You are on page 1of 26

Table of Contents

New 1NC .................................................................................................................................................. 3 New 2NC Overview ........................................................................................................................................6 AT PERM: SHOULD definition ................................................................................................................8 NEW A2 Perm do both ..................................................................................................................................9 NEW A2 Perm do the cp ............................................................................................................................ 10 NEW A2 Perm do the plan then cp........................................................................................................ 11 NEW A2 Perm do the plan and consult on other issues ............................................................... 12 NO RELATIONS IN SQUO (UPDATES).................................................................................................. 13 DEMO IMPACT CARD.................................................................................................................................. 15 RELATIONS IMPACT CARDS.................................................................................................................... 16 2NC COMP/HEG ............................................................................................................................................ 19 AFF ANSWER: RELATIONS HIGH SQUO ............................................................................................. 21 AFF: PERM SHOULD definition ........................................................................................................... 23 2AC Consult Brazil CP................................................................................................................................. 24

New 1NC
Text: The USFG will engage in prior binding consultation with the Federative Republic of Brazil over ________________ [insert plan text]. The United States will advocate ________________ [insert plan text] during the consultative process and will adopt the result of the consultation. Well clarify. Contention 1: It competes. The 1AC cant do binding consultation. That would be abusive.
A. Violates Resolved: Resolved implies a definite course of action. The CP tests the definite and immediate nature of the plan. If we win the CP is beneficial, we have disproved the necessity of the resolution and the affirmative should lose. Any permutation makes the plan conditional and severs the definite and immediate nature of the plan text. This is a voting issue. B. Should demands an immediate timeframe.

Summers 94 (Justice, Supreme Court of Oklahoma, Kelsey v. Dollarsaver Food Warehouse of Durant,
The Oklahoma State Courts Network, November 8, http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=20287#marker3fn14)
The legal question to be resolved by the court is whether the word should13 in the May 18 order connotes futurity or may be deemed a ruling in

praesenti.14 The answer to this query is not to be divined from rules of

grammar;15 it must be governed by the age-old practice culture of legal professionals and its immemorial language usage. To determine if the omission (from the critical May 18 entry) of the turgid phrase, and the same hereby is, (1) makes it an in 3uture ruling i.e., an expression of what the judge will or would do at a later stage or (2) constitutes an in in praesenti resolution of a disputed law issue, the trial judges intent must be garnered from the four corners of the entire record.16 In

praesenti means literally at the present time. BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 792 (6th Ed. 1990). In legal parlance the phrase denotes that which in law is presently or immediately effective, as opposed to something that will or would become effective in the future [in futurol]. See Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 365, 1 S.Ct. 336, 337, 27 L.Ed. 201
(1882).

C. Makes the plan conditional: Consulting over the plan justifies the affirmative condition plan on anything or answering case turns and offense with the plan wont pass. This means the negative is always one step behind and will never win.

Contention 2: Solvency Binding consultation with Brazil key to US-Brazil relations Luigi R. Einuadi, March 2011, ambassador, distinguished fellow at the Center for Strategic
Research, Institute for National Strategic Studies, and the National Defense University. Member for the Advisory Council of the Brazil Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Brazil and the United States: The Need for Strategic Engagement, http://www.ndu.edu/inss/docupload/SF%20266%20Einaudi.pdf A prerequisite for improved mutual engagement will be changes in perspective on both sides. Mutually beneficial engagement requires the United States to welcome Brazils emergence as a global power. Brazil is more

than a tropical China35; it is culturally and politically close to the United States and Europe. Brazil, in turn, needs to realize that the United States accepts its rise. Brazil also needs to recognize that the United States still matters greatly to Brasilia and that more can be achieved working with Washington than against it. The United States and Brazil have vast overlapping interests, but a formal strategic partnership is probably out of the question for both countries. In the United States, Brazil must compete for policy attention with China, India, Russia, Japan, Mexico, and several European countries. It poses no security threat to the United States. Moreover, despite Brazils importance in multilateral organizations, particularly the UN, Brazil can be of limited practical assistance at best to the United States in its two current wars. Brazils interests, in turn, may be fairly said to include the need to distinguish itself from the United States. Diplomatically, this means neither country can expect automatic agreement from the other. Interests differ and it may be politically necessary to highlight differences even when interests are similar. But

both countries should make every effort to develop a habit of permanent consultation in an effort to coordinate policies, work pragmatically together where interests are common, and reduce surprises even while recognizing that specific interests and policies often may differ. A first operational step, therefore, is for both countries to hold regular policy-level consultations, increase exchanges of information, and coordinate carefully on multilateral matters. This is much easier said than done. The list of global issues on which Brazil is becoming a major player includes conflict resolution, all aspects of energy, including nuclear matters, all types of trade, the environment, space, and the development of international law, including law of the seas and nonproliferation. To share information and ensure effective consultation on so many
functional issues will require finding ways to lessen the geographic stovepiping natural to bureaucracy. The U.S. Department of State, for example, has historically organized itself into geographical bureaus responsible for relations with countries in particular regions, leaving functional issues to offices organized globally. This organization hampers the exchange of information and consultation with countries such as Brazil, whose reach and policies go beyond their particular geographic region. One result is that multilateral affairs are still often an isolated afterthought in the U.S. Government. Are there things the United States and Brazil could do, whether bilaterally or in the World Trade Organization, that would offset some of the negative effects of the China trade on manufacturing in both their countries?36 Just posing the question reveals the complexity of the task.

