1 of 14

Veritas Neg BIT

Samek/Telkamp Neg BIT
Opening/closing quotes BACKGROUND What BIT Does TOPICALITY Russia Refused to Ratify Previous BIT SIGNIFICANCE Russia Refused to Ratify Previous BIT SOLVANCY Russia Refused to Ratify Previous BIT (same as significance evidence)Solvency BIT prohibits capital controls Capital controls economically good (backup for above piece) Capital controls bring financial stability Punishment system is unsure and unjust Russia violated START treaty A Long History of Arms Control Violations The West Is Still Their #1 Threat Helping Iran and North Korea Still Building a Nuclear Arsenal Not in Compliance on Other Treaties Ties to Terrorist Organizations DISADVANTAGES Russian Investment Not Good BIT Not Beneficial BIT Fails To Protect Investors Russia has horrible Human rights abuses(support for above piece) Shouldn't Overlook Russia's HR Not in Compliance on Other Treaties Condoning disrespect for ally as independent country. No Regard for Georgia Independence Condoning Autoritarian regime Russia is An Authoritarian Regime Natural Gas as a Political Weapon Corruption Keeps BIT From Working Properly Corruption Is A Rampant Problem In Russia

1

2 of 14
Veritas Neg BIT

Opening/closing quotes 1. “This paper argues that governments and businesses should better leverage the existing legal arrangements, such as the Energy Charter Treaty and the existing bilateral investment treaties: these have not been used to their full potential.” This is from a paper written by Iana Dreyer and Brian Hindley, and illustrates the philosophy of the negative team: that there might be a place for BIT’s, but not now, and certainly not the way the affirmative team wants to use them. 2.

“Many analysts who’ve taken a closer look argue that the current U.S. model for such treaties
would be likely to lead to less economic stability – not more.” -Sarah Anderson, IPS Global Economy Project Director

Sarah Anderson's current work includes research, writing, and networking on issues related to the impact of international trade, finance, and investment policies on inequality, sustainability, and human rights. Sarah is also a well-known expert on executive compensation, as the lead author of 16 annual “Executive Excess” reports that have received extensive media coverage 3. Let’s hope U.S. and Indian leaders won’t get carried away by the pressures of the upcoming Obama visit to produce a treaty that may serve the short-term interests of large corporations and investors but would undermine the authority of governments to protect their people from financial crisis. -Sarah Anderson, IPS Global Economy Project Director Sarah Anderson's current work includes research, writing, and networking on issues related to the impact of international trade, finance, and investment policies on inequality, sustainability, and human rights. Sarah is also a well-known expert on executive compensation, as the lead author of 16 annual “Executive Excess” reports that have received extensive media coverage

2

3 of 14
Veritas Neg BIT

BACKGROUND What is A BIT? Trade Compliance Center/The U.S. Government's focal point for monitoring foreign compliance with trade agreements/BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES/accessed March 22, 2011 http://tcc.export.gov/Trade_Agreements/Exporters_Guides/List_All_Guides/exp_005572.asp The formal name for this type of agreement is: "Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of (Country) Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment." They are commonly called Bilateral Investment Treaties or BITs. A Bilateral Investment Treaty is designed to ensure that U.S. investors receive national or most favored nation treatment (whichever is better) in the other signatory country. It protects U.S. investors against performance requirements, restrictions on transfers and arbitrary expropriation. BITs set forth procedures for the settlement of disputes. By providing a more open and secure environment for investment, they also promote private sector development. The Office of the United States Trade Representative and the Department of State jointly lead BIT negotiations, with assistance from the Department of Commerce and the Treasury. BITs must receive the advice and consent of the Senate before they are ratified and enter into force. They remain in force for ten years and then continue in force unless one of the Parties terminates them. One year's written notice to the other Party is required for termination.
Thorsten Nestmann/They Can and Must Increase: An Analysis of U.S.-Russian Economic Relations in International Comparison/American Institute for Contemporary German Studies-The Johns Hopkins University/June 31, 2009

