You are on page 1of 14


Topicality Economic Engagement

Topicality Economic Engagement Negative
1NC ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 Economic Engagement = Inducement .................................................................................................. 5 Engagement Must be Inducement ....................................................................................................... 7 Precision Engagement Key ................................................................................................................. 8

2AC Answers to Topicality................................................................................................................ 10 Extensions Counter-interpretation ..................................................................................................... 13


1. Interpretation Economic engagement is a positive inducement to change another states behavior. Nincic, 2011 Miroslav. Professor Political Science UC Davis Ph.D., Political Science, Yale University, 1977
Cornell Studies in Security Affairs : Logic of Positive Engagement. 2011. p 62. The third sort of inducement is economic , including such benefits as improved access to foreign markets, as well as sources of aid and investment. In the case of widely ostracized adversaries, usually this means restoring economic privileges enjoyed by most nations but withheld, in that nations case, by a program of sanctions. With regard to
specific goods likely to elicit concessions, it appears that access to technology is particularly attractive to most recipients (Long 2000). It seems, too, that nondurable goods have the highest long-term value as carrots, creating a continuous demand that the other side is in a position to satisfy. By the same token, many capital goods, especially

Access to sources of international finance, both private and public, has proven to be a powerful inducement. Some additional observations
those that replicate the senders industrial capability within the recipient, have the least long -term effect (Crumm 1995, 32 33). can be made regarding the value of economic incentives. The benefits to the recipient cannot be viewed solely in terms of their marginal utility; total utility also must be considered, including anticipated long-term effects (Long 1996, chaps. 6 and 7). Moreover, it is desirable to discover (by analogy with auction markets) the recipie nts reservation price, that is, the lowest price acceptable in exchange for the behavior adjustment (Foran and Spector 2000). One example of the use of economic carrots in exchange for political concessions might be the West German policy of Ostpolitik. This policy was intended, in the conception of political leaders such as Egon Bahr and Willy Brandt, to encourage Soviet and East German acquiescence in dtente in exchange for aid, trade benefits, and a recognition of Europes post World War II borders. Other examples will be discussed in later chapters. One

virtue of offering economic over symbolic and most political concessions is that economic value tends to be similarly interpreted by most nations, implying less scope for miscalculating the interest such concessions hold for the other side and making it easier to calibrate economic inducement to the desired counterconcession and, also, to what the domestic political context will allow. Much as economic tools are widely used in the context of punitive policies, so they appear as a logical component of positive engagement.

Negative -1NC


2. Violation The plan does not use economic benefits to change the behavior of Mexico, it just gives Mexico something. Engagement must include a strategy of shaping the behavior of another country, the plan is just economic interaction. Haass and OSullivan 00
Richard, formerly a senior aide to President George Bush and is Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, Washington DC, Meghan, Fellow with the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution, Terms of Engagement: Alternatives to Punitive Policies, Summer 2000,

The term engagement was popularised in the early 1980s amid controversy about the Reagan administrations policy of constructive engagement towards South Africa. However, the term itself remains a source of confusion. Except in the few instances where the US has sought to isolate a regime or country, America arguably engages states and actors all the time simply by interacting with them. To be a meaningful subject of analysis, the term engagement must refer to something more specific than a policy of non-isolation. As used in this article, engagement refers to a foreign-policy strategy which depends to a significant degree on positive incentives to achieve its objectives. Certainly, it does not preclude the
simultaneous use of other foreign-policy instruments such as sanctions or military force: in practice, there is often considerable overlap of strategies, particularly when the termination or lifting of sanctions is used as a positive inducement. Yet the

distinguishing feature of American engagement strategies is their reliance on the extension or provision of incentives to shape the behaviour of countries with which the US has important disagreements.

Negative -1NC


4. Reasons to vote negative A. Predictability Our interpretation limits the affirmative to economic inducements and excludes symbolic or political inducements. This interpretation sets up good debate on both the affirmative and the negative and creates manageable research. B. Limits - The affirmatives interpretation does not include the conc ept of inducement or require an economic instrument to achieve engagement. This type of interpretation means that the affirmative could do almost anything as long as it was loosely related to foreign policy and economics. C. Better Policy-Making Having a precise definition of engagement is critical to create better decisions in foreign policy. 5. Topicality is a Voting Issue and should be evaluated in terms of which team has the best interpretation.