[INSERT IMPACT CARDS]

Relations solve prolif Harold Trinkunas, Ph.D., Thomas Bruneau, Ph.D., U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, December 2012, U.S.-Brazil Workshop On Global and Regional Security, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA574567&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
Brazilian participants also noted the particular alignment of domestic constituencies regarding issues such as MERCOSUR and UNASUR, which they saw as demonstrating that Brazil

was a consolidated democracy that had to respond to domestic political and economic interests in much the same way that the United States government did. The United States and Brazil also look very similar in their relationship with the region, one participant said. If we actually look at the interests of United States and Brazil, they are very convergent. One Brazilian participant also added that, like the United States, Brazil is happy to retreat back to unilateralism. Brazilian participants repeatedly emphasized that Brazil is uniquely qualified to play the role of international peacemaker due to their peaceful traditions, the strength of their diplomacy, and their experience in reducing tensions during international crises. Brazilians also stressed that as a consolidated free market democracy, Brazil is inherently a responsible power in the international arena. They disagreed with the characterization of Brazil as a spoiler, a position held by some U.S. observers of global nonproliferation efforts (albeit not by the U.S. participants in this dialogue). Again and again Brazilian participants emphasized their responsible and mature behavior in important international issues, including nuclear ones . The dialogue participants from outside of the region agreed that Brazil has acquired a good reputation for its skilled diplomacy . One U.S. participant predicted that Brazil would eventually join the expanded UN Security Council as a permanent member. The Brazilians considered the U.S. and Brazil to be natural partners in international nonproliferation efforts, and both sides agreed that the international

nonproliferation regime was in crisis. They offered different explanations, however, for the roots of the regime
crisis. A participant from within the region added that it is difficult for Brazil and the U.S. to be on the same page or even debate nuclear issues because the two countries comes from very different ends of the nuclear spectrum.

New 2NC Overview


The CP solves 100% of case but consults Brazil on key issues PRIOR to implementing the plan It competes. The 1AC cant do binding consultation. That would be abusive.
A. Violates Resolved: Resolved implies a definite course of action. The CP tests the definite and immediate nature of the plan. If we win the CP is beneficial, we have disproved the necessity of the resolution and the affirmative should lose. Any permutation makes the plan conditional and severs the definite and immediate nature of the plan text. This is a voting issue. B. Extend Summers 94. Should demands that the plan has immediacy. C. Makes the plan conditional: Consulting over the plan justifies the affirmative condition plan on anything or answering case turns and offense with the plan wont pass. This means the negative is always one step behind and will never win.

Four Net Benefits: First is relations, increased cooperation on regional issues allows for US-Brazil collaboration on key issues and increases communication. Second is democracy, consulting Brazil on the plan means that democratic reforms will be introduced to Latin America which deters conflicts that are on the brink now. Third: Brazil consultation solves deterrence, nuclear terrorism, arms and drug trafficking, and others Luigi R. Einuadi, March 2011, ambassador, distinguished fellow at the Center for Strategic
Research, Institute for National Strategic Studies, and the National Defense University. Member for the Advisory Council of the Brazil Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Brazil and the United States: The Need for Strategic Engagement, http://www.ndu.edu/inss/docuploaded/SF%20266%20Einaudi.pdf These words cannot be read simply as rhetoric rooted in the Third World trade unionism of the weak. Brazil is no longer weak. It is the only BRIC without a nuclear bomb not because it could not produce one, but because it has chosen not to, and its security doctrines are focused on protecting its borders and on deterrence , not on projecting global power. President Lulas grandstanding with Turkey in Iran damaged his countrys credibility, but as Brazils global reach matures, its multilateral skills and record of autonomy could prove 6 important assets in efforts against the risks of nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation . Like Canada and only a few other countries, Brazil has a tradition of good UN citizenship . This characteristic is an important asset for the United States to find in a friend nowadays. The author believes it was no accident that Srgio Vieira de Mello, the much admired UN

peacemaker who lost his life in Iraq in 2003, was Brazilian. Brazils

generally violence-free domestic history, the absence of conflicts with neighbors, and its longstanding commitment to UN principles and peacekeeping without the imposition of force are an important reservoir for conflict resolution.42 The United States and Brazil face similar problems in their immediate neighborhoods. Notable among these is trafficking in illegal drugs and arms , which contributes to citizen insecurity, migration, and unaccustomed messiness along parts of their borders. These issues should all be included in a permanent consultation process, but Brazils
approach of South America for South Americans does not encourage effective cooperation with the United States on even such vital issues. Brazils assertion of regional power to the exclusion of the United States is similar to Chinas active measures to promote Asian organizations that exclude the United States.43 Initiatives such as UNASUR that exclude the United States, but which include actively anti-U.S. governments, invite uncertainty. The answer for Brazil is not to abandon UNASUR, let alone South American integration, but for both the United States and Brazil to ensure that they each develop and sustain bilateral ties with individual countries in accordance with the particular interests and needs of those countries. (Will anyone deny that Mexico is on some matters more important to the United States than Brazil?) Both

the United States and Brazil should actively support inter-American institutions like the OAS that bring both of them together with other countries of the hemisphere. Most Latin American and Caribbean countries want good relations with both the United States and Brazil, and multilateral activities are a key way to set and observe rules for everyone. Multilateral formats also are useful to offset the asymmetries of power, which have long hampered the United States in dealing with its neighbors, and which now are beginning to bedevil Brazil as it grows more rapidly than most countries around it.7

Fourth is politics the CP avoids it because forms of cooperation are popular in Congress and wont provoke hard-line disagreement

AT PERM: SHOULD definition


Should is more than desirabilityits an obligation Summers 94 (Justice, Supreme Court of Oklahoma, Kelsey v. Dollarsaver Food Warehouse of Durant, The Oklahoma State
Courts Network, November 8, http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=20287#marker3fn14)

Certain contexts mandate a construction of the term "should" as more than merely indicating preference or desirability . Brown, supra at 1080-81 (jury instructions stating that jurors "should" reduce the amount of damages in proportion to the amount of contributory negligence of the plaintiff was held to imply an obligation and to be more than advisory); Carrigan v. California Horse Racing Board, 60 Wash. App. 79, 802 P.2d 813 (1990) (one of the R ules of Appellate Procedure requiring that a party "should devote a section of the brief to the request for the fee or expenses" was interpreted to mean that a party is under an obligation to include the requested segment); State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo. 1958)
("should" would mean the same as "shall" or "must" when used in an instruction to the jury which tells the triers they "should disregard false testimony").

