in Congress are finally stopping to inspect ethanol's many, and growing, costs.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

88

Politics-India Deal

Link – Ethanol Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (1/2) Biofuel lobby building support: budgeted millions to campaigning PR Watch 8 (http://www.prwatch.org/node/7590) Monsanto, Dupont, Archer Daniels Midland and the PR giant Burson-Marsteller are some of the corporations behind the Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy. No doubt feel-good ads from this front group will soon fill the airwaves, especially in Washington DC. The Washington Post reports, "A group of the world's biggest agribusiness companies announced it will use lobbyists on Capitol Hill and national ads to build the case for fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel, even as grain prices climb worldwide. The biofuels industry has blossomed under federal mandates requiring the United States to increase alternative fuel usage by 2009. The mandates are under attack from groups who blame the new industry for rising food prices that have sparked riots and hoarding in several countries. ... The alliance has a budget of several million dollars for the campaign, but it did not disclose the exact amount." Biofuel lobbies growing: increased lobbiests and ads Leonard 8(Chris, AP Business Writer, http://climate.weather.com/articles/biofuels072508.html, 4/25) The new group -- formed by Monsanto Co., Archer Daniels Midland, Deere & Co. and DuPont Co. -- announced Thursday it will use national advertisements and lobbyists on Capitol Hill to build the case that new technologies can make it economically feasible to produce crop-based fuels like ethanol and biodiesel, even as grain prices climb worldwide. Just a niche market three years ago, the biofuels industry has blossomed because of federal mandates requiring the United States to use 9 billion gallons of alternative fuel annually by 2009. The mandates are under attack from a wide variety of groups who blame the new industry for rising food prices that have sparked riots and hoarding everywhere from Haiti to southeast Asia. Organizer of the newly formed Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy said Thursday they want to change the debate about biofuels. Their plan is to convince consumers and politicians that both goals can be met at once by increasing agricultural productivity.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

89

Politics-India Deal

Link—Biofuels Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (2/2) It would cost massive political capital to go against biofuels—it has the support of the environmental, labor, and every agriculture lobby Little 6 (Amanda, March 25, http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/03/25/muckraker/) A few more strange bedfellows have recently been coaxed into the sack with the enviros, hawks and labor advocates pushing for a smarter U.S. energy strategy. The newbies include growers of corn, soy, wheat, trees and even dairy cows, all of which could play a role in cultivating homegrown energy sources. Earlier this month, some 70 agriculture and forestry groups and companies endorsed a campaign dubbed 25x'25, which advocates that 25 percent of energy in the United States come from "America's working lands" by 2025. That means biofuels like ethanol, bioenergy from processed animal manure and agricultural waste, and wind and solar power produced on agricultural lands. At the moment, these sources make up less than 4 percent of America's energy mix. Backers of the campaign, many of them generally right-leaning, include the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Milk Producers Federation, the Association of Consulting Foresters of America, and the farm equipment giant Deere & Co. "We don't see this as big. We see it as enormous," said Ernest Shea, a longtime agriculture and conservation lobbyist who is spearheading the 25x'25 coalition. "Land managers inherently understand how soil, water, air and sunlight can be harnessed and harvested, be it for nourishment or fuel. We see this as something that will dramatically expand agriculture's role -- as a producer not just of food and fiber, but also energy for America." Reid Detchon, executive director of the Energy Future Coalition, a nonpartisan group of business, security, and environment experts that is funding the 25x'25 campaign with support from private foundations, freely admits that the 25 percent target is a stretch: "As an energy wonk, I swallowed hard when [Shea and other agriculture leaders] presented this goal to me, because I know how aggressive it is." But, he says,

it's doable, particularly given the tremendous amount of political capital agriculture interests bring to the table. According to Kevin Curtis, a vice president at the National Environmental Trust, there are more than 30 senators who consistently vote in favor of agriculture interests, most of whom have not traditionally supported clean-energy initiatives. Said Detchon, "If you look at the map last year of the [congressional] support for renewable fuels, it was in the center of the country, and the support for renewable electricity was stronger in coastal states. We're trying to bring those two together." Already, the 25x'25 coalition boasts an impressive roster of backers from both sides of the aisle, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R), former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D), Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D), and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R). Gingrich, speaking at the March 8 press conference where 25x'25 was unveiled, hailed the campaign as "urgent ... one of the major building blocks of creating a national security [plan]," and said there was no time to spare in turning its goals into legislative reality: "I urge you to go to Congress to get a resolution this year on a bipartisan basis that directs the congressional committees and the budget committees to develop a 25x'25 strategy."

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

90

Politics-India Deal

Link—Ethanol Cuts Unpopular – Congress Public pressure means cutting ethanol subsidies costs political capital Lyne 7 (Jack, Exclusive Editor of Interactive Publishing for site Selection Magazine, August 7, http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/incentive/ti0708.htm) "Elected officials are primarily motivated by the hunt for political capital, including campaign contributions but, most importantly, votes," says the Cato Institute's Taylor. "As long as they believe that ethanol subsidies will deliver political capital, they will vote for ethanol subsidies." Bush would have to invest significant amounts of political capital to remove ethanol subsidies—Congress is unwilling to change Feltman 8 (Kenneth, ETalkingHead, http://www.etalkinghead.com/archives/ethanols-roadkill2008-05-14.html) Unfortunately, all the publicity about the wastefulness cannot change things without Congressional action. U.S. public policy - as enacted by Congress - is part of the problem. And Congress has seemed unwilling or unable to change previous misguided decisions. Now, as Congress finally reconsiders, the corn-ethanol promoters are battling to keep the subsidies for corn producers and the corn-ethanol industry. Decisions are instruments of change. Leadership involves decision-making. Nothing happens until a decision is made. But if conditions change, the initial decision may need to be changed. Sticking with an obsolete decision is a sign of weakness.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

91

Politics-India Deal

Link—Ethanol Cuts Unpopular – Public (1/3) Ethanol subsidies are politically untouchable—three reasons Goodell 7 (Jeff, Contributing Editor at Rolling Stone and a Frequent Contributer to the New York Times Magazine, August 9, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15635751/the_ethanol_scam_one_of_americas_bigge st_political_boondoggles/2) So why bother? Because the whole point of corn ethanol is not to solve America's energy crisis, but to generate one of the great political boondoggles of our time. Corn is already the most subsidized crop in America, raking in a total of $51 billion in federal handouts between 1995 and 2005 -- twice as much as wheat subsidies and four times as much as soybeans. Ethanol itself is propped up by hefty subsidies, including a fifty-one-cent-pergallon tax allowance for refiners. And a study by the International Institute for Sustainable Development found that ethanol subsidies amount to as much as $1.38 per gallon -- about half of ethanol's wholesale market price. Three factors are driving the ethanol hype. The first is panic: Many energy experts believe that the world's oil supplies have already peaked or will peak within the next decade. The second is election-year politics. With the first vote to be held in Iowa, the largest corn-producing state in the nation, former skeptics like Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain now pay tribute to the wonders of ethanol. Earlier this year, Sen. Barack Obama pleased his agricultural backers in Illinois by co-authoring legislation to raise production of biofuels to 60 billion gallons by 2030. A few weeks later, rival Democrat John Edwards, who is staking his campaign on a victory in the Iowa caucus, upped the ante to 65 billion gallons by 2025. The third factor stoking the ethanol frenzy is the war in Iraq, which has made energy independence a universal political slogan. Unlike coal, another heavily subsidized energy source, ethanol has the added political benefit of elevating the American farmer to national hero. As former CIA director James Woolsey, an outspoken ethanol evangelist, puts it, "American farmers, by making the commitment to grow more corn for ethanol, are at the top of the spear on the war against terrorism." If you love America, how can you not love ethanol?

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 92

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link—Ethanol Cuts Unpopular – Public (2/3) Ethanol is widely popular—outweighs your turns Kantor 4 (Andrew, Technology Writer and Former Editor for PC Magazine and Internet World, February 20, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2004-02-20-kantor_x.htm) Talking about ethanol is good politics, if not good science. Ethanol can, to some extent, replace gasoline. You've probably heard of gasohol, which is a mixture of gasoline and ethanol. That's why politicians like to talk about it. Talking ethanol means you're not talking about energy concepts people don't like to hear about, like nuclear power, rolling blackouts, or mandatory low-powered electric cars. It means talking about a fuel that comes from corn, so voters get that warm fuzzy feeling they don't get from petroleum products. People like ethanol because it comes from the good ol' USA, so we can reduce our dependence on people who hate us. It's natural — folks have been making ethanol since, well, since distillation was invented. It doesn't kill property values like giant windmill farms or nuclear power stations. And because it's a liquid we wouldn't have to change our whole delivery infrastructure the way we would with hydrogen. (Nothing against the hydrogen-powered "Freedom Cars" the Bush Administration has put $1.2 billion toward developing.) Rural people like ethanol because it means more money, in sales or subsidies, for farmers. Urban people like it because ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline and nobody likes a smog alert. Politically it's hard to go wrong promoting an alternative fuel made from American corn. But, as often happens, reality rears its ugly head. Ethanol has broad political backing The Economist 7(4/7, Castro was right; ethanol, l/n) Why is the government so generous? Because ethanol is just about the only alternativeenergy initiative that has broad political support. Farmers love it because it provides a new source of subsidy. Hawks love it because it offers the possibility that America may wean itself off Middle Eastern oil. The automotive industry loves it, because it reckons that switching to a green fuel will take the global-warming heat off cars. The oil industry loves it because the use of ethanol as a fuel additive means it is business as usual, at least for the time being. Politicians love it because by subsidising it they can please all those constituencies. Taxpayers seem not to have noticed that they are footing the bill.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

93

Politics-India Deal

Link—Ethanol Cuts Unpopular – Public (3/3) Cutting ethanol subsidies would be political suicide—ethanol and farm lobbies Williams 8 (Walter, Capitalism Magazine, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5131) It's easy to understand how the public, looking for cheaper gasoline, can be taken in by the call for increased ethanol usage. But politicians, corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. They are in it for the money. The top leader in the ethanol hoax is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the country's largest producer of ethanol. Ethanol producers and the farm lobby have pressured farm state congressmen into believing that it would be political suicide if they didn't support subsidized ethanol production. That's the stick. Campaign contributions play the role of the carrot. Everyone supports ethanol—cutting it would be political suicide Greenwich Financial 8 (March 3, http://blog.greenwichfinancial.com/2008/03/ethanolfollies.html) Ethanol might not conserve fossil fuels, but it makes great political hay. President Bush waves the flag for ethanol. Candidates Clinton and Obama both enthuse about energy from corn. Senator McCain, who bravely fought the ethanol lobby for years, flipflopped during the Republican primaries and now is a strong ethanol supporter. A way of discouraging fossil fuel use that is market neutral toward alternatives would be to increase the taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. However, proposing this is viewed as political suicide. Instead, we jump on the ethanol subsidy hayride, feeling good about our civic virtues while worsening the true problem

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

94

***Links – Sugar***

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

95

Politics-India Deal

Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (1/8) No one will oppose the sugar lobby—they fear not being re-elected Dean 6 (Adam, University of Pittsburg, College Undergraduate Research Electronic Journal, http://repository.upenn.edu/curej/28/.) As is the case with all agricultural protection policies, the farmers that benefit from the US sugar program are opposed to any reform efforts. However, unlike certain agricultural commodities that are only grown in certain regions, sugarbeets and sugarcane are grown in numerous areas throughout the country. With cane fields in Florida,Louisiana, Hawaii, and Texas and beet fields in California, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Idaho, Washington State, Oregon, Michigan and Ohio (see Appendix V) there are many US congressional districts that contain farmers that are dependent on the sugar program in some capacity. Representatives from these districts, along with Senators from these states, find it in their electoral interest to continue to support the US sugar program. For many of these districts, bilateral trade deals that open the US sugar market to foreign competition, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), pose serious threats to their livelihood. Opposition to such trade agreements, as well as any proposed reform of the sugar industry, is a basic requirement for any politician hoping to win an election in these areas. The broad base of national support for the sugar program has enabled the industry to successfully oppose any serious reform to an inefficient program that has enormous annual costs for US consumers. Sugar Lobbies strong: massive congressional support for sugar subsidies, millions in campaign contributions Riedl 2 (Brian M., Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/BG1534.cfm) Since 1999, $4.3 million has been donated to federal politicians by the sugar industry, nearly all of which has come from organizations representing farmers who benefit from these price supports and want to continue them. Among such pro-price support organizations are the American Sugar Cane League, which has donated $414,898 to federal candidates since 1999, and American Crystal Sugar, which has donated $795,235. In December 2001, an amendment offered by Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) to eliminate the federal sugar program and shift the savings to the food stamp program was defeated by a vote of 71-25. 15 The largest beneficiary of continued government price-fixing in the sugar industry, however, will be Florida's Flo-Sun, Inc. Owned by brothers Alfonso (Alfie) and Jose (Pepe) Fanjul, the Flo-Sun sugar empire includes several sugar mills and 410,000 acres of land in Florida and the Dominican Republic. Despite a fortune conservatively estimated at $500 million, the Fanjuls receive a huge annual sugar benefit from the federal government: roughly $65 million for their Florida-grown sugar and an additional $60 million for the Dominican sugar they sell in the United States. 16 Profiting from Congress's misguided policies, the Fanjuls have purchased a 7,000-acre luxury resort with 14 swimming pools, several mansions, and world-class golf courses. 17 It

is not unreasonable to assume that Flo-Sun may well have had substantial influence on the current farm policy debate on Capitol Hill, given that it has donated $1,136,900 to federal politicians since 1999. Overall, the sugar industry continues to be a major beneficiary of price-support policies that have cost American consumers billions of dollars.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

96

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

97

Politics-India Deal

Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (2/8) The sugar lobby drowns out political support for the plan Dean 6 (Adam, University of Pittsburg, College Undergraduate Research Electronic Journal, http://repository.upenn.edu/curej/28/.) The concentrated benefits and diverse costs of the US sugar program make it so that consumer advocacy of major reform is unlikely. As argued in Mancur Olson’s The Logic of Collective Action19, large groups are often much less effective than small groups at forming lobby groups and effectively applying pressure on legislators. With the estimated annual net cost of the US sugar program ranging from 1 to 3.2 billions dollars20, the annual per capita cost ranges from only $3.40-$10.80. With the average American family of four losing less than $50 each year, it is understandable that protection of the US sugar industry is not a highly controversial topic amongst consumers. The difficulties of organizing a consumer advocacy group to lobby Congress for decreased protection of the US sugar industry would be severe. Since each consumer only has the potential for a small gain from liberalizing the US sugar market it would be irrational to dedicate much time or money to a reform movement. A consumer advocacy group would be unlikely to even cover their costs if they were to send donation requests through the mail or to send group members door-to-door to solicit funds. Since the US sugar program has such small effects on each consumer it is very unlikely that a large number of them will organize to lobby legislators. However, the exact opposite is the case for US producers. Whereas each US consumer has very little to gain or lose from the US sugar program, certain US producers stand to gain millions of dollars each year. The wealthiest of all US sugar producers, the Fanjul family of Florida, benefit in excess of $65 million each year. With over 400,000 acres of cane fields in Florida and the Dominican Republic, the Fanjul owned Flo-Sun, Inc., accounts for over 6,500,00021 of the 1.7 million short tons of raw sugar produced in Florida each year.22 With such a large sum of money at stake, the Fanjul family and the corporate executives of Flo-Sun, Inc. have always found it in their best interest to be very involved in the political process. From 1979 to 1995, the Fanjul family, along with the Florida Sugar League PAC, the Flo-Sun Corporation, and its corporate executives donated more than $2.6 million to political candidates. In the same years the Fanjul family alone gave $359,505 to more than 172 congressional candidates of both political parties. However, these hard money contributions do not include the highly lucrative soft money donations given by the Fanjuls and Flo-Sun. From 1991 to 1995 Fanjul controlled assets were responsible for 59 percent of all soft money contributions made by the Sugar industry to national parties and committees. When political influence is so important, it matters less what party you support, and matters more to simply support whoever is in power. Fanjul controlled companies and PACs make contributions to both political parties, and the Fanjuls themselves actively support both the Republican and Democratic parties. Alfie Fanjul, a life-long Democrat, was the co-chairman of Bill Clinton’s Florida Presidential election campaign in 1992 and cosponsored a Cuban-American fundraiser in Miami that raised over $100,000.23 After Clinton’s election, Alfie Fanjul was invited to an “economic summit” in Little Rock, Arkansas where he was given a seat 3 spaces away from Clinton and Al Gore. Living up to expectations, between 1991 and 1995 Fanjul controlled companies contributed $131,000 to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Although the political influence of Alfie Fanjul, and others like him, usually goes unnoticed by the general public, Alfie’s influence was coincidentally made very public in 1998 during the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal.24 According to the Starr report, President Clinton received a personal phone call from Alfie Fanjul during his final private meeting with Lewinsky. Clinton returned the phone call while Lewinsky was leaving the room and continued to talk to him for 22 minutes about a proposal to have the sugar industry pay for an environmental clean-up of the Florida Everglades.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 98

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (3/8) Sugar Lobbies still powerful: recent land deal strengthens players Gibson, Kleindienst, and McNeill 8 (William E., Linda, Ryan, “Sugar industry likely to remain potent political force Industry may wield more clout after land deal,” South Florida Sun-Sentinel, July 14, http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flasugarpolitics0714sbjul14,0,927023.story) KK U.S. Sugar and its allies in the sugar cane and sugar beet industry have poured millions into political

campaigns, boosted or cut short political careers and made their imprint on Congress and the Florida Legislature. The unfolding land deal does not herald the end of Big Sugar — a powerful industry of growers and refiners, much of it based in Florida — or its political clout. Observers on all sides of the transaction say it could strengthen the remaining players, notably Florida Crystals and other concerns run by the Fanjul family of Palm Beach County. Big Sugar's survival was assured by congressional passage last month of price supports that keep the industry alive. Its clout over the next few years may be enhanced by the conversion of sugar cane into ethanol, a potentially profitable enterprise tied to the politically popular cause of developing alternative fuels. "The land deal just removes a player from the field," said Eric Eikenberg, chief of staff to Gov. Charlie Crist. "But there are multiple interests within the industry that will remain very

much a part of the landscape."

Sugar Lobbies have clout: campaign contributions greater than any food growers Krauss 7 (Clifford, “Seeing Sugar's Future in Fuel,” New York Times, October 18) KK The system does not cost taxpayers money directly, a point of pride for the industry. But it costs consumers money in the form of higher sugar prices. The system has been subjected to withering criticism for decades, but the sugar lobby has clout on Capitol Hill. Sugar producers donated $2.7 million in campaign contributions to House and Senate incumbents in 2006, more than any other group of food growers, according to the

Center

for Responsive Politics, a Washington group. Sugar industry has power – Australian FTA proves Financial Times 4 (“Sweet deal: The US sugar industry is an affront to free trade” Financial Times, 2/12) As Mancur Olson, the American economist, pointed out, pressure groups wield political clout in inverse proportion to their size. There are few more striking demonstrations of that principle than the US sugar lobby,

a small industry that has punched a big hole in the newly concluded US bilateral trade agreement with Australia. By successfully resisting Australian demands for removal of its elaborate protection, the industry deprived US negotiators of the bargaining power needed to secure removal of Australia's restrictions on wheat marketing, broadcasting and other sectors. Those exclusions, along with niggardly US concessions on beef and dairy imports, belie official efforts to label the deal a "free trade" agreement.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

99

Politics-India Deal

Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (4/8) Sugar lobbies powerful: Congressional allies in key positions Swanson 7 (Ian, “Sugar industry pours it on after CAFTA's bitterness,” The Hill, 2/13) KK U.S. sugar producers, for years one of the most powerful lobbying forces in agriculture, suffered a bruising defeat in 2005 when Congress approved the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) over their strenuous objections. CAFTA allowed a limited increase of sugar imports to the U.S. from Central America, but domestic producers saw it as the beginning of the end for Big Sugar. Less than 18 months later, however, the industry appears

stronger than ever in Washington, with longtime congressional allies in key positions of power on several House and Senate committees. Most notably, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) is the new chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. Peterson's district covers the Red River Valley, which runs along the border of North Dakota and Minnesota and includes much of the nation's sugar beet production. Besides Peterson, sugar supporters include Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), a member of the Senate Democratic leadership. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has also always supported the sugar program, according to Kevin Price, director of government affairs for American Crystal Sugar Company, American Crystal Sugar Company, which operates five refineries in the Red River Valley. "I'm optimistic we'll get good sugar provisions in the farm bill," said Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.), a former president of the American Sugar Cane League. American Crystal is one of several groups representing the U.S. sugar industry that stepped up their political activity in the wake of the fight over CAFTA. The cooperative spent a record sum - more than $1 million - on political contributions to House and Senate campaigns in the 2005-2006 election cycle, according to the PoliticalMoneyLine website. This is almost twice what the company spent during the 2002 cycle and $250,000 more than the total for 2004. About 60 percent of the donations went to Democrats, which reflects a trend in the sugar industry that is unusual in agriculture. Whereas most agriculture political action committees (PACs) give more to Republicans, sugar PACs generally have a slight preference for donations to Democrats. Some PACs representing the sugar industry, and particularly those representing the sugarcane industry in the south, lowered their contributions in the 2005-2006 cycle, but sugar PACs overall increased their political donations by a total of $250,000. Besides American Crystal, the Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative nearly doubled its donations to Republican candidates, from $57,375 in the 2003-2004 cycle to $112,500 in the 2005-2006 cycle. Its spending on Democratic candidates also increased, from $108,500 in 2003-2004 to $156,250 in 2005-2006. Price said the CAFTA fight played into American Crystal's decision to step up its political activity. "It's not solely a factor of CAFTA, but it's one thing we've experienced that makes people interested in being politically active," Price said. He added that the group feels better about its position for the upcoming debate over the farm bill now that Peterson is chairman of the agriculture committee. Sugar's growing

clout was also reflected in the Bush administration's relatively timid proposals for sugar reform in the farm bill proposals it unveiled two weeks ago, according to some farm-group lobbyists. "We were pleasantly surprised by the administration's proposal," said Phillip Hayes, a spokesman for the American Sugar Alliance. "These guys are not dumb. They can read the writing on the wall," Melancon said, referring to the 2006 elections. All in all, he said the proposal did not represent the radical reforms that some in the agriculture community had been expecting. Susan Smith, a spokeswoman for the National Confectioners Association, said many lawmakers do want to change the sugar program, but they find that reform is always an uphill climb. She described the administration's proposals as interesting but not robust enough to amount to an overhaul. Although U.S. sugar producers receive no subsidies, they are protected by high import tariffs. The government also restricts the amount of domestic sugar that can be placed on the market in order to keep the U.S. price high. The White House's only new proposal was to eliminate a 2002 farm bill rule that requires the administration to allow the release of U.S. sugar on the domestic market only when imports hit a certain trigger level. That rule, backed by sugar interests, tried to ensure that the government kept imports below that threshold. If the rule were triggered, U.S. farmers could flood the domestic market and drive sugar prices down - in principle leading to the forfeiture of crops and high bailout costs borne by taxpayers. But that would violate another rule in the 2002 bill that requires the sugar program to impose no direct costs on taxpayers.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

100

Politics-India Deal

Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (5/8) Cutting subsidies would be massively unpopular—the sugar lobby controls congress Forbes Magazine 8 (June 30, http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/27/florida-sugar-crist-bizbeltway-cx_jz_0630sugar.html) Nonetheless, the U.S. sugar industry remains strong in Washington. "They have been a notoriously powerful lobby for decades and decades," says Cato's Edwards. As an explanation for sugar's lavish subsidies in the 2008 farm bill, which recently became law after a veto override, look no further than Congress' Agriculture Committees. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the top beneficiaries of big sugar's influence for the current election cycle include Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa ($35,400), House Agriculture Committee member Tim Mahoney, D-Fla. ($33,923) and committee chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., ($28,900). The U.S. Department of Agriculture says roughly 54% of total U.S. sugarbeet acreage is in the Red River Valley between Minnesota and North Dakota. North Dakota's sole Congressman, Democrat Earl Pomeroy, has been the greatest beneficiary of donations from sugar-related political-action committees for the 2008 election cycle, taking in $26,500, the Center for Responsive Politics says. Peterson, whose district in western Minnesota stretches along the Red River Valley, is No. 2, with $26,400 in PAC money.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

101

Politics-India Deal

Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (6/8) Bush would have to fight to get the plan through—the sugar lobby is strong and the subsidies don’t show up on the federal budget Edwards 7 (Chris, CATO Institute, June 13, http://www.cato.org/downsizing/agriculture/regs_trade_barriers.html) With all the negative economic and environmental effects of U.S. sugar programs, why do they persist? Sugar policies are a classic example of the government conferring benefits on a favored few at the expense of average households. There are relatively few sugar producers in the United States, but they form a notoriously powerful lobbying interest in Washington.30 One advantage they have is that their subsidies mainly take the form of import protection and thus do not show up as a costly line item in the federal budget.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 102

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (7/8) The sugar lobby will try to block any effort to cut subsidies or lower trade barriers Virata 4 (Gillian, Masters in International Policy and Practice from George Washington University, International Economic Studies Center, http://internationalecon.com/virata/The%20Effects%20of%20the%20US%20Sugar.pdf) Politicians have responded by preserving the sugar price supports and import quotas. President Bush signed into law the Farm Bill 2002, which not only negated the farm subsidy reduction of Farm Bill 1996 but also compensated farmers for losses from the first bill. The new bill will cost U.S. taxpayers $430 million to support the sugar industry between 2002 and 2011. Flo-Sun will be among the sugar growers that will benefit from this support. Politicians have also kept sugar out of bilateral free trade agreements starting with the U.S.-Canada FTA. When the CAFTA (Central American FTA) negotiations were concluded and the sugar industry learned that it provided for a slight increase in sugar imports the industry responded by launching a large, ultimately successful, lobbying effort to keep sugar out of the U.S.-Australia FTA. The U.S.ñDominican Republic FTA increased the Dominican Republicís quota by 10% over several years but kept the quota regime intact. The Fanjuls are among the biggest sugar growers in that country. Sugar Lobby Strong Edwards 6 (Chris, Director of Tax Policy Studies, Cato Institute, May, http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0704-34.pdf) Corruption in foreign trade is illustrated by restrictions on the importation of sugar. Those controls have created an entrenched and wealthy sugar producers’ lobby that dishes out millions of dollars of campaign contributions to protect the industry’s monopoly profits at the expense of sugar-consuming businesses and average families. Sugar Lobby Strong: large campaign donations National Review 5 (6/18, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_13_57/ai_n15674141) Apart from large cane growers like the Fanjuls and their rival, U.S. Sugar Corp., the sugar lobby is dominated by consortia of sugar-beet farmers in the upper Midwest. Individually, these farmers are small, but they are highly organized and can bring enormous pressure to bear on the politicians who represent them. The single largest sugar donor in the 2004 elections, with total contributions of $851,000, was American Crystal, a sugar-beet cooperative in the Red River Valley of North Dakota and Minnesota.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

103

Politics-India Deal

Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (8/8) Sugar Lobby strong: massive donations to both political parties Mitchell No Date Given (Donald, Lead Economist in the Development Prospects Group of The World Bank http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETTRADE/Resources/2390541126812419270/10.SugarPolicies.pdf) The clout of the U.S. sugar industry was recently demonstrated when it opposed and almost prevented the passage of the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) because the agreement increased the sugar quotas of these countries (Wall Street Journal, July 28, 2005). The U.S. sugar industry had earlier prevented sugar from being included in the Australia–U.S. free trade agreement, even though sugar is an important export for Australia. The Washington Post reported (February 9, 2004) that the powerful U.S. sugar lobby and affiliated individuals and political action committees had donated $20.2 million to both U.S. political parties since 1990. Pressures for change are building, however, and the opportunity for sugar policy reform is better now than in several decades.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

104

Politics-India Deal

Link—Sugar Cuts Unpopular – Congress Past votes on cutting sugar subsidies prove there’s overwhelming opposition to the plan Center For Trade and Policy Studies 6 (CATO Institute, http://www.freetrade.org/node/806) On October 4, 2001, the House voted 177- 239 (House Roll Call 367) to reject an amendment by Rep. Dan Miller (R-Fla.) that sought to reduce the sugar loan rates by 1 cent, increase the forfeiture penalty by 1 cent, and authorize the use of program savings for conservation and environmental stewardship programs to enhance the Florida Everglades ecosystem that has been damaged by intensified cane farming in the region. On December 12, 2001, the Senate voted 71-29 (Senate Roll Call 364) to table an amendment by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) to phase out the sugar program by fiscal year 2006 and use the savings to fund nutrition programs.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

105

Politics-India Deal

Link—Sugar Cuts Popular – General Opposition to the sugar subsidies outweighs your link—bipartisan interest groups and declining power of the sugar lobby Steorts 5 (Jason Lee, National Review, July 18, http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2005/sugar_industry_subsidies.php) While such an opposition would lack the organizational advantage of representing highly concentrated interests, it could exploit the fact that discontent with the sugar program transcends traditional political divides. A coalition to oppose the sugar lobby could draw support from free-trade advocates on the right, manufacturing and agricultural interests that stand to benefit from trade liberalization, and consumer groups that object to high sugar prices. On the left, many environmentalists favor farm-trade liberalization for the reasons discussed above, and are opposed to sugarcane farming in Florida because of the damage it inflicts on the Everglades. Groups concerned with the elimination of global poverty, such as Oxfam, are quick to point out that the U.S. sugar program, along with European export subsidies for sugar-beet growers, depresses world sugar prices and keeps cane-growing tropical nations poorer than they need to be. As WTO members move toward final agreement on the Doha round of tradeliberalization talks, protectionist schemes for sugar and other crops will grow ever harder to defend. The EU has just announced a plan to cut its sugar subsidies by 39 percent; to the degree that its member states consent in liberalizing their sugar industries, pressure for U.S. reform will increase. Meanwhile, the sugar industry's opposition to CAFTA has alienated agricultural lobbies traditionally sympathetic to sugar growers. Many such groups suspect that the exemption of sugar from the Australian free-trade agreement resulted in their getting fewer concessions in that pact than they otherwise would have won. John Frydenlund of Citizens Against Government Waste says, "There always has been a circle-the-wagons attitude in agriculture as far as protecting each other is concerned, but I think this time most of the rest of agriculture is starting to look at the sugar lobby as being off the reservation and out only for themselves." Such frustration already appears to be influencing politicians. Trent Lott, expressing his annoyance with the sugar industry, recently said, "I've been in the unholy agricultural alliance for 33 years. I've voted for every damned ridiculous agricultural program and subsidy conceived by the minds of men. But I may not anymore." Plan Popular: bipartisan opposition to subsidies: our ev assumes the power of your lobbies Edwards 7(Chris, director of tax policy at the Cato Institute, http://www.freetrade.org/node/694, 6/25) With all the negative effects of the sugar program, why does it survive? Because Congress often puts the interests of the favored few ahead of the general public good. In this case, sugar growers are well-organized and they protect the program by providing large campaign support to presidents, governors and many members of Congress. But the sugar lobby is beatable. The Bush administration proposed minor reform to sugar policies this year, and a bipartisan group of more than 100 House members led by Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., is demanding fundamental reform.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

106

Politics-India Deal

Link – Sugar Cuts Popular – A2: Lobby Sugar Lobby on the decline: your generic farm lobbies cards aren’t responsive Food and Drink Weekly 5 (6/6, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EUY/is_21_11/ai_n13831226) The influence of the sugar lobby in Washington, D.C. is on the wane, according to the New York Times. Big sugar is especially losing its sway with Republicans as its opposition to President Bush's top trade priority, CAFTA, has forced the party to abandon the industry. Ambassador Allen Johnson, America's chief international agricultural negotiator, said that the changes to the sector from CAFTA would be small and there was nothing in the agreement that was a threat to the sugar industry. According to the Times, Johnson suggested that the sugar lobby was short-sighted, risking its relationship with the Bush administration ahead of legislation that would determine the billions of dollars in federal money to be divided among farmers into the next decade for crop subsidies, conservation and other agricultural programs. And, in one of the rare instances of a food lobby turning against one of its own, big agribusiness is siding with the Bush administration against sugar. "Sugar is fighting to maintain its program to the detriment of the rest of agriculture," said Bob Stallman, the president of the American Farm Bureau federation.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 107

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link—Sugar Cuts Popular—Democrats Removing sugar subsidies is popular with reformist democrats. Edwards 7 (Chris, Director of Tax Policy at the CATO Institute, June 25, www.freetrade.org/node/694) With all the negative effects of the sugar program, why does it survive? Because Congress often puts the interests of the favored few ahead of the general public good. In this case, sugar growers are well-organized and they protect the program by providing large campaign support to presidents, governors and many members of Congress. But the sugar lobby is beatable. The Bush administration proposed minor reform to sugar policies this year, and a bipartisan group of more than 100 House members led by Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., is demanding fundamental reform. Also, under rules of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the sugar trade with Mexico will be opened in 2008, which should add to the pressure for reform. In winning the House last year, Democrats portrayed themselves as reformers willing to take on special interests for the benefit of average families. Now they have a chance to prove it by abolishing the sugar program. Reaching out to democrats is key to advancing Bush’s Agenda and overcoming a lack of political capital Chicago Tribune 6 (November 8, L/N)

The last time that Bush held a post Election Day­press conference, on Nov. 4, 2004,  he said this about his reelection to a second term: “It's like earning capital… Let me  put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign , political capital ,  and now I  intend to spend it.’’ Today, that capital is gone. “ After the 2000 election, I earned some capital,’’ Bush said two years ago, and with his reelection, he maintained: “I've 

earned capital in this election ­­ and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is ­­ you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror.’’ After several months of  campaigning in 2005 for Social Security reforms which neither the public nor Congress supported, the president abandoned that bid – although he has hinted at taking another shot at Social Security reform in his remaining two years. Bush also will be hard­pressed to secure 

unpopularity, a casualty of the   war in Iraq, will make it difficult for him to withstand Democratic challenges    the tax reform he is seeking in his final two years – making his first­term tax­cuts permanent – with the new Democratic majority in the House. And the president’s own

about the future course of 

war. Watch for the president today to set a new tone, not the unbridled tone of that last post­election press conference. Watch for the president to call for political reconciliation, a time of healing. Without any capital, cooperation is the president’s best course, as today’s 

, Bush must fundamentally   alter the way he approaches Congress for any hope of salvaging his own  "aggressive’’  Tribune reports: Bush's tough hand By Mark Silva<Washington Bureau< WASHINGTON – President Bush faces fateful new choices. With his party’s loss of the House, experts say

agenda 

for the remaining two years of his presidency. And with criticism for conduct of the war in Iraq mounting even within his own party, Bush and his embattled secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, are likely to confront searing hearings in a 

Democratic­controlled House intent on exerting new oversight and challenging the course of the war. This much is certain: The rules of the game have changed. "It’s a real time for choice by President Bush,’’ says Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at Washington­based  American Enterprise Institute. "It really becomes a question of whether he is really going to become ’a uniter, not a divider,’ in a way that has not occurred for the majority of his presidency… Or drawing a line in the dust.’’ The White House, intent on fulfilling a domestic  agenda that includes perpetuation of tax cuts won during Bush’s first term, is likely to seek some reconciliation – with Bush planning to speak out Wednesday. During a campaign­closing rally, Bush promised: "For the next two and a half years, I’m going to sprint as hard as I 

’’ The president could stumble for two years, experts say, if he does not demonstrate  a new willingness to deal with Democrats.  can.

The administration already has revealed a determination to prosecute the war as it is, with Vice President Dick Cheney insisting elections 

will have little impact: "The president’s made clear what his objective is: It’s victory in Iraq, and it’s full speed ahead.’’ Any course change – including the removal of a defense secretary who has faced calls for resignation from retired generals and the editorial page of the  Army Times – could take some time. "All those people heading to the polls hoping to change the policy in Iraq are going to wake up Wednesday and find out that won’t happen,’’ says Stephen Hess, a Brookings Institution senior scholar. As the focus of politics in  Washington rapidly shifts to the next presidential election, leaders within Bush’s party could help chart a new war strategy as they seek to regain the GOP’s footing for 2008. "Staying the course’’ in Iraq is only likely to intensify the scrutiny of House committees whose new  Democratic leaders have subpoena power to pursue questions they have raised for the past few years. It’s unlikely that any hearings will escalate to the level of impeachment that GOP leaders have warned of with a Democratic takeover, Democratic leaders say, but the White  House, Rumsfeld and others could face unrelenting interrogation. On the war front and home front, Bush’s ability to make any headway during the rest of his term will depend on a willingness to work with Democrats whom he has spent years marginalizing. Some say Bush  could find quick common ground on immigration reform. Not since his first year, when he secured his “No Child Left Behind’’ educational reforms with the assistance of Democrats, has Bush demonstrated the full bipartisan spirit that he pledged campaigning in 2000 –  running as "a uniter, not a divider.’’ His final two years may depend on a revival of that spirit. "When Bush started out, the idea was, ’I am going to strike a balance here,’’’ says Ornstein, suggesting

Bush must regain that 

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 108

Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal balance for any success from now on. "If he doesn’t move in that direction, it’s going  to be a long and difficult two years.’’

