Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DA #3 – ANTI-AMERICANISM..........................................................................................................17
Link: Aff cuts climate aid........................................................................................................17
Internal Link: Hypocrisy creates anti-Americanism............................................................17
1. The hypocrisy of foreign policy creates justified dislike for the US..........................................17
2. Hypocrisy hurts America's foreign standing in the world..........................................................17
Uniqueness: Current US policy reversal would highlight American hypocrisy.................17
1. Current US policy is counterproductive; Aff just makes worse.................................................17
2. US' hardball policy will highlight Aff's hypocrisy.....................................................................18
Impact #1: Business and the Economy...................................................................................18
1. Anti-Americanism results in foreign backlash against US businesses.......................................18
Impact #2: Foreign Policy.......................................................................................................18
1. Anti-Americanism undermines our foreign policy.....................................................................18
Impact #3: The War on Terror................................................................................................19
1. Anti-Americanism hurts our efforts in the war on terror............................................................19
Impact #4: American Security................................................................................................19
1. Anti-Americanism decreases security for Americans around the world....................................19
Impact #5: Democracy.............................................................................................................20
1. Anti-Americanism hurts US efforts to promote democracy.......................................................20
Extension...................................................................................................................................20
1. Actions must match rhetoric; key to promoting democracy and human rights\.........................20
2. Reducing hypocritical policies can help reduce anti-Americanism...........................................21
FOREIGN AID – PRO {GENERIC SECTION}.................................................................................22
DA #1 - INDIA...................................................................................................................................22
Link: Foreign Aid helps our international relations.............................................................22
1. Humanitarian aid cannot stop.....................................................................................................22
2. Foreign Aid helps Relations........................................................................................................22
Internal Link: Indian Relations..............................................................................................22
1. Hurts India..................................................................................................................................22
Impact #1: Indian Partnership...............................................................................................23
1. Hurting India hurts the US-India partnership.............................................................................23
Impact #2:Stability...................................................................................................................23
1. India contributes significantly to US operations to enhance regional stability..........................23
Impacyt #3 – The Economy.....................................................................................................23
1. As Indian relations improves, the economies rise......................................................................23
GENERAL.........................................................................................................................................24
1. Foreign aid strengthen US security and democracy...................................................................24
2. US foreign aid assistance promoted economic growth, poverty reduction and humanitarian
relief................................................................................................................................................24
3. Foreign Aid has helped millions out of poverty.........................................................................24
REVERSE PLAN ADVOCACY...........................................................................................................26
1. US needs to allocate more aid to countries that are implementing development strategies.......26
2. PRSPs [Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers]..............................................................................26
3. Must act quickly to mobilize resources, or adaptation will be lost............................................26
VAGUENESS
[Note: Obviously, this can be its own argument. However, I think it would go stronger if you run this
as an alternative impact to vagueness, then run all the generic 'foreign aid – pro' cards you can
find]
Addressing the causes and effects of climate change has been a key focus of USAID’s development
assistance for over a decade. USAID has funded environmental programs that have reduced growth in
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while promoting energy efficiency, forest conservation, biodiversity,
and other development goals. This ‘multiple benefits’ approach to climate change helps developing and
transition countries achieve economic development without sacrificing environmental protection.
Active in more than 40 developing and transition countries, the program integrates climate change into
the broad range of USAID’s development assistance activities.
USAID places particular emphasis on partnerships with the private sector and on working with local
and national authorities, communities, and nongovernmental organizations to create alliances that build
on the relative strengths of each. Bringing together a diverse range of stakeholders helps avoid
unnecessary duplication and lays the foundation for a sustained, integrated approach. Through training,
tools, and other means of capacity building, USAID helps developing and transition countries address
climate-related concerns as a part of their development goals.
Impact: Aid relating to climate change is infinitely broad, and there can be no distinction
between what relates to climate, and what doesn't.
1. It destroys negative ground. Neg can’t debate the merits of the case or get links off of it if we
can’t know what they do in the plan.
2. It makes the plan a moving target – They can make new 2AC clarifications in order to squirm
out of our arguments.
3. Cross-ex is irrelevant. The plan sets the focus of the debate and if they can clarify in the CX it
makes the plan a moving target. Also, CX is vital for Neg to get DA or Kritik links or establish
counterplan competition. Neg shouldn’t have to waste it on clarifying the mandates of the plan.
4. It skews our pre-round prep time, which is key to competition and debatability.
KRITIK – NEOLIBERALISM
Link: At the very heart of canceling foreign aid is the underlying principle of neoliberalism
Anup Shah(Founder, GLOBAL ISSUES) “A Primer on Neoliberalism” June 1, 2009 GLOBAL ISSUES
http://www.globalissues.org/article/39/a-primer-on-neoliberalism
Neoliberalism, in theory, is essentially about making trade between nations easier. It is about freer
movement of goods, resources and enterprises in a bid to always find cheaper resources, to maximize
profits and efficiency.