Should demands immediacy Summers 94 (Justice, Supreme Court of Oklahoma, Kelsey v. Dollarsaver Food Warehouse of Durant, The Oklahoma State
Courts Network, November 8, http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=20287#marker3fn14)
The legal question to be resolved by the court is whether the word "should"13 in the May 18 order connotes futurity or may be deemed a ruling in praesenti.14 The answer to this query is not to be divined from rules of grammar;15 it must be governed by the age-old practice culture of legal professionals and its immemorial language usage. To determine if the omission (from the critical May 18 entry) of the turgid phrase, "and the same hereby is", (1) makes it an in futuro ruling - i.e., an expression of what the judge will or would do at a later stage - or (2) constitutes an in in praesenti resolution of a disputed law issue, the trial judge's intent must be garnered from the four corners of the entire record.16 In

praesenti means literally "at the present time." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 792 (6th Ed. 1990). In legal parlance the phrase denotes that which in law is presently or immediately effective, as opposed to something that will or would become effective in the future [in futurol]. See Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 365, 1 S.Ct. 336, 337, 27
L.Ed. 201 (1882).

NEW A2 Perm do both


The permutation is abusive and a voting issue: First is Intrinsicness the affirmative does something thats neither in the plan or CP text. The cp is prior binding but the permutation cannot do this. Therefore, the permutation is intrinsic because it does not allow for any prior binding consultation. 1. That moots the CP because they can just say that we can do both CPs are uniquely key to testing the affirmative 2. It destroys neg strategy perms that arent based on anything destroy predictability makes it impossible to predict every single scenario they could permute nullifies strat by allowing the aff to add new policy options 3. Destroys education we cant learn about the plan and have to focus on redundant theory debates 4. Ground No CP ground means that they can runs tons of affs that can easily be solved by another actor 5. Puts the aff in a double bind: either they lose because their perm is REALLY abusive or they lose because now we can make Intrinsicness arguments to all their harms and they have no advantage Second is timeframe the plan has to happen immediately the aff must stick by the time frame in the 1NC to avoid getting out of all neg args by altering uniqueness destroys neg ground Third is conditionality the counterplan is conditional the plan may or may not pass through the result of the counterplan any permutations make the affirmative conditional. This destroys neg ground because the neg cant debate about the aff anymore because there is no guarantee that it will even happen. This is also severance which is a voting issue.

NEW A2 Perm do the cp


The permutation is abusive and a voting issue First is severance the perm severs the certainty and desirability of the plan text 1. Destroys education they get to cut out part of their aff which means we only learn about part of their plan which skews our education in the round. 2. Fairness skews neg strategy - if we cant base our round strat on our 1NC links and the aff can just permute out of all of them the neg would never be able to win a round 3. Ground when the aff changes, none of the 1NC off case strategies will work independent reason to reject the team on potential abuse Second is timeframe the plan has to happen immediately the aff must stick by the time frame in the 1NC to avoid getting out of all neg args by altering uniqueness destroys neg ground Third is that it makes the affirmative not topical the perm proves that the aff is Unresolved behind their plan and not topical. This is an independent voting issue for jurisdiction. The resolution calls for USFG action and gives the aff USFG fiat they cannot fiat Brazilian action or do anything that has to do with Brazil. Fourth is conditionality the counterplan is conditional the plan may or may not pass through the result of the counterplan any permutations make the affirmative conditional. This destroys neg ground because the neg cant debate about the aff anymore because there is no guarantee that it will even happen.

NEW A2 Perm do the plan then cp


1. DOESNT SOLVE/ LINKS TO THE NET BEN: Fiat is immediate but the consultation must happen before in order to solve for US-Brazil relations 2. MOVING TARGET: By shifting the timeframe of the plan and CP they can shift their advocacy to avoid DAs like politics and this KILLS NEG GROUND AND STRATEGY. The 1AC is the focus of the debate. If they can shift their advocacy that kills predictability and supports argumentative irresponsibility. 3. SEVERANCE Allowing rollbacks or amendments of the plan is skews the Negs strategy. The 1NC is the foundation for the Negatives strategy in the round and illegitimate perms create a time and strategy skew. The perm could result in the status quo, which is core NEG ground. 4. KILLS COMPETITION timeframe perms kill competitiveness of every counterplan even those that are mutually exclusive with the plan Counterplans are key ground for the Neg to test the aff from multiple angles and limit the topic.

NEW A2 Perm do the plan and consult on other issues


1. INTRINSIC PERMS KILL NEG GROUND The permutation nullifies all of the 1NC by adding new policies. The 1NC is the foundation of Neg strat and intrinsicness makes the aff a moving target, killing neg ground and skewing time and strategy 2. KILLS EDUCATION The CP is key to test the Aff on whether or not the plan should be a simple unilateral policy versus one that should be consulted about or a multilateral action. The CP is key to this kind of policy education and critical thinking for the Aff to defend their form of policy making. 3. PERM IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE CP By not consulting NATO that becomes disadvantage ground. The affirmative chose to not include this action. The CP is not artificially competitive 4. Links to the Net-Benefit

NO RELATIONS IN SQUO (UPDATES)


US-Brazil relations are complicated, but there is potential for improvement with cooperation Stuenkel 12 (Oliver, assistant professor of international relations at the Getlio Vargas Foundation in So Paulo, Can Dilma
Rousseff fix U.S.-Brazil relations?, Post-Western World, February 26, http://www.postwesternworld.com/2012/02/26/can-dilmarousseff-fix-u-s-brazil-relations/)
At the same time, Brazil's

rise has not gone unnoticed in Washington, D.C., but the report's key recommendation that the U.S. should "recognize Brazil as a global actor" and adopt a strategy that "reflects the new regional reality" may still strike U.S. American policy makers as difficult to implement - after all, US-Brazil relations are complicated by several thorny issues, ranging from Brazil's break with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), its stance on Libya, Syria, and differing positions on climate change and the question of how to deal with Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. As Brazil's rise and the United States' relative decline is set to fundamentally alter bilateral ties, the report points to the potential for collaboration in new areas - such as how to deal with a rising China. As Matias Spektor points out in a recent
interview, Brazil must adopt a proactive policy vis--vis the United States and build on Obama's statement that he "appreciates" Brazil's desire for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council - now, Brazil

needs to follow-up and offer concrete proposals to show that it can assume global

responsibility, and remain on the U.S.' radar after its 2-year stint in the Security Council has ended. The decision to promote the concept of the 'Responsibility while Protecting' is an important step in that direction.