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

109

***Links – Soy***

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

110

Politics-India Deal

Link—Soy Cuts Popular There is widespread public and lobby backlash against soy—former supporters of the crop are jumping ship Hollingsworth 2 (Elaine, Research Director of the Hippocrates Health Center of Australia, August,http://www.roex.com/articles_links/ATTACK%20OF%20THE%20KILLER%20BEANT HE%20CASE%20AGAINST%20SOY.pdf) But maybe there is hope yet. Slowly, and despite the power of the vested interests and the complacency and laissez-faire attitude of governments, the truth is beginning to emerge. The US Congress is now taking seriously a plethora of complaints and legal actions being instituted against Monsanto on behalf of millions of Americans whose lives have been ruined through the corporate greed of this legalized drug pusher. This is largely due to the Weston A Price Foundation, a Washington public interest charitable organization, conducting an unrelenting political lobbying campaign in Congressional Committees. In addition, the prestigious Georgetown University has sponsored a national forum on the food supply, with emphasis on the potential liability of soy products, to be held during the (US) Fall of 2002. The Environmental Law Forum of the Georgetown Law School has specifically asked the Weston A. Price Foundation to prepare a brief on the legality of soy foods. In other countries, notably Australia and New Zealand, as well as the USA, class actions are being mounted which will finally make public the human toll and the extent of cover-up, falsification, manipulation, harassment, threats and other illegal activities undertaken by powerful multinationals in order to maintain the multibillion-dollar profits generated by this innocuous-looking, genetically modified and deadly poisonous bean. And a ray of hope is coming from another, perhaps surprising, direction. Some of soy’s most vocal supporters are now having cause to reconsider their stance – and their beliefs. As I have indicated throughout this essay, the adverse effects of soy often take years to manifest and are no respecter of persons. It was therefore with mixed emotions that I recently learned that two prominent advo- cates of the ongoing use of soy, American MD Christiane Northrup and Australian naturopath Nancy Beckham have both been diagnosed with health problems directly related to excessive soy intake: hypothyroidism and osteoporosis Paradoxically, Dr Northrup still denies that soy has any- thing to do with hypothyroidism, despite the clear evidence to the contrary, and continues taking her soy preparation every day.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

111

Politics-India Deal

Link – Soy Cuts Unpopular The soy lobby is extremely powerful—it is the most lobbied agricultural product NOHA News 1 (Vol. XXVI, Fall, p3, http://www.nutrition4health.org/NOHAnews/NNF01SoyBeatrice.htm) FDA’s approval of the health claim for soy protein was in response to a petition by a leading soy producer. The soybean lobby exerts powerful clout. In addition, food and beverage processors favor soybean use because it is a low-cost filler, extender, and replacer in foods for humans and in feed for animal. It is a cost cutter that swells profits. In view of the overall evidence against soy, is the health claim justified? Previous health claims have been approved in response to commercial interests and similarly based on highly selective evidence. One critic, Tom Valentine, observed in True Health that "no other dietary staple has so many anti-nutrient drawbacks as soy. Conversely, no other food has so many public relations firms and lobbyists working for it."

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

112

Politics-India Deal

Link—Soy Cuts Unpopular—Lobby The soy lobby is one of the most powerful political lobbies—the government allocates them enormous amounst of subsidies Schneider 5 (Jill, PhD – Lehigh University, http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/schneider/soy.htm) Some people equate soy products with various "good" things such as fresh, unprocessed, organically grown vegetables, the healthy "Asian diet," and so forth. These people are under the erroneous impression that the makers and purveyors of soy products are in a different moral, ecological category than those in the meat and dairy industry. To the contrary, the soy industry is a huge agribusiness. Most soy is sold by Archer Daniels Midland, a Fortune 500 company quite well known for receiving enormous subsidies ("corporate welfare") and price fixing (see the Wikipedia entry for starters ). The soy lobby is one of the most powerful political lobbies, right on par with the meat and dairy lobbies.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

113

***Links – Corn***

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

114

Politics-India Deal

Link – Corn/Soy/Cotton/Dairy Cuts Unpopular – Harkin Harkin is a strong advocate of corn and soy subsidies Star Tribune 7 (March 4, http://www.startribune.com/politics/11759541.html) Defending agricultural subsidies is an increasingly tough sell in Washington, but Tordsen and other Midwestern farmers expect to benefit from a shift in political power in the new Congress After years of dominating the farm committees in Congress, Southern lawmakers find themselves taking a back seat to those from the Midwest, and corn and soybean farmers are eager to cash in. They're optimistic because two veteran Democrats -- Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa -- are heading the agriculture committees and will take the lead in crafting a new farm bill this year."For those of us out here, the earth truly did shift in terms of agriculture," said freshman Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., a member of the House Agriculture Committee. "It's huge" to have Peterson and Harkin in leading roles, he said: "I don't have anything against rice and cotton -- it's just that I'm a little partial to corn and soybeans." Harkin is a cardinal member of Congress—he uses his status on the appropriations committee to influence the agenda Des Moines Register 7-8 (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080708/NEWS09/807080360/-1/BUSINESS04)

Iowa is in an unusually influential position for a small state that sends just seven people to Congress, with Harkin a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Latham, an Ames Republican, a longtime member of the House Appropriations Committee. Ellis said Harkin, as a "cardinal," as chairmen are dubbed, clearly is in a "position of power" as an appropriator, though he trails others. For example, Sen. Thad Cochran, a Mississippi Republican, landed $837 million in earmarks for this budget year."Certainly (Harkin) makes use of his position being a powerful appropriator," said Ellis. "There are still others more aggressive than he. Maintaining subsidies to corn, soy, dairy, and cotton is a critical issue to Harkin—its vital to maintaining his leadership in Congress Tomson 6 (Bill, Dow Jones Newswire, http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=93566) In order to create programs to further support ethanol production as well as keep farm subsidies plentiful, there has to be a federal budget to support them. And concerns are widespread with lawmakers and farmers

that there won’t be nearly as much money budgeted for agricultural spending next year as the 2007 farm bill is created. Getting a sufficient budget allocation next year, Peterson predicted in December, will be the “first big hurdle.“ Sen. Tom Harkin, DIowa, who will take over as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee in January, addressed the subject recently in a press conference with USDA’s Johanns. Harkin told reporters he hopes current high farm prices won’t be used as a reason to allocate a smaller budget next year - something that could hamper farm leaders in Congress as they write the 2007 farm bill. The U.S. government has paid out billions of dollars in subsidies to cotton, corn, soybean, milk, peanut and other producers so far during the 2002 farm bill as well as kept domestic sugar prices artificially high by controlling imports.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 115

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link—Corn and Sugar Cuts Unpopular—Lobby No one is willing to oppose the corn lobby on the issue of cutting corn and sugar subsidies Bell 7 (Robert, http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/robertbell/Cxz9) The Corn Lobby is powerful. They have successfully lobbied to have sugar prices artifically inflated to the point where we pay 4 times as much for sugar in this country than in Europe or the rest of the world. Why is this? High Fructose Corn Syrup is the answer. America's Sweetner, and our "F.U.!" to Castro. In 1977, high fructose corn syrup quietly replaced cane sugar as the primary source of sweetener for soft drinks and food. Go to your grocery store some time and try to find a food product WITHOUT this ingredient. Now go to the grocery store in Europe and try to find a product that has it (you can't). Some studies have linked the use of High Fructose Corn Syrup to the obesity epidemic in the USA - a trend that the graphs all show starting in 1977, the year it was introduced to the market. Some scientists claim that High Fructose Corn Syrup is not metabolized the same way as natural sugars, and the body tends to convert it directly into fat, rather than burn it. Further studies on this are not forthcoming, as the Corn Lobby is not happy about this. I think High Fructose Corn Syrup might be the cigarettes of the next decade, perhaps not. But the ingredient is in nearly all of our food now (and only in the USA!) and it was done without any discssion of the merits and darn little product testing. Some environmentalists also criticize corn as an environmentally poor crop - it tends to deplete the soil, requiring huge amounts of fertilizer (using oil!) which in turn runs off into the Mississippi, causing red tides in the Gulf. Regardless of its personal or enviromental safety, however, the reason why we use it is that it is cheaper to use - provided that sugar prices are kept artifically high. So, in the guise of "helping the sugar beet farmers" price supports for sugar are renewed every year in Congress (this, despite the general trend to deregulating our farm economy and free trade!). It also helped crash the price of sugar on the world market, which really hurt the Cuban economy as well. The USA was the world's largest consumer of sugar, and when high fructose corn syrup repolaced it, there was a glut of cane sugar on the market. Cuba used sugar as a cash crop to exchange with their Soviet supporters. Once the price of sugar plummeted, the Soviets were less interested in supporting Cuba, and the Cuban economy has suffered as a result. Like I said, it was our get-even with Castro. And all of this did not happen by accident. (So, perhaps we should not view the obesity epidemic as a glut of people who are chronically overweight, but rather as "Patriot Pounds"

And the Corn Lobby pushing for this product are very powerful. ADM (Supermarket to the World) does not want to see sugar price supports dropped. The Corn lobby is also pushing for corn-based ethanol for fuel (as a mandatory requirement! 10%!), even though it takes the equivalent of nearly a gallon of gasoline to produce a gallon of ethanol (about a 1.1:1 ratio). Sugar, in contrast, generates 45 times as much energy in ethanol than is used in production and is a much more economically sound "renewable resource" than corn, for fuel purposes. Now this brings us to the point. If you are a Senator from a Corn State, like Illinois, there is a lot of pressure on you to vote for sugar subsidies (to benefit the corn lobby). You can do what is right for the country, or what is right for the special-interest groups in your State (who donate heavily to your campaign and party). It is a hard choice to make. Most voters do not have the sophisitication to even understand the issues (how many of you have even read this far?). You can vote with Big Corn and Joe Voter won't know or care (the voters are more concerned with the so-called "real issues" like Gay Marriage and Abortion, which are really nothing more than window dressing). Or you go vote against Big Corn and end up out of office in 6 years. Mike Gravel tried to do what was right in Alaska, and he was history in short order. Political survival versus the right thing - it is not an easy question to anwser. - doing your part to suppress Communism in Latin America!)

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

116

***Links – Dairy***

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

117

Politics-India Deal

Link—Dairy Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (1/2) Funding dairy popular: farm lobby blocks subsidy cuts Riedl 2 (Brian M., Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/BG1534.cfm) The House and Senate farm bills also benefit the dairy industry. Current law is based on the perception that Midwest dairy farmers produce milk too efficiently, resulting in milk prices that are considered to be too low. In response to this situation, the federal government allows states with less efficient dairy farmers to establish local milk cartels to keep less expensive Midwest milk off the market and sustain artificially high prices for milk produced in those states. Under this Depression-era program, the further a participating state is away from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, the higher its milk prices are increased. Each year, this "milk tax" costs supermarket customers approximately $2.7 million. 22 Much of the $3.3 million donated to federal candidates by the dairy industry since 1999 has been from dairy farmers who support continuing the current price-fixing scheme. In testimony before the House Agriculture Committee on April 5, 2001, Jerry Kozak--CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), which represents a majority of the nation's 83,000 dairy farmers--declared that the current milk policy, which raises the price of milk as much as 20 cents per gallon, benefits consumers and should be continued. 23 The policy prescriptions of the NMPF were buttressed by the $120,500 in donations it has made to federal candidates since 1999. In a step toward reform, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, which had allowed New England states to set milk prices even higher than federal regulations permitted, was allowed to sunset in October 2001. However, this move was countered by a stipulation in the Senate bill, which awards $2 billion in golden parachute payments to assist dairy farmers who will lose the benefits of this second tier of price inflation and provides additional aid to other dairy farmers nationwide. An amendment by Senator Michael Crapo (R-ID) to delete this funding was strongly opposed by the farm lobby and failed by a vote of 51 to 47. 24 As written, both the House and Senate bills will continue current pricealtering milk policies. Federal policies that increase milk prices appear to be here to stay, and dairy farmers--especially those far away from Eau Claire, Wisconsin--will continue to be the beneficiaries.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

118

Politics-India Deal

Link—Dairy Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (2/2) The plan causes a political food fight—dairy lobby and bipartisan support for dairy controls Edwards 7 (Chris, CATO Institute, June 13, http://www.cato.org/downsizing/agriculture/regs_trade_barriers.html) The absurdity of federal dairy controls was driven home in a Washington Post profile of a maverick dairy entrepreneur in 2006.11 Hein Hettinga, a Dutch immigrant, began a modest dairy farm and milk bottling plant in Arizona in the 1990s outside of the government system. He sold his milk to Arizona chain stores and to Costco in California at 20 cents less per gallon than the government-regulated milk. His low prices created a large demand for his products, and his business expanded rapidly. Costco executives believed that consumers were being “gouged” by the government-regulated system, and they were happy to provide customers with the new discount milk. However, the producers in the government system were not happy with the competition from Hettinga. They began to vigorously lobby Congress to intervene, and a behind-thescenes political battle ensued, which cost more than $5 million in fees to Washington lobbyists. Both Republicans and Democrats sought to protect existing producers in their states, and they teamed up to crush Hettinga and close the legal channel through which he was operating.12

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

119

Politics-India Deal

Link—Dairy Cuts Popular—Congress Federal dairy support is wildly unpopular in congress Ring 2 (Wilson, April 22, Associated Press, http://www.fmpc.uconn.edu/research/compact/ring.pdf) Dairy farmers across the country will be guaranteed a minimum price for their milk under a provision of the Farm Bill that was finalized Friday by congressional negotiators. The new dairy program would replace Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, which expired last fall, but it will help dairy farmers in all 50 states. The new program will be retroactive to Dec. 1, 2001, which means Vermont dairy farmers will share about $9 million in payments for compact payments lost over the winter. ''This is huge,'' said Vermont's independent Rep. Bernard Sanders who first proposed the idea in Congress last October. ''You should not underestimate this.'' The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact expired last October after being in place for four years. During that time the compact paid about $146 million to New England dairy farmers. It was funded through a surcharge on dairy processors. Farm advocates in the Northeast felt the compact helped dairy farmers weather wide fluctuations in the free-market price for milk. ''This plan will ensure that Vermont farmers are not held hostage by the wild fluctuations of milk pricing,'' said independent Sen. James Jeffords. ''This plan will provide our farmers with the security they need so they can focus on what they do best.'' The new system, like the compact, will help farmers, but it won't make them rich. ''I think for Vermont farmers, it's just sort of catching up from when the prices'' collapsed, said Middlebury dairy farmer Bob Foster. The new program was a victory for Vermont's three-member congressional delegation, which shepherded the legislation through Congress, who had to overcome fierce opposition from politicians from midwestern dairy state

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

120

***Links – Cotton***

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 121

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cotton Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (1/4) Cotton lobby strong: important coalitions in Congress Horton 0 (Cotton Farming, http://www.cottonfarming.com/home/archive/2000_febstory5.html) Producer lobby organizations have always had a challenging mission for agriculture, even in the best of times. In today’s volatile economic environment which includes low prices, unstable overseas markets, changing farm policy and political

cotton industry has the most effective regional and national organizations in all of agriculture. Those organizations, however, are partisanship, the job is becoming more difficult, according to many ag groups. Most observers say the

trying to guide their memberships through financial stress that already is affecting a huge part of the nation’s otherwise robust economy. In some ways, the problems are the same as they were 20 years ago.

A producer ag organization serves the interests of its membership, tries to solve work(s sic) with

problems and work with other organizations to send a positive message to the public. And, most importantly, they

Congress to develop good policy for agriculture. “In terms of the job itself, it is probably no different than it ever has been,” says Rick Lavis, executive vice president of the Arizona Cotton Growers Association. “It’s just a question of access and getting the word across. Right now, what makes my job tough is that I have a congressional delegation in Arizona that is not exactly supportive of agriculture. That makes it tough for us.” Lavis and other ag association leaders say it is imperative that they work effectively with both political parties in Congress. But even Lavis admits that his job took a real detour and changed when the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994. Two years later the Republicans pushed through the Freedom to Farm legislation in a move that he says “changed the equation.” Lavis says it was an omen of things to come when Congress initially tried to write the 1996 farm law against the wishes of the National Cotton Council which represents all segments of the industry. “In that regard, you do have a different set of circumstances in which to operate,” he says. “You add to that the ongoing debate over budget priorities, and agriculture is becoming less and less a

the cotton industry continues to take advantage of important coalitions it has helped nurture in Congress through the Council. He says that effort is responsible for the industry being able to gain disaster assistance from Washington for component.” Lavis is glad

the past two years. Even though it is encouraging for Congress to approve such legislation, Lavis thinks farm policy differs from other government issues. “By that, I mean that America tries to do everything based on the free market,” he points out. “That isn’t the case with farm policy, and it drives the policymakers nuts.” Lavis says it becomes an unnerving scenario when this country’s environmental and tax system do not support a free market for agriculture. He is further exasperated that cotton producers have so little control over forces that control world prices. Still, he tries to stay persistent and believes in working through the system. In particular, he sees the Council and the American Cotton Producers (formerly the Producer Steering Committee) as vital components in a system where compromises can be achieved on difficult policy issues. “You just keep pushing ahead and believing in what you are doing,” he says. “I don’t know if the job is getting tougher and tougher. You just have to hang in there.”

Cotton Lobby Strong: National Cotton Council opposes subsidy cuts IDEAS 7 (http://www.agobservatory.org/library.cfm?refID=98521) The primary lobby for US cotton farmers, the National Cotton Council, did not appear at the present hearings, but the cotton voice was heard via American Cotton Shippers Association (ACSA). ACSA’s testimony indicated that the Association saw US cotton as being increasingly uncompetitive on the international market, ascribed in their view to the effect of the removal of certain export subsidy provisions (the so called ‘Step 2’ payments which were ruled WTO incompatible in the Upland Cotton dispute settlement proceedings and discontinued in August 2006). ACSA made a call for the competitiveness of US cotton to be secured by firstly maintaining the ‘loan rate’ for cotton, and secondly recalculating it to provide a more favourable return to growers3. The loan rate is essentially the artificially supported floor price that keeps US cotton acreages in production, which would not occur at world market price levels. Together with this proposal the cotton shippers express the view that US cotton has a comparative advantage brought about by the following factors: A superior US cotton classification system; A unique cotton transportation system in the US; Exceptional cotton promotion schemes overseas; US reliability as a dependable supplier. Granted these are attractive elements. However in our opinion it is suggested that the major factor identified is the reliability of the US as a dependable supplier, and that this advantage is a creature borne of a long history of subsidized support and not a naturally occurring comparative advantage. While it is likely that the voice of the cotton lobby will resonate with

a weighty appeal through the hearings, the voices of moderation are certainly emerging, as highlighted in this brief. These voices should be encouraged and supported as the US domestic market for policy (the so-called ‘political economy’) will likely function in an improved manner with access and voice given to economically sound approaches to the 2007 Farm Bill debate. To this end the following closing quotation from David Beckmann’s testimony with which we concur:

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 122

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cotton Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (2/4) Subsidy cut unpopular: pressure from cotton industry Afrol News 7 (http://www.afrol.com/articles/26960) Officials in developing countries and international poverty analysts say the subsidies drive down prices, making it hard for small farmers in poor countries to compete on international markets. The ruling could open the door to billions of dollars in trade sanctions against the US by Brazil, another major cotton producing country, which initially brought the case against the US. The Brazilian government says the US only retained its place as the world's second-largest cotton grower by paying out US$12.5 billion in government subsidies to its farmers between August 1999 and July 2003. China is the largest exporter of cotton, while Brazil is fifth. Oxfam America president Raymond Offenheiser, said the US Congress is still considering a new Farm Bill that would

leave farm subsidies largely unchanged. “This would be most tragic for the millions of people in developing countries whose livelihoods are threatened on a daily basis because of US agricultural subsidies”, Offenheiser said in a statement. Officials in Burkina Faso are not overly optimistic about the prospects of their cotton industry in the immediate future. “We hope that at the US-executive level, officials will feel embarrassed for always being pointed at and that something can be done to implement the

But the problem remains with the US Congress which is under strong pressure from the US cotton industry lobby,” said Seriba Ouattara, Director General at the Ministry of Health. ruling.

Massive cotton lobby in congress: Combest proves special interest strength Dorning and Martin 6 (Mike and Andrew, Chicago Tribune, http://www.floridafarmers.org/news/articles/Farmlobby%27spowerhasdeeproots.htm) WASHINGTON - If anyone has an insider's view of the cozy and enduring alliances that maintain America's generous farm subsidy program, it's Larry

Combest. He spent 18 years representing west Texas cotton country in Congress, fighting for subsidies on Capitol Hill while reaping political benefits back home. He chaired the House Agriculture Committee the last time Congress rewrote the farm bill, legislation that provided farmers a windfall of federal largess. Now,

Combest's success in protecting subsidies means consumers pay twice, once at the grocery store and again on their tax after leaving Congress, he's on the farm lobby's payroll with the job of persuading his former colleagues to keep the good times rolling.

bills. Regular as the harvest for 73 years, the renewal of farm subsidies is being challenged by a coalition that includes the Bush administration, environmentalists and fiscal conservatives. Congress is expected to rewrite the farm bill next year. But Combest is hardly trembling. At a recent gathering of agribusiness leaders in Washington, Combest was cocksure. "I'm not saying it's impossible to force radical change onto the farmers of this country," he said,

the medley of malefactors who are teamed up to bring farm policy down in this country break out the inverted pentagrams or whatever voodoo that unites them, they need to understand that the real environment - as opposed to the one they are trying to conjure up - is not on their side." The "real environment," personified by Combest, is a self-perpetuating cycle of money, votes and political power that has made agriculture one of Washington's most entrenched special interests, even as the number of farmers has dwindled to about 1 percent of the population.On the inside, it's a wheel of fortune for everybody involved, including farmers, lobbyists and farm-state congressmen. Taxpayers pick up the tab: a record $23 billion in according to a partial transcript. "I'm just saying that before all

farm subsidies last year. For critics, subsidies are a costly anachronism in a country that long ago moved from its agrarian base. Critics also contend the system encourages unhealthy eating. Corn subsidies lower costs of grain-fed meat and sweeteners used in soft drinks. Consumers generally pay full cost for fruits and vegetables, most of which are not subsidized. But supporters of farm programs say they provide a safety net to help farmers and ensure an abundant, relatively inexpensive and homegrown food supply. They also argue subsidies level the playing field because many other wealthy nations subsidize their farmers. "I think Americans like the fact that we produce a lot of our food in the country," Combest said. "And we have less subsidies than

So Washington sends subsidy payments to farmers. Farmers reward the politicians with votes and money. Farm groups and agribusinesses lubricate the system with campaign contributions and lobbying jobs. With elections less than six months away, the 20 members of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee already have collected more than $7.1 million in campaign contributions from the farm sector while their 46 House counterparts have received $2.9 million, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Combest is far from the only person to pass through the capital's revolving farm door. The House Agriculture Committee's former top-ranking Democrat, Charles Stenholm of Texas, lobbies on behalf of agriculture some other countries."

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 123

Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal interests too. In all, at least 19 congressional aides who worked on the 2002 farm bill have taken jobs as agriculture lobbyists or with commodity groups or farm organizations.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

124

Politics-India Deal

Link – Cotton Cuts Unpopular – Lobby (3/4) Cutting cotton subsidies is political suicide: cotton industry has clout International Herald Tribune 8 (http://www.acs.gov.cn/cms/sites/www/images/2008/3/12/Washington%20set%20to%20lose %20in%20cotton%20subsidy%20feud%20WTO%20could%20force%20U.S.%20to%20cut% 20aid%20by%2080%25.doc, 3/12) WASHINGTON - The American cotton industry is expected to lose its long struggle against cuts in special subsidies, but cotton's political clout may mean that painful concessions will be postponed until the 11th hour. After six years of querulous talks in the so-called Doha round by the World Trade Organization, one of the few points of agreement has been the need for substantial reductions in U.S. cotton subsidies, which opponents argue drive down prices on global markets and deepen poverty for the world's poorest farmers. Gary Blumenthal, an agriculture expert at World Perspectives, a Washington consultancy, expects that Bush administration negotiators will not broker those cuts until the last minute. ''It is a political loser domestically,'' Blumenthal said, ''so why pull the trigger before you have to?'' Cotton sector strongest agricultural lobby: key to political re-elections. Our ev is comparative, no unified lobby backing subsidy cuts. Heinisch 5 (Master Thesis, http://witsetd.wits.ac.za:8080/dspace/bitstream/123456789/195/1/main.pdf ) High levels of support to the cotton sector reflect the formidable power of the NCC, “arguably the most effective agricultural lobby in the industrialized world,” (Watkins, 2003, p. 4). Watkins said “The NCC has welded different players in the cotton sector into a unified political force with immense clout at all levels of government.” A New York Times editorial noted: “Politically powerful farm lobbies in Japan, Europe and the United States are not willing to face global competition on fair terms. So agriculture remains the hypocritical asterisk to our fervent free-trade and free-enterprise creed” (New York Times, 2003b). While economists say the costs of protectionist trade policies exceed their benefits, groups that benefit from them – such as American cotton growers – are politically effective. “Politicians interested in re-election will most likely respond to the demands for protectionist legislation of such an interest group” (Coughlin, et al, 1991, p. 32). Political contributions from agribusiness rose from $37 million in 1992 to $53 million in 2002, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (Becker, 2003a). “The government serves simply as the agent for all of these interests while pursuing a trade policy consistent with its own survival or electability” (Ray, 1991, p. 341). Ray argues that special interest groups thwart the drive to liberalize world trade (Ray, 1991, p. 352). Critics such as the nongovernmental organization Oxfam cite the failure of the U.S. government to respond to “one of the starkest examples of the rigged trade rules,” and a willingness to jeopardize the multilateral system over the issue of cotton. “It demonstrates that US trade

policy is vulnerable to small but powerful domestic lobbies with friends in high places, and is shockingly indifferent to poverty in Africa” (Baden, 2004, p. 2). From taxpayers’ perspective, the subsidies do not make sense. The cost of cotton subsidies exceeds the value of the country’s cotton exports. Yet, “they are very profitable to small power groups which have been able to lobby with great effectiveness, while there is no organized constituency for reducing the costs of cotton subsidies which are thinly spread among hundreds of millions of taxpayers” (Goreux, 2004, p. 9).

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

125

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

126

Politics-India Deal

Link—Cotton Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (4/4) The plan would require a massive amount of political capital—the cotton lobby is the strongest agricultural lobby and has no opposing constituency Heinisch 6 (Elinor, Cambridge University Press, http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FMOA%2FMOA44_02%2FS0022278X06 001625a.pdf&code=b1c8a6a5a98b3f8da467b20ce538f628) The bill was passed at a time when prices for major commodity crops were extremely and unusually low. World market prices for cotton were at their lowest level in 30 years. Congress writes US farm policy. High levels of support to the cotton sector reflect the formidable power of the NCC, ‘ arguably the most effective agricultural lobby in the industrialized world ’ (Watkins 2003 : 4). Watkins said : ‘ The NCC has welded different players in the cotton sector into a unified political force with immense clout at all levels of government. ’ From the taxpayer’s perspective, the subsidies do not make sense. The cost of cotton subsidies exceeds the value of the country’s cotton exports. Yet, ‘ they are very profitable to small power groups which have been able to lobby with great effectiveness, while there is no organized constituency for reducing the costs of cotton subsidies which are thinly spread among hundreds of millions of tax- payers.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

127

Politics-India Deal

Link—Cotton Cuts Unpopular—Republicans Republicans oppose cotton subsidies cuts New York Times 95 (September 26, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFD91338F935A1575AC0A963958260) Representative Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is chairman of the committee, said his bill, the Freedom to Farm Act, has "an excellent chance." And if the bill is approved by the House committee, the Senate Agriculture Committee is likely to pass a similar measure. This week Republicans worked to win to their side the votes of Southern Congressmen opposed to subsidy cuts for cotton farmers.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

128

Politics-India Deal

Link—Cotton and Rice Cuts Unpopular Cutting rice or cotton subsidies causes a political food fight between cotton and rice growing states Powell 5 (Benjamin, Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and Assistant Professor of Economics at Suffolk University, PhD in Economics From George Mason University, March 28, http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1477) President Bush’s modest proposal to reduce farm subsidies will not cause a partisan fight between Democrats and Republicans, but make no mistake about it: the fight that does occur will be interest-group politics-as-usual. Unfortunately, absent from that fight is any consideration of whether farmers should get subsidies at all. Bush has proposed decreasing the subsidy an individual farmer can receive from $360,000 to $250,000. If adopted, the proposal would lower federal spending on agriculture by a paltry $587 million in 2006. Big corporate farms are most affected by the reform. Also, growers of crops that receive large subsidies, like rice and cotton, will face greater cutbacks than growers of crops such as corn, wheat, and soybeans, which generally receive smaller subsidies. Not surprisingly, the debate in Congress pits representatives in cotton- and rice-growing regions against others.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 129

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link—Cotton Cuts Popular—Oxfam Oxfam opposes cotton subsidies San Francisco Chronicle 7 (July 27, http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/27/MNG6FR7ON81.DTL) Oxfam opposed the bill's cotton subsidies that drive down the prices poor farmers in West Africa receive for their cotton, and the sugar tariffs that keep sugar cane from poor countries out of the U.S. market. Several major U.S. candymakers, including Fannie May and Hershey Foods, have moved their U.S. plants to Canada and Mexico to avoid the tariffs."We're perplexed by how they can characterize what they've generated as real reform," said Jim Lyons, vice president of policy for Oxfam America. "It's more regressive than progressive."

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

130

***Links – Fish***

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

131

Politics-India Deal

Link – Fisheries Cuts Popular – Bipart/Rangel Link Turn (1/2) Cutting fisheries subsidies has wide bipartisan support, and Rangel is their leader Lowell 8 (Beth, Oceana Federal Policy Dir., http://blog.thehill.com/2008/07/21/why-doescongress-care-about-fish/) Why Does Congress Care about Fish? July 21st, 2008 It’s simple! Because governments are paying their commercial fleets to overfish our oceans. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is currently considering a proposal to eliminate fisheries subsidies as part of its Doha trade round. This is important because more than 75 percent of the world’s fisheries are now overexploited, fully exploited, significantly depleted or recovering from overexploitation. Last week, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Trade Subcommittee Chairman Sander Levin (D-MI), joined by a bipartisan group of 10 committee members, showed their support by urging U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab to make the “phasing out and elimination of destructive fisheries subsidies one of the Administration’s trade priorities.” The Ways and Means Committee letter follows a series of actions by the U.S. Congress on fisheries subsidies. In 2007, both the U.S. House and Senate passed resolutions calling for international leadership by the United States to ban destructive fisheries subsidies (H.Con.Res.94, S.Res.208). In addition, the Ways and Means Committee has its own resolution on the issue, H. Res. 814. Rangel is key to the agenda New York Observer 6 (http://www.observer.com/node/36131) Still, Mr. Rangel—whose power derives from his role as the gatekeeper to most of the government’s tax legislation—is relishing the chance to abolish some of Mr. Bush’s key tax legislation and initiatives. As Ross Eisenbrey, vice president and policy director of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, put it: “If Charlie Rangel doesn’t want it to happen, it won’t happen.” Given that any Democratic majority is likely to be a minuscule one, Mr. Rangel is making an effort to seem as unthreateningly bipartisan as possible. He talks about a retreat he would organize in January or February with Republican Representatives, administration officials and “no spouses”—for good-natured fiscal-policy talks. “He works well across the aisle,” said David Epstein, a political-science professor at Columbia University. “Some people have tried to demonize him and called him a polarizing figure, but you don’t get to be chair unless you know how to cut deals.” Based on a series of monthly conversations he’s had with Mr. Rangel, Mr. Epstein believes that the Congressman will increase tax incentives for the city’s bilingual education, health-care programs and empowerment zones—a designation that includes significant portions of Mr. Rangel’s district in Upper Manhattan. Mr. Rangel is the sort of urban liberal, in other words, who is ripe for demonization by the G.O.P. The R.N.C.’s blog announced this month that “You’ve Been Warned: Rangel Promises To Raise Your Taxes If Dems Take Control,” and Vice President Dick Cheney, who has accused Mr. Rangel of senility (“Charlie is losing it”), this week included him in a list of “Dean Democrats.” It’s true that in the past, Mr. Rangel hasn’t been a model of bipartisan comity, and he has been given to statements like the one he made recently on NY1 News, suggesting, as a casual observation, that the Vice President is clinically insane. Now, Mr. Rangel is assuming a reassuringly friendly posture—along with just the tiniest hint of menace. “I don’t really want to get out there and have Bush beating me up,” said Mr. Rangel, doing his best to seem exasperated. “I would hope that we would be able to say to the President, ‘Look, if you want to get something done, decide how much you want to compromise—let’s not get out here and fight, because I’m good at that.’” But putting aside the implicit wink that goes along with such statements—no

one does indignation better than Mr. Rangel—his legislative agenda makes the prospect of heated clashes between him and the administration almost inevitable.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

132

Politics-India Deal

Link – Fisheries Cuts Popular – Bipart/Rangel Link Turn (2/2) There’s bipartisan support in the House and the Senate for cutting fisheries subsidies OCEANA 7 (The Largest International Ocean Protection and Restoration and Environmental Advocacy Group, www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/ Senate_press_release/Media%20Backgrounder%20US%205%203%2007.doc) In May, a bipartisan group of 13 U.S. Senators, led by Senator Ted Stevens (R-Ala.) introduced a resolution supporting the WTO fisheries subsidies negotiations and calling for the United States to pursue an international ban on government subsidies to the fishing sector that are supporting the overfishing of world’s oceans. In March, a resolution (H.Con.Res.94) on fisheries subsidies was also introduced in the US House of Representatives by Rep. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam), the chairwoman of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Oceans, and Wildlife. Cutting subsidies is bipartisan. Anderson 8 (Erik, Sea Coast Online, Anderson is a writer for seacoastonline.com http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080801/OPINION/808010360/1/NEWS10 While there is hope U.S. Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu, R-N.H., are working to resolve this issue in the upcoming appropriation process, there is increasing probability nothing will take place as the 2009 federal budget will be a continuing resolution with no new appropriations because of the election year. The shenanigans of Washington politics continue and in this case the recipients are fishermen mired in current and oncoming federal regulations the likes of which no other business or industry would tolerate. Based within that statement is the fact Congress periodically renews legislation known as the Magnuson/Stevens Fishery Conservation Act. The act is based in conceptual policy for marine resources for the federal waters of the nation. When renewed, it is passed onto the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for its interpretation with little or no congressional oversight. While the policy of the act is fundamentally sound it deteriorates quickly in the hands of NMFS in regulatory conditions passed onto fishermen.This skewed process combined with evolving and changing science are the ingredients of poison for an industry trying to provide food and protein to this nation. While so much detail to this process cannot be expressed in this letter it should be noted that in a recent Washington briefing by NMFS there was a clear indication more regulation is needed and on its way. Hard to believe in a scenario that translates in this region in allowing ground fishermen 24 days a year to fish along with myriad other regulations. Add high costs of fuel, maintenance, insurance and other expenses and it's a man-made disaster with epic results. In conclusion, this down-turning economy can be portrayed in a variety of stories of which all are important. In this case it's a story that has been evolving for many years prior to current attention and reality. A tragedy is in the making of historical and economic proportions with an industry and the fishermen who are being sacrificed at the cost of politics and hypocrisy. As resilient as they are in contending with the duties of their profession and their business it compares mildly to the daunting task of dealing with relentless bureaucracy and consequences of government.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

133

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

134

Politics-India Deal

Link – Fisheries Cuts Popular – Oceana Lobby Link Turn Oceana will lobby for the plan – they are empirically successful and influential Food & Wine 8 (Aug, http://www.foodandwine.com/articles/eco-ocean-awards) Oceana, the ocean-restoration group, aims to protect fish by lobbying to end government subsidies given out worldwide to fishermen each year. “Governments are paying fishermen to overfish,” says Oceana senior campaign director Courtney Sakai. “Much of the $30 billion in subsidies increases fishing capacity—the ability to fish longer, harder and farther away. It has helped produce a worldwide fishing fleet that’s up to 250 percent larger than what is required to fish at sustainable levels.” She also notes that some harmful practices, like bottom trawling, wouldn’t be profitable without huge subsidies. Established in 2001 by several foundations, most notably the Pew Charitable Trusts, Oceana counts longtime ocean conservationist and Cheers star Ted Danson as one of its most active board members (the nonprofit he co-founded, American Oceans Campaign, was folded into Oceana in 2002). As a formal advisor to the government on trade and environmental policy, Oceana pushed for two resolutions in 2007 that supported the elimination of subsidies; both were passed by Congress. Next up: lobbying foreign delegates to the World Trade Organization to end fishing subsidies in 152 countries, particularly Japan, India and China (oceana.org). The Oceana lobby will push the plan in Congress Oceana 8 (http://www.oceana.org/north-america/who-we-are/successes/) MAY 2007: Cutting Fishing Subsidies -- After campaigning by Oceana, the U.S. Congress passes resolutions supporting worldwide cuts in harmful fishing subsidies that lead to overcapacity in fishing fleets and thus to overfishing. Oceana is working with nations in the current World Trade Organization negotiations to end these harmful taxpayer handouts. Oceana lobby strong – they conduct focused and intensive lobbying campaigns Oceana 8 (http://www.oceana.org/north-america/what-we-do/) WE ARE INTERESTED IN RESULTS. To achieve real benefits for the oceans, Oceana conducts focused, strategic campaigns. Each campaign has a specific timeframe and objective that will make a significant difference to the oceans. Each campaign combines scientific, legal, policy and advocacy approaches to reach its goal. Saving the oceans may take decades, but in each of our campaigns we aim to accomplish an important milestone in that effort within two to five years.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

135

Politics-India Deal

Link – Fisheries Cuts Unpopular – Lobby Fishing industry will lobby against subsidy cuts – stronger than the opposition Mongabay 7 (Environmental science and conservation news, http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0709-interview_mike_sutton.html) Until recently few people gave much thought to ocean conservation. Despite evidence from the overexploitation of whales and North Atlantic cod, it was generally assumed that ocean species had nearly boundless capacity to recover from overfishing. Powerful lobbying by the fishing industry meant that instead of

addressing the problem, governments subsidized commercial fishing to the tune of at least $15 billion — and perhaps as high as $50 billion — a year, worsening the carnage. Driven by these perverse incentives and greed, industrial fishing put the livelihood of tens of millions of subsistence fishermen at risk while threatening the primary source of protein for some 950 million people worldwide. Despite these dire trends, the situation is changing. Today some of the world's largest environmental groups are focused on addressing the health of marine life and oceans, while sustainable fisheries management is at the top of the agenda for intergovernmental bodies. Conservation groups are working with governments to establish

marine reserves, ban destructive fishing practices, protect key species, and educate consumers, though progress is slow in the face of continued lobbying by industry. Some believe the best approach to addressing overfishing is to bring industry on board, using the argument that sustainable practices will ensure the industry survives for the next generation of fishermen.