As summarized from What is “Neo-Liberalism”? A brief definition for activists by Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia from Corporate Watch, the
main points of neoliberalism includes:
• The rule of the market — freedom for capital, goods and services, where the market is self-regulating allowing the “trickle down” notion of
wealth distribution. It also includes the deunionizing of labor forces and removals of any impediments to capital mobility, such as regulations.
The freedom is from the state, or government.
• Reducing public expenditure for social services, such as health and education, by the
government
• Deregulation, to allow market forces to act as a self-regulating mechanism
• Privatization of public enterprise (things from water to even the internet)
• Changing perceptions of public and community good to individualism and individual responsibility.
Overlapping the above is also what Richard Robbins, in his book, Global Problems and the Culture of
Capitalism (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), summarizes (p.100) about some of the guiding principles behind
this ideology of neoliberalism:
• Sustained economic growth is the way to human progress
• Free markets without government “interference” would be the most efficient and socially
optimal allocation of resources
• Economic globalization would be beneficial to everyone
• Privatization removes inefficiencies of public sector
• Governments should mainly function to provide the infrastructure to advance the rule of law
with respect to property rights and contracts.
The underlying assumption [of neoliberalism] then is that the free markets are a good thing. They may
well be, but unfortunately, reality seems different from theory. For many economists who believe in it
strongly the ideology almost takes on the form of a theology. However, less discussed is the the issue of
power and how that can seriously affect, influence and manipulate trade for certain interests. One
would then need to ask if free trade is really possible.
Uniformity and homogeneity [i.e. globalization] may be a heavy price to pay for the ‘better’
things we now enjoy, as it introduces the risk of neo-communism
Dr. Miroslav N. Jovanovic [PhD, Economics,Universities of Novi Sad, Belgrade, Amsterdam and Queen's University (Kingston,
Ontario). Lecturer, European Institute of the University of Geneva, 2008-??; Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Peace and Development in Belgrade,
European Branch of UN University of Peace; Visiting Professor of Economics, UN University of Peace) “Does Globalisation Make Sense?” Published in
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS, Vol. 31, No.1, pp. 47-80, February 2008, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=1170782
“To wrap up the issue, Henry Kissinger called globalisation “another name for the dominant role of the United States.” Uniformity and
homogeneity in the modern world may be a heavy price to pay for the new or ‘better’ standardised
things that we consume. This introduces an ever present potential for the neo-communist risk that
everyone eats and drinks the same, is dressed the same, shops in the same way, uses homogeneous
(perfectly substitutable) goods and services and finally may even, or is forced to, perhaps, think the
same. “It colonises by annexing not territory but the thinking and behaviour of a multiplicity of
policymakers at a variety of scales. So there are no formal imperial institutions, merely a shifting
constellation of corporations, border-crossing networks, and territorially-defined political units
representing, or at least ruling over, distinct communities” (Lovering, 2006, p. 222). If someone is not ‘in step’ with these
global developments (regardless of their pseudo-democratic or legal appearances and sugar-coating), well, then... he or she may court trouble from the
central globalisation ‘politburo’.”
In 1997, a group of European academics published a book called The Black Book of Communism, in which they documented the brutality and mass
killings committed by totalitarian Communist regimes in the course of the twentieth century. Perhaps a group of academics will one day publish a Black
Book of Capitalism. They should. For when a mode of life that subordinates all human and spiritual values to the pursuit
of private wealth persists for centuries, there is a lengthy accounting to be made. Among the innumerable sins that have
followed in capitalism's long train, we might mention, for example, the hidden indignities and daily
humiliations of the working class and the poor; the strangulation of daily life by corporate
bureaucracies such as the HMOs, the telecom companies, and the computer giants; the corruption of art and culture by money;
[Censored] the corruption of higher education by corporatization; the ceaseless pitching of harmful
products to our children and infants; the obliteration of the natural landscape by strip malls, highways,
and toxic dumps; the abuse of elderly men and women by low-paid workers in squalid for-profit
institutions; the fact that millions of poor children are sold into sexual slavery, and millions of others are orphaned by AIDS; the fact that tens of
millions of women turn to prostitution to pay their bills; and the suffering of the 50 million to 100 million vertebrates that die in scientific laboratories each
We might also highlight the dozens of wars and civil conflicts that are directly or indirectly rooted
year.
in the gross material disparities of the capitalist system — the bloody conflicts that simmer along from
month to month, year to year, as though as natural and immutable as the waxing and waning of the
moon — in places like Darfur, Rwanda, Congo, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Iraq, where millions of
wretchedly poor people die either at the hands of other wretchedly poor people, or from the bombs
dropped from the automated battle platforms of the last surviving superpower. Capitalism is responsible
for all this, and more besides. Yet perhaps its most destructive feature — the one that in many ways
stands as the greatest single impediment to our own efforts to find a practical and creative solution to
the present crisis — is capitalism's fundamental antagonism toward democracy.