Relations with Brazil are strained despite visits Burnett 13 (Alistair, Editor of BBC News' The World Tonight programme, Brazil can she be everybodys friend?, Global
Dashboard, May 31, http://www.globaldashboard.org/2013/05/31/brazil-can-she-be-everybodys-friend/)
Despite having much in common, relations

between the two have been strained in recent years. They fell out badly over Brazils Iran initiative which the Americans denounced somewhat hyperbolically as a threat to world peace. The US has also refused to endorse Brazils ambition for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council while giving India its full backing. Over the past twenty years, Brazil has also quietly led the greater economic and political integration of South America, and successfully resisted Washingtons attempts to integrate the region into groupings the US dominates. Vice President Bidens visit this week suggests the US may be beginning to accept it has to deal with Brazil on more equal terms. Apart from inviting President Rousseff for that state visit, Mr Biden flattered his hosts in a keynote speech in Rio saying Brazil is now a developed nation and telling them the US wanted to be their partner. This does not mean all will be sweetness and light from now on , as the US opposition to Brazils candidate for the WTO shows. But we need to keep an eye on President Rousseffs visit to Washington later in the year if President Obama backs Brazils UN
ambitions that would be sign that Mr Bidens warm words are being followed by action.

Relations are still hindered in spite of talks Walters 12 (Nathan M., Senior Contributing Reporter RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL, President Rousseff Visits the United States,
The Rio Times, April 10, http://riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/front-page/president-rousseff-visits-the-united-states/#)
Peter Hakim, president emeritus of the Inter-American Dialogue, an organization of policy experts in Washington, D.C. expressed surprise that more progress was not made. Its

baffling really, how two countries that could get so much done find so much to disagree on, he told The Rio Times. The meeting of the nations leaders also brought some tension however. Rousseff spoke of the monetary tsunami created by the U.S. and other nations low interest rates that lead to devalued currencies, hindering the competitiveness of Brazils export industry. Still, some analysts commented that the relationship between the U.S. and Brazil seems to be hindered by a mismatch in expectations. Brazil sees itself as having earned a high degree of respect, but the U.S. is not willing to cede ground without clearly understanding Brazils position on many key issues that are important
to U.S. policy makers, shared Peter Hakim.

DEMO IMPACT CARD


Democracy is key to solve Latin American proliferation Rattray 94 (Gregory J., Explaining Weapons Proliferation: Going Beyond the Security Dilemma, INSS Occassional Paper,
Volume 1, pg. 19, July 1994, http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=398Z5mFUhgUC&oi=fnd&pg=PT1&dq=democracy+deters+proliferation+%22Latin+A merica%22&ots=KPDWuPTimh&sig=8eSDsBqQtBFHi-ba_e4UKOBiC4c#v=onepage&q&f=false)
While these positive

developments bode well for the future of nuclear proliferation in Latin

America, we must be careful to avoid becoming complacent about the region. Even with democratically elected regimes in power, progress on
implementing the inspection agreement with the IAEA has been slow. Argentina, Brazil and Chile also have yet to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. And at least as significant as regarding the NPT is

the future of democratic rule in the key Latin American states. Brazil saw President Fernando Collow impeached in 1993. Elections for a new President are set for October 1994. Reinforcement of democracy in Latin America could prove crucial to the long-term prospects of countering proliferation. With regard to both its Latin American neighbors and the NIS, the U.S. needs to take a proactive role in thwarting proliferation.

RELATIONS IMPACT CARDS


The US should consult partner nations to promote its interests in Latin America Charlene Barshefsky, ambassador and Chair of International Trade at the Investment and Market Access Practice Group, May 2008, U.S.-Latin American Relations: A New Direction For
a New Reality, http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/LatinAmerica_TF.pdf In pursuing its objectives through the concrete policy recommendations laid out in this report, the United States must focus its efforts and resources on helping Latin America strengthen the public institutions necessary to address the challenges identified in this report. In doing so, Washington should work in partnership with Latin American nations through multilateral organizations such as the World Bank, InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB), International Monetary Fund (IMF), International Finance Corporation, and Organization of American States (OAS). It should also continue to work closely with civil society organizations and domestic and international businesses to create more inclusive economic, social, and political opportunities for Latin American countries and their citizens, which will benefit U.S. policy goals. Achieving the ambitious goals of strengthening institutions and
improving the lives of Latin Americans will require long-term efforts on the part of many participants, most importantly Latin American governments and societies themselves. Nevertheless, there is a significant supporting role for the United States. Expanding

its policy framework and concentrating on strategic regional partnerships will best promote U.S. interests, enhancing stability, security, and prosperity throughout the hemisphere.

Improving relations with Brazil will transform Latin American relations Charlene Barshefsky, ambassador and Chair of International Trade at the Investment and Market Access Practice Group, May 2008, U.S.-Latin American Relations: A New Direction For
a New Reality, http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/LatinAmerica_TF.pdf While many policy concerns span the hemisphere, attention to particular bilateral relations is also in order. Although all the countries in Latin America present unique challenges and opportunities, the Task Force focuses on the complex bilateral relations with four nations: Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela, and Cuba. The Task Force believes that deepening strategic relationships with Brazil and Mexico, and reformulating diplomatic efforts with Venezuela and Cuba, will not only establish more fruitful interactions with these countries but will also positively transform broader U.S.-Latin America relations.