Prohibiting fisheries subsidies would require massive political capital—industry lobbies and disagreement on the sphere of subsidies Anyanova 8 (Ekaterina, Lecturer in the Law of the Sea at the Kant State University of Russia, PhD Candidate at Hamburg University, Germany, http://www.jiclt.com/index.php/JICLT/article/viewFile/68/54) The broad prohibition of subsidies would be difficult to achieve. In general, fisheries subsidies are supported by the strong lobby of fishing (and even food) industry. Besides, subsidies promoting the reducing of the fleets’ capacity seem tobe a reasonable measure in this situation. The position of the “no need” approach seems to be also not very stable, since the conditionality of the overcapacity, overfishing and fisheries subsidies is more or less acknowledged. Probably, the traffic light approach would be the chosen path for the legal regulation in this field. However, the sphere of the prohibited subsidies expects to be one of the most controversial issues, prolonging the development of WTO disciplines of fisheries subsidies. Attempts to reduce subsidies face significant political opposition—lobbies Anyanova 8 (Ekaterina, Lecturer in the Law of the Sea at the Kant State University of Russia, PhD Candidate at Hamburg University, Germany, http://www.jiclt.com/index.php/JICLT/article/viewFile/68/54) The subsidizing of the fishing fleet continues. The attempts to reduce it face strong political opposition especially from the side of the lobbying sectors of the food industry. The problem with subsidies is that government grants also are able in some cases to reduce fleets capacity. Environmental subsidies, applied by the EU, Japan, Canada, and the United States, try to eliminate the harmful results of the overfishing and fleets overcapacity (e.g. buying back of vessel and fishing permissions, fishermen retraining programs etc.).

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

136

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

137

Politics-India Deal

Link – Fisheries Cuts Unpopular – Food Industry Lobby Cutting fisheries subsidies will be opposed by the food and fishing industry lobbies Anyanova 8 (Ekaterina, Lecturer in the law of the sea, http://www.jiclt.com/index.php/JICLT/article/viewFile/68/54) The subsidizing of the fishing fleet continues. The attempts to reduce it face strong political opposition especially from the side of the lobbying sectors of the food industry. The problem with subsidies is that government grants also are able in some cases to reduce fleets capacity. Environmental subsidies, applied by the EU, Japan, Canada, and the United States, try to eliminate the harmful results of the overfishing and fleets overcapacity (e.g. buying back of vessel and fishing permissions, fishermen retraining programs etc.) Withdrawal of subsidies in fisheries would considerably contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of fish stocks. However, a full retreat from the subsidies in fisheries seems to be unrealistic. The appropriate restrictions have to be made reasonable not to distort positive environmental-friendly trends in subsidizing and to protect the interests of the developing fishing states. The number of people employed in the fishing industry is growing every year, particularly in developing countries. Around 80% of fisheries subsidies of the developing countries are caused by their wish to preserve this employment. Food industry key to the agenda – powerful lobby plays politics better than anyone Nestle 7 – (Marion, Ph.D., http://www.foodpolitics.com/pages/foodpolitics.htm) We all witness, in advertising and on supermarket shelves, the fierce competition for our food dollars. In this engrossing exposé, Marion Nestle goes behind the scenes to reveal how the competition really works and how it affects our health. The abundance of food in the United States—enough calories to meet the needs of every man, woman, and child twice over—has a downside. Our overefficient food industry must do everything possible to persuade people to eat more—more food, more often, and in larger portions —no matter what it does to waistlines or well-being. Like manufacturing cigarettes or building weapons, making food is very big business. Food companies in 2000 generated nearly $900 billion in sales. They have stakeholders to please, shareholders to satisfy, and government regulations to deal with. It is nevertheless shocking to learn precisely how food companies lobby officials, co-opt experts, and expand sales by marketing to children, members of minority groups, and people in developing countries. We learn that the food industry plays politics as well as or better than other industries, not least because so much of its activity takes place outside the public view.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

138

***Links – Wheat***

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 139

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link—Wheat Cuts Unpopular—Lobby The plan’s massively unpopular—the wheat lobby is devastating The Zoo 8 (May 23, http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/05/23/the-corn-wheat-soybeans-andcotton-diet/) So why aren’t more small farmers and environmentalist having an impact on this bill? Because the squeaky wheel gets the oil. The corn, wheat, soybean and cotton industry has lobbyists that won’t quit. They keep pounding away at Congress until they get what they want. The smaller farmer doesn’t have the finances or the time to compete with the subsidy lobby. Wheat lobby powerful Busicom 6 (http://www.busicom.com.au/data/News_2006.htm) Democrats hunting AWB bribes: Bad news for the Australian Wheat Board and the Government: whatever the findings of the Cole Commission into the oil-for-food inquiry, Wheat Associates (the US wheat lobby in Washington) now has a powerful ally. The result of the sweeping shift in political power in America means Democrat Senator, Tom Harkin (from the wheat state of Iowa), will become chairman of the Senate’s powerful Agriculture Committee. He has been a consistent and vocal critic of AWB’s bribes to Saddam. He has in the past claimed the White House didn’t want to investigate AWB because of John Howard’s willingness to send troops to Iraq. The Democrats are now in charge of committees of the House, and the new House agriculture committee chair will be Collin Peterson, also from Iowa. [17.11.06]

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

140

***Links – CAFO***

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

141

Politics-India Deal

Link—CAFOs Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (1/2) The factory farm industry is a juggernaut—they have power at all levels of the government and will use their influence to switch votes Johnson 2 (Steve, PBS Frontline, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/politics/) The meat industry in the United States is a powerful political force, both in the legislative and the regulatory arena, even though the way they wield that power is different from many industries on Capitol Hill. Instead of spreading lots of money around to many different lawmakers in an attempt to gain access and influence -- the traditional method used by many large corporations -- the meat industry targets their approach to a small number of key lawmakers and regulators that have a direct impact on their business interests. Yet despite the relatively low level of financial contributions, the industry has succeeded in weakening or preventing many new meat-safety initiatives in recent years. Most of the companies involved in the meat business, including the big meatpackers, are represented by one or more of the powerful meat trade and lobbying organizations: the American Meat Institute, the National Meat Association, and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. They're a powerful group and they know they have a strong voice in decision-making in Washington. "I think the ultimate objective of a lobbying organization such as the American Meat Institute is to be sure that when the legislators enact bills, or when a regulator finalizes a regulation, our expertise, our experience, our insight, is part of their decision-making process," says Patrick Boyle, CEO of the American Meat Institute.Over the last 50 years, the meat industry grew accustomed to having powerful friends in the upper levels of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Some of that changed in the Clinton administration in the 1990s. When Michael Taylor, a lawyer by training who didn't have a meat-industry background, became the new head of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the USDA's meatinspection arm, he was surprised at what he saw on the telephone in his new office. "On the telephone there were two speed dials with names by them. And one was to the American Meat Institute and the other was to the National Cattlemen's Association."Taylor says this is emblematic of the cozy relationship the meat industry had with the government agency in charge of regulating it. "It is just a political context, a culture that has developed over the years at the political level, the food safety program at the USDA thinking of the industry as the customer rather than the consumer, and thinking in terms of efficient inspection rather than protecting public health."The meat industry demonstrated its muscle in 1995. When the USDA proposed implementing new food-safety regulations in response to the devastating Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak that made 700 people sick, the meat industry attempted to delay the implementation of the new regulations by convincing a member of the key appropriations committee to introduce an amendment to stop the rulemaking process.Rep. James Walsh, an upstate New York Republican who received over $65,000 from agriculture industry interests in the 1996 election cycle, introduced the amendment to force the USDA to conduct more extensive hearings, thus delaying implementation of the new food-safety system, which included testing for salmonella in ground beef. Continued…

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 142

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link—CAFOs Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (2/2) Continued… The industry strongly objected to the new salmonella testing, saying it was not the proper scientific measure to use, and convinced Walsh to offer the amendment on their behalf. It was an effective tactic to insist on more study on the new regulation, and some estimated it could delay the implementation of the new rules for up to two years. In a regulatory battle like this one, a two-year delay would effectively kill the new measure, leaving the meat industry with the same inspection system it had since the early 1900s -- the days of Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle. "It was very clear really that the industry was pushing this effort to stop the rulemaking," Taylor said. "Congressman Walsh from New York who spearheaded the effort said publicly and to us in meetings that the reason this amendment was needed was because the industry felt that its concerns were not being heard clearly enough, by me and the Department of Agriculture." In fact, The Washington Post reported at the time that an attorney for the National Meat Association was one of the authors of the Walsh amendment. In the end, after a public outcry from consumer advocates and newspaper editorials criticizing the amendment and the meat industry, a compromise was negotiated and the new meat inspection rules -- with the salmonella testing -- went forward.After the battle for the new meat safety regulations was won in 1995-96, the salmonella testing provision - the main enforcement tool of the new regulation - was challenged in court in Supreme Beef vs. United States Department of Agriculture. Fearing an unfavorable outcome, food safety advocates pushed for legislation explicitly empowering the Department of Agriculture to set limits on the acceptable amount of salmonella in meat In 2000, the legislation failed in the Senate by one vote. Last October, it failed again, by five votes. In between the two votes, a major merger .

took place that made the meat industry even more powerful on Capitol Hill. Tyson Foods, the giant poultry company, bought IBP, the No. 1 meat processor, forming a Goliath in market share and political power. "There was a reason that we lost by five votes. And I believe the reason was that Tyson Food purchased IBP," says Carol Tucker Foreman, from the Consumer Federation of America. "Last year, you had a few senators who represented IBP states who led a fight. This year, you had Tyson approaching senators from poultry producing states and urging them to vote to limit USDA's power. The poultry people had never been involved in this issue before."In other words, when Tyson, the largest poultry producer, bought IBP, the largest beef producer, the poultry industry suddenly had a reason to oppose legislation that impacts the level of salmonella in ground beef. Capitol Hill staffers confirmed Foreman's assertion, saying lobbyists for the National Chicken Council, whose members account for nearly 95 percent of the chicken sold in the country, were out in force last fall, lobbying against the legislation."We had several senators who changed their votes. Senators who'd voted with us in 2000 voted against us in 2001," Tucker Foreman said. "And guess what? Almost without exception, they were senators with very large poultry operations." Her contention is that some senators with poultry interests in their states now had an incentive to vote against legislation they supported in the past.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

143

Politics-India Deal

Link—CAFOs Cuts Popular Regulating factory farms is widely popular across the country Garret 99 (Tom, AWI Quarterly, Fall, http://www.awionline.org/farm/aw474far.htm) In the two states where the hog factory came directly before the people, the verdict was unequivocal. In Colorado, Initiative 14, which places hog factories under moderately severe regulation, was approved by over 60% of the electorate. South Dakota Amendment E, which bans corporate farming in the state altogether, gained 59% of the popular vote despite a massive infusion of corporate cash and opposition from the state's Republican governor. Lauch Faircloth was defeated by John Edwards (D, NC). Faircloth, according to CounterPunch (November 1-15, 1998) "was part owner of Coharie Farms, the 30th largest hog producer in the country. Faircloth owned more than $1 million worth of stock in two slaughterhouses. In Congress he attended to the interests of the pig men as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Water, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety." Environmentalists and small farmers across the state worked hard to defeat Faircloth. The Sierra Club flooded the airwaves with ads linking Faircloth to water pollution and pfiesteria. In Iowa, where hog factories have blighted northern counties and driven most of Iowa's traditional hog farmers out of business, the hog issue played heavily in Democrat Tom Vilsack's crushing upset of Republican gubernatorial candidate Jim Lightfoot. In neighboring Minnesota, Reform Party candidate, Jessie "The Mind" Ventura's victory sent a seismic shock through the American political establishment. The governor-elect supports a temporary moratorium on new hog factories. Factory farming was also a factor in the unexpectedly severe defeat of anti-environmentalist Republican candidate Ellen Sauerbrey by Maryland's incumbent governor, Parris Glendening. Glendening received high marks for his crackdown on Maryland's huge chicken farms following the 1997 pfiesteria outbreak in the Chesapeake Bay area. Environmental protection was a defining issue in the campaign.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

144

***Links – Rice***

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

145

Politics-India Deal

Link—Rice Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (1/2) The rice lobby is strong—significant campaign contributions Economic Times 5 (April 11, http://www.columbia.edu/~ap2231/ET/FT_Exchange_Oxfam.htm) The rice lobby is very well connected politically in the US, being large donors to political campaigns. In a 2003 open letter to Robert Zoellick, then US trade representative, a group of agricultural exporters including the US rice producers' association argued against protection for special products. "Since developing countries offer the most potential for demand and import growth in the future, these provisions would severely undermine potential market access gains from tariff reductions," it said.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

146

Politics-India Deal

Link—Rice Cuts Unpopular—Lobby (2/2) The plan would be massively unpopular. The rice lobby controls the subcommittees and is more mobilized than possible opposition. Griswold 6 (Daniel, Director of the CATO Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, Trade Briefing Paper No. 25, November 16, http://www.freetrade.org/node/539) A major obstacle to scaling back the rice program is interest-group politics. The rice program exists not because it serves the national interest but because the special interests that benefit from it are more organized, concentrated, and motivated, than the general public that pays for the program. In the 2003-04 election cycle, political action committees connected to the rice sector contributed $289,300 to influence elctions for the U.S. house and Sentae, and those same PACs had contributed $250,076 in the current election cycle through June 30, 2006. The three largest contributers were the Farmers’ Rice Cooperative, the USA Rice Federation, and Riceland Foods. Not surprisingly, a significant share of contribution went to members of the agricultural subcommittees that oversee the rice program.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

147

Politics-India Deal

Link—Rice Cuts Popular Jumping off the rice bandwagon would be popular—it shows independence from lobbying interests Griswold 6 (Daniel, Director of the CATO Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, Trade Briefing Paper No. 25, November 16, http://www.freetrade.org/node/539) The answer is not to restrict campaign donations but to expose the true costs to the public of the federal rice program. In the wake of various lobbying scandals in Washington, reforming the rice program and other farm programs offers members of Congress an opportunity to show that they can serve the broader public interest by asserting their independence from special-interest lobbying.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

148

***Links – Misc***

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

149

Politics-India Deal

Link – Multilateral CP Popular Multilateral CPs shield politics: government able to fend off internal politics Steenblik 98 (Ronald, Principal Administrator @ Fisheries Division, Directorate for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/62/1918086.pdf) However, cutting through the Gordian knot of domestic subsidies is not a politically feasible option for large democracies with diverse constituencies. Indeed, even those smaller countries that have undertaken unilateral reforms realise that. That their governments have been in the vanguard of efforts to establish international rules and mechanisms for disciplining subsidies is not due simply to an evangelical impulse. It is, along with the promise of economywide reform, part of the quid pro quo expected of them: their domestic industries can more readily accept what they see as sacrifices if they perceive progress in efforts to open up export markets. The difficult part is convincing reluctant trading partners that subsidy reform is in their national interest as well. Why should importers with vulnerable, import-competing industries be willing even to consider opening up their markets, much less agreeing to international rules restricting their ability to subsidise? The trade literature offers several explanations, of which no attempt to summarise them is made here. The classic reason, given for reciprocal trade agreements in general, is that the net gains from trade are usually large enough that industries that lose out can be compensated. Multi-sectoral agreements allow such trade-offs among different sectors and nations to be made. But another important explanation has also been offered, which perhaps also explains why agreements are sometimes reached involving only one or a few sectors — namely, they provide a way for governments to credibly distance themselves from powerful domestic special-interest groups. Thus, by having its hands bound by an

external agreement, a government may be able to fend off internal political pressures for protection and subsidies.20 Presumably, it would have a stronger incentive to enter into such an arrangement if at the same time it is trying to control budgetary expenditure generally.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 150

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Link – Bush Supports the Plan Bush Administration supports cuts Maixner 6 (Ed, Editor of The Kiplinger Agriculture Letter, http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/farm_subsidies_will_be_cut_but _not_scuttled__.html) The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, for one, is urging a sharp shift in government funding away from subsidies for a few and toward more research and rural infrastructure improvements that would help more American farmers compete worldwide. The group also wants Congress to phase out direct crop subsidies, replacing them with a broad farm revenue insurance plan for all farmers. Reformers have a strong ally in the Bush administration this time around, unlike four years ago, when the White House dropped reform efforts as the current farm bill was being debated. "I will tell you that this administration intends to put forth farm policy proposals that recognize and embrace change," says Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, who will unveil the administration's plans in January. Bush supports subsidy reform Kilman & Thurow 6 (Scott and Roger, 3/14, http://lists.mutualaid.org/pipermail/mgjdiscuss/2006-March/005316.html) The Bush administration is in the reform camp. At the WTO, it has offered to cut by 60% the amount of money it can spend every year on certain subsidies, if the European Union cuts by 83%, a move that the U.S. says would bring both blocs into line. Last month, the White House Council of Economic Advisers took the unusual step of devoting a chapter in the annual "Economic Report of the President" to lambasting crop subsidies, saying they "hurt countries that could benefit from exporting these commodities to the United States." President Bush has yet to propose his own specific solutions. Administration economists say there are lots of ways to get money to farmers that don't depress international prices, such as insurance programs that protect against big drops in revenue. The White House has the support of other businesses that would like to see the subsidy question settled in order to spur the lowering of overseas trade barriers on their goods. During a recent meeting in a private club on Chicago's Michigan Avenue, business executives, bankers and economists dined on stuffed chicken served on bone china while preparing a report arguing for an overhaul of the farm program. Several participants are executives of Fortune 500 companies. The task force was assembled by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, an 84-year-old nonprofit group that includes many of the Midwest's biggest firms.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

151

Politics-India Deal

***Internal Links – Political Process***

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 152

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Internal Link – Winners Win (1/2) Winners win Ornstein 93 (Norman, Phd Political Science University of Michigan, American Enterprise Institute, ROLL CALL, May 27, 1993. p. Lexis)

Winning comes to those who look like winners. This only sounds redundant or cliche'-ish. If power is the ability to make people do something they otherwise would not do, real power is having people do things they otherwise wouldn't do without anybody making them - when they act in anticipation of what they think somebody would want them to do. If a president develops a reputation as a winner, somebody who will pull out victories in Congress even when he is behind, somebody who can say, "Do this!" and have it done, then Members of Congress will behave accordingly. They will want to cut their deals with the president early, getting on the winning team when it looks the best and means the most. Winning leads to more winning Ornstein 1 (Norman, ROLL CALL, Phd Political Science University of Michigan, p. Lexis) In a system where a President has limited formal power, perception matters. The reputation for success--the belief by other political actors that even when he looks down, a president will find a way to pull out a victory--is the most valuable resource a chief executive can have. Conversely, the widespread belief that the Oval Office occupant is on the defensive, on the wane or without the ability to win under adversity can lead to disaster, as individual lawmakers calculate who will be on the winning side and negotiate accordingly. In simple terms, winners win and losers lose more often than not. Winners Win-successfully investing political capital reaps more political capital Lindberg 4 (Tom, Washington Times, “Spending Political Capital”, Lexis) Now, in the usual metaphor of political capital, presidents who have it often make the mistake of trying to "hoard" it. They put their political capital in a safe place in order to bolster their personal popularity. They do not "risk it" in pursuit of political victories, whether on their policy agenda or for controversial judicial appointments, etc. And therein, in the conventional application of the metaphor, lies peril. For political capital, when hoarded, does not remain intact but rather diminishes over time through disuse. It "wastes away" - and with it, a president's popularity and reputation. Therefore, again in the conventional use of the metaphor, it is mere prudence for a president to "invest" his political capital. Only by seeking political victories and winning them by such judicious investment can a president maintain and even increase his political capital. Who dares wins. This is, of course, a most mellifluous metaphor for the activists in the president's camp. It promises reward for ambitious action and warns against the high price of a lack of ambition. In fact, it almost sounds like a sure thing: The president takes his political capital, invests it and reaps a mighty return.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

153

Politics-India Deal

Internal Link – Winners Win (2/2) Winners Win Ornstein 2 (Norman, Phd Political Science Michigan University, USA TODAY, January 28, 2002, p. 11A) The fall of 1990 was not a particularly good time for the senior Bush. Remember: “Read my lips, no new taxes?” And then the 1990 budget agreement with new taxes? The younger Bush was not real happy about the articles he read slamming his father’s administration. But what was most striking to me was how he avidly soaked up lessons about his father’s presidency. At this moment--on the eve of President George W.’s second State of the Union message, with Congress back for the second session of the 107th Congress, and with the country focused on the continuing war on terrorism and the continuing recession-one lesson the president learned from his dad is particularly apt for him, too. That lesson is as clear now as it was then: Political capital is perishable. You use it or you lose it. It is a lesson Bush junior has mentioned himself, and one his political advisers, Karl Rove, refers to often. Bush now has an approval rating in the mid-80s, a bit lower than at his peak, but still stratospheric. He has erased any serious doubts about his qualifications to serve, or the legitimacy of his victory. He has as much political capital in the bank as there is gold in Fort Knox. So what does he use it for? A string of domestic issues are possibilities, but economic stimulus sits atop the heap. If he uses his political capital skillfully, he will first help Americans, many of whom are hurting as a result of the recession, and he will get more political capital back in return. Perception of successful policy boosts president’s power to control agenda Rosati 4, University of South Carolina Government and International Studies professor (Jerel A., THE POLITICS OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY, 2004, p. 98)

It was the sense of national emergency associated with the cold war during the fifties and sixties, after all, that was the ultimate source of presidential power and American global leadership following World War II. This means that the fragmented and pluralist political environment that has prevailed since Vietnam will likely continue in the post-cold war future, posing greater foreign policy opportunities and political risks for presidents and American leadership abroad. And as the American public focuses its concern increasingly on “intermestic” (and especially economic) issues, presidents who are perceived as dealing successfully with those issues are likely to enjoy an increase in their popularity and ability to govern in foreign policy and in general. But much will depend on the image that Americans have of a president’s policies and of their relative success, at home and abroad – a function of the turn of events and the strength of presidential leadership.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 154

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Internal Link – Winners Lose (1/3) Winners lose Andres 2k (Gary et. Al., Deputy assistant to the president for Legislative Affairs for the Bush administration, Presidential Studies Quarterly, September, p. 553)

Designing a legislative road map to success would be much less daunting if powerful presidents only had to build winning coalitions. Unfortunately most presidential actions cause reactions in peculiar places, in the world of trade-offs. Winning in one arena may cause a major loss in another. Presidents Bush and Clinton, for example, faced divided party government conditions during most –or in the case of Bush, throughout -their administrations. Each could have offered legislation aimed at the median legislators’ policy position and bargained or offered other inducements to win simple majority. Yet, that model was unrealistic because of the trade-offs facing both presidents. The most obvious example of this is the trade-off between forging majority coalitions and party building and winning elections. Winning is always followed by losing-Clinton Proves Business Week 97 (Business Week International Editions; American News: THE PRESIDENCY; Number 3515; Pg. 30, Lexis)

On the surface, Bill Clinton's second term is off to a strong start. The U.S. economy is chugging along. The President's approval ratings have hit 61%. And Clinton is dominating the Washington agenda with his drives for a balanced budget and additional education spending. But as veteran Clinton trackers know all too well, any period of soaring Clintonismo is likely to be followed by an abrupt downdraft

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 155

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Internal Link—Winners Lose (2/3) Winners lose Mann 93 (Thomas, Director of Governmental Studies Program at the Brookings Institution and Co-Director of the AEI-Brookings Renwing Congress Project, “Beyond Gridlock: Prospects for Governance in the Clinton Years – And After”) Most representatives and senators do not feel beholden to any president, let alone one who ran behind them in the last election. I am reminded of advice I received from former Senator Jacob Javits of New York in his last year of life, when I was perplexed and trying to figure out a vote that had just taken place in the Senate. I asked him to explain why certain senators had voted a certain way. And with halting breath he said to me, “You must always realize that senators vote in a priority order. First, they vote for their states; second, they vote out of institutional loyalty to the Senate; and, third, if they have not decided on the basis of either of those, and the president happens to be of their own party, well maybe they will give him a vote. But the state or the district always comes first, the institution second, and only then the president.” Another thing to remember is how important back home is. They used to call Reagan the great lobbyist, but I remember sitting in the Oval Office as we lobbied not only in 1981, 1982, and 1983, but also in 1987 and 1988, and member after member would say, “Mr. President, I really want to support your package. The problem is I am not hearing anything from back home.” The key was to make sure that we explained why things were important to the district, and why the district really would support what Reagan wanted. The bad news also is that once the president gets a vote he wants, the immediate instinct of most members is to cast the next vote to show their independence from the administration. This is especially true when you have asked them to vote for a big package, in which some provisions did not make sense for their districts but had to be swallowed as part of the overall package. Then their answer is, "I need the next vote to show that I am independent of the White House The president is in a no win situation

Light 99 (Paulette, Goodard Professor of Public Service at New York University, Founding Director of the Brookings Center for Public Service, “The President’s Agenda: Domestic Policy Choice from Kennedy to Clinton,” p217) five rather separate trends which have contributed to a No Win Presidency in domestic affairs. Together the increased competition and complexity, declining influence, pervasive surveillance, and change in the available issues have steadily increased the price of policy. Presidents must now pay more for domestic programs. Presidents must be more careful about timing, as well as about the selection of "winnable" issues and alternatives. While the price of policy has risen, the President's resource base has not. Presidents no longer have the resources to expend on "educating" the public; they no longer have the time to spend on a full search for new ideas and programs. If anything, the President's resource base has dwindled over the 1970s. The cost of presidential policy has grown, while Thus far, we have talked of

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 156

Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal the President's ability to influence outcomes has declined. It is a remarkable no-win position.

Internal Link—Winners Lose (3/3) Winners win doesn’t assume the plan—adding new initiatives can only hurt political capital Pastor 91 (Robert, Professor of Political Science at Emory University and Director of the Latin American and Caribbean Program at Emory’s Carter Center, “Congress and US Foreign Policy: Comparative Advantage or Disadvantage,” The Washington Quarterly, Autumn) The third dysfunction in interbranch relations is the length of time and the amount of presidential capital needed to gain approval of a major foreign policy law or treaty. When the president makes a compelling case that the national security of the United States demands the approval of a particular bill or treaty, Congress rarely rejects him. This was true for the Panama Canal treaties and the war in the Persian Gulf. But if

the policy is unpopular, the president will almost certainly have to devote a much larger proportion of his time and political capital to gaining approval for it, and he will have less time for and influence on other foreign policy issues. Also, if he needs to ask Congress repeatedly to approve an unpopular policy -- such as contra aid -- he will deplete his political capital and is likely eventually to lose the votes, as Reagan did. The increasing complexity of the world and its growing interdependence with the United States means that the agenda will grow, the trade-offs between domestic and international interests will become more delicate, and the role of Congress will increase proportionately. A few difficult issues -- like the canal treaties or contra aid -- can delay consideration of the entire foreign policy agenda for prolonged periods. Given a fixed amount of time and a limited number of decision makers, this systemic delay might be among the most important problems that stem from interbranch politics. The

president must be very conscious of his agenda and very selective in his approach. Carter filled his agenda with a host of controversial issues at the beginning of his administration. Although he succeeded in gaining approval of the new Panama Canal treaties and new energy legislation, both issues were costly, and ironically, his victories left him weaker politically. Reagan learned from Carter's experience and selected a smaller, more manageable agenda. His victories -- the tax cut and the defense budget -came more easily in Congress, and he looked stronger as a result.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

157

Politics-India Deal

Internal Link – Plan costs political capital Controversial Policies cost significant Political Capital Light 99 (Paul C., founding director, Brookings Institution Center for Public Service, The President’s Agenda, 1999, p. 16)

Presidential priorities also involve more conflict, both inside the administration and out. And the greater the conflict, the more time, information, expertise, and energy necessary to settle the disputes. “You’d be surprised how long it takes to iron out the differences,” a Johnson legislative assistant argued. “Compromise doesn’t usually happen overnight. It takes a hefty investment of presidential influence and effort.” Once again, welfare reform serves as an example. One highly placed Nixon observer maintained that “the |Family Assistance| plan could have been announced much sooner if there hadn’t been such a struggle. With Burns and Moynihan at odds, we couldn’t move. When one would attack, the other would counterattack. Sure, the issue was intricate, but it could have been handled much faster without the in-fighting. As it was, there was a stalemate for three months.” Domestic policies drain finite political capital Light 99 (Paul C., founding director, Brookings Institution Center for Public Service, The President’s Agenda, 1999, p. 2)

The President’s domestic agenda also reflects the allocation of resources, which often are fixed and limited. As a President moves through the term, each agenda choice commits some white House resources—time, energy, information, expertise, political capital. Each agenda item also commits some policy options, whether federal funds or bureaucratic energy. The sheer number of participants in the policy process both inside and outside the White House has increased rapidly over the last two decades; interest groups and individuals have “discovered” Congress and the Presidency. This growing pressure has placed greater emphasis on the agenda as a topic of political conflict. Policymakers increasingly turn to the agenda for the first battles over the distribution of scarce resources. Given the ever-tightening policy options, this pressure will not abate in the near future.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 158

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Internal Link – Capital is finite Political capital is scarce and presidents must use it wisely Edwards 8 (George C. Edwards III is Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M University., http://www.apsanet.org/content_5239.cfm) At the core of the presidency are the chief executive's efforts to lead, especially in performing the key functions of agenda setting, decision making, coalition building, and policy implementation. Sometimes the president can take unilateral action to achieve his goals, and the extent of the president's powers is a continual focus of debate and adjudication. More often, however, the White House must persuade othersmembers of Congress, the public, the press, the bureaucracy, and foreign leaders-to support his policies. Agenda setting includes establishing national and international priorities and determining the issues to which the president devotes scarce political capital. In a system of shared powers, other officials, especially members of Congress, must attend to issues on the president's agenda if the president is to influence public policy. The essence of the president's job is making decisions, which involves designing policy, selecting personnel, obtaining appropriate advice, and managing crises. Presidents must ensure that they have a full range of options and the appropriate information necessary for evaluating them. They also require a working relationship with subordinates and an organization in the White House that serves their decision-making needs. Presidents' personal decision-making styles and involvement in decision making are also crucial to their success. Capital can never be fully replenished Light 99 (Paul C., founding director, Brookings Institution Center for Public Service, The President’s Agenda, 1999, p. 32-33)

Though capital can be refreshed during the term, the pattern remains: capital is expended with choice, and can be replaced only to a limited extent. Even when there is a rally-round-the-flag crisis in foreign affairs, it is not clear how long the rise in public support will remain. Within two months of the 1979 Iran crisis, with hostages still in Teheran, Carter’s public approval had dropped back from 80 percent to 50 percent. And scarcely two weeks before the 1980 Democratic national convention, a “dump Carter” movement gained momentary strength as party leaders sought a nominee who would win in the November election. Thus, it is difficult to predict just how much capital can be regenerated through national crisis. Furthermore, does public approval in a rally-round crisis affect decisions in the domestic arena? Did the hostage crisis help Carter’s domestic Agenda? Did domestic crisis increase capital? If the trends in public approval over the past twenty years serve as an indication of declining capital, declarations of war on energy or poverty create only moderate increases in support that rarely last.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

159

Politics-India Deal

Internal Link – Popularity = Agenda (1/2) Presidents use public popularity to gain political capital and get their agenda passed in congress Johnson 5 (Spring, Timothy, Jason M Roberts, Timothy R. Johnson received his Ph.D. from Washington, http://www.polisci.umn.edu/~tjohnson/MyPapers/CongressandPresidency2005.pdf) For Light, presidents’ strength includes their public approval ratings and their margin of victory in the most recent election (1999, 32). When these factors increase, presidents gain political capital and are therefore more likely to garner congressional support for their domestic agenda in Congress. Light’s analysis comports with other accounts of how presidents can use their political capital (which they largely accrue from their popularity) to win battles with Congress. For instance, many scholars argue that presidents can use their resources to set both the public agenda and the congressional agenda (Edwards and Wood 1999; Neustadt 1990). More important for our theoretical argument, several scholars demonstrate that popular presidents are able to win more often in Congress (Edwards and Wood 1999; Brace and Hinckley 1992). Public approval helps presidents advance policies Wrone 2 (Brandice Canes-, Scott de Marchi, Brandice Canes-Wrone is a Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University with a Phd from Stanford University, Vol. 64, No. 2 (May, 2002), pp. 491-509)

The literature suggests two types of mechanisms by which presidential approval advances legislative influence; in this section, we outline these mechanisms and argue that they apply primarily to salient and complex legislation. The first mechanism, described by Rivers and Rose (1985), argues that congressional members regard presidential approval as a signal of public preferences on the president’s policy agenda. Members are assumed to be seeking reelection and therefore interested in enacting policies that voters desire.6 Since approval is an indication of these policy preferences, members are more likely to acquiesce to a president’s legislative requests the higher is his popularity. Public approval allows the president to change citizen’s policy positions therefore aiding legislative success Wrone 2 (Brandice Canes-, Scott de Marchi, Brandice Canes-Wrone is a Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University with a Phd from Stanford University, Vol. 64, No. 2 (May, 2002), pp. 491-509)

In contrast to this first mechanism, which regards approval as a signal of citizens’ policy positions, the second mechanism involves the effect of approval on a president’s ability to alter citizens’ positions. Previous studies find that presidents with approval ratings of at least 50% can change voters’ positions on an issue, for example through plebiscitary activity, but that less popular presidents cannot do so (Page and Shapiro 1992; Page, Shapiro and Dempsey 1987).7 In fact, a highly unpopular president can even turn constituents against a policy by supporting it (Sigelman and Sigelman 1981).8

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 160

Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Given members’ incentives to vote with constituents’ preferences, this ability to alter citizens’ preferences should affect a president’s prospects for legislative success.