http://www.aicgs.org/documents/pubs/issuebrief31.pdf

3

4 of 14
Veritas Neg BIT

US Chamber Of Commerce/”Secure U.S. Investment Overseas” http://www.uschamber.com/international/agenda/secure-us-investment-overseas For three decades, the United States has negotiated bilateral investment treaties (BITs) to protect U.S. investments abroad, and similar provisions are included in bilateral trade agreements. BITs open foreign markets to U.S. investment, uphold contract and property rights, and level the playing field by prohibiting discrimination against U.S. companies and guaranteeing them the same rights and responsibilities as domestic investors. BITs guarantee transparency with respect to investment-related laws and regulations. BITs also provide recourse to investor-State arbitration in the event of expropriation. These arbitral procedures mirror U.S. Constitutional protections against arbitrary government actions and against taking of property without compensation. TOPICALITY This plan is not a change in policy because the US already did this, however Russia never ratified it and still have not ratified it. US Proposed A Previous BIT Office Of The United States Trade Representative/US Trade Related Agreements/Agreements that have been negotiated but have not yet entered into force/Accessed March 22, 2011

Russia Refused to Ratify Previous BIT
Anders Aslund/leading specialist on Russian and postcommunist economic transformation, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, previous director of Ru and Eurasian Program and Carnegie Endowment for Intl. Peace//US-Russia Economic Relationship: Implications of the Yukos Affair/Testimony before the Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology, US House of Representatives/October 17, 2007

http://www.iie.com/publications/testimony/testimony.cfm?ResearchID=844 The most direct remedy is through a bilateral investment treaty, which many countries have concluded with one another. The United States and the Russian Federation signed such a treaty on June 17, 1992. This treaty was supposed to guarantee “prompt, adequate, and effective compensation in the event of expropriation,” and provide “the right to third party international arbitration in the event of a dispute between a US investor and the Russian government.” The US Senate ratified this treaty on August 11, 1993, but the United States has failed to persuade Russia to ratify this treaty, so it lacks legal force.

4

5 of 14
Veritas Neg BIT

INHERENCY We Do Not Currently Have A BIT With Russia—Pending Russian Approval [because Russia refused to sign it] Russia Refused to Ratify Previous BIT
Anders Aslund/leading specialist on Russian and postcommunist economic transformation, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, previous director of Ru and Eurasian Program and Carnegie Endowment for Intl. Peace//US-Russia Economic Relationship: Implications of the Yukos Affair/Testimony before the Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology, US House of Representatives/October 17, 2007

http://www.iie.com/publications/testimony/testimony.cfm?ResearchID=844 The most direct remedy is through a bilateral investment treaty, which many countries have concluded with one another. The United States and the Russian Federation signed such a treaty on June 17, 1992. This treaty was supposed to guarantee “prompt, adequate, and effective compensation in the event of expropriation,” and provide “the right to third party international arbitration in the event of a dispute between a US investor and the Russian government.” The US Senate ratified this treaty on August 11, 1993, but the United States has failed to persuade Russia to ratify this treaty, so it lacks legal force. BIT Wouldn’t Result In Economic Growth Government Cannot Force Investors to Invest BIT’s Don’t Increase Investment
Deborah L. Swenson/Bilateral Investment Treaties and International Integration/University of California, Davis and NBER/August 2008

www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/dswenson/BITsIntegration08.pdf Surprisingly, many analyses exploring the economic effects of BIT signing have come to the rather discouraging conclusion that BIT treaties are not associated with large increases in foreign investment. Hallward-Deiemeir (2003) concludes for example, that BIT treaty signing only appears to have elevated foreign direct investment (FDI) if one examines the share of a source country’s FDI attracted by a host. Further, she finds that such effects were only apparent five years after a treaty was signed. Hallward-Driemeir finds that other measures, such as FDI levels or FDI relative to GDP, were, if anything negatively correlated with bilateral investment treaties. Tobin and Rose-Ackerman also come to the same disappointing conclusion that BIT’s do not appear to increase foreign investment flows, or to improve the characteristics of the local investment environment in signatory countries. -Blonigen and Davies (2004) note that the signing of bilateral tax treaties by OECD countires did not appear to spur investment, and according to some of their specifications, may have even reduced investment