Consulting with Brazil solves the drug trade Charlene Barshefsky, ambassador and Chair of International Trade at the Investment and Market Access Practice Group, May 2008, U.S.-Latin American Relations: A New Direction For
a New Reality, http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/LatinAmerica_TF.pdf Brazil is the fourth-largest democracy and the ninth-largest economy in the world, and it has become an increasingly important actor not only in Latin America but globally. The Task Force recommends that the United States build on its existing and welcome collaboration with Brazil on ethanol to develop a more consistent, coordinated, and broader partnership that incorporates a wide range of bilateral, regional, and global issues. One crucial area for partnership is regional security. Expanding on current peacekeeping efforts, the United States should broaden and deepen regional security cooperation with Brazil. The narcotics trade threatens Brazils security, as it is an important transit country for the European drug market and increasingly a consumer country of cocaine and other drugs. Increasing Brazilian

involvement in the fight against narcotics through govern- ment-to-government cooperation and joint security initiatives will not only ease the U.S. burden in the war on drugs, but will also make U.S. and Brazilian efforts more effective.

Drug cartels cause instability spreads trough the region Bonner 10 (Robert C., senior principal of the Sentinel HS Group, former administrator of the
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, The New Cocaine Cowboys, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2010, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66472/robert-c-bonner/the-newcocaine-cowboys) The recent headlines from Mexico are disturbing: U.S. consular official gunned down in broad daylight; Rancher murdered by Mexican drug smuggler; Bomb tossed at U.S. consulate in Nuevo Laredo. This wave of violence is eerily reminiscent of the carnage that plagued Colombia 20 years ago, and it is getting Washington's attention. Mexico is in the throes of a battle against powerful drug cartels, the outcome of which will determine who controls the country's law enforcement, judicial, and political institutions. It will decide whether the state will destroy the cartels and put an end to the culture of impunity they have created. Mexico could become a firstworld country one day, but it will never achieve that status until it breaks the grip these criminal organizations have over all levels of government and strengthens its law enforcement and judicial institutions. It cannot do one without doing the other. Destroying the drug cartels is not an impossible task. Two decades ago, Colombia was faced with a similar -- and in many ways more daunting -- struggle. In the early 1990s, many
supporting the Colombian government, and it should do the same for Mexico.

Colombians, including police officers, judges, presidential candidates, and journalists, were assassinated by the most powerful and fearsome drug-trafficking organizations the world has ever seen: the Cali and Medelln cartels. Yet within a decade, the Colombian government defeated them, with Washington's help. The United States played a vital role in

The stakes in Mexico are high. If the cartels win, these criminal enterprises will continue to operate outside the state and the rule of law, undermining Mexico's democracy. The outcome matters for the United States as well -- if the drug cartels succeed, the United States will share a 2,000-mile border with a narcostate controlled by powerful transnational drug cartels that threaten the stability of Central and South America.

That causes extinction


Manwaring 5 adjunct professor of international politics at Dickinson (Max G., Retired U.S. Army colonel, Venezuelas Hugo Chvez, Bolivarian Socialism, and Asymmetric Warfare, October 2005, pg. PUB628.pdf) President Chvez also understands that the process leading to state

failure is the most dangerous long-term security challenge facing the global community today. The argument in general is that failing and failed state status is the breeding ground for instability, criminality, insurgency, regional conflict, and terrorism. These conditions breed massive humanitarian disasters and major refugee flows. They can host evil networks of all kinds, whether they involve criminal business enterprise, narco-trafficking, or some form of ideological crusade such as Bolivarianismo. More specifically, these conditions spawn all kinds of things people in general do not like such as murder, kidnapping, corruption, intimidation, and destruction of infrastructure. These means of coercion and persuasion can spawn further human rights violations, torture, poverty, starvation, disease, the recruitment and use of child soldiers, trafficking in women and body parts, trafficking and proliferation of conventional weapons systems and WMD, genocide, ethnic cleansing, warlordism, and criminal anarchy. At the same time, these actions are usually unconfined and spill over into regional syndromes of poverty, destabilization, and conflict.62 Perus Sendero Luminoso calls violent and destructive activities that facilitate the processes of state failure armed propaganda. Drug cartels operating throughout the Andean Ridge of South America and elsewhere call these activities business incentives. Chvez considers these actions to be steps that must be taken to bring about the political conditions necessary to establish Latin American socialism for the 21st century.63 Thus, in addition to helping to provide wider
latitude to further their tactical and operational objectives, state and nonstate actors strategic efforts are aimed at progressively

lessening a targeted regimes credibility and capability in terms of its ability and willingness to govern and develop its national territory and society. Chvezs intent is to focus his primary attack politically and psychologically on selected Latin American governments ability and right to govern. In that context, he understands that popular perceptions of corruption, disenfranchisement, poverty, and lack of upward mobility limit the right and the ability of a given regime to conduct the business of the state. Until a given populace generally perceives that its government is dealing with these and other basic issues of political, economic, and social injustice fairly and effectively, instability

and the threat of subverting or destroying such

a government are real.64 But failing and failed states simply do not go away. Virtually anyone can take advantage of such
an unstable situation. The tendency is that the best motivated and best armed organization on the scene will control that instability. As a consequence, failing

and failed states become dysfunctional states, rogue states, criminal

states, narco-states, or new peoples democracies. In connection with the creation of new peoples democracies, one can
rest assured that Chvez and his Bolivarian populist allies will be available to provide money, arms, and leadership at any given opportunity. And, of course, the longer dysfunctional, rogue, criminal, and narco-states and peoples democracies persist, the

more they and their associated problems endanger global security, peace, and prosperity.65

Consulting with Brazil solves energy and alternative fuels Charlene Barshefsky, ambassador and Chair of International Trade at the Investment and Market Access Practice Group, May 2008, U.S.-Latin American Relations: A New Direction For
a New Reality, http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/LatinAmerica_TF.pdf Finally, energy and climate change provide ample opportunity for deepening ties and securing mutual economic and environmental advantages. Both the United States and Brazil are increasingly turning to LNG to satisfy future energy demands. The United States should work together with Brazil to develop the LNG hemispheric market, benefiting both countries energy matrixes. On biofuels, the United States should pursue a broader joint policy initiative that promotes the development of environmentally sensitive alternative fuels in the region and around the world.