Internal Link – Popularity = Agenda (2/2) Public support builds political momentum Wrone 1 (Brandice Canes-, a Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University with a Phd from Stanford University ,American Journal of Political Science, Vol, 45, No, 2, (Apr,, 2001), pp, 313-329 JSTOR)

Arguably the most consistent finding in research on the plebiscitary activity of presidents is that they can utilize speechmaking and other rhetorical activities to increase the salience of issues. Beginning with Schattschneider's (1960, 14) observation that the president constitutes the "principal instrument" for attracting a national audience to a policy debate, a range of work has found that presidential speeches increase the public's attention towards the issues addressed.4 According to research on Congress, this change in public salience affects legislators' behavior. In particular, members are found to be more responsive to constituency preferences on salient policies (Hutchings 1998; Kollman 1998). In combination, these various studies suggest that a president should be able to generate influence through public appeals; specifically, a president should be able to achieve policy goals by strategically publicizing issues for which he would like members to become more responsive to voters' policy positions. Popularity generates political capital Johnson 5 (Spring, Timothy-Minn, Jason M Roberts-PhD Minn, http://www.polisci.umn.edu/~tjohnson/MyPapers/CongressandPresidency2005.pdf)

For Light, presidents’ strength includes their public approval ratings and their margin of victory in the most recent election (1999, 32). When these factors increase, presidents gain political capital and are therefore more likely to garner congressional support for their domestic agenda in Congress. Light’s analysis comports with other accounts of how presidents can use their political capital (which they largely accrue from their popularity) to win battles with Congress. For instance, many scholars argue that presidents can use their resources to set both the public agenda and the congressional agenda (Edwards and Wood 1999; Neustadt 1990). More important for our theoretical argument, several scholars demonstrate that popular presidents are able to win more often in Congress (Edwards and Wood 1999; Brace and Hinckley 1992).

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

161

Politics-India Deal

Internal Link – A2: Popularity = Agenda (1/6) Presidential success doesn’t improve as approval ratings go up Collier 95 (Feb, Kenneth, Terry Sullivan, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 57, No. 1, (Feb., 1995), pp. 197-209, JSTOR) The mainstream approach to understanding prestige and influence relies on calculating something like the percentage of times each member supports the administration's position on "key" votes (Bond and Fleisher 1980, 1984; Bond, Fleisher, and Northrup 1988; Edwards 1980, 1985, 1989; Ostrum and Simon 1985; Rivers and Rose 1985). In assessing this relationship, call it a linkage with congressional "success," analysts have suggested a number of hypotheses. In addition to a general relationship, for example, Neustadt (1960) and Edwards and Wayne (1990) argued that prestige operates "mostly in the background" (using the same words). Neustadt (1960, 87) argued, "Rarely is there any one-to-one relationship between appraisals of popularity in general and responses to (presidential) wishes in particular." He further suggested that while it may affect general success, increasing prestige would not necessarily affect a specific bill. Or it may affect member decisions but only after a "shift of range" (or major change) occurs (Neustadt 1960, 96). Lastly, Neustadt suggested an "asymmetry effect": a stronger effect with declining ap- proval than with improving approval. Arguing that approval ratings help the president succeed ignores the fundamental politics of partisan support Collier 95 (Feb, Kenneth, Terry Sullivan, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill., The Journal of Politics, Vol. 57, No. 1, (Feb., 1995), pp. 197-209, JSTOR) Edwards (1980, 93) also identified a "partisan" effect: since party best suggests support, any general effect ought to work within partisan confines. First, he found a high correlation between approval among party identifiers and how party repre- sentatives supported the administration, with one exception. Republicans sup- ported Democratic presidents more than vice versa. Pursuing this relationship in

prestige has upper and lower bounds: no matter how low the president's standing some members will support the administration, i.e., those from the administration's party. Similarly, no matter how high approval, a significant opposition will remain (Edwards 1989, 109). Edwards (1989, 110ff) did find that support among the president's allies falls the furthest in bad times and rises the least in good times. Conversely, support among the president's opponents rises the quickest in good times and falls the least in bad times. his newest book, Edwards (1989) suggested that partisanship plays a role because it mirrors a predisposition. Hence,

Thus, the Neustadt-Edwards et al. tack on prestige suggests four basic effects: a "general" effect, a "shift of range" effect, an "asymmetry effect," and a "partisan effect." Additionally, the partisan effect has two variants: (1) as a ceiling on supporter responsiveness or a floor under opposition and (2) improving approval un- dermines opposition more than it bolsters supporters, while declining approval undermines supporters more than bolstering opposition. Bond and

Fleisher's research represents an extensive challenge to these findings. In 1980 and in 1990, they suggested that as approval increases, support increases only among the president's partisans. Their analysis also suggested that opponents responded negatively to increased approval. These results challenge the possibility of general and partisan effects. They reported uniformly low correlations and sta- tistically

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 162

Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal insignificant coefficients. Moreover, Bond and Fleisher (1990, 189) tested for the shift of range effect, the asymmetry effect, and the partisan effect yielding no empirical support

Internal Link – A2: Popularity = Agenda (2/6) Approval ratings don’t help presidents succeed in congress Collier 95 (Feb, Kenneth, Terry Sullivan, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. , The Journal of Politics, Vol. 57, No. 1, (Feb., 1995), pp. 197-209, JSTOR) This research note lends further support to the notion that approval has little ef- fect on presidential influence. The process data presented here, data capable of ad- dressing both the "conversion" and the "success" linkages and capable of looking inside the legislative process, presented no significant linkage. What to make of this result? First, this analysis clearly undermines the original Neustadt/Edwards con- ception of the power of prestige. In all of its forms, the process data did not find a significant approval effect. Second, this note does not represent the final word. While it contributes to the standard debate over the power of prestige, its results only address a portion of the larger debate. Others, particularly Ostrom and Simon (1985) and Rivers and Rose (1985), using more sophisticated empirical modeling techniques, have identified results suggesting a prestige effect. While both of these analyses rely only on stan- dard data similar to Edwards and Bond and Fleisher (1990) we intend to apply our process data to these more sophisticated operationalizations. Third, while the analysis presents a more detailed picture of the process, it deals with only a limited portion of that sequence, comparing the initial and final sup- port. It excludes support developed before initiating the process (e.g., "anticipated reactions") and the patterns of support that occur in between initiation and voting (what might be called intermediate support), and it does not address the strategic questions of agenda size and content (see Gleiber and Shull 1992 for a general discussion). That

every administration starts out considerably "in the hole," as in- dicated earlier, suggests that anticipated reactions may not make much of a differ- ence. Almost certainly low initial support taps only the administration's core supporters leaving the vast majority uncommitted. Elsewhere, similar process evidence has suggested the unlikeliness of anticipated reactions (Sullivan 1991). Mouw and MacKuen (1992) recently introduced the question of linking prestige with agenda control and strategic positioning. With a standard spatial framework, they identified a very weak role for presidential prestige: when the president enjoys high approval, supporters tend to "go for broke," asking for stronger legislation, 208 Kenneth Collier and Terry Sullivan while opponents tend to propose bipartisan amendments. Their findings still orig- inate from members' voting patterns rather than from process data. And given the lack of strong empirical evidence, though intriguing, their empirical results as they now stand seem very preliminary. There is no evidence that approval ratings affect presidential success Collier 95 (Feb, Kenneth, Terry Sullivan, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 57, No. 1, (Feb., 1995), pp. 197-209, JSTOR) Often, politicians and analysts have linked presidential influence with prestige. For example, Wilson (1908) believed the presidency's strength rested on its claim to speak for the nation. Some scholars have echoed these sentiments (Neustadt 1960; Polsby 1978; Kernell 1986). While politicians clearly believe that prestige plays a significant role in leadership, empirical research provides little reassurance. Different researchers have characterized prestige as an essential determinant of leg- islative success, as a marginal influence, and as playing no role whatsoever. Though some analyses utilize different methods, the dispute between findings ultimately derives from one

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 163

Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal operational problem: coalition formation, where approval might affect influence, occurs behind closed doors leaving little evidence.

Internal Link – A2: Popularity = Agenda (3/6) Years of divided government prove that a president can have high approval but little success with his agenda Nicholson 2 (Stephen P., Gary M. Segura, Nathan D. Woods, “Presidential Approval and the Mixed Blessing of Divided Government Source”, Stephen P. Nicholson, co-recipient of the 2006 Emerging Scholar Award Assistant Professor School of Social Sciences, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 64, No. 3, (Aug., 2002), pp. 701-720)

Given the predominance in the last half century of divided government- split party control of the executive and legislative branches-the resource of large legislative majorities has been unavailable to presidents. Yet at the same time, divided government may present an opportunity for presidents to help themselves in the arena of public opinion. In this environment, citizens encoun- ter greater difficulty trying to assess blame and credit. Because blame is the more salient consideration (Campbell et al. 1960; Cover 1986; Mueller 1973), presidents can point to the opposition Congress as the source of all problems, and divided government could be a president's best friend when attempting to avoid blame. Furthermore, since citizens perceive Congress as the most power- ful branch of government (Hibbing and Theiss-Morse 1995), it is not a hard sell for presidents to blame Congress. Given this dynamic, we believe presiden- tial approval ratings may vary systematically with partisan control of govern- ment. Specifically, we demonstrate in this effort that presidents are likely to have higher approval during periods of divided government and lower levels during periods of unified government. If this is the case, we might have identified something of a paradox. Presi- dents clearly prefer to enjoy higher levels of public approval, whether for elec- toral prospects, a policy resource, or some other purpose.2 Divided government, we argue, increases presidential approval, but this resource comes at a high cost-an opposition Congress that is less willing to buy what the president is selling, thereby lowering the president's legislative success, which is itself an important determinant of approval. What is the net effect of these contradictory forces? In this effort, we focus on the question of whether divided government increases a president's approval ratings, ceteris paribus. History proves that approval ratings don’t translate into legislative success Wrone 2 (Brandice Canes-, Scott de Marchi, Brandice Canes-Wrone is a Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University with a Phd from Stanford University, Vol. 64, No. 2 (May, 2002), pp. 491-509)

At the end of the Gulf War a Gallup poll indicated that 89% of Americans approved of President George H. W. Bush’s job performance, the highest presidential approval rating ever recorded by the Gallup Organization. Political observers at the time predicted this popularity would translate into policy influence.1 Washington Post headlines declared “President Plans to Capitalize on Popularity Gain.”2 Richard Fenno characterized the moment as “the time for [Bush] to expend some of the popularity he has gained in pursuit of a comparably large cause at home.”3 Bush’s

performance did not live up to this promise, however. For example, although

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 164

Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal presidential aides cited his anti-crime bill as a keystone of his agenda, a majority of House members voted against the legislation. In fact, Democratic members publicly opposed the bill within the week that Bush advocated it in a nationally televised address. Before long, headlines were proclaiming “Bush Squanders Power.”

Internal Link – A2: Popularity = Agenda (4/6) Recent research disproves the idea that popularity translates into legislative success Wrone 2 (Brandice Canes-, Scott de Marchi, Brandice Canes-Wrone is a Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University with a Phd from Stanford University, “The Journal of Politics”, Vol. 64, No. 2 (May, 2002), pp. 491-509)

Within the political science literature, a consistent finding has been that presidents actively seek high approval ratings, and a presumed rationale for this behavior has been that approval facilitates policy success. Yet, those studies that have explicitly examined the relationship between presidential approval and success have not produced a unified finding. Consistent with the assessment that Bush could capitalize on his popularity, Ostrom and Simon (1985), Rivers and Rose (1985), and Brace and Hinckley (1992) all find that a president’s public approval is positively correlated with his legislative influence. Similarly, Rohde and Simon (1985) show that approval increases a president’s ability to sustain vetoes. Recent research, however, substantiates the ex-post inability of Bush to convert his popularity into legislative success. For example, Collier and Sullivan (1995) show that approval has no impact on a president’s ability to sway congressional members’ positions on legislative votes. Cohen, Bond, Fleisher, and Hamman (2000) demonstrate that a Senator’s likelihood of voting with the president’s position is uncorrelated with presidential approval in his or her state. Similarly, Covington and Kinney (1999) find that approval increases the probability that the floor considers a presidential proposal but does not increase a president’s success over roll-call votes. Varying levels of popularity do not affect presidential success Wrone 2 (Brandice Canes-, Scott de Marchi, Brandice Canes-Wrone is a Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University with a Phd from Stanford University, Vol. 64, No. 2 (May, 2002), pp. 491-509)

Perhaps the most initially striking result is that the three estimates of approval generally have the same effect on presidential success. This consistency indicates that the divergent findings among previous studies do not derive from variation in the measurement of approval employed. Table 1 does suggest a potential rationale for the diversity of findings, however, by showing that the sample of votes analyzed affects the estimated impact of approval. Consistent with the negligible impact found in recent work, the effect is insignificant in the control model. Regardless of the measure of popularity employed, it does not appear to aid presidents when all roll calls are combined. Going Public decreases Presidential success with legislation Wrone 2 (Brandice Canes-, Scott de Marchi, Brandice Canes-Wrone is a Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University with a Phd from Stanford University, Vol. 64, No. 2 (May, 2002), pp. 491-509)

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 165

Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal Other research suggests, however, that a president may not systematically gain influence through plebiscitary activity. For example, Covington (1987) and Kernell (1993) argue that a president can impede executive-legislative bargaining by "going public." They observe that members have less flexibility to modify their positions on salient issues, preventing policy compromise. In addition, according to Kernell, members may be unwilling to bargain with a president who offers no explicit reward for supporting his position and instead goes over their heads to the people.

Internal Link – A2: Popularity = Agenda (5/6) There is no evidence that public appeal assists presidential success Wrone 2 (Brandice Canes-, Scott de Marchi, Brandice Canes-Wrone is a Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University with a Phd from Stanford University, Vol. 64, No. 2 (May, 2002), pp. 491-509)

Existing empirical work does not resolve whether in fact presidents gain systematic influence from public appeals. Isolated cases of policy success have been documented, but as Tulis (1987, 45) notes, these cases number ‘`a very few" within the literature, Moreover, prominent failures have also been documented, ranging from President Clinton's advocacy for nationalized health care.5 The work most suggestive of systematic influence is Mouw and MacKuen (1992), who show that when presidents Reagan and Eisenhower publicly addressed issues, congressional agenda-setters took more moderate positions, Mouw and MacKuen do not examine whether this behavior reflected presidents achieving their policy goals however.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

166

Politics-India Deal

Internal Link – A2: Popularity = Agenda (6/6) Public Approval only helps if the public is both concerned and uncertain about the bill Wrone 2 (Brandice Canes-, Scott de Marchi, Brandice Canes-Wrone is a Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University with a Phd from Stanford University, “The Journal of Politics”, Vol. 64, No. 2 (May, 2002), pp. 491-509) The literature thus does not provide a clear statement about the relationship between a president’s popularity and his legislative success. To provide such a statement, we tackle the problem by asking what conditions would allow us to distinguish the legislative items for which presidential popularity should generate influence from those for which it should not. Specifically, we argue that positive changes in presidential approval only increase the probability of success for legislation that meets two criteria: (1) It holds some degree of salience for the general electorate; and (2) It involves an issue over which citizens have little technical knowledge and correspondingly do not have easily accessible, entrenched opinions. We refer to such legislation as salient and complex; the latter term is taken from previous research (Kuklinski, Metlay, and Kay 1982; Moore 1987). A range of work finds that issue salience is a significant determinant of legislative behavior (Hutchings 1998; Kollman 1998; Schattschneider 1960), and that preference stability varies across issues (Carmines and Stimson 1980; Zaller and Feldman 1992). Moreover, previous research suggests the factors jointly affect congressional decision making, with members relatively inattentive to constituency opinion and unlikely to control bureaucratic behavior on issues of high complexity and low salience (Matthews and Stimson 1970; Ringquist 1995). We are the first, however, to argue that the factors jointly determine a president’s ability to translate high approval ratings into policy success. Our hypothesis, simply put, is that a president’s popularity will afford him influence over the passage of a bill if and only if there exists this combination of public concern and public uncertainty about the bill. We test this hypothesis on House roll-call votes during the presidencies of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Our analysis employs a variety of measures of approval, in addition to multiple econometric models. In particular, we estimate a traditional model on all rollcall votes versus those classified as complex and highly salient, and a second model that examines the interactions among approval, complexity, and marginal increases in salience. The analysis is divided into four sections: section two details the theoreticalargument, section three describes the data, section four discusses the econometric analysis, and section five concludes by discussing the broader implications of our findings for presidential power.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

167

Politics-India Deal

Internal Link – Olive Branch Concessions are critical to Bush’s agenda Eggen 8 (7-13, Dan, and Paul Kane, Washington Post staff writers, “Recent Bush victories smell of compromise”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/12/AR2008071201616.html) President Bush has racked up a series of significant political victories in recent weeks, on surveillance reform, war funding and an international agreement on global warming, but only after engaging in the kind of conciliation with opponents that his administration has often avoided. With less than seven months left in office, Bush is embracing such compromises in part because he has to. Faced with persistently low public approval ratings, a Democratic Congress and wavering support among Republicans, he

and his aides have given ground on key issues to accomplish broader legislative and diplomatic goals, according to administration officials, legislative aides and political experts. "To get something done or to get what you want or most of what you want, you've got to compromise," said Nicholas E. Calio, who served as Bush's first legislative affairs director. "The president and the White House are very focused on getting things done, and they don't abide the notion that he's a lame duck." Bush's willingness to compromise remains limited, and he has threatened to veto several key measures winding through Congress, from Medicare payments to housing reform. Yet any

hint of accommodation is notable for a president who has often pursued a confrontational strategy with Congress -- even when it was has been definite movement toward compromise," said Thomas E. Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution. "What you're seeing is a willingness to bend some when you're getting a broader objective. On other things, you finesse it." Two weeks ago, for in GOP hands -- and who has stood behind an unpopular war and go-it-alone policies abroad. "There hasn't been wholesale change, but there

example, Bush signed a $162 billion spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that he hailed as a product of bipartisan cooperation. But the final legislation was far more expensive than Bush had said he would accept, and it included expanded G.I. Bill college benefits and other provisions that he had opposed. A new surveillance bill signed into law Thursday also marked a significant victory for Bush, largely because the White House won legal immunity for telecommunications firms that helped in eavesdropping after the Sept. 11 attacks. Yet even there, the compromise legislation included reforms that the administration had initially opposed, including language making clear that the measure is the exclusive legal authority for government spying. The changes allowed the bill to easily overcome opposition from Democratic leaders and civil liberties groups. Bush's conciliatory mood extended to the Group of Eight summit last week in Japan, where the United States for the first time joined the other major industrialized countries in agreeing to try to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Although environmental groups said the deal lacked vital specifics, it marked a long journey for a U.S. president who came to office questioning the science of climate change.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

168

Politics-India Deal

***Internal Links – Lobbies***

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 169

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Internal Link—Sugar Lobby = Agenda The Sugar lobby is key to the agenda. Virata 4 (Gillian, Masters in International Policy and Practice from George Washington University, International Economic Studies Center, http://internationalecon.com/virata/The%20Effects%20of%20the%20US%20Sugar.pdf) Sugar growers have continuously lobbied to keep this program.and their benefits.in place. Since 1990, the sugar industry has given more than $20 million to both Democrat and Republican politicians in key positions. It is the largest agricultural industry donor to political campaigns even though it represents just 1% of U.S. farm receipts. Jose and Alfonso Fanjul, two brothers who own and operate Flo-Sun in Florida (America.s largest sugar cane growing and refining operation), raised nearly $1 million in softmoney donations for the 2000 election cycle. For the 2003.2004 election cycle, the sugar industry made direct donations of $940,000 to candidates for Congress and the presidency. Adding to the industry.s influence is the fact that Florida produces a quarter of U.S. sugar and Florida is a key state in presidential elections. Lobbying efforts by the sugar industry include having thousands of sugar beet farmers and refinery employees send petitions to the government, having Congressmen flood the administration with letters, warning agribusiness-related companies (like Caterpillar) that they will lose business if they support free trade, and rallying other agricultural trade associations to fight FTAs.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

170

Politics-India Deal

Internal Link—Farm Lobby = Agenda The Farm lobby has congress in their pocket—the plan would create significant congressional opposition Sustainable Table 8 (http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/policy/) Like so many other industries that hope to influence law-makers in Washington, DC, agribusiness uses its enormous financial power to influence government decisions. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, agribusinesses contributed more than $381 million to the election campaigns of federal candidates and incumbents between 1990 and 2006.xx This figure is higher than that of the total donations over the same time period by several other powerful industries, such as transportation ($330 million),xxi defense ($108 million)xxii and energy/natural resources ($384 million). Where does all this money go? A considerable portion of agribusiness money ends up in the pockets of politicians who have the most control over agricultural policy, including members of the House and Senate agriculture committees. Since the 2000 election cycle, agribusiness has contributed more than $120 million to Congress, $88.9 million of which has gone to the re-election campaigns of congressional incumbents.xxiv Agribusiness contributions also go to members of the House Committee on Agriculture, xxv as well as to members of the Senate’s Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee.xxvi A report released in June 1996 revealed the agribusiness industry’s lobbying efforts for the (deceptively titled) Food Quality Protection Act, a bill that aimed to loosen federal pesticide regulations. In order to push this legislation through, 203 interested corporations joined together as the “Food Chain Coalition,” and donated $13.4 million to members of Congress between November of 1992 and June of 1996. Of the $9.3 million given to members of the House of Representatives, 73 percent went to the legislators that co-sponsored the Food Quality Protection Act’s bill, and members of the House Commerce Committee (which has control over pesticide legislation). Each House Commerce Committee member received $11,300 more than the average co-sponsor in the House, and two and a half times more than committee members who did not support the bill.xxvii Not surprisingly, the Food Quality Protection Act was passed in 1996.xxviii

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

171

Politics-India Deal

***Internal Links – Nuke Deal***

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

172

Politics-India Deal

Internal Link—Political Capital = Nuke Deal (1/2) Bush needs all of his limited political capital to get the India deal through—this assumes their political capital low arguments Chicago Tribune, 06 (March 3, l/n) Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, predicted that Bush can win approval if he presses Congress hard enough. "But with Bush much weaker than he has been, including in the national security area, and with Iran looming as a nuclear problem, this one will be a tougher sell," Ornstein said. "I think he gets it in the end, but he will probably have to spend more of his limited political capital than he would like." Baker Spring, a research fellow in national security at the Heritage Foundation, agreed. "The reaction in Congress will be cautious," he said. "However, I think it is more likely than not that Congress will approve the deal."

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 173

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Internal Link—Political Capital = Nuke Deal (2/2) Political capital is key to the India deal Economic Times 7 (July 22,http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/USIndia_nuke_deal_All_set_to_go/articleshow/2224071.cms) But at all times, diplomats said, they were conscious of the political will on both sides to consummate the controversial deal that has critics on both sides. That hard-fought 123 Agreement, still under wraps except for broad outlines, will now be presented before India's Cabinet Committee on Security for a final seal of approval and to the U.S. Congress for a yes-no vote before things start rolling. Officials declined to speak on record about the details of the 123 agreement, but the broad picture sources offered suggests both sides made important concessions to arrive at a mutually acceptable text sans square brackets. From India's side, there was never any doubt that it would win the right to reprocess spent fuel from the moment it made the offer – a concession - of setting up a dedicated safeguards facility. The more contentious portion of the agreement related to sanctions and the 'right of return' of materiel and technology in the event of India conducting a nuclear test – a congressionally mandated law that Washington said it could not overwrite. Instead, sources suggested without getting into details, the agreement included language to work around this situation. The language, which Indian negotiators ensured would preclude a repeat of the Tarapur episode, when US invoked sanctions despite guarantees, is to New Delhi's satisfaction. One key element in the negotiations that finalised the deal was the direct involvement of representatives from India's scientific establishment. Dr R.B.Grover, Director of Strategic Planning Group in the Department of Atomic Energy, participated in the technical talks and ran the developments by Dr Anil Kakodkar, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. Kakodkar did not take part in the talks directly, but was a major backroom presence. While the political establishment hopes that this show of consensus will mollify dissenters in the scientific community, the government itself faces the tough task of getting its allies and the opposition on board. That is why, sources said, it was decided that 123 Agreement would not be released before the CCS had discussed it and the government had briefed allies and key opposition leaders. In Washington, administration officials are expected to brief key law-makers and their aides on the agreement and bring it up for a final vote soon. The country's vocal non-proliferation community is expected to raise hell as usual about concessions to India. But the vote in Congress will be a straight up-down, yesno vote with no amendments allowed, so the administration expects to get it done without too much trouble.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

174

Politics-India Deal

Internal Link—Bush Pushing Nuke Deal Reuters 7-24 (Sue Plemming, “Rice says will push Congress hard on India deal,” 2008, http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080724/pl_nm/india_nuclear_rice_dc_1) PERTH, Australia (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday the Bush administration would push the U.S. Congress hard to agree to a civilian nuclear deal with India before President George W. Bush leaves office.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 175

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Internal Link—Political Capital = Nuke Deal Political Capital is Key to the Deal Financial Times 7 (7-22, l/n) The Indian and US governments are separately grappling with differences that remain over nuclear co-operation after four days of talks in Washington, which officials said had made “substantial progress” without necessarily bridging the thorniest gaps. At the end of what Manmohan Singh, Indian prime minister, called the “last leg” of negotiations, diplomats said the future of the deal depended on the political capital both governments would spend to sell it to their constituencies. The talks went two days over schedule. In a short joint statement in Washington, negotiators said they were “pleased with the substantial progress made on the outstanding issues” – a formulation that has been used before. They gave no details about how – or whether – significant differences had been bridged. US officials have periodically expressed frustration with what they see as India’s stubborn approach. In particular India has tried to get Washington to climb down from its insistence that all civil nuclear co-operation would be suspended if India conducted another round of nuclear weapons tests. There has been stalemate for months over the deal, which would give India access to US nuclear fuel and reactors for the first time in 30 years. In return, India – considered a pariah after its 1998 test and refusal to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty – would subject its civilian nuclear programme to unprecedented international inspections. “We will now refer the issue to our governments for final review,” the joint statement said. “Both the United States and India look forward to the completion of these remaining steps and to the conclusion of this historic initiative.” An Indian official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: “The negotiators have done what they needed to do, in terms of probably reaching an agreement on the major issues. But the political masters will naturally need time to look at it.” The only official comment came from India’s external affairs minister, Pranab Mukherjee. “The work of the negotiators is over,” he told reporters. “Now, they will let us know what transpired. The government will then decide.” Securing the civil nuclear deal is a priority for the flagging Bush administration. A strategic partnership with a large country that is seen as a counterbalance to China in Asia would be a foreign policy success. Ending decades of nuclear isolation is a key goal for India, whose fast-growing economy faces acute energy shortages. New Delhi is also under pressure to reduce carbon intensity and slow the rise in emissions.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

176

Politics-India Deal

Internal Link—Democrats Key Nuke Deal Democrats are bipartisan now but remain skeptical of the deal easy for them to switch Thaindian News 8 (March 14, http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/now-itsus-speakers-turn-to-talk-n-deal_10027459.html) Despite its ritualistic reiterations from time to time voicing bipartisan support for the deal, some sections in the Democratic Party continue to be critical of the deal which they feel grants India too much in return for too little. The critics also contend that the deal compromises the US’ commitment to non-proliferation by making a one-time exception for India, which has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to resume civil nuclear commerce with the world. Former US president Bill Clinton, spouse of Hillary Clinton, a leading contender for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 presidential bid, Thursday pointed out this when he said the deal could have been stronger on the non-proliferation side. Democrat support is key to get the bill through Thaindian News 8 (March 11, ttp://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/indianamerican-seeks-early-action-on-n-deal_10026132.html) “The only question left is whether the US Congress will be able to accommodate the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government,” Mago told IANS during a visit to Washington. Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had recently set a July deadline for Congress to consider it before it goes into election mode. “Even though it will be very difficult, we feel it can be done because the option of waiting for a few more years to bring India out of nuclear isolation is also unthinkable,” added Mago who is credited with winning almost 40 percent of the cosponsors for the US enabling law. “Hopefully Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi will provide their crucial support to get it through their respective chambers,” he said expressing optimism that the landmark agreement will be finalised this year.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

177

Politics-India Deal

Internal Link—Republicans Key Nuke Deal Republicans can shift on the deal unpopular Bush policies make them less likely to support Kaplan 6 (Fred, Famous political anaylist, March 1, http://www.slate.com/id/2137105/) Maybe Bush had grown accustomed to plowing over international treaties when they didn't suit his wishes. No doubt he figured Congress could be prodded into passing whatever laws he demanded in the name of national security. But that was then. Two things have changed in the months since. First, the Republican Congress—buffeted not only by Bush's plummeting popularity but also by his diminished credibility on security matters in the wake of the Dubai Ports controversy—may not be as accommodating on Indian nukes as it once might have been. Second, as Bush adjusted to his new position by setting some restrictions on the deal, the highly nationalistic Indian parliament rebelled by demanding no strings whatever. Bush wants India to let the IAEA inspect all 17 of its currently unmonitored civilian reactors; the Indian government, responding to its own domestic pressures, has offered inspection of just four. Maybe Bush will reach a compromise with India this week—in which case he'll then have the rest of the world to contend with. Or maybe he won't make the deal—in which case the prospect of a global partnership might collapse before it's been born. It was probably a mistake to make the nuclear promise—which impinges on so many other countries' interests—the deal's centerpiece. Or, if that was inevitable, it was definitely a mistake to let the deal go forward without bringing any of these other countries in on the discussion. It was a mistake not to think even one move ahead. Bush appeasing republicans is key to deal passage Lele 6 ( Ajey, March 22, http://www.ipcs.org/India_articles3.jsp?action=showView&kValue=1975&keyArticle=1010& status=article) This rift between the Republicans and Bush is of great significance to India because it is depending on Bush to convince his Republican colleagues to steamroll their 'historical' nuclear deal. The 'rendezvous' between Bush and the Republicans is not cozy in his second term in the office. They have clashed in recent weeks on the President's policies. Bush's candidate to fill a vacant US Supreme Court seat stoked considerable debate and there were problems in deciding the best way forward to address the thorny issue of illegal immigration. Many Republicans also tried to corner the President on his controversial domestic eavesdropping programme, accusing it of breaching rights of privacy. On the economic front Republicans are dissatisfied with the President's fiscal policies with the budget deficit reaching an all-time high. On the international front Republicans are not happy with the President's Iraq policy. Interestingly, they had supported him for invading Iraq. But now, sensing the American mood they are criticizing the administration for not formulating a clear-cut exit plan strategy. On the Iran issue they have not made any specific comments, but seem to be following a 'wait and watch' approach. Considering these realities it is unclear whether the Congress will support Bush's new nuclear vision for India.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

178

Politics-India Deal

Internal Link—Bipartisanship Key Nuke Deal Maintaining bipartisanship is key to passage of the India Deal Thaindian news 8 (March 1, http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/india-has-30days-to-act-on-nuke-deal-burns_10022891.html) “Well, I think it’s important to note that the US Congress will go out of session in July 2008, and, if you back up from there, and try to estimate the time that it will take for the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to act, we do need the Indian Government to act in the next 30 days on the IAEA process in order to move the other pieces forward. I think that’s the point Senator Joseph Biden was trying to make to media when he was in New Delhi last week,” Burns said in an interview on Friday. After fulfilling these requirements India needs a final approval from the U.S. Congress, where it enjoys bipartisan support. But, time is running out for its legislative calendar is very short ahead of the November 4 elections in the United States. Burns said the US is keen to broaden relations with India in various fields, but this depends on the deal being signed. “I think we still retain bipartisan support. We have strong Republican and Democratic party support. There’s a great sense in our country that we have an opportunity to build a relationship with India across the board, not just in the civil nuclear domain, but also in agriculture, education, in space research. And so, we want to get on with that, and we want to fulfil the potential that this relationship has on a global basis, and that’s certainly in the interest of both the countries,” he said. Maintaining Bipartisanship is key to congressional ratification The Hindu 7-28 (http://www.hindu.com/2008/06/28/stories/2008062853981000.htm) New Delhi should learn from the way the much-maligned Bush administration has handled the deal domestically — by forging an impressive political consensus. The Hyde Act was the product of such consensus-building and political co-option, with the administration holding closed-door briefings for lawmakers and allowing its three-anda-half-page bill to be turned into a 41-page, conditions-stacked legislation. Bipartisan support also holds the key to the deal eventually winning congressional ratification. In India, the deal ought not to be turned into a partisan issue, for it will have to be implemented well after the present government’s term.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

179

Politics-India Deal

***India Deal Top-Level Aff Stuff***

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

180

Politics-India Deal

AFF UQ: Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link Uniqueness overwhelms the link—there is no chance that the deal fails Horner 7-14 (Danielle, Nuclear Fuels, “Progress on India deal may be too late for Congress to act this year,” pg. 9, vol. 33, l/n) Nevertheless, a congressional staffer said, there is "no chance" that Congress won't ultimately approve the agreement. After the "whole world" — as represented by the IAEA and the NSG — has endorsed the idea of renewed nuclear trade with India, Congress would be seen as "isolating" the US, said the staffer, who has been skeptical of the agreement. "There is no incentive not to approve it once everything else is done," he said. There’s overwhelming bipartisan support for the India deal. Party leaders on both sides have expressed interest in getting the deal through Kazi 7 (Reshmi, Mainstream Weakly, “Lame Duck Session: Why US Senate Must Pass Civilian Nuclear Deal,” April 24, Volume XLIV, No.48, http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article43.html) The Indo-US nuclear deal enjoys overwhelming bipartisan consensus within the Congress. In July 2006, the Republicans had overwhelmingly voted in favour of the deal. In the present mid-term polls all major Democratic leaders have ‘publicly’ expressed their support for the Bill. Key Democratic leaders in the Senate like Joseph Biden, Harry Reid, Bill Frist, Richard Lugar and John Kerry adhere to their earlier position on the civilian energy deal even after the elections. There is no reason to believe that these Democrats would prefer to delay or kill the Bill which they themselves are backing very hard. The general perception that the Democrats are going to nuke the deal is therefore not correct. It will pass in the next administration—overwhelming bipartisan support Wilson 7-25 (Joe, United States Congressmen, http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080058654) My view is that, even if it does not make it through due to time constraints this year, we will proceed next year. I am confident that there would be a strong support. I also want to give a great deal of credit for this to the Indian American community. We have 2.2 million people of Indian ancestry in the United States. They are fully assimilated and very active in the American society. They have the highest per capita income of any immigrant group in the United States. They are leading business people. They are leading members of civic organizations and they have truly contacted their members of the Congress and made it truly a bi-partisan effort that we achieved by having Democrats and Republicans supporting the issue. I think, much of it relates to the influence of the Indian American community as much as the understanding it is very important for the United States to help develop and build on the partnership that has been established between the United States and India.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

181

Politics-India Deal

AFF UQ: Won’t Pass—Many Reasons Even with the Indian Vote, passage of the deal is unlikely—too many obstacles Gulf News 7-24 (“Firing the Critical Mass,” 2008) But in its enthusiasm to push ahead with the deal, the Indian government - and the nation - is now entering unpredictable territory. Despite the widely held belief that signing up to the so-called 123 Agreement will safeguard India 's energy security and act as a buffer against oil market volatilities, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the nuclear watchdog which must clear the deal, has never been known to promise uninterrupted supplies of uranium to keep India 's nuclear reactors running. In fact India will always be dependent on the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) - a collection of nations that monitors the sale of nuclear technology - for its uranium imports, and this is likely to emerge as a key point of contention as the deal goes into advanced stages of approval. Then there's the Hyde Act. This was specially enacted in 2006 to exempt India from fulfilling certain requirements of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and enable the India -US deal. The exemptions and Congressional approval are however, subject to an enormous number of clauses and conditions, including proof that " India is taking the necessary steps to secure nuclear and other sensitive materials and technology..." (Section 104/a/6). In fact the sections are replete with scenarios that could in theory impact India 's foreign policy and jeopardise regional geopolitics, no matter whether Delhi comes up with its own counter act. And then there's the real cost benefit of nuclear power. Currently nuclear power is estimated to account for about 3 per cent of India 's total power output. If new reactors go critical without any time overrun, it could account for nearly 10 per cent of the total production by 2020. However, producing nuclear power is not cheap, at least compared to thermal power in India . Unless future governments draw up a comprehensive energy policy to optimise power generation, the dream Sonia Gandhi bubbled out in Nellore would remain just that. All these concerns, however, would remain mere hypotheses if the logistics of pushing the deal through doesn't work out. New Delhi plans to take the deal to the IAEA board by August and subsequently to the NSG. The deal then needs to be signed by the US Congress to become a law. The new Democrat-controlled Congress could be lukewarm to a deal backed by George W. Bush , and even if it relents, it must be in session for 30 continuous days to hold a final vote. Given that the Congress ends its session in September, it's now a race against time to keep the agreement alive. In fact a curious by-product of this deadline could be the scenario that the IAEA and NSG clear the deal but it stalls at the Congress: India could then potentially trade in nuclear technologies with other countries but not the US. It's thus a two-pronged challenge that Singh and his government must surmount - addressing some real concerns as India forges along with the deal, and preventing it from an untimely demise. The government's victory in the trust vote in parliament is only the beginning of what promises to be a long and critical journey for India in its quest for energy security, and it'll surely need to watch its steps.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