5

6 of 14
Veritas Neg BIT

Chakravarthi Raghavan (South-North Development Monitor)/Chief Editor/ Bilateral investment agreements play only a minor role in attracting FDI/June 1997 http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/bil-cn.htm The presence or absence of an investment agreement was a very insignificant factor determining investment decisions of foreign investors, and the country advocating a multilateral agreement with pre-investment national treatment to foreigners, does not itself appear to practice it. This came out in discussions at an UNCTAD inter- governmental expert group meeting (28-30 May) on existing agreements (bilateral, regional and plurilateral) on foreign investments and their development dimensions. Generally, experts from developing countries stressed that their national policies and development needs should be taken into account in bilateral agreements, whilst most experts from developed countries emphasised the protection of foreign investors' rights. Some developing country representatives also brought up the inequities and inadequacies of existing bilateral agreements, that are due to the unequal bargaining power between developed and developing countries. There was also widespread agreement that, whether a country concluded BITs or not was an insignificant factor to the inflow of foreign investment, as other factors were much more important for attracting FDI. Russia-US Investment and Economy are Good BIT Wouldn’t Result In Increased Relations Because Relations Fine Now Rel. Cannot ^ Until Resolution of Other, More Pressing Issues

6

7 of 14
Veritas Neg BIT

SOLVANCY The case has no solvency because Russia must sign and ratify this treaty, and we cannot force Russia to do this. We have control over what the US federal government does but not the Russian government. “Mandates: 1-The United States and Russia will negotiate, sign, and ratify a BIT based on previous BIT with Canada, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom” Russia Refused to Ratify Previous BIT (same as significance evidence)
Anders Aslund/leading specialist on Russian and postcommunist economic transformation, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, previous director of Ru and Eurasian Program and Carnegie Endowment for Intl. Peace//US-Russia Economic Relationship: Implications of the Yukos Affair/Testimony before the Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology, US House of Representatives/October 17, 2007

http://www.iie.com/publications/testimony/testimony.cfm?ResearchID=844 The most direct remedy is through a bilateral investment treaty, which many countries have concluded with one another. The United States and the Russian Federation signed such a treaty on June 17, 1992. This treaty was supposed to guarantee “prompt, adequate, and effective compensation in the event of expropriation,” and provide “the right to third party international arbitration in the event of a dispute between a US investor and the Russian government.” The US Senate ratified this treaty on August 11, 1993, but the United States has failed to persuade Russia to ratify this treaty, so it lacks legal force. BIT prohibits capital controls Sarah Anderson, IPS Global Economy Project Director Sarah Anderson's current work includes research, writing, and networking on issues related to the impact of international trade, finance, and investment policies on inequality, sustainability, and human rights. Sarah is also a well-known expert on executive compensation, as the lead author of 16 annual “Executive Excess” reports that have received extensive media coverage, from FPIF, Foreign Policy in Focus, Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF) is a “Think Tank Without Walls” connecting the research and action of more than 600 scholars, advocates, and activists seeking to make the United States a more responsible global partner. It is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies, November 6, 2010 http://www.fpif.org/articles/obamas_trip_to_india Treaty provisions that should be of serious concern to India are those that prohibit the use of capital controls, a policy tool that India has applied effectively to escape the worst impacts of global financial crises. Impact: Not only will the AFF’s plan NOT achieve economic benefits, AFF’s plan will result in economic disadvantages. [Run this impact as a DA] BOTH IMPACT AND NOTE ABOVE AND BELOW APPLY TO ALL 3 PIECES (NOTE: If they respond by saying “that is India, Russia’s different”, say: “It’s AFF’s burden to prove that plan will work, and if that means proving that US-Russia BIT doesn’t prohibit capital controls then they must prove that for their plan to be passed. All we have seen is evidence to the contrary [that the US-Russian BIT DOES prohibit capital controls].) 7