Improved relations are key to address a long list of issues Langevin 12 (Mark, Director at BrazilWorks International Relations Advisor at Associao Brasileira dos Produtores de
Algodo (Abrapa) Consultant at Public Services International, Revisiting: 5 Things President Obama Can do Now to Improve USBrazil Relations, Brazzil, March 23, http://www.brazzil.com/component/content/article/243-march-2012/10566-revisiting-5-thingspresident-obama-can-do-now-to-improve-us-brazil-relations.html)
This fundamental proposition continues to hold. U.S. Democratic and Republican, need

foreign policymakers from both the administration and the two parties, to reframe U.S. foreign policy to incorporate Brazil as a pivotal state in global affairs. The Obama administration should intensify relations with Brazil and take decisive measures to resolve key bilateral conflicts, such as those associated with immigration and commerce (including taxes). Scaling these bilateral hurdles would allow both countries to devote greater bilateral attention to confronting larger, broader global challenges, including the economic downturn, global governance, nuclear proliferation and collective security, climate change, public health, energy security, and the need for social inclusion and protection around the world.

2NC COMP/HEG
US competitiveness is key to hegemony Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay, fellow at RAND former US ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations, Losing the
moment? The United States and the World after the Cold War Washington Quarterly, volume: 18, Spring)

The United States is unlikely to preserve its military and technological dominance if the U.S. economy declines seriously. In such an environment, the domestic economic and political base for global leadership would diminish and the United States would probably incrementally withdraw from the world, become inward-looking, and abandon more and more of its external interests. As the United States weakened, others would try to fill the Vacuum. To sustain and improve its economic strength, the United States must maintain its technological lead in the economic realm. Its success will depend on the choices it makes. In the past, developments such as the agricultural and industrial revolutions produced fundamental changes positively affecting the relative position of those who were able to take advantage of them and negatively affecting those who did not. Some argue that the world may be at the beginning of another such transformation, which will shift the sources of wealth and the relative position of classes and nations. If the United States fails to recognize the change and adapt its institutions, its relative position will necessarily worsen.

Competitiveness solves hegemony and great power war Baru 9 (Sanjaya, Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School in Singapore, Geopolitical Implications of the Current Global Financial
Crisis, Strategic Analysis, Volume 33, Issue 2 March 2009 , pages 163 168)
Hence, economic policies and performance do have strategic consequences.2 In the modern era, the idea that strong

economic performance is the foundation of power was argued most persuasively by historian Paul Kennedy. 'Victory (in war)', Kennedy claimed, 'has repeatedly gone to the side with more flourishing productive base'.3 Drawing
attention to the interrelationships between economic wealth, technological innovation, and the ability of states to efficiently mobilize economic and technological resources for power projection and national defence, Kennedy argued that nations

that were able to better combine military and economic strength scored over others. 'The fact remains', Kennedy argued, 'that all of the major shifts in the world's military-power balance have followed alterations in the productive balances; and further, that the rising and falling of the various empires and states in the international system has been confirmed by the outcomes of the major Great Power wars , where victory has always gone to the side with the greatest material resources'.4 In Kennedy's view, the geopolitical
consequences of an economic crisis, or even decline, would be transmitted through a nation's inability to find adequate financial resources to simultaneously sustain economic growth and military power, the classic 'guns versus butter' dilemma.

Hegemony is key to deter conflict Volgy et al. 5 (Thomas J., Kristin Kanthak, Derrick Frazier, and Robert Stewart Ingersoll, Ridgway Working Group on
Challenges to U.S. Foreign and Military Policy chaired by Davis B. Bobrow, Resistance to Hegemony within the Core: Domestic Politics, Terrorism, and Policy Divergence within the G7, Matthew B. Ridgway Center, 2005-7, http://www.ridgway.pitt.edu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=%2BlXswbXr5VU%3D&tabid=234) The realist/neorealist contribution toward conflict and cooperation (where cohesion is one aspect of cooperation) comes in many forms with the principle focus on relative power capabilities of major actors in international politics.56 Much argument exists over how power and relative strength matter. Hegemons, or states with asymmetrically strong capabilities, may

deter

conflict with potential competitors and foster cooperation through leadership.57 Alternatively, sustained periods of predominance can foster coalitions against a dominant nation.58 Relative parity between states may foster much greater competition among states than asymmetrical power relationships all things being equal.59 Additionally, power transitions between states may be symptomatic of ongoing challenges to the lead nation and the global status quo, or the dynamics involved in such transition may alone motivate dissatisfied states to reconsider their roles and the opportunities such transitions create, leading to greater conflict between states.60

AFF ANSWER: RELATIONS HIGH SQUO


Relations are improving in the status quo AP 5-31 (The Associated Press, US VP Biden says Brazil-US relations enter new era, WKBN, May 31,
http://www.wkbn.com/2013/05/31/us-vp-biden-says-brazil-us-relations-enter-new-era/)
BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) Stronger

trade ties and closer cooperation in education, science and other fields should usher in a new era in U.S.- Brazil relations in 2013, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said Friday. The president (Obama) wanted to make a statement of the importance that the relationship with Brazil has for us, Biden said. That is why the first state visit of the second administration is to your president. We are pleased that your president has accepted the invitation. It is a sign of the respect we have for Brazil. I hope 2013 marks the beginning of a new era in the relations between our two countries, he added The Oct. 23 visit will be an important diplomatic acknowledgment of Brazils growing influence and also a shift back toward the middle for Brazilian foreign policy under Rousseff. Brazilian Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota said U.S.-Brazil relations should focus on areas like science, technology, innovation and education. Biden told reporters he had a wide-ranging discussion with Rousseff who he said was a leader who is laser-focused on addressing the needs of the Brazilian people. I now understand why President Obama considers her such a great partner.

