Perm do both Brazil will say nosee US economic influence as hostile to their rise Einaudi, ambassador and member

of the advisory Council of the Brazil institute at the Woodrow Wilson international Center for Scholars, 11
*Luigi R., March, Strategic Forum (National Defense University), Brazil and the United States: The Need for Strategic Engagement, http://www.ndu.edu/inss/docuploaded/SF%20266%20Einaudi.pdf, accessed 7-2-13, GSK] U.S. opposition to Brazils development of a nuclear weapons capability confirmed previous Brazilian fears that the United States sought to freeze global power relationships to its advantage, relegating Brazil to subordinate status.29 Spurred by a long list of bilateral irritations and feeling that U.S. foreign policy had become bogged down in the war against terror, Brazilians became increasingly critical of the United States. According to Raul Jungmann, With the end of the Cold War, South America lost whatever residual importance it had had for U.S. leaders, and disappeared into a vacuum of strategic irrelevance.30 A new generation of Brazilian leaders has emerged who tend to see U.S., and generally Western, political and economic influence as a generic obstacle to Brazils rise, and therefore as something to be checked when possible.31 Sentiments of this kind fed UNASUR and the inter-regional mechanisms of the South-South Dialogue, IndiaBrazilSouth Africa, and the BRIC. Unobjectionable and even positive in themselves, these initiatives often seemed accompanied by an undercurrent of anti-Americanism. ?)

No will for cooperation, Brazil disagrees with US foreign policy Burnett 13 (Alistair Burnett, MA in History from Edinburgh University, editor of "The World Tonight", a BBC
News programme, Brazil balks at serving as junior partner to the US, The Nation, 6 -12-2013, http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Brazil-balks-at-serving-as-junior-partner-to-the-U-30208163.html)

Brazil, too, has blinders. Like the US, it's a huge, complex country more concerned with matters at home than abroad. Like the US, it supports the interests of domestic constituencies, such as the huge agribusinesses producing soya; this brings it into direct competition with the US, also a major agricultural producer. With its emerging
economy and burgeoning economic links with Asia and Africa, Brasilia has begun to project influence on the world stage, with an expanded diplomatic service and new embassies across the global South. This, added to its distinct policy agenda, means it rubs against American interests more often. Brazil sees itself as a consensus-seeker in global affairs and emphasises soft power, eschewing use of military force in international affairs. In many ways, Brazil

represents an implicit challenge to the US's sense of its role in the world. A strong thread through US foreign policy has been the idea of US exceptionalism - that the US serves as an example to the world. In recent years, this ideology has tempted US theorists like Samuel Huntington or Ivo Daalder to think that if only the whole world were democratic and shared "its values" there could be a true Pax Americana. Yet Brazil is a democracy that does not always agree with the US, especially when it comes to use of force. Crucially,
unlike India, which is culturally and geographically distant from the US, Brazil is a New World society and political system, and as such represents a potentially attractive alternative model to the US for emerging economies. This challenge, added to different

approaches in how international affairs should be conducted, and the reluctance of Washington to accept the changing global balance of power, produces fundamental tensions between Brasilia and Washington, not easily resolved even if there was a will in either capital to do so.

Perm do the CP

US Brazil Relations are low now Burnett, staff writer for BBC News, 4/12/13
*Alistair, 4/12/13, Yale Global Online, Brazil and the US Not on Same Page, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/brazil-and-us-%E2%80%93-not-same-page, Accessed: 7/7/13, PR] Relations between the two giant democracies of the Americas, Brazil and the US, should be easy. After all, the two
countries have much in common. Both are complex societies, with territory stretching across their respective continents and a history of European colonists taking land from indigenous Americans. Granting differences between British and Portuguese colonial traditions, both were built by immigrants, most who came willingly and others like slaves, indentured servants or prisoners who didnt. Both are well-established democratic federal republics. Yet,

when it comes to foreign policy and trade relations there are constant

tensions. These could be addressed soon, with reports that President Dilma Rousseff will make a formal state visit to the United States, the first of a Brazilian leader in two decades. To the irritation of Washington, Brazil has failed to extend support on issues such as the 2011 intervention in Libya, where Brasilia thought the Western powers were jumping the gun and abused the UN mandate to pursue regime change. For its part, Brazil has been irked by US failure to support its long-held ambition for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Washington, traditionally
the main foreign-arms supplier to the Brazilian armed forces, wont overlook Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedevs February visit to Brazil to sign an agreement on selling air-defense equipment with President Rousseff. But

the highest profile disagreement between the two has been over the Brazilian attempt, along with Turkey, to break the deadlock between Iran and the West over Tehrans nuclear program. Former Brazilian President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva went to
Iran with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoan, in May 2010 to sign a confidence-building deal with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to send some Iranian-enriched uranium for reprocessing abroad, so it could not be diverted to any weapons program. The US immediately rejected the deal. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused Brazil and Turkey of making the world a more dangerous place. Then Foreign Minister Celso Amorim insisted the US had been kept abreast of the negotiations; when asked at an international security conference later in the year why the US had later rejected the deal, he said some people just cant take Yes for an answer.