Negative -1NC

TOPICALITY ECONOMIC ENGAGEMENT Economic Engagement = Inducement

Economic Engagement = Inducement

Economic engagement requires the plan to engage with the government to induce policy change. Kahler and Kastner 06 Miles, Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at University
of California, San Diego, and Scott, Department of Government and Politics at University of Maryland, STRATEGIC USES OF ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE: ENGAGEMENT POLICIES IN SOUTH KOREA, SINGAPORE, AND TAIWAN, Journal of Peace Research

Economic engagement a policy of deliberately expanding economic ties with an adversary in order to change the behavior of the target state and improve bilateral political relations is a subject of growing interest in international relations. Most research on economic statecraft emphasizes coercive policies such as economic sanctions. This emphasis on
negative forms of economic statecraft is not without justification: the use of economic sanctions is widespread and well documented, and several quantitative studies have shown that adversarial relations between countries tend to correspond to reduced, rather than enhanced, levels of trade (Gowa, 1994; Pollins, 1989). At the same time, however, relatively

little is known about how often strategies of economic engagement are deployed: scholars

disagree on this point, in part because no database cataloging instances of positive economic statecraft exists (Mastanduno, 2003). Beginning with the classic work of Hirschman (1945), most

studies of economic engagement have been limited to the policies of great powers (Mastanduno, 1992; Davis, 1999; Skalnes, 2000; Papayoanou & Kastner, 1999/2000; Copeland, 1999/2000; Abdelal & Kirshner, 1999/2000). However, engagement policies adopted by South Korea and one other state examined in this study, Taiwan, demonstrate that engagement is not a strategy limited to the domain of great power politics and that it may be more widespread than previously recognized. We begin by developing a theoretical approach to
strategies of economic engagement. Based on the existing literature, our framework distinguishes different forms of economic engagement and identifies the factors likely to facilitate or undermine the implementation of these strategies. We then evaluate our hypotheses by examining the use of economic engagement on the Korean Peninsula and across the Taiwan Strait. Because our conclusions are derived from a small number of cases, we are cautious in making claims that our findings can be generalized. The narratives that we provide and the conclusions that we draw from them may, however, spur further research on this interesting and important feature of security policy and international politics.

Economic engagement trade, investment and technology transfer to compel another country to change. Hall, 11 Andrew Senior Fellow in International Relations, Australian National University (Ian The
engagement of India, Paper submitted at workshop for the Australia India Institute)
This book explores the various modes of engagement employed in the Indian case, their uses, and their limits. It follows the

growing consensus in the literature that defines engagement as any strategy that employs positive inducements to influence the behavior of states.8 It acknowledges that various different engagement strategies can be utilized. In particular, as Miroslav Nincic argues, we can distinguish
between exchange strategies and catalytic ones. In the first, positive inducements are offered to try to leverage parti cular quid pro quos from the target state.9 In the second, inducements are offered merely to catalyze something bigger, perhaps even involving the wholesale transformation of a target society.10 In this kind of engagement, many different incentives might be laid out for many different constituencies, from educational opportunities for emerging leaders, to trade concessions for the economic elite. The

objects of engagement can include changing specific policies of the target state or transforming the

Negative -Economic Engagement = Inducement

TOPICALITY ECONOMIC ENGAGEMENT Economic Engagement = Inducement

wider political, economic, or social order of a target society. Both of these objectives could be pursued with coercive strategies employing
either compellence or deterrenceor indeed with a mixture of both engagement and coercion.11 But much recent research has argued that the evidence for the efficacy of both compellence and deterrence in changing target state policies is inconclusive.12 Both military and economic sanctions have been shown to have mixed results and many scholars argue that coercion rarely works.13 By contrast, there is some considerable evidence that engagement strategies can elicit both discrete quid pro quos from states and wider political and social change within them.14 Moreover, it is clear that engagement is both more commonly utilized than often recognized by scholars of international relations, and more politically acceptable to politicians and publics in engaging and target states than coercion, except perhaps in cases where the target state of engagement is especially controversial.15 Engagement

strategies take different forms depending on their objectives. They can emphasize diplomacy, aiming at the improvement of formal, state-to-state contacts, and be led by professional diplomats, special envoys, or politicians. Alternatively, they can emphasize military ties, utilizing military-to-military dialogues, exchanges, and training to build trust, convey strategic intentions, or simply to foster greater openness in the target states defense establishment.16 They can be primarily economic in approach, using trade, investment, and technology transfer to engender change in the target society, and perhaps to generate greater economic interdependence, constraining a target states foreign policy choices.17 Finally, they can seek to create channels for people-to-people contact through state-driven public diplomacy, business forums and research networks, aid and development assistance, and so on.