SIGNIFICANCE
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton slightly brightened a grim mood at the U.N. climate talks on
Thursday by announcing that the United States would contribute toward a long-term fund worth $100
billion a year by 2020.
The contribution would be "in the context of a strong accord in which all major economies stand
behind meaningful mitigation actions and provide full transparency as to their implementation,"
Clinton told a press conference. In such circumstances, "the United States is prepared to work with
other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate
change needs," she said.
The figure of $100 billion is aligned with figures for long-term funding sketched by the European
Union, which has yet to announce what share it would pay.
"It's an important development and very welcome to have the United States on the same page as the
U.K. and the E.U. in terms of long-term climate finance," a British spokesman said.
As for short-term finance, $10 billion a year for 2010-2012 is envisaged as a de-facto sweetener for an
overall deal at Copenhagen. That too is making headway.
1. Though $10 billion seems trivial, the investment pays for itself\
Michael A Levi(David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow, Energy and the Environment, Council on Foreign
Relations; Director, Energy Security and Climate Change, Council on Foreign Relations; Project Director, Independent Task Force on Global
Warming) “Smart Politics in Copenhagen” December 2009 THE NEW YORK TIMES
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/how-much-climate-aid-is-enough/
Bailouts have gotten us used to thinking of anything under a trillion dollars as trivial. But $10 billion of
climate assistance over three years is nothing to sneeze at. No one should think that the European offer is a
substitute for robust long-term financial assistance or for deep cuts in global emissions, and it doesn’t
seem like anyone serious does. That’s no reason, though, to ignore its importance.
The “fast-start” financing, which negotiators hope will total $10 billion annually by 2012 once other countries’ contributions are included, appears to be
aimed primarily at helping the poorest in the world adapt to climate change, and at dealing with deforestation.
Project Catalyst has done a smart outline showing how, spent effectively, that money could meet the developing world’s climate needs for the next few
years. And the target is realistic: if the United States matched the European number, it would boost U.S. development assistance by a perfectly manageable
10 percent.
Delivering the money as part of a deal would also have a double-benefit: not only would it aid
developing countries, it would help blunt efforts by China and other relatively wealthy developing
countries to paint the West as an enemy of the world’s poor. It will be harder for the Chinese to block a
Copenhagen deal if doing so comes at the expense of the least developed in the world.
The European number, unlike its promise of 22-50 billion euros of public finance by 2020, is realistic and grounded in concrete commitments by individual
countries. Washington should step up with a commensurate plan. It should be careful, though, not to get out ahead of Congress, which has not yet
earmarked that much money. (The Bush administration learned that lesson the hard way when it pledged billions for a World Bank Clean Technology Fund
without first securing Congressional support.)
Offering aid should not be seen as a fall-back in case the United States can’t pass its own climate
legislation –- if lawmakers won’t spend money on clean energy at home, they won’t give that money to
other countries either. And if the world can’t get emissions under control, the cost of adapting to
climate change will surely dwarf the $10 billion that’s now on the table.
The offer of $3 billion would be a helpful political lubricant for the global climate change negotiations,
but it would not be significant given the total financial support needed.
Nonetheless, this sort of aid can make a difference. For the poorest nations, it can be used to make
some of the adaptations needed to deal with the effects of climate change. In Bangladesh, for instance,
it could help offset the cost of sea defense and subsidize the abandonment of coastal settlements. In
sub-Saharan countries, money could be used to help farmers switch to new crop varieties or establish
institutions to help farmers adapt to less favorable agricultural conditions.
Many emissions reduction measures, like increasing energy efficiency, can be carried out in such
countries with modest capital investments.
DA #1 – CLIMATE CHANGE
Christian Schwägerl(Staff Writer) “Obama has Failed the World on Climate Change” November 2009 SPIEGEL ONLINE
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,661678,00.html
Butfew people expected that Barack Obama, of all people, would continue his predecessor's climate
change plan. When he took office at the beginning of 2009, it was clear that the success of the UN
Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in December depended almost entirely on the US -- that
America needed to take a clear leadership role on a problem that could shake civilization to its very
core.