8 of 14
Veritas Neg BIT

Capital controls economically good (backup for above piece) Sarah Anderson, IPS Global Economy Project Director Sarah Anderson's current work includes research, writing, and networking on issues related to the impact of international trade, finance, and investment policies on inequality, sustainability, and human rights. Sarah is also a well-known expert on executive compensation, as the lead author of 16 annual “Executive Excess” reports that have received extensive media coverage, FPIF, Foreign Policy in Focus, Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF) is a “Think Tank Without Walls” connecting the research and action of more than 600 scholars, advocates, and activists seeking to make the United States a more responsible global partner. It is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies, November 6, 2010 http://www.fpif.org/articles/obamas_trip_to_india A February 2010 IMF report of a larger group of nations found that those which deployed controls on inflows before the current crisis were among the least hard hit. The IMF study concluded that capital controls are a legitimate policy tool for preventing and mitigating crises. Capital controls bring financial stability Sarah Anderson, IPS Global Economy Project Director Sarah Anderson's current work includes research, writing, and networking on issues related to the impact of international trade, finance, and investment policies on inequality, sustainability, and human rights. Sarah is also a well-known expert on executive compensation, as the lead author of 16 annual “Executive Excess” reports that have received extensive media coverage, FPIF, Foreign Policy in Focus, Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF) is a “Think Tank Without Walls” connecting the research and action of more than 600 scholars, advocates, and activists seeking to make the United States a more responsible global partner. It is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies, November 6, 2010 http://www.fpif.org/articles/obamas_trip_to_india While a step in the right direction, these provisions still place undue restrictions on the authority to use capital controls. If they were included in any possible U.S.-India treaty, the government of India would still face the prospect of expensive investor-state damages claims. They could be tied up in legal proceedings for years, defending a legitimate policy that has proved effective in reducing financial instability. Punishment system is unsure and unjust Sarah Anderson, IPS Global Economy Project Director Sarah Anderson's current work includes research, writing, and networking on issues related to the impact of international trade, finance, and investment policies on inequality, sustainability, and human rights. Sarah is also a well-known expert on executive compensation, as the lead author of 16 annual “Executive Excess” reports that have received extensive media coverage, FPIF, Foreign Policy in Focus, Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF) is a “Think Tank Without Walls” connecting the research and action of more than 600 scholars, advocates, and activists seeking to make the United States a more responsible global partner. It is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies, November 6, 2010 http://www.fpif.org/articles/obamas_trip_to_india What happens if a government violates the capital controls provisions in a U.S. trade or investment treaty? Private foreign investors affected by the policy have the right to sue the 8

9 of 14
Veritas Neg BIT

government for compensation in supra-national tribunals that have no public accountability, no standard judicial ethics rules, and no appeals process. Russia has a history of being untrustworthy Russia violated START treaty Bill Gertz, Bill Gertz is geopolitics editor and a national security and investigative reporter for The Washington Times. He has been with The Times since 1985. He is the author of six books, four of them national best sellers. His latest book, “The Failure Factory,” on government bureaucracy and national security, was published in September 2008, The Washington Times, The Washington Times is a fullservice, general interest daily newspaper in the nation's capital. Founded in 1982, The Washington Times is one of the most-often-quoted newspapers in the U.S. It has gained a reputation for hardhitting investigative reporting and thorough coverage of politics and policy, Tuesday, July 27, 2010 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/27/russia-violated-91-start-till-end-us-report-says/ “Russia continued to violate provisions of the 1991 START nuclear-arms treaty up until the agreement expired in December, raising new concerns that Moscow will violate the pending “New START” treaty now being debated for ratification in the Senate.” (backup for above piece) A Long History of Arms Control Violations The Heritage Foundation, Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense, July 29, 2010 http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/top-10-reasons-not-to-trust-russia “Russia repeatedly violated the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) all the way to its expiration in December 2009, as clearly stated in 2005 and 2010 State Department compliance reports. Specifically, Russia tested an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile with Multiple Individually Targeted Reentry Vehicles (warheads) while START was in force. Such activities, however, were explicitly banned.” The West Is Still Their #1 Threat The Heritage Foundation, Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense, July 29, 2010 http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/top-10-reasons-not-to-trust-russia “Russia regards the U.S. and NATO as its principal adversaries and configures its forces for large-scale conventional theater operations with them. The recent discovery of the Russian spy network inside the U.S. and their celebration upon return to Russia, courtesy of President Obama, indicates that Russia is set in a Cold War mentality.” Helping Iran and North Korea 9