182

Politics-India Deal

AFF UQ: Obama Passes India Deal Now isn’t key—Congressional Leadership and Obama would push the deal after the election Jha 7-25 (Lalit, NDTV, “Hurdles still in N-deal's way: US lawmaker,” http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080058649) It would. But I think, much of the leadership and membership that passed it would be here once again in the new Congress including I hope Senator Barack Obama who would be President Barack Obama, who passed it and voted for it on the floor of the Senate. I think there are strong indications that that should not be an issue of concern. I think we want to do it in a deliberate way, we do not want to rush through in doing thing.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

183

Politics-India Deal

***India Deal – I-P NW Impacts***

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

184

Politics-India Deal

Impacts – Indo-Pak NW (1/2) India-Pakistan war causes nuclear winter and extinction Fai 1 (Ghulam Nabi, Kashmiri American Council; July 8, Washington Times)

The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with a unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclearcapable India and Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. This apocalyptic vision is no idiosyncratic view. The Director of Central Intelligence, the Department of Defense, and world experts generally place Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries. Both India and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and advanced delivery vehicles. Their defense budgets are climbing despite widespread misery amongst their populations. Neither country has initialed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or indicated an inclination to ratify an impending Fissile Material/Cut-off Convention. India-Pakistan war would trigger nuclear winter Nabi Fai; Kashmiri American Council 01 (Ghulam; July 8, 2001 (Washington Times) The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with a unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. This apocalyptic vision is no idiosyncratic view. The Director of Central Intelligence, the Department of Defense, and world experts generally place Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries. Both India and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and advanced delivery vehicles. Their defense budgets are climbing despite widespread misery amongst their populations. Neither country has initialed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or indicated an inclination to ratify an impending Fissile Material/Cut-off Convention.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

185

Politics-India Deal

Impacts – Indo-Pak NW (2/2) Indo-Pakistani conflict goes nuclear Deane`2 (John Deane, Chief Political Correspondent, PA News, KASHMIR CONFLICT 'COULD SPIRAL INTO NUCLEAR WAR', May 27, 2002, Lexis)

The bitter dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir could escalate into a nuclear confrontation, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw warned today. In a speech at the German foreign ministry in Berlin Mr Straw, who is en route to a visit to India and Pakistan, underlined the gravity of the situation. Mr Straw cautioned: "The current tension, and the build-up of military forces in Kashmir, could all too easily spiral out of control into a conventional, and then nuclear conflict of a kind we have never seen before. "We sometimes add the words 'incalculable risks' in such circumstances. But whilst we cannot be precise, the risks are all too easy to describe. Death, destruction, disease, economic collapse, affecting not just the immediate war theatre but many parts of the subcontinent and lasting for years. "So it is imperative that a better way out of this conflict is found; a way that sees the end of cross-border terrorism and the support for all forms of terrorism; then a de-escalation of military preparedness; then a constructive dialogue to resolve this longstanding bilateral argument over this beautiful but benighted area of Kashmir." The conflict will go nuclear Khan`4(Khurshid Khan 2004 Most recent cited source is from 11/30/04 “Limited War Under the Nuclear Umbrella and its Implications for South Asia” General Staff Officer Grade 1 in the Arms Control and Disarmament Affairs Directorate, Strategic Plans Division, JSHQ, Pakistan. http://www.stimson.org/southasia/pdf/khurshidkhan.pdf)

Since the creation of India and Pakistan, both countries have been involved in several conflicts that continue to pose the risk of inadvertent war. These conflicts include the Kashmir dispute, territorial disputes such as Siachen, a nuclear arms race, and water disputes. Unlike in the past, any future war between the two countries, no matter how limited it might be, will have the potential to escalate into a full-scale nuclear war in light of the changed strategic environment. Although the nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan in May 1998 have radically changed the strategic landscape in South Asia, nuclear weapons have yet to assure strategic stability in South Asia despite tall claims by various quarters. The question of stability in South Asia cannot be isolated from global conventional and nuclear weapons policies. The US, Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, and to some extent Russian equation constitute a nuclear chain affecting not only the stability of South Asia but also that of other regions.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

186

Politics-India Deal

Impacts – Indo-Pak NW – A2: Limited Even a limited nuclear exchange kills billions Times of India 10/4/07 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Indo-Pak_nuclear_war_could_cause_one_billion_starvation_deaths/articleshow/2428228.cms

LONDON: A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would not only have catastrophic affects in these two countries or their neighbours, but it could cause one billion people to starve to death across the world. Hundreds of millions of more would die from disease and conflicts over food in the aftermath of any such war. US medical expert Ira Helfand will on Thursday present this horrifying scenario in London during a conference at the Royal Society of Medicine. "A limited nuclear war taking place far away poses a threat that should concern everyone on the planet," the New Scientist magazine quoted Helfand as saying. "It is appropriate, given the data, to be frightened," said Helfand, who is an emergencyroom doctor in Northampton, Massachusetts, US, and a co-founder of the US anti-nuclear group, Physicians for Social Responsibility. Helfand has tried to map out the global consequences of India and Pakistan exploding 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear warheads. Referring to earlier studies that have suggested that in such a conflict, the annual growing season in the world's most important grain-producing areas would shrink by between 10 and 20 days, he said that the world is ill-prepared to cope with such a disaster. "Global grain stocks stand at 49 days, lower than at any point in the past five decades," he said, adding: "These stocks would not provide any significant reserve in the event of a sharp decline in production. We would see hoarding on a global scale." Countries, which import more than half of their grain, such as Malaysia, South Korea and Taiwan, would be particularly vulnerable, along with 150 million people in north Africa, which imports 45 percent of its food, Helfand said. Many of the 800 million around the world who are already officially malnourished would also suffer, he added. He went on to say that the global death toll from a nuclear war in Asia "could exceed one billion from starvation alone." Food shortages could also trigger epidemics of cholera, typhus and other diseases, as well as armed conflicts, which together could kill "hundreds of millions". Helfand further told the magazine that the smoke would warm the stratosphere by up to 50°C, accelerating the natural reactions that attack ozone. "No-one has ever thought about this before...I think there is a potential for mass starvation," he cautioned. Endorsing Helfand’s views, John Pike, director of the US think tank, globalsecurity.org, said the fallout from a nuclear war between India and Pakistan "would be far more devastating for other countries than generally appreciated." "Local events can have global consequences," he added.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

187

Politics-India Deal

***India Nuke Deal Good***

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

188

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – US/India Relations (1/3) The deal is critical to U.S.-India Relations Schaffer, Center for Strategic & International Studies South Asia Program director & former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia 7-12-07

(Teresita, YALE GLOBAL, July 12, 2007, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=9386) The US opposed India’s nuclear policy, especially after the 1998 test of an explicitly military nuclear device. India saw the Indian Ocean as its own “security space,” and looked with a jaundiced eye on other powers, including the US, maintaining a regular military presence there. Ironically, the nuclear test provided the occasion for India and the US to have their first serious discussion about respective strategic perspectives and what would make the world a safer place. This dialogue ultimately did not change either country’s fundamental approach to nuclear proliferation. But it did lead the US to accept that it must deal with India as a nuclear power. It also led both countries to recognize a common interest in preventing the spread of nuclearweapons technology. The test set the stage for changes during the 21st century: the simplification of US procedures for exports of non-nuclear high technology that India wanted to buy and the agreement making possible India-US civil-nuclear cooperation, which had been off limits for nearly 30 years. The US Congress passed legislation authorizing the agreement, and the understanding now makes its way through a multi-layered implementation process. This agreement has caused heartburn both in the US and India and, if implemented, will lead to major adjustments in the nonproliferation institutions that the US painstakingly built over the last 40 years. Still, the agreement should be supported for two reasons: First, removing India from the list of “nuclear outlaws” is an essential step in securing India’s energetic participation in preventing the spread of nuclear-weapons technology. Second, the US could not have developed a real partnership with India – one that could stabilize Asia and strengthen the region’s democratic orientation – without breaking the nuclear taboo. India deal is vital to the bilateral relationship – any rejections afterwards would devastate relations. Levi & Ferguson 6 Fellows for Science & Technology @ the Council on Foreign Relations (Michael A. & Charles D., 6/16, “U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation A Strategy for Moving Forward” ttp://www.cfr.org/publication/10795/usindia_nuclear_cooperation.html)

Since then, though, the dynamics have shifted. In the immediate aftermath of the U.S.-India deal, Russia supplied India with uranium for two reactors at Tarapur, partially alleviating near-term pressures for outside sources of nuclear fuel. More fundamentally, the high-profile announcement of a U.S.-India nuclear deal has changed the choices available to American policymakers. If Congress blocks cooperation after the Bush administration has made strong and public commitments to India, it would damage the bilateral relationship. Rejecting the nuclear deal now would leave the United States in a substantially worse position than had that deal not been made in the first place, reinforcing unfortunate Indian perceptions of the United States not only as antiIndian but also as an unreliable partner. The U.S. Congress, of course, should not defer passively to the president, nor should it allow the effect of its actions on U.S.-India relations to trump all nonproliferation concerns. But the new reality should make it think carefully about its nonproliferation priorities and about precisely how those intersect with the U.S.-India deal. Fortunately, a rebalancing of the deal is possible, protecting nonproliferation needs without sacrificing the U.S.-Indian relationship—as long as the administration and India show a small amount of flexibility in moving forward.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

189

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 190

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – US/India Relations (2/3) Reversal of deal kills relations Hindu 7-16-7 ('Major US firms ready to lobby for Indo-US nuke deal', “ http://www.thehindu.com/holnus/001200707160325.htm, accessed 716-8)

”This deal is very very important to both countries," Bill Begert, vice-president at Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Co., which hopes to supply engines for the fighter-jet deal, is quoted as saying. "If this falls apart, it will have real near-term consequences for everyone in the defence industry." Pakistan presents another foreign-policy wrinkle, the Journal says, adding any advances in India's nuclear capabilities could further unsettle the government of President Pervez Musharraf, currently beset by countrywide protests after he cracked down on the judiciary and pro-Taliban Lal Masjid in Islamabad. Pakistan also had sought similar consideration from Washington, but was rebuffed. Many US lawmakers, the Journal says, also have vowed to oppose any deal that loosens restrictions on how India can use US-provided nuclear fuel. The stakes are high for Bush's embattled foreign policy, it added, stressing that aides often cite the thawing of relations with India as a key accomplishment of his presidency at a time of deep frustration in the Middle East and rising tensions with powers such as Russia and China. The nuclear deal, they say, is key to cementing a partnership between the world's oldest democracy, the US, and its largest, India, after decades of chillness. Failure to implement the deal will crush relations HINDUSTAN TIMES 6 (1-4-6, http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1598242,00050001.htm) Any failure to implement the civil nuclear pact could hurt the US's vital interests and set the clock back on its strategic relations with India, former US Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill has warned. Blackwill's remarks, made during a talk at the US India Business Council in Washington, were clearly directed at Washington's non-proliferation lobby that is continuing it s all-out efforts to thwart the deal. "We are at a historic intersection in our relationship. Indians see this (the nuke deal) as a litmus test of American seriousness about developing a strategic partnership," he said adding that the Indians have "a long history of suspicion" on this score. Blackwill, currently the president of Barbour Griffith and Rogers International, one of the top lobbying firms, went on to say that non-implementation of the pact could prove to be "very damaging" for US's vital interests in the decades ahead. Bush has heavily touted the deal – reversal would collapse reliable relations Levi Council on Foreign Relations Science & Technology Fellow 7 (Michael, U.S.-INDIA NUCLEAR COOPERATION: A STRATEGY FOR MOVING FORWARD, 2007, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10795/usindia_nuclear_cooperation.html) Since then, though, the dynamics have shifted. In the immediate aftermath of the U.S.-India deal, Russia supplied India with uranium for two reactors at Tarapur, partially alleviating near-term pressures for outside sources of nuclear fuel. More fundamentally, the high-profile announcement of a U.S.-India nuclear deal has changed the choices available to American policymakers. If Congress blocks cooperation after the Bush administration has made strong and

public commitments to India, it would damage the bilateral relationship. Rejecting the nuclear deal now would leave the United States in a substantially worse position than had that deal not

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 191

Russell’s Lab Politics-India Deal been made in the first place, reinforcing unfortunate Indian perceptions of the United States not only as anti-Indian but also as an unreliable partner.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

192

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – US/India Relations (3/3) Nuclear deal is critical to smooth relations between US and India – we cannot risk relations Tellis, Senior Associate Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 06

(Ashley J. Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony April 26, 2006, p. Lexis) The question that is sometimes asked in this connection is whether a close U.S.-Indian partnership would be impossible in the absence of civilian nuclear cooperation. The considered answer to this question is "Yes." This is not to say that U.S.- Indian collaboration will evaporate if civilian nuclear cooperation between the two countries cannot be consummated, but merely that such collaboration would be hesitant, troubled, episodic, and unable to realize its full potential without final resolution of the one issue that symbolically, substantively, and materially kept the two sides apart for over thirty years. At a time when U.S.-Indian cooperation promises to become more important than ever, given the threats and uncertainties looming in the international system, the risk of unsatisfactory collaboration is one that both countries ought not to take.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

193

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – US/India Relations – Impact: Indo-Pak War US-India relations prevent India-Pakistan conflict Rashid 7 (Harun ur, Former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva. The Daily Star, Vol. 5, Num. 1118, July 23. http://www.thedailystar.net/2007/07/23/d70723020329.htm) The Bush administration's priorities are -- combating terrorism, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional stability, and the challenge posed by China. The list reflects the extent to which geography shapes politics and alliances. To the Bush administration, India's size, population, skills, resources, and potential can make a major contribution as a "global partner" with the US. India hopes that America can encourage President Musharraf to come to terms with India's geography, and advise him that Pakistan's security lies in cooperation, not confrontation, with India. The ultimate power relation between US and India, many suggest, depends on how far and to what extent the US is able to restrain and counsel Pakistan not to destablise India and, in turn, the region. Relations are key to preventing Indo-Pak war – they solve the Kashmir issue. Riedel 6 Senior Fellow @ Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution (Bruce, 12/18, Global Politics, “India and the United States: A New Era,” http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/riedel20061218.htm) Now that President Bush has built on this foundation, he should use the new strategic partnership to move beyond crisis management between India and Pakistan to try to help the two countries resolve the underlying issue that has brought them repeatedly to conflict: Kashmir. America has avoided dealing with the Kashmir issue for decades, both because of its complexities and because India opposed outside involvement, preferring to deal bilaterally with Pakistan. This approach has not worked; the problem has gotten worse and has repeatedly taken the subcontinent to the brink of disaster. Now is the time for quiet American diplomacy to exploit our stronger ties with India and our improved relations with Pakistan since 9/11 to try to resolve the Kashmir quarrel. It is in the self interest of all three nations to do so. The timing is particularly fortuitous since India and Pakistan have begun their own bilateral dialogue to improve relations since they were last at the brink of war in 2003. That dialogue has already produced some modest confidence-building measures in Kashmir but has not really engaged the underlying issues. Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf says he is ready to engage India on Kashmir and has put some interesting ideas on the table. He should be tested now by both the U.S. and India. Helping him resolve Kashmir would also help him end Pakistan's long relationship with jihadist terror groups which have dangerous relationships with al-Qaeda. If Kashmir moved toward peace, Pakistan could more easily put those groups out of business and isolate al-Qaeda. A deal should not threaten India's territorial integrity; rather it should focus on improving the Kashmiri's lives.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 194

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – Indian Economy/Warming The India deal is key to solving warming and stabilizing the Indian economy—outweighs the Kyoto Protocol Victor 6 (David, Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and Director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University, http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/16/opinion/edvictor.php) If the deal to supply India with nuclear technologies goes through, future generations may remember it for quite different reasons than the debate over nuclear proliferation. Nuclear power emits no carbon dioxide, the leading cause of global warming. And India, like most developing countries, has not been anxious to spend money to control its emissions of this and other so- called greenhouse gases. India is embracing nuclear power for other reasons - because it can help the country solve its chronic failure to supply the electricity needed for a burgeoning economy. But

in effect, the deal would marry their interest in power with ours in protecting the planet. India is growing rapidly. In recent years its economy has swelled at more than 7 percent per year, and many analysts believe it is poised to grow even faster in the coming decade. The economic growth is feeding a voracious appetite for electricity that India's bankrupt utilities are unable to satisfy. Blackouts are commonplace. Farmers, who account for about two-fifths of all the power consumed, can barely rely on getting power for half of every day. In industrial zones, the lifeblood of India's vibrant economy, unstable power supplies are such trouble that the biggest companies usually build their own power plants. So most analysts expect that the demand for electricity will rise at about 10 percent a year. (For comparison, U.S. power demand notches up at just 2 percent annually.) Over the past decade, about one third of India's new power supplies came from natural gas and hydro electricity. Both those sources have been good news for global warming - natural gas is the least carbon- intensive of all the fossil fuels, and most of India's hydroelectric dams probably emit almost no greenhouse gases. However, the

bloom is coming off those greenhouse-friendly roses. New supplies of natural gas cost about twice what Indians are used to paying, and environmental objections are likely to scupper the government's grand plans for new hydro dams. That leaves coal - the most carbon-intensive of all fossil fuels. Already more than half of India's new power supplies come from coal, and that could grow rapidly. Traditionally, the coal sector was plagued by inefficiencies. State coal mines were notoriously dangerous and inefficient. Coal-fired plants in western provinces, far from the coal fields and vulnerable to the dysfunctional rail network, often came within days of shutting operations due to

Private and highly efficient coal mines are grabbing growing shares of the coal market. Upgrades to the nation's high-tension power grid is making it feasible to generate electricity with new plants installed right at the coal mines. These improvements make coal the fuel to beat. So the deal struck with President George W. Bush matters. lack of coal. All that is changing.

At the moment, India has just 3 gigawatts of nuclear plants connected to the grid. Government planners envision that nuclear supply will grow to 30 GW over the next generation, but that will remain a fantasy without access to advanced nuclear technologies and, especially, nuclear fuels - such as those offered under the deal with the Bush administration. By

2020, even after discounting for the government's normal exuberance in its forecasts, a fresh start for nuclear power could increase nuclear generating capacity nearly ten-fold. By displacing coal, that would avoid about 130 million tons of carbon dioxide per year (for comparison, the full range of emission cuts planned by the European Union under the Kyoto Protocol will total just 200 million tons per year). The effort, if successful, would eclipse the scheme under the Kyoto Protocol, known as the Clean Development Mechanism, that was designed to reward developing countries that implement projects to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. The largest 100 of these CDM projects, in total, won't reduce emissions as much as a successful effort to help India embrace safe nuclear power.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

195

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – Indian Economy – India Key to World Strong Indian economy prevents global economic downturn. A strong Indian economy prevents economic downturns from going global De Sarkar 8 (Dipankar, IANS, January 23, http://www.twocircles.net/2008jan23/world_facing_recession_india_can_help_kamal_nath.html) Commerce and Industry Minister Kamal Nath Wednesday became the first political leader at the World Economic Forum (WEF) to warn of an impending US recession, but said strong growth in India and other Asian markets can help weather the storm of a global economic crisis. Nath, who is in a power packed Indian delegation of 80 attending the annual event in this snow-clad Swiss mountain resort, also coupled his comments with guarded optimism over the ongoing Doha round of trade talks that have been stalled in Geneva after developing and developed countries traded charges of protectionism. "I am optimistic this Davos will create a greater momentum towards the conclusion" of the Doha round, Nath said, adding: "But I am also realistic that there is an election in the US. I am realistic that Europe is in a new phase of protectionism. "This is the first time the world is looking at a possible recession with two engines of growth - India and China," Nath said in the first significant comment by a political leader to the 2,500 delegates gathered at the WEF. "No economy can totally decouple itself from the US," he, however, added. Although the US economy consumed goods and services worth $9.5 trillion last year, Nath said it would be important to see how much of that was wiped out by the "current crisis". But with greater South-South trade between developing countries, particularly India and China, he said: "the magnitude of the trade can't be the same as in the past. The minister's comments came as the role of India and China became a hot topic of discussion among the participants from 88 countries gathered in Davos. Among them are over 1,300 business leaders representing the top 1,000 companies of the world, 27 heads of state or government and 113 cabinet ministers Many are also looking at Indian delegation leader and Finance Minister P. Chidambaram, who arrives later Wednesday, for clues about possible Indian strategies to help tide over the worst of the financial crisis. Chidambaram said before arriving in Davis that the "fundamentals" of the Indian economy are strong, a statement that helped calm market sentiments after two days of stock market volatility Monday and Tuesday.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 196

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – Warming (1/2) The nuke deal sets a global precedent for effective solutions to warming Victor 6 (David, Director, Program on Energy and Sustainable Development Stanford University. Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, July 18. Online)

Until now, developing countries have adamantly refused to limit their emissions of greenhouse gases. These countries are wary that the possible high costs of climate change mitigation will jeopardize their development goals. The result of that opposition is the CDM—a system that compensates developing countries for the full extra cost of any policies to control emissions. The CDM was a good idea in principle, but in practice it is not working well. The scheme has become mired in red tape as countries and investors try to establish their baseline levels of emissions and the reduction in emissions from each project. (The difference between the baseline and the reduced level is the key to the CDM concept—that difference becomes a credit that can be used to offset emission obligations elsewhere in the world, such as in Europe’s emission trading system). The problems have encouraged gaming and they have caused CDM investors to focus on activities that are easy to quantify and which are marginal in nature. Indeed, energy projects account for just 17% of the CDM pipeline. Almost none of the energy projects are of the type that will lead to fundamental changes in countries’ energy systems.5 If the India nuclear deal is successful, it will frame a new approach to engaging developing countries in a climate strategy. This approach would focus on finding game-changing policies that align with reluctant countries’ interests.6 Rather than involving hundreds of small and marginal projects, this style of engagement would focus on just a handful of large pivotal actions involving just a few critical countries. This concept is incidentally at the core of the AsiaPacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, whose six members, including India and the U.S., account for half the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. That Partnership has promise, but it remains young. Success with this nuclear deal could offer a credible example of practical actions that the Partnership could encourage. The deal spills over and solves warming Victor 6 (David, Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and Director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University, http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/16/opinion/edvictor.php) What is important is that the deal is not just a one- off venture, as the administration's backers, on the defensive, have suggested. It could frame a new approach to technology sharing and managing a more proliferation-proof fuel cycle that, in turn, will multiply the benefits of a cooler climate. Coal-rich China is among the many other countries that would welcome more nuclear power and whose emissions of carbon dioxide are growing fast - even faster than India's. Quite accidentally, it seems, the Bush administration has stumbled on part of an effective strategy to slow global warming. Now it should marry that clever scheme overseas with an effective plan here at home.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

197

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – Warming (2/2) Nuke Deal revives the US nuclear industry Reuters 5 (August 2. www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=51911) After India tested nuclear weapons in 1998, Washington led international condemnation. But Bush has accelerated an embrace of the world's largest democracy. His aides say India shares US values, does not transfer nuclear technology to troublesome entities and desperately needs to expand its energy sources. Many officials also see India as a counterweight to China, and view the deal as an opportunity to revive a shaky US nuclear industry. Robert Einhorn, formerly the State Department's top non-proliferation official, said the strategic case for strengthening US-India relations has broad support. Nuclear power in the US can cause a drastic reduction in fossil fuel usage Moore 5 (Dr. Patrick PhD 10/19/, Nuclear Power: Statement to Congress http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:BDQv47YSQFcJ:greenspiritstrategies.blogspot.com/2005/ 10/nuclear-energy-dr-moores-statementto.html+US+nuclear+industry+revitalized&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1) Indeed, nuclear power is already a proven alternative to fossil fuels. The United States relies on nuclear power for some 20% of its energy needs, and produces nearly one-third of global nuclear energy. Despite its current limited supply, nuclear energy now provides the vast majority (76.2 per cent) of the US’s emission-free generation. In 2002, the use of nuclear energy helped the US avoid the release of 189.5 million tons of carbon into the air. In fact, the electric sector’s carbon emissions would have been 29 per cent higher without nuclear power. And while hydro, geothermal and wind energy all form an important part of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, without nuclear energy that reliance will likely never diminish. In 2002, carbon emissions avoided by nuclear power were 1.7 times larger than those avoided by all renewables combined. The impact of additional nuclear energy generation Nuclear energy has already made a sizeable contribution to the reduction of GHG emissions in America. But more must be done and nuclear energy is

pointing the way. A revitalized American nuclear energy industry, producing an additional 10,000 MW from power uprates, plant restarts and productivity gains could assist the electric sector to avoid the emission of 22 million metric tons of carbon per year by 2012, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute – that’s 21 per cent of the President’s GHG intensity reduction goal. While current investment in America’s nuclear energy

industry languishes, development of commercial plants in other parts of the world is gathering momentum. In order to create a better environmental and energy secure future, America must once again renew its leadership in this area.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

198

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – Russia-China Axis The India deal is key to preventing a Russia/China/India Axis Gobarev 00 (Victor, Independent Security Policy Analyst Based in Washington D.C., Previous Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center and George Washington University, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa381.pdf) The concerns that such a move would invite increased nuclear proliferation do not seem justified. Rogue countries currently working on acquiring nuclear weapons will continue to do so independently of U.S. recognition of India’s nuclear status. Moreover, many states, especially in the Third World, would welcome a conciliatory move as evidence that the United States wishes to pursue an equitable foreign and international security policy for all nations, not merely for developed countries. Britain, France, Russia, and China, the members of the nuclear club, are likely to follow the U.S. move. Russia and China would be outmaneuvered, since a crucial foreign policy and international security initiative dealing with India would have passed from them to America. That move would also deal a heavy blow to those in China, Russia, and India itself who dream of building the tripartite strategic alliance to oppose the United States. U.S. recognition of India as a nuclear power would remove the main obstacle to making America and India friends and de facto strategic partners. Such an initiative by Washington would likely mean India’s acceptance of U.S. proposals on nonproliferation of WMD technology and fissile materials. India would join international talks on ending the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and would install effective controls for nuclear-related materials. Those measures would reduce the threat of proliferation from India and begin U.S.-Indian cooperation on counterproliferation.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

199

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – Oil Prices The India deal is key to lowering oil prices—crucial to the economy Business Today 6 (March 26, L/N) If President Bush is able to get the deal ratified by the us Congress, India could be recognised as a nuclear power state without actually signing the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and be able to shop for enriched uranium and other nuclear fuel from any part of the world The US offer may seem charitable, given the fact that the US was the first to impose sanctions on India after it conducted its nuclear test in 1998, but it is not. Hawkish observers may see the move as an effort by the us to position India as a counterweight to China, but the "historic N-deal" signed on March 1 may have more to do with the us economy's energy security than a tweak in the dynamics of global power play. With a population of more than a billion and an economy growing at 7 to 8 per cent every year, India's demand for oil has not only been growing at 5 per cent or more every year but is likely to accelerate even more in the years to come. That can pose threats to the us economy, which is dependant on cheap oil to keep the wheels of its industry moving and help its citizens maintain relatively luxurious lifestyles. The journey of China (and now India) from economic poorhouse to powerhouse has an inherent impact on us energy security. Growing oil imports by the two can push the price of oil even higher than the record levels they are already at now. Both countries also have comfortable forex deposits that give them the capacity to pay for their growing oil import bills. By freeing up nuclear fuel supplies for India's civilian nuclear programme, the Indo-US deal, President Bush is only ensuring the continued prosperity of his own economy dependent as it is on the availability of abundant and cheap oil. Greater generation, distribution and use of nuclear power for India's own energy requirements could well be the panacea for the us economy of the future.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

200

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – US Nuclear Industry India nuclear deal key to US nuclear industry Motz and Milhollin 6 (Kelly & Gary, research assistant and Director. Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, June 13. http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/india/Seventeen_Myths.htm) Fact: The deal is primarily about making money. The main effect of the deal will be to pardon India – to remove it as a violator of international norms. After such a change in status, there will be no impediment to U.S. arms sales. This is where the real money is, not in nuclear reactors. U.S. exporters have mentioned selling as much as $1.4 billion worth of Boeing airliners, hundreds of F-16 or F/A-18 fighter jets, as well as maritime surveillance planes, advanced radar, helicopters, missile defense and other equipment. The Russian press has even complained that the nuclear deal is a ploy to squeeze Russia out of the Indian arms market.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

201

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – US Econ The India Deal is key to the US Economy and solving Trade Deficits. Fox News 6 (February 28, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186313,00.html) President Bush gets his first chance Wednesday to see the vast economic and social transformations that many say make India a key global partner for America. Fords and Chevrolets now compete for space on the streets with auto-rickshaws; young men and women tap away at keyboards, writing software code for American companies. Since Bush took office in 2001, India and the U.S. have made dramatic steps toward forging a strategic partnership after decades of Cold War animosity, a growing closeness that's based as much on trade as it is on politics. But the U.S. still imports far more from India than it exports, and it's clearly hoped that Bush's visit, which ends Saturday, will help even out a U.S. trade deficit with India that nearly doubled to over $10 billion between 2001 and 2005. A key step, many in the business community here believe, is a landmark nuclear agreement to provide India with much-needed nuclear fuel that stands as the cornerstone of the emerging alliance between New Delhi and Washington. Talks to finalize the deal have been held up over which of India's nuclear facilities are civilian and which are considered military. But officials on both sides say they are close and will press on even if the pact isn't finalized during Bush's visit. "We are doing very hard bargaining," Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran told reporters Monday. The deal would open new arenas for U.S. businesses in India, not just in potential nuclear sales but in a variety of high-technology products — from jets to rocket launchers to radars. "Once we have the nuclear deal, everything else will fall in place," said Tarun Das, a top official with the country's biggest business lobbying group, the Confederation of Indian Industry. "What we are going to see is a big agenda of cooperation on almost everything." India has been shopping big, from civilian airliners to military hardware, driven by aspirations to become a global power and the demands of an economy that is growing at 8 percent annually. But U.S businesses have received few of those orders. Mutual suspicion, rooted in frosty Cold War-era relations when India was seen as a Soviet ally, has long kept Indians from placing big military orders with U.S. companies. Washington's decision to impose sanctions after India held nuclear tests in 1998 further dampened ties. Although relations have rapidly warmed in recent years, U.S. companies have won few major Indian deals, especially in military hardware and high-technology equipment. American firms received less than $100 million in

"The potential is huge for them both in sales and production," Das said. The proposed nuclear agreement, announced during a visit by India's prime minister to Washington last July, has already helped translate the potential into reality. The first signs of serious change came when the Indian Air Force shortlisted Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boeing Co. as potential suppliers for 126 new fighter jets it plans to buy. India has never used a U.S-made combat aircraft. "One reason we are here is because we hope the strategic relationship will continue to grow," Lee Whitney, a Lockheed vice president, said during a recent defense show in New Delhi that drew more American weapons makers than ever before. But military purchases are just one aspect of the new economic ties. Last month, state-run carrier Air India placed an order to buy 68 planes from Boeing Co. in a deal valued at $11 billion. "The Air India deal is only one example. There will be many others," said Montek Singh Ahluwalia, one of the prime minister's top economic advisers. As India modernizes its aging infrastructure to sustain its economic boom, it is expected to spend about $150 million annually on everything from roads to bridges to airports. "It would be very surprising to me if as a result of that (modernization) process the United States did not get a fair share of the additional orders," military orders out of the $12 billion that India spent on defense purchases last year.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 202

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – AT: Pollution Nuclear power plants emit less radiation than coal plants, they’re harmless Hiserodt, aerospace engineer, 8 (Ed, “Myths About Nuclear Energy”, The New American. April 30, Vol. 23, Iss. 9; pg. 18, 6 pgs, Proquest)

MYTH: Nuclear plants emit dangerous radiation TRUTH: Have you ever known anyone killed in a car accident? I have - two uncles, a roommate, and a girlfriend from college. How about anyone killed from radiation, or maybe even injured slightly? If you're like me and nearly all other Americans, you can't name a single person you know who has been injured by radiation. The fact is, nuclear power plants emit less radiation during normal operation than do coal-fired power plants. In an article published in 1993 in Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review, ORNL physicist Alex Gabbard pointed out "that coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment." According to Gabbard, radiation from coal combustion "is 100 times that from nuclear plants." Yet even at that level, radiation from coal is completely negligible. Nuclear reactors emit much less radiation than coal-fired power plants. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission limits radiation at the plant boundary to 5 millirems per year. (It seldom gets anywhere near that.) If you were to stand unclothed at the boundary for 120 years, you would receive as much radiation as a person living on the Colorado plateau does in one year from natural background radiation. Moreover, the U.S. capitol building has long been known to emit too much radiation to be licensed as a nuclear power plant. Consider too that unlike coal- or oil-fired plants, nuclear power plants do not have smokestacks spewing pollutants into the atmosphere. In the case of nuclear plants, the wastes are contained within the plant itself. Often mistaken for smokestacks, some nuclear power plants, like some coal- or oil-fired plants, have cooling towers that emit water vapor. Finally, it is important to keep in mind that radiation is all around us every day. According to the Department of Energy, the average American receives 300 millirems of radiation each year from natural sources, but that amount is higher in some places. For instance, in Denver, Colorado, because of the proximity of the Rocky Mountains and because there is less atmosphere overhead to protect from cosmic rays, residents receive almost double the national average background radiation. I wonder, does the EPA know about this? Perhaps Coloradans should be evacuated!

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

203

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – AT: Accidents (1/2) Nuclear fears unfounded; they’re based on old myths. The benefits outweigh the risks. Prefer our ev, it’s comparative Fortune, ’08 (The Case for Nukes, June 9, Vol. 157, Iss. 12; pg. 22. Proquest) One uncomfortable way to mitigate the energy crisis has been under our nose since the 1950s: nuclear energy. It's one of the cleanest and most efficient alternatives to coaland natural-gas-based electricity production, and it's responsible for less than 20% of domestic electricity production. The most recent numbers (2006) indicate that coalbased production was the largest contributor, at 48%. Increasingly expensive petroleum and natural gas account for 22%. All three are replaceable. It may not be fashionable to suggest that the French know what they're doing with regard to anything but wine and cheese, but spend some time in Provence and note the remarkably clean air and cheap electricity, 75% of which is produced by nuclear power plants. Most of the plants were built after the 1970s oil shocks that sent France's economy into a tailspin because it was almost completely dependent on foreign oil, as we are now. Nuclear energy doesn't produce the air pollution that burning coal does, and even waste products are recyclable, though it hasn't been done thanks to an also potentially shortsighted Carter-era decision to ban it over fears of nuclear terrorism. Although the ban has been reversed, the fears still linger. But irrational fear of improbable safety breaches is responsible for most opposition to nuclear power in this country. The unlikely culprit? Pop culture. We've seen The China Syndrome, and we worry that nuclearreactor employees may be bumbling Homer Simpsons, capable of accidentally pushing the red button. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island--the former of which killed 36 people and the latter of which killed none--have become so outsized in the American imagination that our perception of actual risk has been completely distorted. We're willing to tolerate the health risks and environmental repercussions of other fuels to avoid the infinitesimally small and comically improbable possibility of a catastrophic accident that resembles something out of a 1979 Jane Fonda movie, the likes of which have never happened in the history of nuclear power.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 204

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – AT: Accidents (2/2) Three Mile Island proves the safety mechs for NP plants, no injury or death occurred Hiserodt, aerospace engineer, 08 (Ed, “Myths About Nuclear Energy”, The New American. April 30, Vol. 23, Iss. 9; pg. 18, 6 pgs, Proquest)

TRUTH: The great nightmare associated with nuclear energy is the "meltdown." Anti-nuclear activists love to point to a scenario in which a reactor would lose its coolant allowing the fuel rods to melt through the reactor vessel, through several feet of high-strength concrete, and through hundreds of feet of earth till reaching an aquifer whereupon a steam explosion would ensue. Consequently, they eagerly seized upon the accident at Three Mile Island as the embodiment of all their fears - or at least of the fears they wanted the public to have. The problem was that Three Mile Island was a demonstration of the safety of nuclear plants. Beginning at 4:00 a.m. on March 28, 1979, a series of mishaps resulted in the partial meltdown of the reactor core. By 7:45 a.m. that morning, according to the Smithsonian Institute, "a molten mass of metal and fuel - some twenty tons in all - is spilling into the bottom of the reactor vessel." Yet that reactor containment vessel worked as designed and by 9:00 a.m. the danger was past: "The reactor vessel holds firm, and the molten uranium, immersed in water, now gradually begins to cool," the Smithsonian Institute says in its timeline of events at the damaged reactor. Perhaps the final word on Three Mile Island comes from Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore. In October 2006, Moore wrote in Popular Mechanics: "At the time, no one noticed Three Mile Island was a success story; the concrete containment structure prevented radiation from escaping into the environment. There was no injury or death among the public or nuclear workers."