Only if the US manages to reduce its excessive energy consumption, commit itself to mandatory CO2 emission reduction targets and help
finance poorer countries' move away from oil is there still a chance that countries like China and India
will do the same and that a dangerous warming of the Earth can be stopped. On the weekend, Obama announced that
there would be no agreement on binding rules in Copenhagen. It was the admission of a massive failing -- and the prelude to a truly dramatic phase of
international climate policy.
1. Climate aid benefits the climate, energy efficiency, forest conservation, biodiversity, and the
economy
United States Agency for International Development “Global Climate Change Program” February 1, 2010
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/climate/
Addressing the causes and effects of climate change has been a key focus of USAID’s development
assistance for over a decade. USAID has funded environmental programs that have reduced growth in
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while promoting energy efficiency, forest conservation, biodiversity,
and other development goals. This ‘multiple benefits’ approach to climate change helps developing and
transition countries achieve economic development without sacrificing environmental protection.
Active in more than 40 developing and transition countries, the program integrates climate change into
the broad range of USAID’s development assistance activities.
The majority of developing countries are in tropical and sub-tropical regions, areas predicted to be
seriously affected by the impacts of climate change: Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Small Island
States (for example Mauritius) have all been identified as regions of concern. This is compounded by
the fact that developing countries are often less able to cope with adverse climate impacts:
• Poverty exacerbates, and is exacerbated by, the impacts of environmental change: Between 1990 and
1998, 97% of all natural disaster-related deaths occurred in developing countries. 90% of all natural disasters are climate, weather and water related.
• Livelihoods are highly dependent on climate-sensitive resources: agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa, of which
up to 90% is rain-fed, accounts for 70% of regional employment and 35% of gross national product.
• Low adaptive capacity: the poorest inhabitants of developing countries, especially those in the
Least Developed Countries (LDCs), already struggle to cope with current extreme weather events and
climate variability. In 2004 severe flooding in Bangladesh, caused by excessive rains of the annual Asian Summer Monsoon, killed over 600
people and displaced over 20 million. The greater frequency and severity of climate shocks is repeatedly eroding coping capacity.
All countries must adapt. However, developing countries may require assistance from developed
countries where there are gaps in economic, material and/or knowledge resources. Adaptation efforts
may be assisted through:
• helping build adaptive capacity;
• assisting the education process;
• promoting the sharing of adaptation options;
• providing tools for impact assessment and adaptation;
• providing funding (see Box 4) and insurance.
New patterns of heat waves and cold snaps, floods and droughts, and local pollution and allergens
would affect health directly. Indirect effects will result from changes to ecological and social systems.
Such impacts will include changes in infectious diseases, freshwater supplies, local food production,
population movements and economic activities.
Impact #2 - Forestry
Temperature increases can shorten growing cycles, e.g., those of cotton and mango on the north coast
of Peru during the El Niño (see Chapter 13, Section 13.2.2). More frequent extreme climate events during specific
crop development stages, together with higher rainfall intensity and longer dry spells, may impact
negatively on crop yields (Olesen et al., 2006). Cyclone landfalls causing floods and destruction have negative
impacts on coastal areas, e.g., on coconuts in India (see Chapter 5, Section 5.4.4), or on sugar cane and bananas
in Queensland (Cyclone Larry in March 2006). Rising sea level has negative impacts on coastal agriculture. Detailed
modelling of inundation implies significant changes to the number of rice crops possible in the Mekong delta under 20-40 cm of relative sea-level rise
(Wassmann et al., 2004). Rising sea level potentially threatens inundation and soil salinisation of palm oil and coconuts in Benin and Côte d’Ivoire (see
Chapter 9, Section 9.4.6) and mangoes, cashew nuts and coconuts in Kenya (Republic of Kenya, 2002).
forests are easily affected by climatic perturbations, and severe storms can
Coastal forestry is little studied, but
cause extensive losses, e.g., Hurricane Katrina. Plantation forests (mainly P. radiata) on the east coast of
North Island, New Zealand, are likely to experience growth reductions under projected rainfall
decreases (Ministry for the Environment, 2001). Increasing salinity and greater frequency of flooding due to sea-
level rise reduces the ability of trees to generate, including mangroves which will also experience other
changes (Section 6.4.1.4) (IUCN, 2003).
Impact #3 - Biodiversity
• Reduction in human health and other constituents of quality of life. Hotter temperatures can increase human mortality;
reductions in stream flows can reduce boating, fishing, and other recreational opportunities.
• Reduction in the value of assets or in the level of income. Increased flooding from climate-related storms can reduce the
value of exposed properties and disrupt employment for workers at commercial and industrial
enterprises in low-lying areas.
• Increase in climate-related expenditures and, hence, decrease in income available for other purposes. Households, businesses, and
government are likely to increase spending on health-related issues in response to higher temperatures,
leaving less money for discretionary household spending, business investment and profits, and
government services.