Negative -Economic Engagement = Inducement


Engagement Must be Inducement

Engagement requires strategic interaction this means it has to be linked to a change in behavior Cha, 2k Assistant Professor in the Department of Government and School of Foreign Service, Georgetown
University (Victor, Engaging North Korea Credibly, Survival, vol. 42, no. 2, Summer 2000, pp. 13655)

Engagement is a process of strategic interaction designed to elicit cooperation from an opposing state. Its
means are generally non-coercive and non-punitive, seeking neither to undercut an adversary nor to pressure it into submission. The strategy also differs from capitulation as it

does not entail simply deferring to the opponents desires, but seeks som e form of accommodation. However, engagement is more than everyday diplomacy. It is a discrete type of security response to a threatening power, actively seeking to transform the relationship into a non-adversarial one and to change the threatening states behaviour and goals in the process.3 Arguably, containment could be described in a similar way. Moreover, engagement is not credible to the
opponent without some semblance of strength on the part of the engager. The primary difference, however, is that engagement does not explicitly leverage the threat of conflict or punishment to exact cooperation.

Engagement is not simply incentives. Fields 2007

I define

(Jeffery Fields, Senior Analyst at the Department of Defense, Adversaries and Statecraft: Explaining U.S.

Foreign Policy Toward Rogue States, 2007, Google Books)

engagement as a diplomatic posture that employs direct (even if it is at a low level) political contact as a strategy to foster cooperation, build confidence, reduce tensions, or to create a space for further interaction.1' I separate the use of incentives from the definition, though positive incentives can be an important part of an engagement strategy. Engagement in and of itself without the use of incentives can signal a willingness to cooperate on issues or at a minimum that relations between two states are important enough to maintain a vehicle for direct diplomacy. The United States has engaged Syria for many years. Even after Washington
recalled its ambassador in 2005, the United States continued to talk with Syria about regional matters. The negotiations that eventually disarmed Libya look place in secret over the course of a decade - while Washington and Tripoli did not have diplomatic relations. These are notable cases of engagement that stand in contrast the episodes of isolation of Iran and North Korea.

Negative -Engagement Must be Inducement


Precision Engagement Key

Defining engagement overly broadly ruins the quality of debate Resnick 1 Dr. Evan Resnick, Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University, Assistant Professor of
Political Science at Yeshiva University, Defining Engagement, Journal of International Affairs, Spring, 54(2), Ebsco While the term "engagement" enjoys great consistency and clarity of meaning in the discourse of romantic love, it enjoys neither in the discourse of statecraft. Currently, practitioners and scholars of American foreign policy are vigorously debating the merits of engagement as a strategy for modifying the behavior of unsavory regimes. The quality of this debate, however, is diminished by the persistent inability of the US foreign policy establishment to advance a coherent and analytically rigorous conceptualization of engagement. In this essay, I begin with a brief survey of the conceptual fog that surrounds engagement and then attempt to give a more refined definition. I will use this definition as the basis for drawing a sharp distinction between engagement and alternative policy approaches, especially appeasement, isolation and containment. In the contemporary lexicon of United States foreign policy, few terms have been as frequently or as confusingly invoked as that of engagement .(n1) A growing
consensus extols the virtues of engagement as the most promising policy for managing the threats posed to the US by foreign adversaries. In recent years, engagement constituted the Clinton administration's declared approach in the conduct of bilateral relations with such countries as China, Russia, North Korea and Vietnam. Robert Suettinger, a onetime member of the Clinton