He suggests the Americans were happy to go along with the initiative because they thought it would fail; when it succeeded, they turned on Brasilia. The agreement was essentially the same as a proposed deal that Iran and the UN Security Councils permanent five powers, plus Germany, almost signed eight months before in Geneva another reason Brazil was taken aback by the US condemnation. US diplomats and analysts take the view that Brazil is often unhelpful, by which they seem to mean it doesnt always support US policy. For their part, the Brazilians say the US doesnt want to accept that the world has changed and Washington cant
accept that it must deal with emerging economies on an equal footing.

Consult counterplans are bad and a voter:

1. Unpredictable The negative can consult any tiny country of the 180 countries in the world. Theres no way to predict who the neg is going to consult. That undermines unlimited aff prep 2. Artificially inflates the NB takes all 1AC offense and adds any miniscule net benefit that doesnt have a significant impact 3. Kills education moots 1AC and aff research, consult CP can link to any aff every year. 4. Unfair steals entire 1AC. Any offense we read means were debating against our own aff 5. Recipriocity the affirmative can only use the USFG, neg should too 6. C/I CP is legitimate if and only if theres a piece of comparative evidence of the act of the consultation. And, NB justifies the SQ

And, relations are resilient Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars 2007 *January ,The Future of US
Brazilian Relations, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1419&fuseaction=topics.event_summary&event_id= 213989, accessed:7/9/13, ML] The United States-Brazil relationship has remained positive and productive notwithstanding the emphasis of Lula's first administration's diplomacy on South-South cooperation, South American integration, reform of the United Nations Security Council, and the still inconclusive negotiations of the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization. On January 24th, the Brazil Institute of the Woodrow Wilson Center held a conference with the outgoing Brazilian Ambassador to the United States in order to review the past three years of the bilateral dialogue and explore the prospects for deepening the relationshipa goal which both governments have already embraced and which will be furthered by President Lula's planned trip to the United States this spring. Director of the Brazil Institute Paulo Sotero recognized Ambassador Abdenur as a leading member of a generation of diplomats that paved the way towards opening up Brazil to the rest of the world during and after the democratic transition of the 1980s. He noted that Abdenur's successful diplomatic career includes serving as Brazilian Ambassador to three of the world's most influential nationsUnited States, China, and Germanyand as secretary general of Itamaraty, the Brazilian Foreign Ministry. Abdenur was the principle Brazilian participant in the negotiation and planning process leading up to the launching of the Summit of the Americas series in 1994. As ambassador to Germany, he successfully fought to ensure open lines of credit to Brazil throughout its economic crisis in 1999. Ambassador Anthony Harrington, the former U.S. envoy to Brazil, credited Ambassador Abdenur for fostering a strong and healthy bilateral relationship. Such an accomplishment is noteworthy given the two countries' divergent stances on contemporary developments, such as the war in Iraq and the troubling resurgence of populism in the hemisphere. He also noted Abdenur's role in deepening the dialogue between the two governments on the issue of renewable energy. Cooperation on this topic, and particularly on production and trading of ethanol, is likely to be at the center of President Lula's upcoming trip to the United States. The preparation of this trip will be the first major task of incoming Brazilian Ambassador Antnio Patriota, scheduled to arrive in Washington in late February. Not a single action taken or decision made by the United States in the last three years has negatively affected Brazilian interests, claimed Ambassador Roberto Abdenur, before a packed conference room in what was his last public appearance as Brazil's ambassador in Washington. When he took the position in 2004, Brazilian indignation with Iraq and over onerous visa procedures and poor treatment of visiting nationals had caused a temporary strain in the relationship. Other potential obstacles to strengthening the relationship that were successfully avoided include possible trade sanctions against Brazil over intellectual piracy, Brazil's refusal to exempt U.S. troops and officials from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, mutual charges of dumping, and U.S. threat to removes its General System of Preferences for Brazil (which would have negatively affected approximately four billion dollars of Brazilian exports to the United States). Despite these challenges, Abdenur argued that the bilateral relationship has reached an unprecedented level of mutual understanding and deference to the other country's positions and opinions, facilitated in no small part by President Lula's pragmatism. Despite the existence of differences, Brazil-U.S. relations are on a productive platform to foster positive developments in the future. Lula has put aside his misgivings about some U.S. policies and embraced the fact that it is in Brazil's best interests to foster strong relations with the United States, argued Abdenur. Much to the disdain of Brazil, the United States has mistakenly withdrawn from certain international discussions and scenarios and erroneously engaged in others, such as climate change and the Middle East. Additionally, Latin America is overlooked by its Northern neighbor. However, if and