• Reduction in the value of goods and services derived from the ecosystem. Changes in climate can diminish an ecosystem’s
ability to provide valuable goods and services, such as those illustrated in Figure 5. The reduced supply of
ecosystem goods and services can reduce the quality of life in a community and increase costs for
families, businesses, and governments.
• Loss of employment or reduction in employment opportunities. Workers may be harmed when climate-related events, such
as floods or wildland fires, cause them to lose their jobs and incomes. The indirect effects of climate
change also may lead to similar outcomes, as businesses move away from areas affected by drought to
areas with greater availability of water.
• Increase in risk or uncertainty about future economic conditions. All else equal, the economic well-being of most families,
businesses, and communities is diminished when they experience higher risk, i.e., a higher probability
of having bad things happen to them, and greater uncertainty about the probability that such events will
occur. The prospect of climate change increases both.
• Increase in unprecedented economic conditions. Preparation for and adaptation to new conditions will generate new
costs that were not necessary to address similar concerns in the past. Climatic, environmental, and
economic variations in the past provide reference for families, businesses and communities to
anticipate impacts and adapt their activities. Insofar as climate change generates conditions not
experienced in the past, preparation and adaptation will be more costly in terms of requiring new
information, institutions, infrastructure, and behaviors.
• Undesirable shift in the distribution of wealth, income, and other indicators of economic well-being.
Many Americans may experience harm when climate change, or changes in ecosystems and social
systems that stem from it, generate economic benefits for one group while imposing costs on another,
especially if the latter is poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Similar harm may occur if changes in
climate cause the extinction of species or the loss of notable landscapes and other natural resources so
they will not be available to future generations.
DA #2 – SOFT POWER
"There's funding that was agreed to as part of the Copenhagen Accord, and as a general matter, the U.S.
is going to use its funds to go to countries that have indicated an interest to be part of the Accord," the
Post quotes U.S. special climate envoy Todd Stern as saying.
"There's funding that was agreed to as part of the Copenhagen accord, and as a general matter, the US
is going to use its funds to go to countries that have indicated an interest to be part of the accord," the
state department envoy, Todd Stern, told the Washington Post. He said the decision was not "categorical", suggesting that
other countries that opposed the accord could still get aid. Bolivia had originally been in line for $3m (£1.95m) in climate assistance and Ecuador for
$2.5m under the State Department's original request to Congress for international climate aid, the Post reported.
Joseph S Nye, Jr(Ph.D. In political science from Harvard University. The 2008 TRIP survey of 1700 international relations
scholars ranked him as the sixth most influential scholar of the past twenty years, and the most influential on American foreign policy. Received his bachelor's
degree summa cum laude from Princeton in 1958, did postgraduate work at Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship and earned his Ph.D. He is the University
Distinguished Service Professor of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He was Deputy to the Under Secretary of State for
Security Assistance, Science and Technology and chaired the National Security Council Group on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Nye also served as
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs in the Clinton Administration. In recognition of his service, he received the highest Department
of State commendation, the Distinguished Honor Award. In 1993 and 1994, he was chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which coordinates
intelligence estimates for the President. He was awarded the Intelligence Community’s Distinguished Service Medal. In 1994 and 1995, he served as Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, where he also won the Distinguished Service Medal with an Oak Leaf Cluster. He has been a trustee of
Wells College and Radcliffe College. A member of the editorial boards of Foreign Policy and International Security magazines, he is the author of numerous
books and more than a hundred and fifty articles in professional journals. In addition, he has published policy articles in The New York Times, The Washington
Post, The International Herald Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, and The Financial Times. He has received numerous prestigious prizes and honorary degrees,
and was reportedly passed over by President Obama for the post of Ambassador to Japan- against the urging of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton- in favor of a
campaign fundraiser.] ) “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy” 2004 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY vol 119, iss 2
(Academic OneFile)
1. Climate change influences soft power more than other domestic issues
Joseph S Nye, Jr(Ph.D. In political science from Harvard University. The 2008 TRIP survey of 1700 international relations
scholars ranked him as the sixth most influential scholar of the past twenty years, and the most influential on American foreign policy. Received his bachelor's
degree summa cum laude from Princeton in 1958, did postgraduate work at Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship and earned his Ph.D. He is the University
Distinguished Service Professor of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He was Deputy to the Under Secretary of State for
Security Assistance, Science and Technology and chaired the National Security Council Group on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Nye also served as
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs in the Clinton Administration. In recognition of his service, he received the highest Department
of State commendation, the Distinguished Honor Award. In 1993 and 1994, he was chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which coordinates