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

205

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – A2: US-Pakistani Relations – A2: Terror No Pakistani support for WOT Landay 8 (Jonathan S., ational security and intelligence corresponden. McClatchy Newspapers, August 1. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/46178.html) The Bush administration and its allies are pressing Pakistan to end its support for Afghan insurgents linked to al Qaida, but Pakistani generals are unlikely to be swayed because they increasingly see their interests diverging from those of the United States, U.S. and foreign experts said. The administration sought to ratchet up the pressure last month by sending top U.S. military and intelligence officials to Pakistan to confront officials there with intelligence linking Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence to the Taliban and other militant Islamist groups. When that failed to produce the desired response, U.S. officials told news organizations about the visit, and then revealed that the intelligence included an intercepted communication between ISI officers and a pro-Taliban network that carried out a July 7 bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, the Afghan capital. The United States and Britain privately have demanded that Pakistan move against the Taliban's top leadership, which they contend is based near Quetta, the capital of Pakistan's Baluchistan Province, said a State Department official and a senior NATO defense official, who both requested anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly. Pakistan has been given "a pretty unequivocal message" to end ISI support for the militants and shake up the top ranks of the intelligence agency, the senior NATO defense official said. On Friday, however, Pakistan vehemently rejected the allegations of ISI involvement in the Indian Embassy blast, which killed 41 and injured 141. U.S. officials and experts said there's little chance that Pakistan will take any of the actions it's been asked to take.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 206

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – A2: Prolif Signal No serious risk of proliferation snowballing from the India Deal Carter 6 (Ashton, Poli Sci – Harvard, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2006. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/ 20060701faessay85403-p0/ashton-b-carter/america-s-new-strategic-partner.html. Accessed on July 29, 2008//grice) The most serious charge against the deal is that Washington, by recognizing India's de facto nuclear status and effectively rewarding noncompliance, hurt the integrity of the nonproliferation regime. There is no question that such an abrupt reversal of U.S. policy was a blow to nonproliferation efforts, but the damage is manageable and will not

affect the most worrisome near-term cases. To begin with, the impact of the Bush-Singh deal on so-called rogue states is likely to be minimal. It is safe to assume that as North Korea's Kim Jong Il calculates how far he can go with his nuclear breakout, he hardly worries about the internal consistency of the NPT regime (much like Saddam Hussein, who eventually stopped paying it any heed). Pyongyang's governing ideology is not communism so much as a fanatical embrace of autarky and selfreliance, which seems to include open defiance of international norms such as nonproliferation. North Korea's tolerance for ostracism by the international community is legendary. Stopping its nuclear program -- by measures short of war -- would require tough and focused diplomacy, with incentives and sanctions, in which the NPT would play little part. The India deal's impact on Iran, another country driving for nuclear power status, will

also be modest. Tehran's ongoing cat-and-mouse game with the IAEA, the United leaders have at least a smidgen of sensitivity to international opinion. India's nuclear recognition may give Tehran a new talking point -if India gets a free pass, why not Iran? -- but that is about it. Iran's nuclear program, like that of North Korea, has deep roots in the country's sense of insecurity and its national pride, and these factors matter far more than the NPT. Besides, because Tehran continues to claim that it seeks only States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany suggests that Iranian

nuclear power, not nuclear weapons, it would be hard-pressed to point to India as a relevant precedent. The deal's impact will mostly be felt among two other groups of countries: states that are not rogues but have flirted or continue to flirt with nuclear status ("the in-betweens") and states that faithfully uphold the rules, whether or not they have nuclear weapons ("the stalwarts"). South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, South Korea, Taiwan, and, more recently, Libya have all been in-betweens at some point. Although they eventually forwent nuclear weapons for reasons specific to their own circumstances, all of them were in some way swayed by the fear that they would suffer lasting international ostracism if they flouted the NPT regime. With India's sweet deal now suggesting that forgiveness comes to proliferators who wait long enough, some states might be tempted to stray. (Brazil, which is now trying to enrich uranium, comes to mind.)

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

207

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – A2: Proliferation – Safeguards Safeguards are in place to ensure nuclear materials and tech are not used for weapons WNN 8 (Nuclear Policies, July 10. http://www.meatami.com/ht/d/Articles/afterdays/7/pid/206) A draft copy of the document, dated 9 July, gives details of arrangements between India and the IAEA for the agency to ensure nuclear materials and technology meant for civil production of power are not used in India's nuclear weapons program. The document emerged at a crunch time for the US-India nuclear cooperation deal, which has been delayed by almost a year. Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh and US President George Bush declared in July 2005 they intended to work towards a position where India could engage in international nuclear trade. A key part of the US-India deal was the agreement that the USA would lead an initiative to request the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) make an exception for India from its normal rules. The NSG is a non-treaty organization which limits civil nuclear trade to signatories of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which India has rejected as unfair from the start. This US action was conditional on India voluntarily placing its civilian nuclear infrastructure under safeguards. Now, with the emergence of the safeguards agreement and the news that some of Singh's former political opponents have crossed the floor to support him, the US-India deal seems reinvigorated - even if time to pass enabling legislation before Bush leaves office is running very short. However, should the US-India deal fail, America would still be expected to act at NSG meetings with the support of other leading nuclear nations which are poised to conclude their own cooperation agreements with India. The safeguards agreement is ready for signature by Indian and IAEA representatives. India will abide by safeguards – current standards are in place WWN 8 (World Nuclear News, Aug 1. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_IAEA_considers_India_safeguards_0108082.html) Opening today's meeting, IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei said the draft, circulated since early July, "satisfies India's needs while maintaining all the agency's legal requirements." The agreement had been carefully negotiated since November 2007 and the board was able to wrap up its deliberations in just one day. It will implemented next year.

Almost every country in the world has a comprehensive nuclear safeguards agreement with the IAEA, which facilitates the agency's role to ensure civilian nuclear materials are not misused. All these were made under the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which India has consistently rejected since it opened for signature 40 years ago. The specific agreement between the IAEA and India will allow the country to place its civil nuclear plants under international observation in a series of tranches. Materials at six of India's nuclear power plants are safeguarded under pre-existing specific agreements with the IAEA. Today ElBaradei said these arrangements could be suspended, with the safeguards work continuing under the new agreement which he expects to cover 14 reactors by 2014. India has 17 reactors in operation now, with another six under construction. A wide safeguards agreement is an essential step in a project to allow India to buy and sell civilian nuclear power technology and fuel on the international market. Leading nuclear nations including Britain, France, Russia and the USA are ready to complete individual nuclear cooperation deals. In return for the safeguards the IAEA approved today, the USA has agreed to push for changes in the rules of the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which currently limits international trade to NPT signatories. India has already sent envoys to each of the NSG nations to garner support for the changes.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

208

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

209

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – A2: Indian Prolif India aligns with the G8 in support of the global non-proliferation regime IANS 8 (Indo-Asian News Service, 9 July. http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20080709/812/tnl-g8backs-india-nuclear-deal-stresses_1.html) Toyako (Japan), July 9 (IANS) In a clear sign that the India-US nuclear deal enjoys the support of key NSG countries, the G8 nations Wednesday came out in support of civil nuclear cooperation with India and hoped it will enhance the global non-proliferation regime. 'We look forward to working with India, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and other partners to advance India's nonproliferation commitments and progress,' the G8 chairman said in a statement at the end of the three-day summit held in the northern Japanese resort of Hokkaido-Toyako. The purpose, the statement underlined, was 'to facilitate a more robust approach to civil nuclear cooperation with India to help it meet its growing energy needs in a manner that enhances and reinforces the global non-proliferation regime'. India will not proliferate – clean record proves IANS 8 (The Penisula, 27 July. http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/ Display_news.asp?section=world_news&subsection=India&month=July2008&file=World_News2008072712454.xml)

Washington • Indirectly discounting Pakistan’s attempt to oppose India at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said India’s clean non-proliferation record would see the US-India nuclear deal through the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Speaking to journalists in Perth, Australia, on Friday, Rice said the agreement not only serves the interests of the US-Indian strategic relationship and that of India in terms of its needs for energy that is not hydrocarbons-based, but it also serves the interests of the non-proliferation regime. In a transcript of her remarks made available on the US Department of State website, Rice said: “India is not a party to the NPT (non-proliferation treaty), but the regime, the broader regime, is one in which even non-NPT states need to take certain obligations in terms of proliferation, and India has a good record in terms of proliferation.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

210

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good—Proliferation = Slow Even if capabilities for quick proliferation exist, actual proliferation will be slow Waltz 00 (Kenneth, Professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley, Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, Winter/Spring, http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/gjia/gjia_winspr00f.html) It is now estimated that about twenty–five countries are in a position to make nuclear weapons rather quickly. Most countries that could have acquired nuclear military capability have refrained from doing so. Most countries do not need them. Consider Argentina, Brazil, and South Africa. Argentina and Brazil were in the process of moving toward nuclear military capability, and both decided against it–wisely I believe–because neither country needs nuclear weapons. South Africa had about half a dozen warheads and decided to destroy them. You have to have an adversary against whom you think you might have to threaten retaliation, but most countries are not in this position. Germany does not face any security threats–certainly not any in which a nuclear force would be relevant. I would expect the pattern of the past to be the same as the pattern in the future, in which one or two states per decade gradually develop nuclear weapons.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 211

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good—Proliferation Deters War Proliferation deters large-scale regional war Karl 96 (David, PhD International Relations at the University of Southern California, “ “Proliferation Pessimism and Emerging Nuclear Powers,” International Security, Winter, /1997, p. 90-91) Although this school bases its claims upon the U.S-Soviet Cold War nuclear relationship, it admits of no basic exception to the imperatives of nuclear deterrence. Nothing within the school’s thesis is intrinsic solely to the superpower experience. The nuclear “balance of terror” is seen as far from fragile. Nuclear-armed adversaries, regardless of context, should behave toward each other like the superpowers during the Cold War’s “nuclear peace.” The reason for this near-absolute claim is the supposedly immutable quality of nuclear weapons: their presence is the key variable in any deterrent situation, because fear of their devastating consequences simply overwhelms the operation of all other factors.’Martin van Creveld alleges that “the leaders of medium and small powers alike tend to be extremely cautious with regard to the nuclear weapons they possess or with which they are faced—the proof being that, to date, in every region where these weapons have been introduced, large-scale interstate warfare has disappeared.” Shai Feldman submits that “it is no longer disputed that the undeclared nuclear capabilities of India and Pakistan have helped stabilize their relations in recent years. It is difficult to see how escalation of the conflict over Kashmir could have been avoided were it not for the two countries’ fear of nuclear escalation.” The spread of nuclear weapons technology is thus viewed by optimists as a positive development, so much so that some even advocate its selective abettance by current nuclear powers.’ Proliferation prevents miscalculations of damage which empirically causes the bloodiest wars Waltz 95 (Kenneth, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate, p6-7) Certainty about the relative strength of adversaries also makes war less likely. From the late nineteenth century onward, the speed of technological innovation increased the difficulty of estimating relative strengths and predicting the course of campaigns. Since World War II, technological advance has been even faster, but short of a ballistic missile defense breakthrough, this has not mattered. It did not disturb the American-Soviet military equilibrium, because one side’s missiles were not made obsolete by improvements in the other side’s missiles. In 1906, the British Dreadnought, with the greater range and firepower of its guns, made older battleships obsolete. This does not happen to missiles. As Bernard Brodie put it, “Weapons that do not have to fight their like do not become useless because of the advent of newer and superior types.” They may have to survive their like, but that is a much simpler problem to solve.

Many wars might have been avoided had their out-

comes been foreseen. “To be sure,” George Simmel wrote, “the most effective presupposition for preventing struggle, the exact knowledge of the comparative strength of the two parties, is very often only to be obtained by the actual fighting out of the conflict.” Miscalculation causes wars. One side expects victory at an affordable price, while the other side hopes to avoid defeat. Here the differences between conventional and nuclear worlds are fundamental. In the former, states are too often tempted to act on advantages that are wishfully discerned and narrowly calculated. In 1914, neither Germany nor France tried very hard to avoid a general war. Both hoped for victory even though they believed the opposing coalitions to be quite evenly matched.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

212

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good—Proliferation Prevents Escalation Proliferation frees the US from extended deterrence, preventing global escalation Layne 96 (Christopher, Fellow of the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, “Minimal Realism in East Asia,” The National Interest, Spring, p72-73) This is doubly true when the potential aggressor is a nuclear power because, as Charles de Gaulle reasoned well, rational states will not risk suicide to save their allies. For both protector and protected, extended nuclear deterrence raises constant and ultimately insoluble dilemmas of credibility and reassurance. The conditions that contributed to successful extended nuclear deterrence in Cold War Europe do not exist in post-Cold War East Asia. Unlike the situation that prevailed in Europe between 1948 and 1990— which was fundamentally stable and static—East Asia is a volatile region in which all the major players— Japan, China, Korea, Russia, Vietnam—are candidates to become involved in large-scale war. There is no clear and inviolable status quo. The lines of demarcation between spheres of influence are already blurred and may well become more so as Chinese and Japanese influence expand simultaneously, increasing the number and unpredictability of regional rivalries. The status of Taiwan, tension along the 38th Parallel in Korea, conflicting claims to ownership of the Spratly Islands, and the SinoJapanese territorial dispute over the Senkaku Islands are only a few of the flash-points that could ignite a great power war in East Asia. Washington will clearly exercise far less control over the policies of East Asian powers than it exercised over Americas European allies during the Cold War. Hence, the risk of being chain-ganged into a nuclear conflict are much higher for the United States in post-Cold War East Asia if it maintains or extends nuclear guarantees to any of the region’s major states. Even more important, post-Cold War East Asia simply does not have the same degree of strategic importance to the United States as did Europe during the Cold War. Would the United States risk a nuclear confrontation to defend Taiwan, the Spratlys, or Senkaku? Knowing that they would not constitute the same kind of threat to U.S. interests that the Soviet Union did, future revisionist East Asian powers would probably be more willing to discount America’s credibility and test its resolve. The presence of American forces in the region may indeed have the perverse effect of failing to preserve peace while simultaneously ensuring the United States would be drawn automatically into a future East Asian war. They could constitute the wrong sort of tripwire, tripping us rather than deterring them. Notwithstanding current conventional wisdom, the United States should encourage East Asian states—including Japan—to resolve their own security dilemmas, even if it means acquiring great power, including nuclear, military capabilities. Reconfiguring American security policies anywhere in the world in ways that, in effect, encourage nuclear proliferation is widely seen as irresponsible and risky. This is not necessarily the case. Nuclear proliferation and extended deterrence are generally believed to be flip sides of the same coin, in the sense that providing the latter is seen to discourage the former. Nearly all maximalists are simultaneously proliferation pessimists (believing that any proliferation will have negative security implications) and extended nuclear deterrence optimists (believing that extended nuclear deterrence “works”). But this formulation comes apart from both

l nuclear powers in the region are unlikely to act irresponsibly and, as suggested above, the U.S. nuclear umbrella is of uncertain credibility in post-Cold War circumstances in which the Soviet Union no longer exists and strains in the U.S.-Japanese relationship are manifest. Even selective proliferation by stable, non-rogue states admittedly raises important political, strategic, organizational, and doctrinal issues. But so does relying on America’s nuclear extended deterrence strategy in changed circumstances. The need at hand is to weigh the dangers imbedded in an extended deterrence strategy against those posed by the possibility of nuclear proliferation, and here the Japanese case provides the most important and sobering illustration. ends in East Asia: Potentia

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 213

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – A2: Taiwan-China Conflict (1/2) Weapons sales are largely unnecessary – Indian-Sino conflict is not coming The Standard 8 (“China-Taiwan clash 'very unlikely,' US Admiral says,” July 18. http://www.thestandard.com.hk/ breaking_news_detail.asp?id=596&icid=2&d_str=20080718)

Tension between China and Taiwan has decreased to the degree that a military conflict is unlikely and there currently is no need to sell defensive weapons to the island's government, the top US military commander in Asia said.While the US is "committed to the defense of Taiwan,'' "there is no pressing, compelling need for, at this moment, arms sales,'' Admiral Timothy Keating, leader of the US Pacific Command, told a forum sponsored by the Heritage Foundation research group.Keating acknowledged that the US, which is required by its Taiwan Relations Act to defend the island if it is attacked, has not sold it weapons "in relatively recent times,'' according to a transcript of his remarks. Recent improvement in Sino-Taiwan relations prove to provide stability throughout the region Agence France-Presse 8 (Inquirer.net, “Better Taiwan-China ties good for the region, Ma says,” July 21. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20080721-149847/Better-Taiwan-China-ties-good-for-the-region-Ma-says)

TAIPEI -- Taiwan's President Ma Ying-jeou said Monday that improved ties between the island and China were "good news" for the entire region, as the odds of military conflict had been greatly reduced.The Strait between Taiwan and China, heavily armed on both sides, has long been one of the world's most dangerous potential military flashpoints.But Ma, speaking to a group of Japanese academics, said the situation had changed dramatically since he took office two months ago."Simply put, cross-Strait ties have changed from confrontations to peaceful development. Hopefully the two sides will be able to co-exist peacefully," Ma said, noting that the chance of a military conflict had lessened."As the Taiwan Strait and the Korean peninsula are the flashpoints (in the region), eased tensions across the Strait are good news for the people and countries in Northeast Asia," he said, according to remarks released by his office. Improved relations reduce risk of conflict – we are safer now than ever Adams 8 (Jonathan, CSM, July 24. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0724/p99s01-duts.html) Reuters reported last week that the top US military commander in the Pacific, Adm. Timothy Keating, confirmed the current freeze on major arms sales to the island. He noted that improved cross-strait relations had sharply reduced the potential for conflict. U.S. decision-makers "have reconciled Taiwan's current military posture, China's current military posture and strategy that indicates there is no pressing, compelling need for at this moment arms sales to Taiwan of the systems that we're talking about," the Hawaii-based commander said at the Heritage Foundation in Washington.... "I'm more comfortable today ... than I was 15 months ago, that my belief is well founded that it is very, very, very unlikely that there will be conflict across the strait," Keating said.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

214

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – A2: Taiwan-China Conflict (2/2) Taiwan’s new president’s movements to improve relations have been vastly successful Adams 8 (Jonathan, CSM, July 24. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0724/p99s01-duts.html) US foot-dragging on arms sales to the island comes amid a thaw in Taiwan-China relations under Taiwan's new, China-friendly president, Ma Ying-jeou. The Christian Science Monitor reported last month that since Mr. Ma took power on May 20, the two sides have moved rapidly to expand cross-strait links.But Ma said that Taiwan still needs US help to defend itself against China, despite recently improved cross-strait relations, the Associated Press reports. He called recently for the US to remove the freeze.The Financial Times cited top Taiwanese national security officials as saying that Taiwan was dropping its push for F16s for now in order to focus on getting the other weapon systems approved. The report adds that Taipei officials believe the delay is motivated by the US's attempt to secure China's cooperation. Taipei officials said they believed that the US had temporarily put off arms sales in order to secure Beijing's co-operation in tackling trouble in Iran and North Korea.... Taipei is concerned that Washington may have created a precedent that could prove difficult to reverse, since the communist-ruled mainland has long demanded the US phase out its arms sales to the island. Taiwan seeks nuclear technology but not for weapon development FAS 00 (Federation of American Scientists, April 4. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/taiwan/nuke/index.html) Taiwan does not have nuclear weapons. However, Taiwan has made attempts to organize production of plutonium on an experimental basis. Imported nuclear technologies, knowledge, and equipment do not enable Taiwan to create nuclear weapons, but do provide the necessary basis for work in the nuclear field and may accelerate nuclear weapons development, if such a decision is made. Taiwan is a member of the Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. To increase transparency, Taiwan is implementing the IAEA's new, more effective safeguards, known as "Program 93+2."Following the reestablishment of National Tsinghua University in Taiwan in 1956, the university built the nation's first research nuclear reactor and began training atomic energy specialists. More than a decade later, the Taiwan Power Company established a nuclear energy department and laid plans for a nuclear power plant. Thereafter the Atomic Energy Council and the Nuclear Energy Research Institute were established, and the development of nuclear energy gradually progressed to the stage of large reactors used for the generation of power.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

215

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – Warming The deal solves India’s critical warming emissions Robb 8 (Andrew, Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs. The Australian, July 28. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24086171-7583,00.html) India's energy security and needs are the major issue in the relationship between our two countries. This issue can make Australia a very important partner to India strategically. It is what India really wants from us. From a climate perspective there is overwhelming merit in addressing the reality of India's energy needs by supplying the resources for clean energy, otherwise these resources will simply come from less environmentally friendly sources. Two thirds of India's emissions come from burning coal, mainly in power stations. Without a change in the method of base-load power generation, this share of emissions from coal-fired power stations will increase through to 2030 and beyond. As India grows, it will rank third behind the US and China in terms of global energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions. If the existing restrictions on the import of nuclear technology and uranium for peaceful power sources are removed, as much as 35 per cent of India's total energy needs could be met by clean nuclear power plants by 2050. This would have a much bigger impact on global greenhouse gas reductions than any domestic policy Rudd could propose. Countries using Australian uranium avoid carbon dioxide emissions roughly equivalent to our entire annual CO2 emissions from all sources. Around the world nuclear power today reduces global emissions by more than 2 billion tonnes a year. Nuclear power is critical to solve India’s greenhouse gas emissions Scoop Independent News 8 (“United States Supports India's Civil Nuclear Pact,” July 29. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0807/S00815.htm) "India … has a tremendously growing demand for energy. It is a country that, if it tries to meet that demand through carbon-based sources for energy, is going to contribute dramatically to the continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions," Rice said. "So it's important for India to find alternative sources." India imports 75 percent of its oil. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who recently survived a confidence vote in parliament, has argued that India needs a stronger investment in nuclear energy generation. Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, who was traveling with Rice, said his government would give the India initiative every consideration. Australia, which holds 40 percent of the world's known uranium reserves, is a key member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. "We will give very careful consideration to the strategic importance of the agreement, both to India and to the United States. And we're also looking at the arrangement with a positive and constructive frame of mind," Smith said. "We, of course, want to look very carefully at the detail and consider that very carefully in the NSG."

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 216

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – Warming – Impact Global warming causes extinction Sydney Morning Herald 3 (June 20, www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/19/1055828440526.html) Global warming over the next century could trigger a catastrophe to rival the worst mass extinction in the history of the planet, scientists have warned. Researchers at Bristol University have discovered that a mere 6 degrees of global warming was enough to wipe out up to 95 per cent of the species which were alive on earth at the end of the Permian period, 250 million years ago. United Nations scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predict up to 6 degrees of warming for the next 100 years if nothing is done about emissions of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, the chief cause of global warming. that only one large land animal was left alive and it took 100 million years for species diversity to return to former levels. This dramatic new finding is revealed in a book by Bristol University's head of earth sciences, Michael Benton, which chronicles the geological efforts leading up to the discovery and its potential implications. Professor Benton said: "The Permian crisis nearly marked the end of life. It's estimated that fewer than one in 10 species survived. "Geologists are only now coming to appreciate the severity of this global catastrophe and to understand how and why so many species died out so quickly." Other climate experts say they are appalled that a disaster of such magnitude could be repeated within this century because of human activities. Global warming author Mark Lynas, who recently travelled around the world witnessing the impact of climate change, said the findings must be a wake up call for politicians and citizens alike. He said: "This is a global emergency. "We are heading for disaster and yet the world is on fossil fuel autopilot.There needs to be an immediate phase-out of coal, oil and gas and a phase in of clean energy sources. People can no longer ignore this looming catastrophe." The Permian mass extinction is now thought to have been caused by gigantic volcanic eruptions that triggered a

runaway greenhouse effect and nearly put an end to life on Earth. Conditions in what geologists have termed this "post apocalyptic greenhouse" were so severe

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 217

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – Warming – India Key (1/2) India and China are leaders in greenhouse emissions yet only China is pathing the way towards reduced emissions The Economist 8 (“China, India and Climate Change” June 5. http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11488548) China also now admits its own contribution to the problem. Officials reacted frostily last year when the International Energy Agency, a rich-country think-tank, said China would overtake America as the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in 2007 or 2008. But the Chinese commerce ministry's website now carries, without negative comment, an article from April this year quoting University of California researchers saying China is already number one.

The impact of climate change on India, a hotter and poorer country, is likely to be worse. According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, India's agriculture will suffer more than any other country's. Assuming a global temperature increase of 4.4°C over cultivated areas by 2080, India's agricultural output is projected to fall by 30-40%.Yet India's response to this doomful scenario has been, at best, haphazard. For example, it has made only occasional studies of 11 Himalayan glaciers. It has also shown little concern for the regional political crisis that climate change threatens. As sea-levels rise, for example, the IPCC warns that 35m refugees could flee Bangladesh's flooded delta by 2050. Yet even in India, attitudes are changing. Manmohan Singh, its sagacious prime minister, has formed a powerful council of ministers, bureaucrats, scientists and businessmen to co-operate on the issue. It has rarely met; yet it is part of a broader push that has sparked a flurry of climate-related initiatives: to boost energy efficiency, improve seed types, encourage forestation and so on. Given India's historic problems with flooding and drought, many of these are built upon existing policies. Indeed, the government claims that 2% of GDP is being spent on coping with climate-induced problems. To display these efforts, and manage them better, India is due this month to unveil a vaunted policy, the National Action Plan on Climate Change.It will be welcome; because many consider that India is expending even greater effort on justifying its refusal to control its emissions. In particular it argues that its total emissions are relatively low (see chart above) and that it is relatively energy-efficient (see chart below). China uses far more energy than it does per unit of GDP; Russia, vastly more. The

reasons for India's frugality are not all that creditable. Almost half the population has no access to electricity. Also, India cross-subsidises power and petroleum products: farmers get cheap electricity, for instance, while industry pays more for it. This is one of many government-imposed hardships that have forced Indian firms to use power and other resources efficiently. As a result, India is one of the world's lowest-cost producers of aluminium and steel.During the past four years both China's GDP and its energy consumption have grown at an average of 11% a year. India's GDP, meanwhile, has grown at an annual average of 9% while its energy consumption has

And yet, to achieve its target of long-term 8% growth, India will have to boost its power-generation capacity at least sixfold by 2030. Over the period, its emissions are expected to increase over fourfold.India defends this on moral grounds: its people have the same right to wealth as anyone. Indeed, given their special vulnerability to climate problems, they have a particularly risen by 4%.

urgent need for economic development. After all, a factory worker with an air-conditioner will feel global warming less than a subsistence farmer will. This position is also consistent with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which launched the Kyoto process, and recognised that economic development and poverty eradication were the “overriding priorities” for developing countries. The Bush administration's bid to override this principle by refusing to undertake targeted emissions cuts unless India and China accept comparable cuts has therefore caused fury in India. A senior official in the foreign ministry characterises America's line as: “Guys with gross obesity telling guys just emerging from emaciation to go on a major diet.” India has entered negotiations to replace the Kyoto protocol, which expires in 2012, in the same spirit. Indeed, Chandrashekhar Dasgupta of the Energy and Resources Institute, who was involved in negotiating the Framework Convention and also the blue-print for the current negotiations, which is known as the Bali Action Plan, says it is a “mischievous mis-statement” even to speak of the protocol expiring. Indian officials consider that the negotiations are to refresh, not replace, the protocol, mainly by imposing more ambitious reduction targets on rich countries.This would make an IPCC target of reducing global emissions by 25-40% by 2020 unrealisable, which is why India's negotiators insisted that the

Supported by other developing countries, they also watered down the draft's most radical feature: a pledge by developing countries to undertake “measurable, reportable and verifiable” efforts to cut their emissions. At India's target be removed from a draft of the Bali Action Plan.

instigation, the paragraph in which this phrase appeared was reshuffled, leaving its meaning unclear. With such tough tactics, India has acquired an ugly reputation on the global front against climate change. Among big countries, perhaps only America and Russia are considered more obdurate. Although

China has shown no inclination to commit to specific emissions-cutting targets in the post-Kyoto discussions, some Chinese academics familiar with the process say that after China reaches a certain per head emissions level it might agree to cut emissions.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

218 Continues…

Politics-India Deal

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

219

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – Warming – India Key (2/2) Continued… It is anxious not to be cast as a global-warming villain, particularly given pressures mounting on it over issues ranging from trade to

China is looking to America for its cue. If America commits itself to carbon cuts, China will feel obliged to make some kind of promise too.Many see India as unhelpful by comparison. Almost nothing could annoy India more. Partly in response, perhaps, Mr Singh has shown some flexibility. At a G8 summit in June last year, he pledged that India's carbon-dioxide emissions per head would never exceed developed countries'. In effect a challenge to the industrialised world to cap India's emissions by curbing their own, this was more imaginative than has been widely recognised. And yet China is perceived to be taking the problem more seriously than India. This is partly because China is doing a lot to try to curb its energy use—but for reasons that have nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Tibet.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 220

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – Warming – Modeling India nuclear deal is key to curb Indian CO2 emissions. This reverse of current trends is critical to model for other developing nations Victor 6 (David – Adjunct Senior Fellow for Science and Technology. July 18. http://www.cfr.org/publication/11123/india_nuclear_deal.html)

Chief among those other reasons is environmental. The fuller use of commercial nuclear power, if done to exacting standards of safety and protection against proliferation, can play an important role as part of a larger strategy to slow the growth in emissions of the gases that cause global warming. That’s because nuclear power emits essentially no carbon dioxide (CO2), the most prevalent of these so-called “greenhouse gases.” While this benefit is hardly the chief reason for initiating this deal, with time it will become one of the main benefits from the arrangement. The nuclear deal probably will lead India to emit substantially less CO2 than it would if the country were not able to build such a large commercial nuclear fleet. The annual reductions by the year 2020 alone will be on the scale of all of the European Union’s efforts to meet its Kyoto Protocol commitments. In addition, if this arrangement is successful it will offer a model framework for a more effective way to engage developing countries in the global effort to manage the problem of climate change. No arrangement to manage climate change can be adequately successful without these countries’ participation; to date the existing schemes for encouraging these countries to make an effort have failed; a better approach is urgently needed. An India-US partnership through the India nuclear deal serves as a credible example for developing nations to reduce CO2 emissions Victor 6 (David – Adjunct Senior Fellow for Science and Technology. July 18. http://www.cfr.org/publication/11123/india_nuclear_deal.html)

If the India nuclear deal is successful, it will frame a new approach to engaging developing countries in a climate strategy. This approach would focus on finding game-changing policies that align with reluctant countries’ interests.[6] Rather than involving hundreds of small and marginal projects, this style of engagement would focus on just a handful of large pivotal actions involving just a few critical countries. This concept is incidentally at the core of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, whose six members, including India and the U.S., account for half the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. That Partnership has promise, but it remains young. Success with this nuclear deal could offer a credible example of practical actions that the Partnership could encourage.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 221

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – Indian Econ (1/3) Nuclear power is critical to India’s electricity – Bottlenecks will choke off their growth now Victor 6 (David – Adjunct Senior Fellow for Science and Technology. July 18. http://www.cfr.org/publication/11123/india_nuclear_deal.html)

Evaluating the environmental benefits of this deal requires, first, understanding the basic factors that affect investment in the Indian electric power market. From the 1970s through much of the 1990s India’s economy was famous for its low rate of growth; with low growth came low demand for electricity. A series of economic reforms, initially introduced in the wake of a financial crisis in 1991 but strengthened over the many years since, has changed that situation dramatically. India’s economy enjoyed an average annual growth rate of around 7% from 1994-2004. Most analysts expect growth to be sustained at 8% over the next few years if not longer. India’s population is young; and an important fraction is well-educated and increasingly engaged with the world economy. To be sure, the Indian economy has many deep flaws. India has made no progress in solving the development problem in the rural areas where most Indians live, and India’s democracy is notorious for its political gridlock. All that said, there is palpable evidence that India’s economic reforms have finally taken hold. Higher growth has led directly to higher demand for electricity. While the exact future needs for power remain uncertain, there is considerable evidence that electric demand will grow at roughly the same rate as the economy. Some factors will tend to dampen the growth in demand for power. For example, economic growth is expected to cause a shift in the Indian economy away from energy-intensive manufacturing and also engender investments that make the economy more efficient in its use of energy. But other factors will cause demand for electricity to accelerate. Among them is an improvement in power quality that is likely to accompany the extensive efforts to reform India’s electric power system that have been under way for 15 years. While reformers have found it difficult to make progress, these reforms are beginning to take effect in some parts of the country. Those effects are evident not only in the improved performance of some of the country’s power utilities, but also in the rising role for privately owned (and generally more reliable) power plants. In industry, for example, reliable power is essential; many companies are taking matters into their own hands and building their own plants. And where electricity is more reliable, Indians will consume more of it. There are many projections for total demand for electricity. In Figure 1, I show the International Energy Agency’s projections, which envision a doubling of power demand from the present to 2020. Barring an economic catastrophe, I would be surprised if demand for electric power were dramatically lower than these projections. And it is possible that demand could be higher if India discovered, as China has in recent years, that demand for electricity rises even faster than economic output. For now, let’s use these projections to illustrate the stakes.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

222

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – Indian Econ (2/3) Electricity demand is critical to India’s econ IHT 6 (International Herald Tribune. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/16/opinion/edvictor.php) India is growing rapidly. In recent years its economy has swelled at more than 7 percent per year, and many analysts believe it is poised to grow even faster in the coming decade.The economic growth is feeding a voracious appetite for electricity that India's bankrupt utilities are unable to satisfy. Blackouts are commonplace. Farmers, who account for about two-fifths of all the power consumed, can barely rely on getting power for half of every day. In industrial zones, the lifeblood of India's vibrant economy, unstable power supplies aresuch trouble that the biggest companies usually build their own power plants. So most analysts expect that the demand for electricity will rise at about 10 percent a year. (For comparison, U.S. power demand notches up at just 2 percent annually.)Over the past decade, about one third of India's new power supplies came from natural gas and hydro electricity. Both those sources have been good news for global warming - natural gas is the least carbon- intensive of all the fossil fuels, and most of India's hydroelectric dams probably emit almost no greenhouse gases.However, the bloom is coming off those greenhouse-friendly roses. New supplies of natural gas cost about twice what Indians are used to paying, andenvironmental objections are likely to scupper the government's grand plans for new hydro dams. Nuclear technology solves Indian electricity demand India Today Group Online 8 (Indo-Asian News Service, July 25. http://www.itgo.in /index.php?id=7038&option=com_content&task=view§ionid=5&secid=25)

India can boost its nuclear energy production by accessing additional uranium and solve the crisis perpetually, Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar said on Friday. "Here is a technology (nuclear) in which we are one of the world leaders and which can help us close the demand supply gap without the need to acquire external fuel perpetually, provided we can access some additional uranium to start with over and above what we already have in our country," Kakodkar said at the 54th annual convocation function of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT)- Kharagpur. He said the path of civil nuclear empowerment can be achieved with uranium import but "without any compromise on India's strategic programmes in the process". The United

the India-US nuclear deal, after winning a crucial trust vote in parliament on Tuesday, that will open the doors of global civil nuclear commerce with India after a gap of three decades. "Nuclear energy with its several million-fold higher calorific value and negligible greenhouse gas emissions can make a paradigm change for the better. Fortunately, the five decades of domestic research and development have brought us to Progressive Alliance (UPA) central government is pushing to operationalise

the level of being a potent technology powerhouse of global recognition in this area. "Today our self-reliant capabilities provide us sufficient strength to pursue an autonomous path that is best suited for us. "We have realised this capability despite the embargo that has been around us. There is no issue that we would pursue the three stage domestic programme leading to unleashing of vast energy