the word engagement has "been overused and poorly defined by a variety of policymakers and speechwriters" and has "become shopworn to the point that there is little agreement on what it actually means."(n2) The Clinton foreign policy team attributed five distinct meanings to engagement:(n3) A broad-based grand strategic orientation: In this sense,
administration's National Security Council, remarked that engagement is considered synonymous with American internationalism and global leadership. For example, in a 1993 speech, National Security Advisor Anthony Lake observed that American public opinion was divided into two rival camps: "On the one side is protectionism and limited foreign engagement; on the other is active American engagement abroad on behalf of democracy and expanded trade."(n4) A specific approach to managing bilateral relations with a target state through the unconditional provision of continuous concessions to that state: During the 1992 presidential campaign, candidate Bill Clinton criticized the Bush administration's "ill-advised and failed" policy of "constructive engagement" toward China as one that "coddled the dictators and pleaded for progress, but refused to impose penalties for intransigence."(n5) A bilateral policy characterized by the conditional provision of concessions to a target state: The Clinton administration announced in May 1993 that the future extension of Most Favored Nation trading status to China would be conditional on improvements in the Chinese government's domestic human rights record.(n6) Likewise, in the Agreed Framework signed by the US and North Korea in October 1994, the US agreed to provide North Korea with heavy oil, new light-water nuclear reactors and eventual diplomatic and economic normalization in exchange for a freeze in the North's nuclear weapons program.(n7) A bilateral policy characterized by the broadening of contacts in areas of mutual interest with a target state: Key to this notion of engagement is the idea that areas of dialogue and fruitful cooperation should be broadened and not be held hostage through linkage to areas of continuing disagreement and friction. The Clinton administration inaugurated such a policy toward China in May 1994 by declaring that it would not tie the annual MFN decision to the Chinese government's human rights record.(n8) Similarly, the administration's foreign policy toward the Russian Federation has largely been one of engagement and described as an effort to "build areas of agreement and...develop policies to manage our differences."(n9) A bilateral policy characterized by the provision of technical assistance to facilitate economic and political liberalization in a target state: In its 1999 national security report, the White House proclaimed that its "strategy of engagement with each of the NIS [Newly Independent States]" consisted of "working with grassroots organizations, independent media, and emerging entrepreneurs" to "improve electoral processes and help strengthen civil society," and to help the governments of the NIS to "build the laws, institutions and skills needed for a market democracy, to fight

Unfortunately, scholars have not fared better than policymakers in the effort to conceptualize engagement because they often make at least one of the following critical errors: (1) treating engagement as a synonym for appeasement; (2) defining engagement so expansively that it essentially constitutes any policy relying on positive sanctions; (3) defining engagement in an unnecessarily restrictive manner.
crime and corruption [and] to advance human rights and the rule of law."(n10)

Precision creates better engagement. Zelikow 2000 Philip Zelikow Former UH Debater, American attorney, diplomat, academic and author. He has worked as the
executive director of the 9/11 Commission, director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, and Counselor of the United States

Negative -Precision Engagement Key


Department of State. He is the White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia and was American Academy in Berlin Axel Springer Fellow, in the Fall 2009. Review of Honey and Vinegar: Incentives, Sanctions, and Foreign Policy by Richard N. Haass; Meghan L. O'Sullivan Foreign Affairs, Vol. 79, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 2000), p. 182
This is a book on how American foreign policy makers should wield carrots as well as sticks. But it turns out to be even more-a handy guide to the characteristic dilemmas of the post-Cold War era. Until now, hardly

anyone has analyzed just how to use incentives in dealing with problem countries. Taking a comprehensive collection of cases that examine U.S. relations with China, Iraq, North Korea, South Africa, the former Soviet Union, and Vietnam-as well as Europe's effort to engage Iran-Haass and O'Sullivan have distilled some clear messages. Washington needs a clearer road map, sharper analysis of decision- making in target countries, more coordination with allies, and a better effort to manage the domestic politics that often confound policies of engagement. Although credible sticks must complement carrots, the contributors explain why the equation should usually work both ways. An interesting observation, buttressed by Ken Juster's Iraq case, is that a little engagement can actually be a prerequisite to successful coercion. When rallying a coalition, it helps if others can see you tried a bit of friendship first.

Negative -Precision Engagement Key


2AC Answers to Topicality
1. We Meet The plan is a positive economic inducement to Mexico because


2. Counter-Interpretation - Economic engagement includes inducements that dont have explicit objectives or demands. Blanchard & Ripsman 2013 Jean-Marc F. Blanchard, Professor with the School of International and Public
Affairs at Shanghai Jiaotong University; Norrin M. Ripsman, Professor in the Department of Political Science at Concordia University in Montreal, Quebec Economic Statecraft and Foreign Policy: Sanctions, Incentives, and Target State Calculations p. 6 Economic incentives are benefits or goods that a state or group of states promises or tenders to a targeted state in the hope of extracting political payoffs from the target such as a military alliance, a territorial concession, or the termination of arms sales to third parties.22 Economic inducements can involve concessional loans, technical assistance, grants, foreign aid, the cessation of existing economic sanctions, and preferential trade pacts.23 For instance, in
October 2004, the European Union wielded economic incentives when it declared it would offer reduced or zero import tariffs to developing countries that agreed to sign progressive international human rights, labor, and environmental treaties.24 existing economic sanctions, and preferential trade pacts.23 For instance, in October 2004. the European Union wielded economic incentives when it declared it would offer reduced or zero import tariffs to developing countries that agreed to sign progressive international human rights, labor, and environmental treaties.24 Economic