when the United States decides to refocus its energies upon the region, Abdenur is assured that Brazil would be its natural ally in such an endeavor. Brazil has good relations with all of its neighbors and strategically occupies a moderate space between the region's divergent interests and trajectories, as illustrated by its leading role in the current international efforts to stabilize Haiti and by its contribution to the resolution of the conflict between Peru and Ecuador in the 1990sin both cases in close cooperation with the United States. Abdenur argued that the United States is not the only actor that must take decisive steps towards a convergence of interests between the two countries: Brazil must stop fearing the United States and instead embrace it as a partner.

US Brazilian relations are key to expanding the use of biofuels and energy cooperation internationally Budny 07- (Daniel Budny, April 2007, "The Global Dynamics of Biofuels: Potential supply and demand
for ethanol and biodiesel in the coming decade," Brazil Institute Special Report from the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars Issue No. 3, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/Brazil_SR_e3.pdf) Emerson Kloss, a diplomat at the trade key step in this direction. As the worlds largest producers of biofuels, the United States and Brazil have recently pledged to embark upon a joint strategy of energy cooperation to promote technology-sharing and to encourage ethanol production and consumption internationally. On February 20, the Brazil Institute of the Woodrow Wilson Center convened a conference of leading experts from both countries to assess the agricultural implications of the increased production and trade of biofuels as an alternative to hydrocarbons. The discussion led to plans for the creation of a Global Biofuels Policy Research Network to be housed at the Wilson Center in close cooperation with partner institutions. The networks research activities will focus on biofuels policy alternatives, as well as both the environmental and social impact of biofuels policies. The energy policies that the United States and Brazil follow have implications far beyond their own borders, argued Wallace Tyner, a professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University. Therefore, the global consequences of energy policy alternatives must be analyzed within the international context and be conscious of market interconnections. For example, ethanol production has been subsidized in the United States since 1978. But given favorable market conditions of crude oil prices topping 70 U.S. dollars a barrel, ethanol production has now become economically viable. The United States produced 8 billion gallons of ethanol last year, and is set to expand its output to 11 billion in 2007. Ethanol currently constitutes approximately 3.6 percent of U.S. gasoline consumption on a volumetric basis, and 2.5 percent on an energy equivalent basis. Since January 2007, however, agricultural consequences have reduced the profitability of ethanol: the price of corn is rising. Ethanol producers are still breaking even, but the relative decline in profits has led to the postponement of new plant production and slowdown of the industrys growth. Tyner detailed six policy alternatives for U.S. energy policy. The first is retaining the current 51 cents a gallon U.S. federal subsidy. Total ethanol subsidies are projected to reach U.S. 4 billion for 2007. The likely consequence is continued growth until rising corn prices choke off ethanol profitabilityraising international food prices and upsetting both consumers and livestock producers. While the logical assumption is that higher agricultural prices would help the worlds poor (around 70 percent of which rely upon agriculture), the actual impact on poverty would be far more complicated and quite difficult to estimate. Concern for higher corn prices leads to the second policy alternative, which is reducing the amount of the federal ethanol subsidy. Lowering the subsidy down to 30 cents a gallon would help lower the price of corn.

Biofuels kill Biodiversity- monocultures and pesticides Dale, Ecological Society of America staff, et al., 10

[Virginia H., Keith L. Kline, John Wiens, and Joseph Fargione, January 2010, Ecological Society of America, Biofuels: Implications for Land Use and Biodiversity, http://www.esa.org/biofuelsreports/files/ESA%20Biofuels%20Report_VH%20Dale%20et%20al.pdf, p. 34, Accessed 7/9/13, CB] Simply stated, biodiversity is the variety of life that exists in any one place at one time. Conservation work is often focused on protecting biodiversity through the establishment or maintenance of protected areas, and such efforts entail preserving the health and well-being of our planet for future generations. More and more, however, conservation is being enlarged to include the places where people live, work, and produce food and fiber. Farms have played a key role in this paradigm shift because a variety of organisms are able to persist and even thrive in agricultural landscapes . According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005, agricultural systems cover nearly onequarter of the Earths terrestrial surface although a small fraction is actively managed or harvested in any given year.