"The demand supply gap in electricity would progressively widen over the next few decades in spite of our best efforts to deploy all available indigenous energy resources, including nuclear. "Nuclear power plants, while they produce electricity, also produce nuclear fuel, and in Fast Breeder Reactors they, in fact, produce more fuel than what they consume. "This would thus enable growth of electricity generation capacity without the need for additional external fuel," he said. potential in our thorium resources on high priority," he said.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

223

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – Indian Econ (3/3) Rise in the Indian economy depends on alternative energy such as nuclear technology Kakodkar 5 ( Anil -Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, India. 2005. www.dae.gov.in/iaea/akparis0305.doc+%22Energy+in+India+for+the+Coming+Decades%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us) Wilson and Purushothaman write, “India has the potential to show the fastest growth over the next 30 to 50 years. Growth rate could be higher than 5 percent over the next 30 years and close to 5 percent as late as 2050 if development proceeds successfully.” Rodrik and Subramanian write, “…..growth in capital stock together with growth in factor productivity will yield output growth of 5.4 percent. Over the next 20 years, the working age population is projected to grow at 1.9 percent per year. If educational attainment and participation rates remain unchanged, labor growth will contribute another 1.3 percent, yielding an aggregate growth rate of 6.7 percent per year, or a per capita growth rate of 5.3 percent. This is a lower bound estimate and, even so, would be significantly greater than the per capita growth rate of 3.6 percent achieved in the 1980s and 1990s. Over a 40-year period, a 5.3 percent growth rate would increase the income of the average person nearly 8fold.”Growth in economy is made possible by several inputs, the two most important being energy and human resource. In this conference, we are concerned about energy and so I’ll confine myself to energy. Energy is the engine for growth. It multiplies human labour and increases productivity in agriculture, industry as well as in services. To sustain the growth rate in economy, energy supply has to grow in tandem. For a large country like India with its over one billion population and rapid economic growth rate, no single energy resource or technology constitutes a panacea to address all issues related to availability of fuel supplies, environmental impact, particularly, climate change, and health externalities. Therefore, it is necessary that all non-carbon emitting resources become an integral part of an energy mix – as diversified as possible – to ensure energy security to a country like India during the present century. Available sources are low carbon fossil fuels, renewables and nuclear energy and all these should be subject of increased level of research, development, demonstration and deployment. India deal makes nuclear power accessible to commercial businesses Victor 6 (David – Adjunct Senior Fellow for Science and Technology. July 18. http://www.cfr.org/publication/11123/india_nuclear_deal.html) Until now, nuclear power has been controlled by the central government, mainly for nonenergy purposes (namely weapons), and has not been exposed to commercial accountability. In addition, India’s domestic uranium reserves are quite meager–the Atomic Energy Commission estimates that domestic resources could support only 10 GW of installed nuclear capacity.[2]Thus, not surprisingly, nuclear energy has played only a small role in the power sector. Whether and how that could change is at stake in this deal.The India nuclear deal would provide for “full” civil nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and India. By enabling India to import modern nuclear energy technology, as well as uranium, a properly regulated deal would in effect alleviate the historical restrictions placed on civilian Indian nuclear power.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 224

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – Indian Econ – Solves War (1/2) Economic decline causes India/Pakistan conflict Schaffer`2 (Director South Asia Program, CSIS and Former U.S. Ambassador, Washington Quarterly 2002) Mediocre growth will extract a high price in terms of political and foreign policies. Without reforms, India's economy will sag, leading to competitive subsidization and spiraling fiscal deficits. A more worrisome issue for the United States, however,

this situation could tempt India's government to take an unusually strident line toward Pakistan and its other neighbors, which, in turn, would increase the risk of some kind of miscalculation or desperate move by Pakistan. Continues…Particularly striking about the building blocks for the new is that

Indo-U.S. relationship is how little Pakistan figures in them. Yet, the long-standing dispute between India and Pakistan remains the greatest obstacle to the

the possibility of unintended Indo-Pakistani conflict is still the single greatest potential danger the United States perceives in South Asia. Leaving Pakistan out of a role India wants to play in the world, and

discussion of Indo-U.S. ties would be disingenuous, particularly in the aftermath of September 11. India's unresolved problems with Pakistan start with Kashmir, the subject of conflicting claims by India and Pakistan and the object of two wars between them as well as a continuing insurgency, supported by Pakistan, in the Indian-held parts of the state. The list of problems between the two countries also includes a group of secondary issues related to Kashmir, such as the status of the world's most desolate, disputed military installation on the Siachen Glacier in the high Himalayas, as well as a number of other "normalization" issues, including trade and visa regulations. Since September 11, the level and frequency of violence has increased within Kashmir and across the "Line of Control" that separates India and Pakistan. Statements coming from both governments provide no encouragement that the leadership of either country is close to a sustainable formula for resuming talks about the situation. India's most recent initiative for beginning talks with Kashmiri political leaders also seems to be going nowhere. Even worse, high-profile terrorist incidents, including suicide bombings of the State Assembly building in Srinagar (capital of the part of Kashmir administered by India) and more recently at the Indian parliament in New Delhi, have raised tensions between India and Pakistan dramatically. The most likely culprits in both cases are militant organizations that also appear on the U.S. government's list of terrorist organizations, active in Kashmir but headquartered in Pakistan. U.S. actions since that latest incident have made clear that the freedom of action these groups have enjoyed in Pakistan is incompatible with the relationship Pakistan is now trying to establish with the United States. The regional military

easily such incidents can provoke a cataclysmic set of reactions and how vulnerable regional peace is to another violent incident. Resolving these problems will require a high level of Indian and Pakistani leadership. Both countries, as well as Kashmiri representatives, urgently need to start a process that will eventually lead to an arrangement that is comfortable for all three parties and that addresses the issue of the Indo-Pakistani relationship and the problems of governance within Kashmir. Any such process would buildup that followed the bombing demonstrates how

be slow and crisis-ridden; finding a solution is a marathon effort, not a quick fix. The obstacles to the success of such an endeavor are daunting. In India, coalition politics and broad popular resentment against Pakistan make it difficult for a leader to push even in the best of times for a reasonable settlement of

If India's economic performance is mediocre, this task will become more difficult. For Pakistan, Kashmir has powerful popular appeal. The political compromise required for a settlement would be very painful, and the strength Pakistan's government has gained by confronting militant groups over their activities in Afghanistan will not easily carry over to Kashmir. India's problems with Pakistan.

Without such an effort, however, the likelihood of new and dangerous confrontations over Kashmir is unacceptably high. Despite the new issues that unite

this all-too-familiar one remains at the top of U.S. foreign priorities and cries out for a sustained and sophisticated U.S. diplomatic strategy. India and the United States,

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 225

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – Indian Econ – Solves War (2/2) The government will try to distract the people during an economic decline by toying with nationalism-This makes conflict with Pakistan more likely Business Recorder`2k (Global News Wire, WHAT FORCES INDIA, PAKISTAN TO BACK DOWN IN KASHMIR?, December 27, 2000 Lexis)

Looking at the domestic politics of each side, presumably it's a lot harder for Pakistan to calm things down on their side of the Kashmir conflict than it is for India. "Well, yes, in the sense that it may be a lot harder for the government of General Musharraf to rein in the Islamic militant groups who're doing much of the fighting in Kashmir. But in the end, it may be equally difficult for India and Pakistan to step back from the brink in Kashmir, because Kashmir is far more than a territorial dispute; it's intimately linked to the national identity of both sides - with Pakistan's identity as an Islamic state and India's identity as a secular state." Speaking of India's identity as a secular state, isn't that challenged by Prime Minister Vajpayee's statements in support of a campaign to build a Hindu shrine over the ruins of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya, which was destroyed by a mob of Hindu extremists in 1992? "Yes, but Vajpayee is playing a delicate political game. And that's taking India into another dangerous phase, where the ruling Bharatiya Janata party is revealing its hand, trying to exploit Hindu nationalist sentiments around the Ayodhya issue. Some observers believe that he may be doing this as something of a distraction for his supporters, trying to create political space for himself to push through tough economic measures, which he desperately needs to do. The government is basically bankrupt, and India is facing an economic slowdown. We're heading back into a terrible mess, but in a democracy as politically fractured as India's, it's hard to cut government spending. The alternative is privatisation - the government owns everything from hotels to car factories, and all they've managed to privatise in recent years was a bakery - but there's strong ideological resistance. That may be tempting Vajpayee to distract people with the Ayodhya issue.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 226

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – Indian Econ – Key to World India’s economy is up and critical to the world econ Economy Watch 6 (Indian Economy Overview. http://www.economywatch.com/ indianeconomy/india-and-global-economy.html) The Indian Economy is consistently posting robust growth numbers in all sectors leading to impressive growth in Indian GDP.The Indian economy has been stable and reliable in recent times, while in the last few years it’s experienced a positive upward growth trend. A consistent 8-9% growth rate has been supported by a number of favorable economic indicators including a huge inflow of foreign funds, growing reserves in the foreign exchange sector, both an IT and real estate boom, and a flourishing capital market.All of these positive changes have resulted in establishing the Indian economy as one of the largest and fastest growing in the world. Economic collapse causes extinction Bearden 00 (Tom, PhD in Nuclear Engineering, April 25, http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm) Just prior to the terrible collapse of the World economy, with the crumbling well underway and rising, it is inevitable that some of the weapons of mass destruction will be used by one or more nations on others. An interesting result then—as all the old strategic studies used to show—is that everyone will fire everything as fast as possible against their perceived enemies. The reason is simple: When the mass destruction weapons are unleashed at all, the only chance a nation has to survive is to desperately try to destroy its perceived enemies before they destroy it. So there will erupt a spasmodic unleashing of the long range missiles, nuclear arsenals, and biological warfare arsenals of the nations as they feel the economic collapse, poverty, death, misery, etc. a bit earlier. The ensuing holocaust is certain to immediately draw in the major nations also, and literally a hell on earth will result. In short, we will get

the great Armageddon we have been fearing since the advent of the nuclear genie. Right now, my personal estimate is that we have about a 99% chance of that scenario or some modified version of it, resulting.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

227

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – Terrorism – Deal Solves India deal is critical to India cooperation in War on Terror, Asian Stability, spread of democracy and does not increase proliferation, marking a win for US influence in South Asia and the MidEast. Joseph 5 (Robert G. ,http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0511/S00078.htm, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security)

We believe it is in our national security interest to establish a broad strategic partnership with India that encourages India's emergence as a positive force on the world scene. Our desire to transform relations with India is founded upon a contemporary and forwardlooking strategic vision. India is a rising global power and an important democratic partner for the United States. Today, for the first time, the United States and India are bound together by a strong congruence of interests and values. We seek to work with India to win the global War on Terrorism, to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles that could deliver them, to enhance peace and stability in Asia, and to advance the spread of democracy. India and the United States are on the same side of these critical strategic objectives. Our challenge is to translate our converging interests into shared goals and compatible strategies designed to achieve these aims. In the context of this growing partnership, the United States and India reached a landmark agreement in July to work toward full civil nuclear cooperation while at the same time strengthening the nuclear nonproliferation regime. The Joint Statement agreed to b by President Bush and Prime Minister Singh is not as some have argued a triumph of power politics over nonproliferation principles. This is not a zero-sum trade-off, whereby improvement in our bilateral strategic relationship results in nonproliferation losses. Rather, as the broadlyconstituted Joint Statement is implemented, it will prove a win for our strategic relations, a win for energy security, and a win for nonproliferation.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

228

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – Terrorism – Down We’re winning the War on Terror – Laundry list Boot & Kirkpatrick 8 (Max & Jeane J., Senior Fellow for National Security Studies. Council on Foreign Relations, July/August. http://www.cfr.org/publication/16838/are_we_winning_the_war_on_terror.html?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F135%2Fterrorism)

On balance, we are doing pretty well. Near strategic defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al Qaeda globally— and here I’m going to use the word “ideologically”—as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam.Thus spoke CIA Director Michael Hayden in an interview with the Washington Post published on May 30 under the headline, “U.S. Cites Big Gains Against al Qaeda.”Hayden’s upbeat assessment is shared by a surprising number of analysts who have written recently about al Qaeda’s decline and possible fall, including Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek, David Ignatius in the Washington Post, Lawrence Wright in the New Yorker, Peter Bergen and Paul Cruikshank in the New Republic, former CIA analyst Marc Sageman in a new book, Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the 21st Century, and Michael Sheehan, a former New York Police Department counterterrorism chief, in Crush the Cell: How to Defeat Terrorism Without Terrorizing Ourselves.There is much evidence to support their optimistic conclusions—certainly more evidence than there was to support the previous conventional wisdom, propounded by many of these same writers not so long ago, that the American-led invasion of Iraq was a great gift to al Qaeda and that as a result we were losing the global war on terror. (Bergen, for instance, published an article just last fall entitled, “War of Error: How Osama bin Laden Beat George W. Bush.”)It turns out that, far from emerging victorious, al Qaeda in Iraq has been driven out of its erstwhile strongholds in Anbar, Baghdad, and Diyala provinces. Its last refuge is in the northern city of Mosul, and even there, thanks to a joint Iraqi-American offensive, attacks were cut in half during the month of May. From Basra to Baghdad, Shiite terrorists loosely affiliated with Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army are also in retreat, thanks primarily to the operations of the Iraqi security forces under the direction of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, al Qaeda has not managed to mount any major attacks on an American target, much less on the American homeland, since 9/11. Those attacks that have succeeded have been fairly minor compared with past al-Qaeda atrocities: a 2004 assault on the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killed five local employees and no Americans.There is good reason to think that al Qaeda is still reeling from the blows it suffered in the aftermath of 9/11. As Wright notes, “nearly 80 percent of al Qaeda’s members in Afghanistan were killed in the final months of 2001,” and since then more have been killed or captured in countries ranging from Yemen and Pakistan to Spain and Indonesia. In his Washington Post interview, Hayden mentioned that since the beginning of this year alone, “al Qaeda’s global leadership has lost three senior officers, including two who succumbed ‘to violence,’ an apparent reference to Predator strikes that killed terrorist leaders Abu Laith al-Libi and Abu Sulayman al-Jazairi in Pakistan.” In an effort to avoid a similar fate, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the top leaders, have gone into progressively deeper hiding, probably in the rugged tribal areas of western Pakistan.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

229

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – A2: Indo-Pak Relations – Turn The deal will sustain peace between India & Pakistan. Indo-Asian News Service, 2006 (7/14, US-India Cooperation a Win-Win for Both, http://www.icfdc.com/html/newsarchives/military/icfdc_Military_20050714_a.html) Fourthly, a civil nuclear cooperation between the US and India will facilitate them to become major allies so as to promote democracy in the region and beyond. Fifthly, if the US abandons its hidden agenda to scuttle India's gas pipeline project with Iran through Pakistan and seriously forges nuclear cooperation, it would help sustain peace between New Delhi and Islamabad.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

230

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – A2: Indo-Pak Relations – Down (1/2) Ongoing violence from both side have brought relations to all time low Reuters 8 (Mukherjee Krittivas, Aug 2. http://in.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idINSP13308520080802) The premiers of India and Pakistan meet on Saturday in a worsening atmosphere of bomb attacks on Indian targets that New Delhi says has sent their four-year-old peace process to its lowest point. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will send a strong message to his Pakistani counterpart Yousaf Raza Gillani as the two try to salvage talks after a string of bombs hit Indian cities and its embassy in Kabul last month, together killing over 100 people. India also blames Pakistan for a breach of a 2003 ceasefire on its de facto border in disputed Kashmir, and accuses its spy agency of involvement in the Kabul attack, in which two senior diplomats were among 58 people killed. The Kabul attack, the ceasefire breach, and media speculation about Pakistani links to the bomb attacks on Indian cities have all contributed to the worsening atmosphere. India's top foreign ministry official Shiv Shankar Menon said on Friday the talks were at their lowest point in four years. Relations are under stress as Pakistan has broken several cease fires Sengupta 8 (Somini, “Indian Official Sees Sinking Relations With Pakistan,” NYT, Aug 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/world/asia/02india.html?hp) The Indian Foreign Secretary, Shiv Shankar Menon, said his country’s relationship with Pakistan had sunk to a new low since 2003, when the two nuclear rivals stepped back from the brink of war and began peace talks. His unusually blunt public comments come on the heels of several cease-fire violations on the disputed border of Kashmir and a deadly bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, which India and the United States have blamed Pakistan’s leading military intelligence agency , the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI. “If you ask me to describe the state of the dialogue, it is in a place where it hasn’t been in the last four years,” Mr. Menon told journalists at the annual summit meeting of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation in Colombo, the capital of Sri Lanka. “We face a situation where things have happened in the recent past which were unfortunate and which, quite frankly, have affected the future of the dialogue.” Pakistan has denied that it had any hand in the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul last month, which killed 58 people, including four Indians. India accuses Pakistan of three breaches of the 2003 ceasefire on the so-called Line of Control in Kashmir. After the Kabul blast, Mr. Menon had described the relationship as “under stress.”

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

231

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Good – A2: Indo-Pak Relations – Down (2/2) Afghanistan involvement by both countries strain relations but there is hope of normalization of relations Daily Times 8 (“EDITORIAL: And now, war of the consulates?” Aug 2. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C08%5C02%5Cstory_2-82008_pg3_1) But the truth is no one has a sure foothold in Afghanistan. It is futile for either India or Pakistan to vie for control over a country that will take a long time in deciding what it wants to do. Pakistan relies on its ethnic nexus with the Pashtuns but the fact is that Afghan nationalism is based on an anti-Durand Line Pashtun emotion and that emotion remains anti-Pakistan. Pakistan is also seen as an enemy by non-Pashtun nationalities that live in the north of Afghanistan simply because Pakistan has backed the Pashtuns in the civil war that took place in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal from there in 1989. The Indian activity in Afghanistan is merely a flanking move in a strategy of deterring Pakistan from interfering in Kashmir. The world is waking up to the reality of a metamorphosis of the epochal Indo-Pak wars into a war of the consulates in Afghanistan. The only solution lies in backing off from a futile conflict which will do no one any good but will damage the certain but yet unquantifiable economic and social benefits deriving from a normalisation of relations between India and Pakistan. At the 30th SAARC council of ministers meeting at Colombo, Pakistan’s foreign minister Mr Shah Mehmood Qureshi and his Indian counterpart Mr Pranab Mukherjee have agreed that the prime ministers of India and Pakistan would “come out with a comprehensive statement on the future of the Indo-Pak bilateral relations”.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

232

Politics-India Deal

***India Nuke Deal Bad***

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 233

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – Proliferation (1/2) India deal will be used as a precedent for wildfire prolif LaFranchi 8 (Howard, Christian Science Monitor, July 10, 2008. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0710/p02s01usfp.html. Accessed on July 29, 2008//grice)

"This deal in effect draws a dangerous distinction between 'good' proliferators and 'bad' proliferators, and would weaken the nuclear safeguards system we've operated under for 40 years," says Mr. Kimball. India has never joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty. "It's bad enough you've just set an example with Tehran that if you wait it out long enough the US will cave and give you what you want," says Joseph Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund, a Washington-based foundation opposing the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. "But you can bet Pakistan and Israel, among others, plan to take a cue from India and use this deal as a template for the future, not as some one-time agreement." The India deal reverses global non-proliferation efforts and crumbles the foundation of the NPT International Herald Tribune 7-25 (Asahi Shimbum, “India-US Nuclear Deal,” 2008) But this agreement will also bestow the United States' unofficial blessing on India 's possession of nuclear weapons. India has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), nor the treaty banning nuclear tests. There is no way India should be treated in the same way as NPT members, which have sincerely met all obligations to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons The NPT members have all agreed that technological support for the peaceful use of nuclear energy should not be supplied to nonmembers. Up to now, the United States has also stood by this principle Now the United States is treating India differently. Explaining the U.S. government's reasons, the Bush administration said that, for one, India is a democracy. Secondly, India is very unlikely to sell nuclear technology to other countries. While it is true that India is strategically important, we should not let any incidents occur that will allow any crack in the NPT system. The NPT foundations are shaky enough as it is. If India becomes an exception, Pakistan is sure to demand similar treatment. North Korea pushed ahead with nuclear testing after claiming it had withdrawn from the NPT. Iran is pursuing a uranium enrichment program despite U.N. sanctions. The U.S. move to finalize its nuclear cooperation pact with India puts a damper on international efforts to stop such actions

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

234

Politics-India Deal

India Deal Bad – Proliferation (2/2) Nuke deal frees India’s domestic uranium reactors that make bombs – thus increasing India’s nuclear arsenal Motz and Milhollin 6 (Kelly & Gary, research assistant and Director. Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, June 13. http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/india/Seventeen_Myths.htm) Fact: Such exports will help India make bombs. India now needs more uranium than it can produce. This means that India must choose between using its own uranium to make nuclear power or nuclear weapons. Allowing India to fuel its power reactors with imported uranium will free India’s domestic production for reactors that make bombs, thus increasing India’s nuclear arsenal. In addition, without being able to inspect all of India's reactors, it will be impossible to tell whether a U.S. export supposedly intended for peaceful purposes has been diverted to bomb making. Nuclear exports are inherently capable of military as well as civilian applications. Post India Deal India maintains their stance on issues key to stop proliferation Motz and Milhollin 6 (Kelly & Gary, research assistant and Director. Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, June 13. http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/india/Seventeen_Myths.htm) Fact: The deal leaves India far outside the international effort to combat nuclear arms proliferation. India continues to oppose the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has pointedly refused to sign it. It has just as pointedly refused to limit its production of nuclear weapons, or to obligate itself not to test such weapons. It has also refused to stop making fissile material for such weapons. Nor has India joined Europe and the United States in condemning Iran’s enrichment of uranium. The deal does not change India's negative stance on any of these questions; instead, it legitimizes it.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

235

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – Prolif – A2: IAEA Inspections Solve Prolif The IAEA can’t inspect EIGHT reactors – this is where India will make their bombs Motz and Milhollin 6 (Kelly & Gary, research assistant and Director. Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, June 13. http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/india/Seventeen_Myths.htm) Fact: Inspecting these reactors will not limit India’s nuclear weapon production in any way. The other eight reactors, which will be barred from inspection, will make more plutonium for weapons than India will ever need. Thus, the offer to inspect the fourteen is merely symbolic. Among the eight reactors off limits to inspectors will be India’s fast breeder reactors, which will generate plutonium particularly suited to bomb-making. In addition, the inspections themselves will waste resources. The International Atomic Energy Agency has a limited number of inspectors and is already having trouble meeting its responsibilities. To send inspectors to India on a fool’s errand will mean that they won’t be going to places like Iran, where something may really be amiss. Unless the Agency’s budget is increased to meet the new burden in India, the inspections there will produce a net loss for the world’s non-proliferation effort.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

236

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – Prolif – A2: Safeguards Safeguards don’t solve – Separating military and civilian facilities will not limit indian military nuclear development McGoldrick and Bengelsdorf 5 (Fred and Harold both were career officials who held senior positions in the U.S. Mission to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Arms Control Association, October 2005, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_10/OCT-Cover.asp.)

In any event, it is at least questionable whether this pledge to separate civil and military nuclear facilities is a major concession on the Indians’ part because it is unlikely to limit Indian production of fissile materials for military purposes. The decision about which facilities to declare civilian rests with India. Voluntary safeguards agreements won’t control Indian nuclear development MCGoldrick and Bengelsdorf 5 (Fred and Harold both were career officials who held senior positions in the U.S. Mission to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Arms Control Association, October 2005, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_10/OCT-Cover.asp.)

In addition, if India sought the route of a voluntary safeguards agreement, it is not clear whether the IAEA would actually inspect all the civil nuclear facilities on the Indian eligible list or whether the IAEA would carry out inspections only if it has the funds available to do so, as is the case with the NPT-recognized nuclear-weapon states. Thus, a voluntary safeguards agreement would be largely symbolic and is unlikely to yield meaningful nonproliferation benefits, such as halting the production of nuclear materials for nuclear weapons.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

237

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad—Proliferation = Extinction Proliferation causes nuclear war and extinction Taylor 1 (Former Nuclear Weapons Designer and Chariman of NOVA, “Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,”) Proliferation increases the chance that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of irrational people, either suicidal or with no concern for the fate of the world. Irrational or outright psychotic leaders of military factions or terrorist groups might decide to use a few nuclear weapons under their control to stimulate a global nuclear war, as an act of vengeance against humanity as a whole. Countless scenarios of this type can be constructed. “… a nation in an advanced stage of ‘latent proliferation,’ finding itself losing a nonnuclear war, might complete the transition to deliverable nuclear weapons and, in desperation, use them.” Limited nuclear wars between countries with small numbers of nuclear weapons could escalate into major nuclear wars between superpowers. For example, a nation in an advanced stage of “latent

proliferation,” finding itself losing a nonnuclear war, might complete the transition to deliverable nuclear weapons and, in desperation, use them. If that should happen in a region, such as the Middle East, where major superpower interests are at stake, the small nuclear war could easily escalate into a global nuclear war.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 238

Russell’s Lab

Politics-India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad—Proliferation Causes War Proliferation causes nuclear war Quester and Utgoff 94 (George and Victor, “No-First-Use and Nonproliferation: Redefining Extended Deterrence,” Washington Quarterly, Spring, 1994) The Negative Consequences of Nuclear Proliferation If Americans ask themselves the elementary question of why they should be opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, an obvious first answer might now be that such a spread of weapons of mass destruction could lead to U.S. cities being destroyed and/or U.S. military units or other U.S. assets abroad suffering nuclear attacks. Further, Americans also care about nuclear proliferation because foreign cities may get destroyed in future outbreaks of war. Following such proliferation, nuclear attacks on U.S. targets could take place more "rationally" in the wake of normal military and political conflicts. Crises sometimes lead to "a war nobody wanted," or to escalations that neither side can control. The risks that such deterrence failures

would involve nuclear use are increased as more countries get nuclear weapons. Such nuclear attacks on U.S. targets could also take place less "rationally" -- if someone like Idi Amin or Mu'ammar Qadhafi were to take charge of a country that possesses nuclear weapons. The kinds of political forces that bombed the World Trade Center in New York, or attacked the entrance to Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) headquarters in Virginia, might then use nuclear weapons. Second, nuclear weapons have always been important, not just for the devastation they inflict, but also for the political intimidation imposed by the possibility of nuclear devastation. The spread of nuclear weapons to any sizable number of countries will tend to give each a way of intimidating the rest of the world, and thus of vetoing the outside world's objections to any of its more obnoxious activities: "ethnic cleansing," brutal dictatorships, warlord-caused famines, or

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

239 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad—Nuclear Accidents Bad This is the biggest impact in the debate—reactor meltdown is equivalent to the detonation a thousand nuclear weapons Calidicott 95 (Helen, PHD anti-nuclear advocate who has founded several associations dedicated to opposing nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons proliferation,” http://www.robertschoch.net/Nuclear%20Energy%20Radiation%20Toxicology%20Human%2 0Chromosomes%20Helen%20Caldicott%20Circular%20Times.htm) Each 1000-megawatt nuclear reactor contains as much long lived radioactive material ("fall out") as would be produced by one thousand Hiroshima - sized bombs. A "meltdown" (in which fissioning nuclear fuel overheats and melts, penetrating the steel and concrete structures that encase it) could release a reactor's radioactive contents into the atmosphere killing hundreds of thousands of people, depending upon the wind direction and population density, and contaminating thousands of square miles

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

240 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – Indo-Pakistan War India deal causes a new arms race LaFranchi 8 (Howard, Christian Science Monitor, July 10, 2008. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0710/p02s01usfp.html. Accessed on July 29, 2008//grice)

Pakistan has cautioned the international nuclear watchdog against approving the Indiaspecific nuclear safeguards agreement on the controversial Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. Pakistan -- a member of the 35-member International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board of governors -- in a letter to the agency, warned that any deal allowing the nuclear watchdog to inspect India's nuclear facilities could lead to a renewed nuclear arms race in the sub-continent. It has also questioned the utmost hurry that the IAEA is showing in getting the approval for the agreement. Nuclear deal increases risk of indo-pak conflict and nuclear chain reaction The Ottawa Sun 5 (http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Harris_Michael/2005/07/22/1141851.html, 7-22) But by far the biggest danger unleashed by the president's proposed nuclear deal with India is Pakistan. Three times in 50 years India and Pakistan have gone to war. Pakistan is a Muslim state with more than its share of extremists and jihadists. As recently as 1998, this is how Pakistan, through its foreign minister Gohar Ayub Khan, reacted to five nuclear tests conducted by India. "The leadership seems to have gone berserk in India. And it is drawing Pakistan into a head-long arms race." Back then, the U.S. wasn't in the business of rewarding countries that refused to sign the non-proliferation pact of 1970. In fact, this is what then Secretary of State William Cohen had to say in defending the American decision to prohibit the sales of high-tech aircraft to Pakistan in 1990: "There will be a chain reaction, and that's the potential of this a chain reaction of other countries following suit. It's one of the reasons we have worked so hard to try to keep the nuclear genie as far into the bottle as possible as far as other nations participating in developing nuclear weapons." For those who try to take comfort from the fact that General Musharraf became America's friend after 9/11, they should lean less confidently on the stereotypes of superficial western news coverage of this very complex nation. The fact is that members of the former Taliban came from madrassas or seminaries in Pakistan. And although the general has turned over senior al-Qaida members to the U.S., he has not turned in a single senior Taliban commander, even though many of them are living openly in Quetta. The leader of the Afghan government, President Hamid Karzai, has exhibited public anger over the role Pakistan has played in the resurgence of the Taliban in his country over the last six months. So why is Pakistan continuing to tacitly support the Taliban and destabilize Afghanistan? Fear of India. Before the war that toppled the Taliban, Pakistan kept other countries out of Afghanistan. But after the war, all that changed. And one of the big players in the war-torn country is none other than India. With an old foe pressing on her western borders, it was bad enough for Pakistan. But given an India with an accelerated nuclear program and sophisticated weapons supplied by the U.S., there is no telling where this cornered cat may jump in a region that has been going "berserk" one way or another since 1947.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

241 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – Indo-Sino War India deal causes US-Sino war, India-Pakistan conflict, and nuclear prolif Topol 5 (Allan, author of bestseller Spy Dance; 2005. The India Gamble; http://www.allantopol.com/essay87.htm. Accessed on July 30, 2008//grice)

This is a new formulation of Europe’s balance of power in the nineteenth century. It may on balance be the right course of action for the United States, but we should recognize that President has taken a bold gamble fraught with three potential dangers. The first is that the United States’ position discouraging nuclear proliferation has been weakened. The spread of these weapons may be inevitable, but we are hastening it. Other countries will no doubt expedite their own nuclear development. Second, we may be creating anxieties in Beijing which will increase the risk of war with China—precisely the result we are hoping to avoid. It was no coincidence that only four days before the deal with India was announced a Chinese general threatened the use of nuclear weapons if the U.S. intervenes in any conflict over Taiwan. Major General Zhu Chenghu was speaking for the Chinese government when he raised the specter of a Chinese response with nuclear weapons against the United States. It’s unlikely that the timing was coincidental. Washington leaks like a sieve. China no doubt had advance warning of the deal Bush was proposing to Singh. Zhu’s words were a clumsy but dangerous effort to make Bush consider the deal. The Chinese were wasting their time. This is politics Texas style. We have a president in Washington who isn’t intimidated by threats. If they had any impact at all, Zhu’s words led to strengthening of the deal for India. Third, the deal is causing widespread consternation in Pakistan, which happens to be our most important ally in the Islamic world in the war against terror. Pakistan also happens to be a bitter foe of India. We made a serious error in Iraq by not appreciating the danger of animosity between Sunnis and Shiites. Let’s not make a similar mistake by failing to recognize the deep seated hatred between India and Pakistan. Again, religious differences are at the core. Hindu India against Muslim Pakistan. There is no doubt that the Pakistanis will believe those Indian nuclear weapons will be used against them. Likely fallout from the deal is to send Pakistan rushing off to China to develop a nuclear arsenal on parity with India’s. The possibility is real that there will one day be a nuclear collision between India and China with adverse affects throughout the world.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

242 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – Taiwan-China Conflict (1/2) India nuclear deal provides Taiwan justification to weaponize Weisman 5 (Steven, writer . New York Times, July 19. Lexis) The official said the United States would continue to press Iran and North Korea to give up their suspected nuclear weapons programs on the grounds that they had signed various agreements and then cheated on them, while India had an ''impeccable'' record of not sharing its weapons technology with other countries. But several nuclear weapons experts said in interviews Monday that the main effect of the India accord would be less on Iran, North Korea or even Pakistan -- which has admitted to sharing its weapons technology with others -- than on the many states that have signed up to the bargain implied by the concept of ''atoms for peace.'' Among the countries that are widely known or thought to be able to produce nuclear weapons, but which have not done so because of their desire to comply with the terms of the nonproliferation treaty, are Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. The fear is that these countries, seeing the deal offered India, might be tempted to get nuclear arms, especially if the crises over North Korea and Iran spin out of control. ''If you open the door for India, a lot of other countries are likely to step through it,'' said Leonard S. Spector, deputy director of the Monterey Center for Nonproliferation Studies. ''China is already thinking of selling additional reactors to Pakistan.'' And, Taiwan prolif triggers Chinese invasion IHT, 96 (International Herald Tribune; January 30, 1996. Lexis) But disincentives for going nuclear are considerable. First, if China's threats are to be taken seriously, a Taiwan bomb could provoke the very war it was intended to prevent. Beijing has stated that acquisition of nuclear weapons by Taiwan is one of the conditions that would prompt China to use force against it. This suggests that if Taiwan did acquire a clandestine nuclear arsenal, it would not reveal the fact until war appeared imminent.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

243 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – Taiwan-China Conflict (2/2) Extinction Strait Times; June 25, 2000 (No one gains in war over Taiwan; lexis) (PDNSS2410) The high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and horror of horrors raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else. Gen Ridgeway recalled that the biggest mistake the US made during the Korean War was to assess Chinese actions according to the American way of thinking. "Just when everyone believed that no sensible commander would march south of the Yalu, the Chinese troops suddenly appeared," he recalled. (The Yalu is the river which borders China and North Korea, and the crossing of the river marked China's entry into the war against the Americans). "I feel uneasy if now somebody were to tell me that they bet China would not do this or that," he said in a recent interview given to the Chinese press.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

244 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – Taiwan-China Conflict – Link Ext. India deal leads to the nuclearization of Taiwan Malik 6 (Mohan, Professor of Security Studies at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu. China Brief, Volume 6, Issue 7 (March 29, 2006). http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=415&issue_id=3670&article_id=2370926)

As in the past, China’s attitude toward the nonproliferation regime will determine its future. The Chinese might step up nuclear proliferation in India’s neighborhood (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and perhaps Bangladesh and Burma) to countervail the U.S.-India ties. Washington may as well forget about securing Beijing’s help to sanction Teheran if India is to be cut loose with the proposed nuclear deal. Yet before the U.S.-India deal tempts the hawkish PLA generals to undermine the nonproliferation regime, they should ponder whether its collapse is in China’s security interests as it might end in the nuclearization of Japan, Taiwan and even Vietnam.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

245 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – China – A2: Deal = Containment India deal does not cause India to counterbalance china South China Morning Post 7-22-05 The US has also been sharply critical of China's military build-up, and threats to use force to prevent Taiwanese independence. Americans in the hawkish camp argue that there is a natural affinity between the US, the world's most powerful democracy, and India, the most populous democracy. They see India as an Asian counterweight to China. New Delhi, however, is also working to improve its relations with Beijing, and is unlikely to become part of any strategy overtly designed to contain China. In April, India signed a strategic partnership with China. It has similar relationships with Russia, Japan and the EU. Top Asia expert says India can't help us contain china Indo Asian News Service 9-8-05 Washington, Sept 8 The bold US- India nuclear deal proposed by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was signed too quickly and secretively, a process that embedded major faults in the agreement, says a top US expert. George Perkovich, a nuclear and South Asia expert at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), has released a report that claims the US-India civilian nuclear cooperation deal exposed important faults in the global non-proliferation regime, in US policy toward India, and in Indian nuclear policy. In his article "Faulty Promises: The US- India Nuclear Deal ", carried in CEIP's Policy Outlook web journal, Perkovich lauds the Bush administration for recognising India's global importance and moving to change rules of the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT) regime. "Yet, the administration's desire to mobilise India to balance Chinese military power in Asia distorts the strategy, as does the Indian government's obsession with nuclear energy," the article contends, claiming that Washington should have based its partnership with New Delhi "on the intrinsic value of augmenting the political-economic development of democratic India's one billion people". "Unfortunately, the deal was developed so secretively and quickly that it contains major faults of its own," said Perkovich, who authored "India's Nuclear Bomb", the prizewinning history of the Indian nuclear programme and US policy toward it. Furthermore, he contended, India's capacity and willingness to cooperate with the US in balancing Chinese power are too uncertain to form the foundation of a strategic partnership.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