intelligence estimates for the President. He was awarded the Intelligence Community’s Distinguished Service Medal. In 1994 and 1995, he served as Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, where he also won the Distinguished Service Medal with an Oak Leaf Cluster. He has been a trustee of
Wells College and Radcliffe College. A member of the editorial boards of Foreign Policy and International Security magazines, he is the author of numerous
books and more than a hundred and fifty articles in professional journals. In addition, he has published policy articles in The New York Times, The Washington
Post, The International Herald Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, and The Financial Times. He has received numerous prestigious prizes and honorary degrees,
and was reportedly passed over by President Obama for the post of Ambassador to Japan- against the urging of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton- in favor of a
campaign fundraiser.] ) “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy” 2004 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY vol 119, iss 2
(Academic OneFile)
Some domestic policies, such as capital punishment and the absence of gun controls, reduce the
attractiveness of the United States to other countries but are the results of differences in values that may
persist for some time. Other policies, such as the refusal to limit gas-guzzling vehicles, damage the
American reputation because they appear self-indulgent and demonstrate an unwillingness to consider
the effects we are having on global climate change and other countries. Similarly, domestic agricultural
subsidies that are structured in a way that protects wealthy farmers while we preach the virtue of free
markets to poor countries appear hypocritical in the eyes of others. In a democracy, the "dog" of
domestic politics is often too large to be wagged by the tail of foreign policy, but when we ignore the
connections, our apparent hypocrisy is costly to our soft power.
Joseph S Nye, Jr(Ph.D. In political science from Harvard University. The 2008 TRIP survey of 1700 international relations
scholars ranked him as the sixth most influential scholar of the past twenty years, and the most influential on American foreign policy. Received his bachelor's
degree summa cum laude from Princeton in 1958, did postgraduate work at Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship and earned his Ph.D. He is the University
Distinguished Service Professor of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He was Deputy to the Under Secretary of State for
Security Assistance, Science and Technology and chaired the National Security Council Group on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Nye also served as
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs in the Clinton Administration. In recognition of his service, he received the highest Department
of State commendation, the Distinguished Honor Award. In 1993 and 1994, he was chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which coordinates
intelligence estimates for the President. He was awarded the Intelligence Community’s Distinguished Service Medal. In 1994 and 1995, he served as Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, where he also won the Distinguished Service Medal with an Oak Leaf Cluster. He has been a trustee of
Wells College and Radcliffe College. A member of the editorial boards of Foreign Policy and International Security magazines, he is the author of numerous
books and more than a hundred and fifty articles in professional journals. In addition, he has published policy articles in The New York Times, The Washington
Post, The International Herald Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, and The Financial Times. He has received numerous prestigious prizes and honorary degrees,
and was reportedly passed over by President Obama for the post of Ambassador to Japan- against the urging of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton- in favor of a
campaign fundraiser.] ) “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy” 2004 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY vol 119, iss 2
(Academic OneFile)
In the global information age, the attractiveness of the United States will be crucial to our ability to
achieve the outcomes we want. Rather than having to put together pick-up coalitions of the willing for
each new game, we will benefit if we are able to attract others into institutional alliances and eschew
weakening those we have already created. NATO, for example, not only aggregates the capabilities of
advanced nations, but its interminable committees, procedures, and exercises also allow these nations
to train together and quickly become interoperable when a crisis occurs. As for alliances, if the United
States is an attractive source of security and reassurance, other countries will set their expectations in
directions that are conducive to our interests. Initially, for example, the U.S.-Japan security treaty was
not very popular in Japan, but polls show that over the decades, it became more attractive to the
Japanese public. Once that happened, Japanese politicians began to build it into their approaches to
foreign policy. The United States benefits when it is regarded as a constant and trusted source of
attraction so that other countries are not obliged continually to re-examine their options in an
atmosphere of uncertain coalitions. In the Japan case, broad acceptance of the United States by the
Japanese public "contributed to the maintenance of US hegemony" and "served as political constraints
compelling the ruling elites to continue cooperation with the United States. (18) Popularity can
contribute to stability.
DA #3 – ANTI-AMERICANISM
The problem, which all too many Americans fail to recognize, is that people all over the world,
especially in Latin America and the Middle East, don’t like the U.S. government and its foreign policy.
Equally important, what all too many Americans fail or refuse to recognize is that such dislike is well-
founded and justified.
Unlike Americans, foreigners have had first-hand experience with the arrogance, obnoxiousness, and
hypocrisy that characterize U.S. foreign policy.
US Senator Carl Levin(Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Comission) April 26, 2007 “On Legal Issues
Regarding Individuals Detained as Unlawful Enemy Combatants” http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=273127
America's standing in the world has taken a nosedive since the world embraced us after 9/11.