incentives fall into two broad categories, short- and long-term incentives. Short-term incentives are transfers of money, goods, or technology offered in exchange for a clearly specified. relatively immediate change in policy.25 The logic of the exchange is a quid pro quo bargain between the sender and the target state. Long-term incentives are inducements geared towards the transformation of the targeted states interests, perceptions, or political coalitions without any clear short-term demands or well-defined long-term objectives.26 The logic of this exchange is not to strike a bargain with the target state, but to reshape its societal attitudes over time. In this book. we investigate only short term
incentives. While long-term incentives may also be important policy instruments, since they do not specify any particular policy response from the target state, it is much more difficult to assess their impact.

Affirmative -2AC Answers to Topicality



3. We Meet the Counter-Interpretation The plan gives better access to trade and economic goods to Mexico, which will gradually improve US-Mexico relations.

Affirmative -2AC Answers to Topicality



4. Prefer our Interpretation A. Mixing Burdens The negatives interpretation demands that the affirmative put the objective of their policy in the plan. This fails because its impossible to know the exact reasons why people take actions. And, the goals of a policy in debate are the advantages. Confusing advantages and topicality makes it impossible for the affirmative to win. Only the plan has to be topical. B. Over-limits The negatives interpretation is far too limited. They include only affirmatives that include a quid pro quo. There is no literature supporting those kinds of plans and the aff would lose a lot, that would be boring.

C. ___________ - _______________________________________________________



5. Dont vote on Topicality our affirmative is reasonably topical and they have plenty of ground in this debate.

Affirmative -2AC Answers to Topicality


TOPICALITY ECONOMIC ENGAGEMENT Extensions Counter-interpretation

Extensions Counter-interpretation
Economic engagement includes long term strategies that increase the economic interdependence of countries. Pollins 3 (Brian M., Associate Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University and a Research Fellow at
the Mershon Center, Economic Interdependence and International Conflict: New Perspectives on an Enduring Debate, 2003, Google Books.)

The basic causal logic of economic engagement, and the emphasis on domestic politics, can be traced to Hirschman. He viewed

economic engagement as a long-term, transformative strategy. As one state gradually expands economic interaction with its target, the resulting (asymmetrical) interdependence creates vested interests within the target society and government. The beneficiaries of interdependence become addicted to it, and they protect their interests by pressuring the government to accommodate the source of interdependence. Economic engagement is a form of structural linkage; it is a means to get other states to want what you want, rather than to do what you want. The causal chain runs from economic interdependence through domestic political change to foreign policy accommodation.

Economic Engagement creates mutual economic benefits, it doesnt have to induce change. Helweg 2007 M. Diana Helweg, Professor of Political Science, SMU Taking Sanctions into the 21st Century
in Economic Strategy and National Security edited by Patrick DeSouza pp.143-144 GoogleBooks

Constructive Engagement: broader economic

An Alternative to Sanctions To fill the policy vacuum left by the reduced use of sanctions, the United States should adhere

to a policy of political and economic engagement that balances sticks such as sanctions and other re -strictive measures with additional carrots of trade and aid. Only

engagement can open up the relationship with a country and create the mutual economic and strategic benefits that will most simply, engagement is the opposite of isolation. It includes the flow of ideas, goods, and money under the umbrella of official diplomatic relations. Engagement can be effected through strategic and political dialogue, investment, trade, and even joining forces on appropriate issues in multilateral fora. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the United States has pursued a policy of political and economic engagement with some previously isolated regimes through dialogue, investment, and support of free trade. In doing so, the United States has indirectly helped promote democracy, freedom of association, freedom of speech,
enable subsequent restrictive policies to encourage the tar geted regime to change its undesirable behavior. Stated

Affirmative -Extensions Counter-interpretation


TOPICALITY ECONOMIC ENGAGEMENT Extensions Counter-interpretation

and civil and human rights. To be sure, progress

has occurred slowly and with differing degrees of success. Although difficult to measure, engagement with democracies provides the citizens of closed countries the opportunity to learn what types of political freedoms and economic successes are possible. The past decade is replete with instances of ordinary people using that education to
try to change their political worlds from Eastern Europe to Latin Amer ica and from Africa to Asia.

Affirmative -Extensions Counter-interpretation