Improving relations now despite prior obstacles-- Rousseff Aramayo and Pereira 11 (Carlos and Carlos, Organizer with Boston's Local 26, visiting fellow in the Latin America
Initiative, Obama's visit to Latin America: Redefining U.S.-Brazil relations, Brookings, March 15, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2011/03/15-brazil-us-aramayo-pereira)
President Obamas

visit to Brazil comes at an important time in U.S.-Brazil relations. Over the past eight the former Brazilian president angered the United States when his government sought closer ties with Iran in an attempt to support Irans development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Despite this and other diplomatic setbacks, relations between the two countries still remain fairly constructive on a range of issues, including counter-narcotics, trade, energy, the environment, promoting bio-fuels, intellectual property rights and providing security in Haiti. With Brazils new president, Dilma Rousseff, there are signs of warmer relations between the two countries. Brazils foreign policy is now less ideological and more pragmatic, particularly in gaining U.S. support for Brazil to
years of President Lulas government in Brazil, serious disagreements emerged between the two countries. In particular , have a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. Rousseff has made clear that Brazil will abandon its ambiguous stance on human rights issues.

Brazil has softened its rhetoric on the Iranian nuclear issue and no longer wants to be part of the negotiations. During a recent interview, President Rousseff made it clear she wanted to improve U.S.-Brazilian ties.

Relations high despite challenges Mody 11 (Anjali, columnist Business StandardAnjali Mody: US-Brazil relations - Agreeing to disagree, Business Standard April
3, http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/anjali-mody-us-brazil-relations-agreeing-to-disagree-111040300024_1.html)

It is hoped the chumminess reported between these two heads of state of the two biggest nations in the Americas, will smoothen the relationship between their countries, a relationship made awkward both by recent history Brazils independent approach to foreign policy has frequently led to disputes with the US and the current economic crisis. President Rousseff said, If we want to build a deeper relationship, we also need to deal frankly with our disagreements. President Obama said, We know how important it is to be able to work together even when we often disagree. The Brazil-US relationship, tricky at the best of times, was stuck in a rut because of the perception in Washington that Brazils former President Lula da Silva had overreached himself over Iran. Since the Brazilian Presidential election last October, The US foreign policy establishment has made much of the fact that although Dilma Rousseff was President Lulas anointed heir she appears to have taken a different view from him on Iran and hence in her foreign policy stance.

AFF: PERM SHOULD definition


Resolved does not require immediacy OPTED 9 (Old Plain Text English Dictionary, a public domain English word list dictionary, Definitions from The Online Plain Text
English Dictionary: Resolve One Look Dictionary Search, 2009, http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Resolve)

Resolve (v. i.) To form a purpose; to make a decision; especially, to determine after reflection ; as, to resolve
on a better course of life.

Should expresses probability AHD 92 (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1992 (4ed); Pg. 1612)
Should2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.

Should means desirable --- this does not have to be a mandate AC 99 (Atlas Collaboration, Use of Shall, Should, May Can, http://rd13doc.cern.ch/Atlas/DaqSoft/sde/inspect/shall.html)
shall 'shall' describes something that is mandatory. If a requirement uses 'shall', then that requirement _will_ be satisfied without fail. Noncompliance is not allowed. Failure to comply with one single 'shall' is sufficient reason to reject the entire product. Indeed, it must be rejected under these circumstances. Examples: # "Requirements shall make use of the word 'shall' only where compliance is mandatory." This is a good example. # "C++ code shall have comments every 5th line." This is a bad example. Using 'shall' here is too strong. should 'should'

is weaker. It describes something that might not be satisfied in the final product, but that is desirable enough that any noncompliance shall be explicitly justified. Any use of 'should' should be examined carefully, as it probably
means that something is not being stated clearly. If a 'should' can be replaced by a 'shall', or can be discarded entirely, so much the better. Examples: # "C++ code should be ANSI compliant." A good example. It may not be possible to be ANSI compliant on all platforms, but we should try. # "Code should be tested thoroughly." Bad example. This 'should' shall be replaced with 'shall' if this requirement is to be stated anywhere (to say nothing of defining what 'thoroughly' means).

2AC Consult Brazil CP


Consult CPs are a VOTER 1. There is an infinite amount of organizations, countries, etc. that the USFG could consultthis kills predictability which is key to fair, educational debates and in-round clash. 2. Aff research burden: its IMPOSSIBLE for the Affirmative to research all of the possible agents that could be consulted and defend their plan against these. This kills education. 3. Moots Aff offensedoes the plan but adds consultation before the affs implementation, they steal affirmative ground and offense, this kills all aff ability to attack the counterplan. Perm do the CP
- Our interpretation is that cps must be functionally and textually competitive - The aff should be able to determine what the plan means key to fairness because the neg can define any word

A. Should means desirable or recommended, not mandatory


Words and Phrases, 2002 (Words and Phrases: Permanent Edition Vol. 39 Set to Signed. Pub. By Thomson West. P. 372-373)
Or. 1952. Where safety regulation for sawmill industry providing that a two by two inch guard rail should be installed at extreme outer edge of walkways adjacent to sorting tables was immediately preceded by other regulations in which word shall instead of should was used, and word should did not appear to be result of inadvertent use in particular regulation, use

of word should was intended to convey idea that particular precaution involved was desirable and recommended, but not mandatory. ORS 654.005 et seq.----Baldassarre v. West Oregon Lumber Co., 239 P.2d 839, 193 Or.
556.---Labor & Emp. 2857

B. Resolved does not require immediacy OPTED 9 (Old Plain Text English Dictionary, a public domain English word list dictionary, Definitions from The Online Plain Text
English Dictionary: Resolve One Look Dictionary Search, 2009, http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Resolve)

Resolve (v. i.) To form a purpose; to make a decision; especially, to determine after reflection ; as, to resolve
on a better course of life.