According to a recent poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, 67% of the
people surveyed across 25 countries disapprove of the U.S. handling of Guantanamo detainees. The
Program Director explained: “The thing that comes up repeatedly is not just anger about Iraq. The
common theme is hypocrisy. The reaction tends to be – You were a chamion of a certain set of rules.
Now you are breaking your own rules.”
"There's funding that was agreed to as part of the Copenhagen accord, and as a general matter, the US
is going to use its funds to go to countries that have indicated an interest to be part of the accord," the
state department envoy, Todd Stern, told the Washington Post. He said the decision was not "categorical", suggesting that
other countries that opposed the accord could still get aid. Bolivia had originally been in line for $3m (£1.95m) in climate assistance and Ecuador for
$2.5m under the State Department's original request to Congress for international climate aid, the Post reported.
Jess T. Ford(Director, International Affairs and Trade, Government Accountability Office) “Strategic
Planning Efforts Have Improved, but Agencies Face Significant Implementation Challenges” April 2007 Testimony before the
Subcommittee on International Organizations, Humans Rights, and Oversight, House Committee on
Foreign Affairs GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/for042607.pdf
According to Business for Diplomatic Action,2 anti-Americanism can hurt U.S. businesses by causing
boycotts of American products, a backlash against American brands, increased security costs for U.S.
companies, higher foreign opposition to U.S. trade policies, and a decrease in the U.S.’s ability to
attract the world’s best talent to join the American workforce. Additionally, a report from the Princeton-
based Working Group on Anti-Americanism3 generally echoes the possibility that anti-Americanism
may harm U.S. business interests in these same areas.
Anti-Americanism obviously feels unpleasant, but does it really hamper American power? Sweig argues that
it does. She points out that after favorable attitudes toward the United States dropped from 52 percent in 2000
to 12 percent in 2003, Turkey -- a NATO ally -- refused to let U.S. troops cross its territory to fight in
Iraq. Similarly, anti-Americanism inhibited pro-American leaders such as Vicente Fox of Mexico and
Ricardo Lagos of Chile from supporting U.S. policies on Iraq at the U.N. Security Council. Moreover,
foreign perceptions of U.S. hypocrisy continue to undercut the Bush administration's efforts to promote
democracy. Being admired, Sweig writes, makes it easier to be effective.
Extension
1. Actions must match rhetoric; key to promoting democracy and human rights\
US Congressman Bill Delahunt(Chairman, Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight) May
2, 2007 “A Review of
Opening Statement of Chairman Bill Delahunt at a
the State Department's 2006 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices”
Hearing of the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/del050207.htm
DA #1 - INDIA
"One-off humanitarian efforts, no matter how well-marketed, will not lead to durable gains in
favorability for the United States. The data from the multi-year Pew Global Attitudes Survey paint a
much more ambiguous picture than the Terror Free Tomorrow poll that the L.A. Times editorial on food
diplomacy cites. In Pakistan, for example, favorable views of the United States rose from 23% in 2005
to 27% in 2006, when memory of the US earthquake response was fresh, but then collapsed to 15% in
2007. Indonesia recorded a 38% favorability share in 2005 after Navy ships became the symbol of
rescue for the people of Aceh, but fell to 30% in 2006 and 29% in 2007. This is not a failure of
marketing, though we could certainly do that better. It is psychology. What is salient and remembered is
what just happened."
"U.S. foreign assistance programs are critical to building a stable and secure world. Supporting these
programs is not only the right thing to do—it represents a practical investment in global stability. U.S.-
funded programs produce real change in the lives of children and families living in extreme poverty,
while they strengthen U.S. economic security, defend against global health threats and create the basis
for respect and good-will toward the United States in countries around the world."
1. Hurts India
Reuters (The Indian Express Group boasts an extensive newsgathering and marketing infrastructure as well as a state-of-the-art communications
network that is one of the best in the Indian publishing industry.) "US cut in aid to India 'wrong'“ March 8, 2007;
http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=82540
"In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Rep Tom Lantos, chairman of the US House of
Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, said the proposed cut "disregards the critical priorities of
our Indian partners, ironically casting doubt on the administration's commitment to the goal of
transformational diplomacy at the very time when sweeping progress is within our grasp."
US aid to India was $131 million in 2007, but the administration's 2008 budget request is for $81
million.
This would "effectively zero out highly successful USAID (US Agency for International Development)
programs in clean energy development, water and sanitation, women's rights, and basic education," the
California Democrat said."