10 of 14
Veritas Neg BIT

The Heritage Foundation, Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense, July 29, 2010 http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/top-10-reasons-not-to-trust-russia “According to U.S. intelligence, Russia violated nonproliferation agreements by providing ballistic missile technology to Iran and North Korea, which have continually threatened America and its allies” Still Building a Nuclear Arsenal The Heritage Foundation, Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense, July 29, 2010 http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/top-10-reasons-not-to-trust-russia “Nearly 20 years after the end of the Cold War, Russia still designs, builds, and modernizes nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. Russia’s new military doctrine maintains a low threshold for nuclear first strikes. In fact, Moscow plans to use tactical nuclear weapons in Europe if ever confronted with a conventional threat. In 2009, Russia conducted a military exercise that simulated a nuclear attack on Poland.” Not in Compliance on Other Treaties The Heritage Foundation, Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense, July 29, 2010 http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/top-10-reasons-not-to-trust-russia “The U.S. believes Russia to be in non-compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention. In 2009, the Strategic Posture Commission told Congress: “Russia is no longer in compliance with its PNI [Presidential Nuclear Initiatives] commitments.” Moscow’s tactical nuclear weapons arsenal may be 10 times larger than that of the U.S.” Ties to Terrorist Organizations The Heritage Foundation, Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense, July 29, 2010 http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/top-10-reasons-not-to-trust-russia “Russia cultivates ties with terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah and provides military and diplomatic support for anti-American “rogue states” such as Syria, Iran, and Venezuela. Russia voted with the U.S. at the U.N. Security Council to pass sanctions on Iran—but only after working hard to water them down to practically nothing.” 10

11 of 14
Veritas Neg BIT

DISADVANTAGES BIT Not Beneficial Kenneth J. Vandvelde/ 92 Am. J. Int'l L. 621 The Political Economy of a Bilateral Investment Treaty/1998 http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage? collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/ajil92&div=41&id=&page=

BIT Fails To Protect Investors Rahim Moloo/Vale Center at Columbia University; University of Central Asia/Alex Khachaturian /White & Case LLP - Washington, D.C. Office/ The Compliance with the Law Requirement in International Investment Law/Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 34. /September 27, 2010 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1683523 There are, however, certain circumstances under which foreign investors are not permitted to pursue their claims against the State. Investors must, of course, meet vertain basic jurisdictional (and admissibility) prerequisites. For instance, the investor must have made a qualifying “investment” under the investment treaty. The investor must also demonstrate that it is a national of the home-State party to the investment treaty under which it is pursuing its claims. BIT’s Are Used to Increase IPR Protection and Enforcement IPR Protection Is Detrimental Decreased Innovation Decreased Competition

11

12 of 14
Veritas Neg BIT

Masking the Real Problems With Russia-Russian Corruption Corruption Keeps BIT From Working Properly Elliot Glusker/Arbitration Hurdles Facing Foreign Investors In Russia: Analysis of Present Issues and Implications/January 2009 http://works.bepress.com/elliot_glusker/1

Corruption Is A Rampant Problem In Russia JONATHAN WEISMAN and GREG WHITE/ Biden Decries Russian Corruption During Visit/The Wall Street Journal/ MARCH 11, 2011 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704823004576191992944199756.html U.S. Vice President Joe Biden told a university audience here Thursday that "only bold and genuine change" on corruption, the rule of law and democracy in Russia will guarantee improved economic relations between the former Cold War superpowers. Speaking at Moscow State University on a weeklong European swing, he addressed what he called impediments to business investment, citing the case of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer who was arrested and died in custody in 2009 after accusing the police of corruption; demonstrators who were beaten and detained last year while advocating for the right to peacefully assemble; and Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the Russian oligarch whose second trial on new charges of embezzlement and money laundering was clouded with allegations of misconduct.