Solvency deficit - The plan will lead to an increased division wrecks relations Meiman and Rothkopf 3/11/09 [Kellie Meiman and David Rothkopf, Staff writers for Real
Clear Politics, The United States and Brazil: Two perspectives on dealing with partnership and rivalry, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/pdf/brazil.pdf, PS] It should be quickly added, of course, that each of these institutional rebuilding processes contains not
just the seeds for cooperation, but also

the potential for fomenting greater division between the

United States and Brazil. As a developed and a developing country, it is only natural that the natural countries self-interests are at odds on certain key issues. Similarly, as economic competitorswith regard to the production of agricultural products for example divisions are natural. The United States helped establish the status quo and is served by it. Brazil must change that status quo in order to grow and evolve. The United States wants to limit the nuclear club, while Brazil has among the most advanced peaceful nuclear programs in Latin America, even though it has chafed at international
inspections of its facilities in the past, and its president has scoffed at what he perceives as the unfairness of the international nuclear regime. Security Council permanent members want to protect their prerogatives, outsiders want to share them.

The United States has a special role within organizations such as the World Bank or the InterAmerican Development Bank, Brazil wants a greater role commensurate with its changing stature. Consequently, each of these issues is likely to create new tensionsor exacerbate old ones in the relationship. The answer in the long run and the answer for diplomats seeking to minimize tension is the same; deals will be cut and trade-offs will be made. The question for Brazil will beis the United States acting
in good faith to help us advance our interests wherever it is not in direct conflict with theirs.

Perm do Both Solvency deficit consultation takes too long now is key to solve for affirmatives impacts <Insert aff specific analysis> Improving relations now despite prior obstacles-- Rousseff Aramayo and Pereira 11 (Carlos and Carlos, Organizer with Boston's Local 26, visiting fellow in the Latin America
Initiative, Obama's visit to Latin America: Redefining U.S.-Brazil relations, Brookings, March 15, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2011/03/15-brazil-us-aramayo-pereira)
President Obamas

visit to Brazil comes at an important time in U.S.-Brazil relations. Over the past eight the former Brazilian president angered the United States when his government sought closer ties with Iran in an attempt to support Irans development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Despite this and other diplomatic setbacks, relations between the two countries still remain fairly constructive on a range of issues, including counter-narcotics, trade, energy, the environment, promoting bio-fuels, intellectual property rights and providing security in Haiti. With Brazils new president, Dilma Rousseff, there are signs of warmer relations between the two countries. Brazils foreign policy is now less ideological and more pragmatic, particularly in gaining U.S. support for Brazil to
years of President Lulas government in Brazil, serious disagreements emerged between the two countries. In particular , have a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. Rousseff has made clear that Brazil will abandon its ambiguous stance on human rights issues.

Brazil has softened its rhetoric on the Iranian nuclear issue and no longer wants to be part of the negotiations. During a recent interview, President Rousseff made it clear she wanted to improve U.S.-Brazilian ties.

<Insert Country Specific Say No Card> Perm Consult them on other issues.

Brazil wouldnt support the US Meiman and Rothkopf 3/11/09 [Kellie Meiman and David Rothkopf, Staff writers for Real
Clear Politics, The United States and Brazil: Two perspectives on dealing with partnership and rivalry, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/pdf/brazil.pdf] Any real or perceived interference in the region by the United States would greatly upset Brazil. If the United States decided that heavy-handed political pressure or intervention were required in regard, for example, to Venezuela, Bolivia, or Ecuador, this could put Brazil in an uncomfortable position where it has to choose between the United States and its neighbors . it would likely choose its neighbors oreven more likelychoose to interject itself as a third party with a third point of view. If economic pressures forced
Since Brazil has spent years arguing for South American unity, President Chavez to play the old populist card of going after the regional bogeyman the United States, then perhaps through a series of everincreasing provocationsincluding expanding his on-going flirtations with the Syrians, the Iranians, the Russiansthis

could get out of hand and be seen as a test for the Obama administration that it could not shy away from. This hypothetical situation could become a reality sooner than later. The recent referendum eliminating term
limits for elected officials in Venezuela is a development that could eventually trigger some form of U.S. interventiondirect or indirectin the country. Though Venezuela is a key supplier of oil to the United States, putting the latter in a delicate position with regard to carrying out a more interventionist foreign policy, further consolidation of power in the hands of Hugo Chavez could eventually lead the United States to adopt different tactics.

Perm Consult Brazil and do the plan no matter what. Links to politics - perception of consultation makes us look weak and would be unpopular Brazil nervous of U.S. cooperation (Generic Say No) Robert and Maxwell 1 (Steven and Kenneth R., a British historian who specializes in Iberia and Latin America,
longtime member of the Council on Foreign Relations, for fifteen years he headed its Latin America Studies Program, A Letter to the President and a Memorandum on U.S. Policy Toward Brazil, Nova York: Council on Foreign Relations, February 12)

It takes two in order to build a sustained and positive relationship. Is Brazil ready? Given past history, we anticipate that Brazil will be skeptical about a new U.S. initiative. The perception in Brazil is that the United States has in the past been inconsistent in its approaches and has not always delivered on promises of greater engagement and consultation. There have been moments of close historical rapprochement between the United States and Brazil to be sure, as well as moments of estrangement. This history will influence the way Brazilians react to U.S. initiatives, and it is important to bear this in mind. The Baro do Rio Branco, the founder of Brazilian
diplomacy, promoted the idea of a special relationship with the United States. Thomas Jefferson also anticipated a special role for Brazil and the United States within an "American system" predating the Monroe Doctrine. This positive tradition brought major benefits for the United States. During the Spanish American War in 1898, the Brazilian Admiralty turned over a number of European ship-building contracts to the United States in order to increase American naval strength; from 1917 to 1918 during World War I the Brazilian Navy patrolled the Atlantic; from 1944 to 1945 more than 25,000 combat troops of the Brazilian Expeditionary Force (FEB) joined Allied efforts in Italy, taking enormous casualties at the battlefields of Monte Castello; also during World War II, Brazil provided the United States with key bases in the northeast for Atlantic operations; and in 1965 Brazilian troops were dispatched to the Dominican Republic. Most officers of the Brazilian General Staff until the mid-1980s were veterans of the FEB and proud of their association with the U.S. Army during World War II. Under the auspices of Nelson Rockefeller, during the 1940s Brazilian-American cultural relations reached a high point of interaction, cross-fertilization, and mutual discovery.

Brazil would say no they want their own country to compete with <insert aff specific country>