"The United States and India today are confronted by an incredible opportunity to craft a new global
partnership that promises to advance a range of common interests in a way that was simply impossible
during the Cold War. These interests encompass a wide variety of issues ranging from the preservation
of peace and stability in a resurgent Asia over the long term, through the current exigencies relating to
the global war on terror, to promoting complex collective goods such as arresting the spread of
weapons of mass destruction, managing climate change, and promoting liberal democracy and an open
trading system."
Impact #2:Stability
William J. Burns (Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; PhD, International Relations, Oxford University [where
he studied as a Marshall Scholar]) "Statement of William J. Burns testifying before the senate Foreign Relations
Committee Hearing, "The U.S. - India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative"“ September 18, 2008
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/static/npp/reports/burnstestimony20080918.pdf.
"India has been a valuable partner in the fight against terrorism and disease, drugs and proliferation.
These global scourges present particular challenges for South Asia and India’s leadership on these
issues has made it a force for stability in a volatile region."
"During the Cold War period, non-aligned India bought most of its armaments from the former Soviet
Union. But in recent years, U.S. arms sales to India have increased rapidly. When India needed military
transport planes and helicopters last January, it placed the order with Maryland-based Lockheed Martin
Corporation. With the completion of this two billion dollar deal, Washington hopes the door is fully
open on a major new market for U.S defense industries.
Commodore Uday Bhaskar, is a retired Indian Navy officer with 37 years of service. He was a member
of India’s Task Force on Global Strategic Developments. He agrees that during the Cold War, India
relied mainly on the former Soviet Union for purchases of advanced weaponry. But as U.S. – India
relations have improved, so has India’s desire for American military equipment."
GENERAL
Thomas Lum Specialist in Asian Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division U.S. Foreign Aid
to East and South Asia: Selected Recipients CRS report for congress
Updated October 8, 2008 (ARO)
In 2007, the Bush Administration restructured U.S. foreign aid programs to better serve the goal of
transformational development, which places greater emphasis on U.S. security and democracy building
as the principal goals of foreign aid.2 Toward these ends, the new Strategic Framework for U.S. Foreign
Assistance divides aid programming among five objectives: peace and security; governing justly and
democratically; investing in people; economic growth; and humanitarian assistance. The Millennium
Challenge Account (MCA), established in 2004, promotes these objectives by rewarding countries that
demonstrate good governance, investment in health and education, and sound economic policies.
2. US foreign aid assistance promoted economic growth, poverty reduction and humanitarian
relief
J. Brian Atwood(Dean, Hubert H Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota; Administrator, USAID, 1993-
99), M. Peter McPherson(President, National Associate of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges; President, Michigan State University,
1993-2004; Administrator, USAID 1981-86) and Andrew Natsiois(Professor, Practice of Diplomacy, Georgetown University;
Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; Administrator, USAID, 2001-05) November/December 2008 FOREIGN AFFAIRS
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20081001faessay87609-p0/j-brian-atwood-m-peter-mcpherson-andrew-natsios/arrested-development.html
The U.S. foreign assistance program has traditionally sought to support U.S. national security and
promote economic growth, poverty reduction, and humanitarian relief abroad. Modern foreign aid
efforts began with the Marshall Plan, which was justified as a national security measure, a
humanitarian contribution, and an effort to build markets for U.S. exports. In the intervening years, the
policy rationale for aid has not changed much, and it remains as compelling now as it was then.
1. US needs to allocate more aid to countries that are implementing development strategies
Council on Foreign Relations The Effectiveness of Foreign Aid Discussants: Steven Radelet William Easterly December 1, 2006
http://www.cfr.org/publication/12077/
Most development practitioners and researchers don’t fully buy either argument.
We need to allocate more aid to countries that are implementing sensible development strategies, like
many of those forty countries with PRSPs. We should get more of it to local communities to decide
how best to use it so they can hire or fire a teacher, sink a well, buy a grain mill, or build a clinic. We
can support well-developed—dare I say it—plans and strategies to build rural road networks to connect
the poor to markets (which have high rates of returns), or to scale-up nation-wide immunization
programs, which have saved millions of lives. Whatever the activity, donors and recipients need to establish clear goals, announce
them publicly, and be held accountable through independent evaluation. Let’s stay away from the simple absolutes on either end of the debate. Instead let’s
learn from the failures and build on the successes, and not be afraid to recognize either.
Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) are prepared by the member countries through a
participatory process involving domestic stakeholders as well as external development partners,
including the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Updated every three years with annual
progress reports, PRSPs describe the country's macroeconomic, structural and social policies and
programs over a three year or longer horizon to promote broad-based growth and reduce poverty, as
well as associated external financing needs and major sources of financing.
"We're running out of time," Clinton said at a news conference. "Without the accord, the opportunity to
mobilize significant resources to assist developing countries with mitigation and adaptation will be
lost."