12

13 of 14
Veritas Neg BIT

Condoning Russia’s actions (evidence supports which actions we are condoning) Russia has horrible Human rights abuses David Satter, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute Fellow, Foreign Policy Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies/“A Relic of the Cold War: Is it Time to Repeal Jackson- Vanik for Russia?” April 27, 2010 http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/House%20Foreign%20Affairs%20Comm%20Test %202010%20satter.pdf “Selective terror. Although there is no mass repression in Russia, journalists and human rights activists risk their lives if their reporting threatens powerful interests. At least 17 journalists have been murdered in Russia since 2000. In not a single case, has the person who ordered the killing been found. In cases such as those of Anna Politkovskaya and Paul Klebnikov where underlings have been charged (only to be acquitted under puzzling circumstances) the alleged participants appear to have a maze of links to the security services themselves. Natalya Estimirova, a single mother who was virtually the only source of information on torture, abduction and murders carried out by the security services in Chechnya, was herself abducted in Grozny and murdered last year after being implicitly threatened by Ramzan Kadyrov, the president of Chechnya and a close ally of Putin. Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer for Hermitage Capital Management who exposed a $230 million tax fraud scheme carried out by Russian officials, was accused of corruption and jailed. He then died in a prison medical unit isolation ward after being denied medical care. On the basis of the way he was treated, Magnitsky told the prison staff that someone was trying to murder him. Subsequent events indicate that he accurately foretold his fate.” (support for above piece) Shouldn't Overlook Russia's HR Deutsche Welle (Deutsche Welle is Germany’s international broadcaster: online, on-screen and over the air. It provides a European perspective to audiences around the world and promotes intercultural dialogue.) "German human rights commissioner reports little progress in Russia", September 29, 2010 http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,6058034,00.html “It seems clear that conditions on the ground in Russia aren't going to change anytime soon. But what Lokshina and the German human rights commissioner both agree on is that countries like Germany must continue to let Russia know that rights abuses there are not going unnoticed.”

13

14 of 14
Veritas Neg BIT

Not in Compliance on Other Treaties The Heritage Foundation, Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense, July 29, 2010 http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/top-10-reasons-not-to-trust-russia “The U.S. believes Russia to be in non-compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention. In 2009, the Strategic Posture Commission told Congress: “Russia is no longer in compliance with its PNI [Presidential Nuclear Initiatives] commitments.” Moscow’s tactical nuclear weapons arsenal may be 10 times larger than that of the U.S.” Condoning disrespect for ally as independent country. No Regard for Georgia Independence The Heritage Foundation, Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense, July 29, 2010 http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/top-10-reasons-not-to-trust-russia “Russia has repeatedly broken its promises to withdraw military forces from Georgia and Moldova. When Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, it rewrote the rules of post–World War II European security. It repudiated the Helsinki Pact of 1975, which recognized the security of European borders, and violated the sovereignty of a NATO aspirant and member of the Council of Europe.” Condoning Autoritarian regime Russia is An Authoritarian Regime The Heritage Foundation, Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense, July 29, 2010 http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/top-10-reasons-not-to-trust-russia “The current model of leadership under President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has become increasingly authoritarian. Despite numerous commitments under international law, the government has tightened controls on political life, civil society, and the media. Disruption of political opposition’s activities, restricting access to state-controlled TV, human right violations (such as the beating of demonstrators who “support” the Russian constitution), murder of journalists and anticorruption activists, disappearance and torture, abuse of the legal system for monetary and political gain—all illustrate this negative trend.”

14