246 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – Taiwan-China Conflict – Brink China is preparing for war – Relations are not close enough to prevent military and political action Bodeen 8 (Christopher, Associated Press, August 1. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i09Bxj5dPrHlRIkuBloQB9qu3sVQD929DGS00) "The Taiwan situation has undergone positive changes. The development of relations between the two sides faces a rare historical opportunity," Liang said.Since taking office in May, Taiwanese President Ma has approved the first weekend direct flights in almost 60 years, opened Taiwan to mainland Chinese tourists and relaxed investment restrictions, bringing about a watershed change in relations that were often severely strained under his predecessor, Chen Shui-bian.In July, the two sides restarted formal talks that were suspended in 1999, signing a raft of agreements and pledging increased cooperation in the future.Despite the progress, the sides remain far apart in the military and political spheres, with China's 2.3 million-member People's Liberation Army continuing a massive upgrade aimed in part at preparing for a conflict over Taiwan if the island seeks permanent independence.Beijing also fiercely opposes Taiwan's close ties with the United States, as well as its desire for diplomatic recognition and participation in the United Nations and other international bodies. High relations are short lived until Bush sells weapons to Taiwan after the Olympics Adams 8 (Jonathan, CSM, July 24. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0724/p99s01-duts.html) But other current and former US officials appeared to contradict Keating's remarks. Asked whether US policy on arms sales to Taiwan had changed, a State Department spokesman said, "The short answer is no," according to the transcript of a US State Department daily press briefing. The spokesman continued: "Let me reiterate for you what our policy is. The Administration faithfully implements the Taiwan Relations Act, under which the United States makes available items necessary for Taiwan to maintain a sufficient defense."Speaking in Taipei on Wednesday, Paul Wolfowitz, former deputy defense secretary in the Bush administration and current chairman of the board of the US-Taiwan Business Council, said that he thought President Bush was committed to selling arms to Taiwan and would do so before he left office, according to the Associated Press.But The Wall Street Journal reported that the US could be delaying the sales until after the Olympic Games. Some analysts say Mr. Bush may only be delaying the sale until after he travels to China next month for the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics. "The best chance [for the sales] is right after the Olympics," said Randall Schriver, a former senior Asia official at the State Department under Mr. Bush.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

247 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – No Solvency India deal cannot solve energy security or warming concerns – several reasons Polyglot 8 (loves reading, writing and learning languages. Hates megalomaniacs. “Why India Must Reject the Nuclear Deal” July 26. http://sufyanism.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-india-must-reject-nuclear-deal.html)

The nuclear deal assumes that nuclear energy is an economic and safe way for producing electricity for India. Nuclear energy has failed in India and offers no solution for the future. After 60 years of public funding, Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) produces less than 3% of India’s electricity. For comparison, in less than a decade and without state support, wind energy now accounts for about 5% of India’s electricity capacity.To escape its failures, the DAE plans to import large nuclear power plants and fuel. The US, France, Russia and Japan hope to profit from this. This pursuit of nuclear energy comes despite that fact that the cost of producing nuclear electricity in India is higher than non-nuclear alternatives and each reactor adds to the risk of a serious nuclear accident and worsens the problem of radioactive nuclear waste. The DAE’s budget is ten times more than the budget for development of renewable energy technologies. India must reverse its priorities and invest more in wind, solar, biomass and micro hydel energy resources.It is misleading to believe that nuclear energy is a solution to global warming. Firstly, nuclear energy cannot replace carbon emitting technologies realistically to any significant extent. Secondly, it will merely trade radioactive externalities for carbon emissions, which have implications not just for our health but for generations to come for a long-long time.The real energy challenge facing India is to meet the needs of the majority of Indians who still live in its villages. India needs an energy policy that works with the rural poor to develop and provide the small-scale, local, sustainable and affordable energy systems that they need. Renewable energy resources are better suited to fulfill this need.The India-US nuclear deal is anti-environment and anti-people.For all these reasons, the Government of India must withdraw from the India-US nuclear deal and reject strategic partnership with the United States. The deal is not a drastic enough change to curb India’s carbon emissions Ramana 6 (M. V., Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University. May 10. http://www.npec-web.org/Presentations/20060512-Ramana-Transcript-Q-and-A-2.pdf.) An attendee asked Ramana about the extent to which increase use of nuclear energy in India could positively impact the environment. S/he suggested that even if India increases the use of nuclear energy, India’s reduction of greenhouse gases would be negligible. Ramana answered that, for Indian nuclear energy to make a dent in global warming, it would require the use of nuclear energy to increase by several orders of magnitude. When someone talks up the ways in which nuclear energy can decrease greenhouses gases, you must ask: What are they assuming? In addition, Ramana noted how Japan, after it substantially increased its use of nuclear energy, actually experienced a concomitant increase in carbon emissions.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

248 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – India Not Key (1/2) Even if India is critical, China is 3 times more of a problem for warming Barbaros 7 (Raif, founder & president of Carsala, a venture funded startup that will revolutionize how people buy cars. UC Berkley Energy Symposium, May 27. http://www.raif.com/?p=31) * China & India will have to be key components of the solution as they are (and will be) a significant part of the problem. * China adds 50-100 gigawatts of plant capacity every year. * Beijing alone adds 600 cars/day. And almost none are scrapped. Whereas in the US, for every 10 cars that go on the road, 9 are scrapped and taken off the road. * Although India is critical, China has to have the main focus. China is 3X less energy efficient as India. Indian emissions are down and not important globally Parikh and Parikh 2 (Jyoti K. & Kirit Senior Professor and Professor Emeritus respectively. Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, 2002. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/22/16/1934784.pdf) India and other developing countries feel strongly that they are not responsible for the threat of climate change that has been created. Unsustainable consumption patterns of the rich industrialised nations in the world are responsible for it. Yet, India and other developing country economies may be highly vulnerable to climate change. India’s food production would be adversely affected. Sea level rise would displace a large number of people. The developing countries are particularly vulnerable to the likely increase in the incidence of extreme events. The impacts of climate change could hinder development and delay progress in eradicating poverty, potentially aggravating social and environmental conditions in these countries. An analysis of India’s emissions show that its per capita emission of carbon is one fourth of the global average. Even the top 10% of urban population emits well below the global average per capita emission. India, and other similar types of developing countries, are making significant progress in limiting GHG emissions through normal policy developments such as those aiming to improve energy and economic efficiency of the energy and industrial production capacity, as well as energy development, both conventional and renewable, which target improved environmental quality and limit human health hazards from air pollution. India’s energy intensity in industry and transport sector has come down. It has installed 2300 MW of generating capacity based on various renewables. Deforestation is arrested and the vast potential of afforestation on wasteland is increasingly utilised. India and many developing countries have carried out price reforms and removed subsidies. These have resulted in substantial energy savings and reduction in emissions through greater use efficiency and fuel substitution. 

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

249 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – India Not Key (2/2) India contributes only a small fraction of carbon emissions compared to the developed world Sengupta 8 (Somini, NYT, March 9. http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/03/09/MND6VC4HO.DTL)

Almost half of India's population has no access to the electricity grid, and many more people suffer hours without power. Nearly 700,000 Indians rely on animal waste and firewood as fuel for cooking. As a result, India's per capita carbon footprint remains a small fraction of that of the industrialized world - the average American produces 16 times the emissions of the average Indian - and in turn empowers the central Indian argument for its right to consume more, not less, energy in the future.India has consistently bucked pressures to set targets for reducing emissions, arguing that it has neither been a significant polluter nor yet able to spread modern energy to millions of its poor. Instead, it has pledged to ensure that its per capita emissions never exceed those of the developed world."It's not logical to talk of emissions cuts without reference to per capita emission levels," Montek Singh Ahluwalia, the deputy chairman of India's Planning Commission, said. "It's logical to talk about burden-sharing in terms of per capita emissions entitlements, or some other principle. The main point is that we must first agree on a principle that is felt to be fair."India points out that it contributes only 4.6 percent of the world's greenhouse gases although its people represent 17 percent of the world's population. Even with rapid increase of emissions, India will remain below the industrializes countries Sengupta 8 (Somini, NYT, March 9. http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/03/09/MND6VC4HO.DTL)

India's total emissions are the fourth-largest in the world, after the United States, China and Russia, though its per capita footprint remains as low as anywhere in the developing world: 1.2 tons annually, compared with 20 tons in the United States and the world average of 4 tons. The International Energy Agency, a policy and research group in Paris, forecast in November that India's energy demand would more than double by 2030. In turn, if policies remain unchanged, per capita emissions will double, it said, but will remain well below the level of industrialized countries today.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

250 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – No Solve: Transportation Transportation, not electricity, is key Bose & Sterling 1 (Ranjan, Ph.D. Senior Fellow, Centre for Urban Systems and Infrastructure & Daniel, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis. May 1. http://repositories.cdlib.org/itsdavis/UCD-ITS-REP-01-13/) Greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries are increasing most rapidly in the transportation sector. Even people with low incomes are meeting their need for mobility, and projected income growth over the next two decades suggests that many more will acquire personal modes of transportation. How this will affect the earth's climate is a great concern.In Delhi, India, transportation sector greenhouse gas emissions are expected to soar. There are policy and technology choices that could significantly lower the emissions growth rate while increasing mobility, improving air quality, reducing traffic congestion, and lowering transport and energy costs. To realize these benefits, vision, leadership, and political will must be brought to bear. Delhi has high vehicle ownership rates for the city's income level, increasing congestion, poor air quality, poor safety conditions, and insufficient coordination among the responsible government institutions. Travelers in Delhi desire transportation services, reflected by the increasing numbers of inexpensive but highly polluting scooters and motorcycles.This report creates two scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions from Delhi's transportation sector in 2020. It finds:•Greenhouse gas emissions quadruple in the high-GHG, or business-as-usual, scenario; but only double in the low scenario.•Transportation policies are readily available that will not only slow emissions growth, but also significantly improve local environmental, economic, and social conditions.•Improved technology would maximize the efficiency of automobiles, buses, and other modes of transportation and could play a key role in reducing emission increases.•Keeping many travel mode options available – including minicars and new efficient scooters and motorcycles – will help individuals at various income levels meet their mobility needs.•The time to act is now. The issues facing Delhi represent opportunities for improvement, but the longer authorities wait to address transportation inefficiencies, the more difficult and expensive it will be to produce a positive outcome.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

251 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – Turn: Nuke Power = Warming (1/2) Nuclear tech is not enough of an economically viable option for the key developing nations contributing to mass emissions. Also, nuclear technology does not reduce carbon emissions – Japan proves Ramana 5 (M. V., “Nuclear Power in India: Failed Past, Dubious Future,” The second is that the adoption of nuclear power makes sense as a strategy to lower aggregate carbon emissions. A good example is Japan, a strongly pro-nuclear energy country. As Japanese nuclear chemist and winner of the 1997 Right Livelihood Award, Jinzaburo Takagi showed, from 1965 to 1995 Japan’s nuclear plant capacity went from zero to over 40,000 MW. During the same period, carbon dioxide emissions went up from about 400 million tonnes to about 1200 million tonnes. In other words, increased use of nuclear power did not really reduce Japan’s emission levels. The massive expansion of nuclear energy, then, was not motivated by a desire to reduce emissions. If indeed Japan was sincere about doing that, it would have adopted very different strategies. There are two reasons why increased use of nuclear power does not necessarily lower carbon emissions. First, nuclear energy is best suited only to produce baseload electricity, which only constitutes a fraction of all sources of carbon emissions. Other sectors of the economy where carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are emitted, such as transportation, cannot be operated using electricity from nuclear reactors. This situation is unlikely to change anytime soon. A second and more fundamental reason is provided by John Byrnes of the University of Delaware’s Centre for Energy and Environmental Policy, who observes that nuclear technology is an expensive source of energy and can be economically viable only in a society that relies on increasing levels of energy use. Nuclear power tends to require and promote a supply oriented energy policy, and an energy intensive pattern of development, and thus, in fact, indirectly adds to the problem of global warming.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

252 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Warming – Turn: Nuke Power = Warming (2/2) Nuclear power causes global warming and radioactive waste at development and storage stages, net environmental impact negative Caldicott 4 (Helen, president, Nuclear Policy Research Institute, Baltimore Sun, April 20.http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=680) The enrichment of uranium fuel for nuclear power uses 93 percent of the refrigerant chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gas made annually in the United States. The global production of CFC is banned under the Montreal Protocol because it is a potent destroyer of ozone in the stratosphere, which protects us from the carcinogenic effects of solar ultraviolet light. The ozone layer is now so thin that the population in Australia is currently experiencing one of the highest incidences of skin cancer in the world. CFC compounds are also potent global warming agents 10,000 to 20,000 times more efficient heat trappers than carbon dioxide, which itself is responsible for 50 percent of the global warming phenomenon. But nuclear power also contributes significantly to global carbon dioxide production. Huge quantities of fossil fuel are expended for the "front end" of the nuclear fuel cycle to mine, mill and enrich the uranium fuel and to construct the massive nuclear reactor buildings and their cooling towers. Uranium enrichment is a particularly energy intensive process which uses electricity generated from huge coal-fired plants. Estimates of carbon dioxide production related to nuclear power are available from DOE for the "front end" of the nuclear fuel cycle, but prospective estimates for the "back end" of the cycle have yet to be calculated. Tens of thousands of tons of intensely hot radioactive fuel rods must continuously be cooled for decades in large pools of circulating water and these rods must then be carefully transported by road and rail and isolated from the environment in remote storage facilities in the United States. The radioactive reactor building must also be decommissioned after 40 years of operation, taken apart by remote control and similarly transported long distances and stored. Fully 95 percent of U.S. high level waste waste that is intensely radioactive has been generated by nuclear power thus far. This nuclear waste must then be guarded, protected and isolated from the environment for tens of thousands of years a physical and scientific impossibility. Biologically dangerous radioactive elements such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and plutonium will seep and leak into the water tables and become very concentrated in food chains for the rest of time, inevitably increasing the incidence of childhood cancer, genetic diseases and congenital malformations for this and future generations Conclusion: Nuclear power is neither clean, green nor safe. It is the most biologically dangerous method to boil water to generate steam for the production of electricity. Helen Caldicott, a pediatrican, is president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and author of The New Nuclear Danger, George Bush's Military Industrial Complex (The New Press). She lives near Sydney, Australia.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

253 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Terrorism WoT failing Kingsbury 8 (Alex, writes about national and homeland security for U.S. News & World Report. International Herald Tribune, August 1. http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/iraq/2008/07/30/in-fighting-al-qaeda-bushs-global-waron-terrorism-is-off-target.html) Since 2001, al Qaeda has conducted a greater number of attacks across a larger geographic area than at any time in its history. "We find it hard to agree that al Qaeda has been significantly weakened since Sept. 11, 2001," says Seth Jones, coauthor with Martin Libicki of the report titled "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qaeda."The authors evaluate al Qaeda since 2001 as being both "strong" and "competent."What's needed, the report suggests, is a "fundamental rethinking of U.S. strategy" to focus on minimizing overt military action and increasing intelligence collection and partnerships with law enforcement agencies around the world. Terrorism inevitable, especially in a world of US hard power Kingsbury 8 (Alex, writes about national and homeland security for U.S. News & World Report. International Herald Tribune, August 1. http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/iraq/2008/07/30/in-fighting-al-qaeda-bushs-global-waron-terrorism-is-off-target.html) "In most cases, military force is too blunt of an instrument and ineffective at ending terrorist groups," says Jones, a well-known Rand expert on Afghanistan who is also an adjunct political science professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service.For one thing, they point out, a major American military role sets the stage for a backlash. "The U.S. military can play a critical role in building indigenous capacity but should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim countries, where its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment," Jones and Libicki wrote.While the report's analysis of the history of counterterrorism operations finds that all terror groups eventually fizzle out, it was less optimistic on the prospects for a speedy endgame. Religiously motivated groups like al Qaeda have been particularly tenacious, surviving longer than most groups."The most salient fact about religious terrorist groups is how hard they are to eliminate," the study says. They were, however, far less successful in achieving their goals. "All terrorist groups end, but terrorism, like crime, never ends," Jones says.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

254 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Terrorism – Pakistan Relations Deal will sever US-Pakistani relations Hussain 5 (Ljaz, former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam University. Daily Times, August 2. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_3-8-2005_pg3_2)

Pakistan has its own reasons for being upset with the agreement. First, in its view, the agreement implicitly recognises India as a nuclear weapons state, the American protestation to the contrary notwithstanding. This interpretation derives from the statement in the agreement according to which India would “assume the same responsibilities and acquire the same benefits and advantages as other leading countries with advanced nuclear technology” which could only refer to nuclear weapons states. This development is quite worrying for Pakistan because out of the three non-parties to the NPT (India, Israel and Pakistan), it is now the only one denied some sort of recognition as a nuclear weapons state. Pakistan key to war on terror Hussain 5 (Ljaz, former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam University. Daily Times, August 2. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_3-8-2005_pg3_2)

Will the effort bear fruit? Burns has categorically ruled out the possibility of a similar concession to Pakistan. Given that this agreement and the 10-year US-India defence pact signed earlier are meant to project India as a counterweight to China, it does not make sense to expect that Pakistan will be treated at par with India. However, one needs to keep in mind that at present Pakistan has, in the words of Condoleezza Rice, “a central position in the US foreign policy”. For one thing, the US will need Pakistan’s support for quite some time in the war against terrorism. This gives Pakistan an important card to wangle concessions from the US in the nuclear field. The present situation may not be much different from that which obtained following the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan when the US decided to ignore Pakistan’s nuclear programme. The nuke deal undercuts Pakistan’s position in the region that critical to fight terrorism Motz and Milhollin 6 (Kelly & Gary, research assistant and Director. Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, June 13. http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/india/Seventeen_Myths.htm) Fact: The deal undermines America’s ability to fight terrorism. By favoring India over Pakistan, the deal undercuts the Pakistani government's position at home. At best, the deal is a blow to General Musharraf’s prestige, and at worst a public humiliation. Without the aid of General Musharraf, the United States will have a much harder time accomplishing its goals in Afghanistan and succeeding in its efforts to defeat al Qaeda. There is no benefit to U.S. security coming from India under the deal that will offset these disadvantages.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

255 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – Iranian Proliferation Deal speeds Iranian prolif and loosens resistance worldwide to resisting nuclear materials trade Perkovich 5 (4-18, George , Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=16789&proj=znpp,zsa)

Moreover, Washington can't have it both ways. We can't argue that Iran does not need nuclear energy because it has the world's second largest reserves of natural gas and then block Iran's investments in its gas industry. To wean Iran from its nuclear program, including its pursuit of uranium enrichment facilities that could be used to produce weapons, Washington must convince Iranians that the United States supports their peaceful economic development. The Bush administration threatens to compound the negative impact of its opposition to the pipeline by supplying India with new nuclear reactors as an alternative - a proposal that would go against existing domestic laws and international nuclear nonproliferation guidelines. Such a unilateral and mercantile move would incense Canada, Germany, Japan and other countries that the United States has pressured not to sell nuclear technology to countries like India that don't accept international safeguards. In effect, the administration would be trying to block Iran's nuclear ambitions by rewarding India's, thereby undermining the global support needed for tougher nonproliferation rules both now and in the future.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

256 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations (1/2) Even if the deal fails, recent progress insures relations will survive LaFranchi 8 (Howard, Christian Science Monitor, July 10, 2008. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0710/p02s01usfp.html. Accessed on July 29, 2008//grice)

India experts see the deal as a legacy issue for Singh, who faces rough parliamentary elections next year. "Legacy" is also a word that arises with respect to Bush, who came into office with a foreign policy team set on finding ways of countering China's rise. "This deal offers a unique chance to set the direction of US-India relations on a productive path for the next administrations in Washington and New Delhi," says Bruce Riedel, a South Asia expert who served under three administrations and is now at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Failure to approve the deal this year would be a "serious setback," he says, but improvements in US-India relations in recent years mean "our partnership … is strong enough to survive if the deal falters." India deal only superficially increases ties Mirza 8 (Amna, Merinews, July 10, http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=137377. Accessed on July 29, 2008//grice)

The other issue of strengthening the Indo-US ties via the deal seems superficial. With the rise of multi-lateralism as a force in world politics, the bilateral ties have been marked by ‘closer engagement’. This growing warmth will not be reversed even if the deal is not enforced. Thus, to base the entire paraphernalia of relations with United States seems to put bilateral ties on hollow terms. Relations will remain strong even without the deal. Markey 6, [Ed, Representative & Senator of Massachusetts, http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060303/cm_huffpost/016718;_ylt=A86.I1NwP) The President argued that the India nuclear deal will strengthen the security and the economies of both nations. He is wrong. We do not need to grant India special exemptions from nuclear nonproliferation rules in order to have a strong security relationship with India and assist India in further developing and expanding its economy. India already has a strong geopolitical basis for developing close bilateral ties with the United States. Both countries are democracies, both already are major markets for one another's goods and services, and both share common security interests.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

257 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations (2/2) Relations high- India nuclear deal not key Krepon 5 [Michael, Henry 1. Stimson Center, 2005, http://www.satribune.com/archives/200509!Pl_mk.htm] President Bush has greatly increased military cooperation with New Delhi, including the offer of advanced combat aircraft and their co-production in India. The United States has long been ready to increase trade and investment in India. The Bush administration has also relaxed restrictions on space cooperation and is working more closely than ever with New Delhi on regional security problems. In other words, significantly improved ties are being forged without having to relax existing rules to prevent proliferation. So why has the administration proposed to weaken these rules? Does it honestly believe that foreign nuclear suppliers will agree only to make an exception for India, and not for other nations? Nuclear deal won't buy lasting partnership Perkovich 5 [George, vice-president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September, 7 2005, http://www.harolddoan.com/modules. php ? name=News&file=article&sid=5682] India's capacity and willingness to cooperate with the United States inbalancingChinesepowerare too uncertain to form the foundation of a strategic partnership. The United Statesshould base its partnership on the intrinsic value of augmentingthe political-economic development of democratic India's one billion people. U.S. accommodation of the Indian government's preoccupation with nuclear power will not buy lasting Indian partnership.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

258 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations – Resilient U.S. India Relations are resilient. Fernandes and Marks 2 [George and Simon, India’s Defense Minister and Special Correspndent, 2002, News Hour with Jim Lehrer August 29th]

George Fernandes: Our relations with the United States is based on mutual trust and transparency, and naturally, we should be together in fighting all common causes. There may be areas where there differences. On… there could be differences nuances, there could be differences in some basic issues, there could be disputes on trade-related matters. There are bound t o be hiccups in relationships, but I don’t think the kind relation that we have today between the United States and India is something that can be derailed by anyone. Simon Marks: After decades of talking past one another, the world’s most powerful democracy is now working closely with the world’s largest. Economic and geopolitical changes have helped lure the United States and India closer together. It’s a relationship with even more potential for growth as both sides learn to trust one another.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

259 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations – A2: Terrorism (1/2) Increasing US-India relations because of have a zero-sum trade off with US-Pakistan relations critical to fighting WOT Landay 8 (Jonathan S., ational security and intelligence corresponden. McClatchy Newspapers, August 1. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/46178.html) Pakistani generals and other leaders are also infuriated by President Bush's pursuit of a strategic relationship with India, their foe in three wars, as embodied by a U.S.-Indian civilian nuclear cooperation pact that won United Nations approval Friday, the U.S. officials and experts said. "One thing we never understood is that India has always been the major threat for Pakistan," said former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain, now the president of the Middle East Institute. Pakistan is alarmed by India's close ties to Afghan President Hamid Karzai and its growing influence in Afghanistan, where a $750 million Indian aid program includes the construction of a strategic highway that will open the landlocked country to Indian goods shipped through ports in Iran. Pakistan, which refuses to allow Indian products through its port of Karachi, has long coveted Afghanistan as a market, a trade route to central Asia and a rear area for its army in any new conflict with India. "Pakistan over the last several years has increasingly come to believe that it is being encircled by India and a U.S.-India-Afghan axis," said Seth Jones, an expert with the RAND Corp., a policy institute. For these reasons, Pakistan's military leaders may have decided to scale back their cooperation with the Bush administration's war against terrorism and boost support for the Taliban and other militant groups.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

260 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations – A2: Terrorism (2/2) Even when relations are low, India and Pakistan pledge to work together against terrorism Ondaatjie & Thomas 8 (Anusha and Cherian, Bloomberg News, Aug 2. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/ news?pid=20601087&sid=aby30JQv.2T0&refer=home)

India and Pakistan pledged to unite in the fight against , seeking to defuse tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbors that overshadowed a regional summit on tackling terrorism, poverty and food security.Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistan counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani joined leaders from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and the Maldives saying terrorism remained the biggest threat to progress in the region, hampering efforts to eradicate poverty and spur economic growth.``We cannot afford to lose the battle against the ideology of hatred, fanaticism and against all those who seek to destroy our societal fabric,'' Singh said in his speech at the annual South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation's summit in Colombo. ``We must fight jointly against this scourge.''Singh and Gilani met for the first time today as fighting in the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir has flared and amid claims Pakistani intelligence agents supported a deadly bombing of India's embassy in Kabul last month. Leaders from the eight nations are scheduled to sign an accord tomorrow to classify terrorism as a crime for the first time.``The relations between India and Pakistan are tense so nobody was expecting a very positive outcome of the meeting,'' said Zafar Nawaz Jaspal, assistant professor of international relations at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad. ``Both sides realize they cannot afford to derail the peace process and waste the efforts of past so many years.''Widest MeasuresThe agreement will call on members to give each other ``the widest possible measure'' of legal assistance in fighting terrorism in South Asia, home to the most people affected by conflicts, according to the World Bank. Bombings take a toll in the region with al-Qaeda active in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and in Sri Lanka where the Tamil Tigers have been fighting for an independent homeland for 25 years.``We have a joint responsibility to fight this menace, we need to fight this menace individually and collectively,'' Gilani said in his speech. ``Pakistan condemns the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul though Pakistan has suffered terrorism the most.''

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

261 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Oil Prices The deal would have little to no affect on global oil prices Graham 6 (July, Thomas, Graham received a LL.B. from Harvard University in 1961 and an A.B. from Princeton in 1955, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3533) Sponsors of the deal argue that, with India’s energy needs expected to double in the next two decades, nuclear energy will help replace the country’s voracious appetite for oil and coal and feed the country’s growing electrical grid. But, even if the deal passes in the U.S. Congress, nuclear power will only account for 12.5 percent of India’s electrical production by 2030, an ambitious and unrealistic target that doubles India’s previous estimates made before the announcement of the deal. And it’s not as though India’s thirst for oil will be supplanted by nuclear energy. The Indian economy, like the United States, uses oil mainly for transportation and manufacturing—sectors where nuclear energy is not yet applicable. Hype that the agreement could help restrain oil prices is just that—hype. U.S. President George W. Bush has declared that the deal will “help the American consumer” by reducing Indian oil consumption and keeping prices down, but a March Congressional Research Service report on the energy implications of the deal concluded that “the reduction in India’s oil consumption . . . would have little or no impact on world oil markets.” Nuclear tech is not viable for India – too many development problems Bidwai 7 (Praful-Member of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists against Proliferation (INESAP). Transnational Institute, 31 July http://www.tni.org/detail_page.phtml?act_id=17161)

Finally, the nuclear deal will do little to promote India's energy security. To start with, nuclear power is a dubious route to security because it is fraught with grave problems of operational safety, proneness to accidents, routine radioactivity releases and exposure, and above all, high-level wastes that remain radioactive for centuries. India's nuclear power plans have always been marked by utopian and constantly missed targets. For instance, India was projected to generate 43,500 megawatts of nuclear electricity by 2000. Today, India produces less than 1/10th of that amount in nuclear reactors. However, even if India's romantic plans fructify, the contribution of atomic energy to total electricity generation will rise by 2030 to 6 percent, from the current level of 3 percent. That can hardly be a source of energy security! Transportation drives oil consumption – the nuclear electricity cannot curb Ramana 6 (M. V., Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University. May 10. http://www.npec-web.org/Presentations/20060512-Ramana-Transcript-Q-and-A-2.pdf.) An attendee asked whether the US-India nuclear cooperation deal has anything to do with oil—that is, to what extent can nuclear-generated electricity actually substitute and actually displace oil usage in India. Ramana answered that the deal has little do with oil. It will be hard to substitute India’s current level of oil consumption, which is driven by the transport and certain industrial sectors, with nuclear electricity.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

262 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Nuke Industry The US is unlikely to receive reactor orders from India Motz and Milhollin 6 (Kelly & Gary, research assistant and Director. Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, June 13. http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/india/Seventeen_Myths.htm) Fact: It is unlikely that the United States will receive reactor orders from India. India is building a string of domestic reactors that are cheaper to construct than American imports would be, and there are easier places to buy imported reactors. Russia already has a foothold in India's reactor market, and will charge less money and attach fewer conditions than will U.S. sellers. France and Canada will also enter the competition. The chance that the United States will defeat these competitors is slim. The precedent is the U.S. experience with China in the 1980's. At the time when U.S. nuclear cooperation with China was being debated, American vendors were citing the large number of reactors that China would probably buy from the United States. After the deal was signed, China bought exactly no American reactors. Instead, the U.S. agreement increased the competition and drove down the price for the Chinese buyers. That was good for China, but did nothing for the United States. The same is likely to happen with India.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

263 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Indian Econ India’s economy isn’t even important in Asia Economy Watch no date (Indian Economy Overview. http://www.economywatch.com/ indianeconomy/india-and-global-economy.html) A growth rate of above 8% was achieved by the Indian economy during the year 2003-04 and in the advanced estimates for 2004-05, Indian economy has been predicted to grow at a level of 6.9 %. Growth in the Indian economy has steadily increased since 1979, averaging 5.7% per year in the 23-year growth record. In fact, the Indian economy has posted an excellent average GDP growth of 6.8% since 1994 ( the period when India's external crisis was brought under control). However, in comparison to many East Asian economies, having growth rates above 7%, the Indian growth experience lags behind. The tenth five year plan aims at achieving a growth rate of 8% for the coming 2-3 years. The neo-liberal economics effect of the India nuclear deal, which favors the interests of American corporations, is an unjust exploitation of the impoversihed Polyglot 8 (loves reading, writing and learning languages. Hates megalomaniacs. Information gathered from ASHA Foundation. “Why India Must Reject the Nuclear Deal” July 26. http://sufyanism.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-india-must-reject-nuclear-deal.html)

The US –India nuclear deal was first announced as part of a larger package of agreements that included a commitment to “deepen the bilateral economic relationship” between the US and India, and create in India an enhanced “investment climate” so that “opportunities for investment will increase.” The US sees India as an increasingly important source of cheap labour and high profits for its corporations. Some grassroots movements are fighting to prevent the corporate take over of ground water resources of Indian people by PepsiCoca Cola and they’re prepared to oppose the entry of Wal-Mart into India.Privileging business interests means pursuing neo-liberal economic policies which favour the interests of Indian and US corporations. These policies include the creation of Special Economic Zones and other such measures that come at the cost of the poor. These policies have been followed for almost twenty years and have failed. In 2006, India was ranked at number 126 among 177 nations according to the United Nations Human Development Index. India should follow policies that will promote a just and equitable social and economic development aimed at meeting the needs of India’s poor and disadvantaged.The India-US nuclear deal is anti-poor.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

264 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – A2: Indian Econ – Growth Bad India’s economic growth increases the chances of conflict-Military spending and nationalism Gulf News`3 (Gulf News, HUSAIN HAQQANI The writer is a visiting scholar at Carnegie Endow-ment for International Peace in Washington D.C. He served as ambassador to Sri Lanka and as adviser to Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto., GLOOMY OUTLOOK FOR S. ASIA, March 29, 2003)

India's relative economic health could encourage anti-Pakistan hardliners in New Delhi to try and "spend Pakistan into the ground" - a calculated policy of increasing the cost of military competition to the point where Pakistan's economy collapses completely. India is already turning increasingly towards Hindu nationalism, which is further aggravating ties with Pakistan. Inadequately performing economies in South Asia also create the risk of India and Pakistan externalising the resentments of their people. Instead of allowing such frightening prospects manifest themselves as reality, both need to start looking at ways to minimise the unsettling effects of the global economic turndown on South Asia's precarious political and social balance.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

265 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – A2: US-India Relations—Up India-US relations are rise with hope of closer ties after Bush leaves office Smash Hit News 8 (honestly, not really qualled. July 8. http://news.smashits.com/269972/IndiaUS-relations-on-upward-trajectory-Strobe-Talbott.htm) A former senior US diplomat says the India-US relationship is on an upward trajectory but the next president must translate into concerted action all the talk about India and US being 'natural allies' and 'strategic partners' to better meet the challenges they share. The most dramatic American presidential election in many decades contains good news for USIndian relations, says Strobe Talbott, former president Bill Clinton's special envoy for the US-Indian dialogue of 1998-2000. 'The next president will inherit a relationship that is on an upward trajectory,' said the official who, as deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration, conducted the dialogue with Jaswant Singh, external affairs minister in India's Bhartiya Janata Party(BJP) led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government. 'But to better meet the challenges both countries share, he should translate into concerted action all the talk in recent years about the world's oldest and largest democracies being 'natural allies' and 'strategic partners',' Talbott added.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

266 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – Democracy The India deal undermines democracy Polyglot 8 (loves reading, writing and learning languages. Hates megalomaniacs. Information gathered from ASHA Foundation. “Why India Must Reject the Nuclear Deal” July 26. http://sufyanism.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-india-must-reject-nuclear-deal.html)

In July 2005, President George Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced a deal to exempt India from US laws and international rules that for almost three decades have sought to prevent states from using commercial imports of nuclear technology and fuel to aid their nuclear weapons ambitions. These rules were created because India secretly used nuclear materials and technology that it acquired for peaceful purposes to make a nuclear weapon. The deal is of profound importance since it allows for India to import nuclear fuel, reactors and other technologies, and will enable India to expand both its nuclear weapons and nuclear energy programme.The US Congress took a year and half to discuss and approve the new US policy and change existing US laws to enable nuclear commerce with India. In India, the government simply told parliament that it had made a deal with the United States. Subsequently, the US and India have negotiated a ‘123 agreement,’ a treaty that will cover nuclear cooperation between the two countries. But while this agreement will have to be approved by the US Congress, India’s parliament will not be allowed a vote on it.People of India have been denied the right to debate the nuclear deal and the larger changes in foreign policy and other issues that it involves, and to express their opinion through their elected representatives. The nuclear agreement should not be accepted under these circumstances.It is anti-democratic.

Arizona Debate Institute 2008 Russell’s Lab

267 Politics – India Deal

Nuke Deal Bad – Regional Instability An Indo-US nuke deal causes several scenarios of conflict including arms races in the region – It is anti-peace Polyglot 8 (loves reading, writing and learning languages. Hates megalomaniacs. Information gathered from ASHA Foundation. “Why India Must Reject the Nuclear Deal” July 26. http://sufyanism.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-india-must-reject-nuclear-deal.html)

The United States sees the nuclear deal with India as part of a process of building a strategic relationship between the two countries. The US seeks to use India as a client state in its new confrontation with a rising China and to achieve other strategic goals, for example putting pressure on Iran.We believe that India should not compromise its national sovereignty or its long standing tradition of an independent non-aligned foreign policy. The India-US strategic partnership and the nuclear deal in particular will escalate the nuclear arms race between Pakistan and India, and upset the India-Pakistan peace process. It will also create serious tensions between India and China, instead of helping improve relations. The deal with the US also threatens India’s relations with Iran, which the US considers to be a rogue state. The US in particular is opposed to an Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline that could improve political and economic relations among these three countries and provide relatively cheap and clean energy to India.The India-US nuclear deal is anti-peace.