You are on page 1of 17

AT Case


Current restrictions forces victims of trafficking to leave the United States

leaving these people to be revictimized and re-trafficked. Repatriated victims
face severe social stigma for being viewed as a prostitute, the inability to
communicate the violence they had to face, and severe psychological trauma
that is barbigiannis and Adams. On top of that, the T-visa requirements force
the victim to testify against the perpetrator of the violence, thus revictimizing
them. Only through the plan can we remove the T-visa requirement for law
enforcement cooperation and end the repatriation and victimization of these
people by becoming more inclusive – thats barbigiannis again.
A2 Squo Solves
Group their department of state and CNN 18 cards together- the status quo is
insufficient to solve for the trauma and violence that victims face, only broad
sweeping action by the USFG (the world leader in fighting human trafficking) can
solve. If anything, these cards flow aff because it proves that human trafficking is a
problem that multitudes of organizations have been unable to solve. Plus, these cards
offer no data on the degree of solvency that they claim to provide.
A2 Coop good
Forced cooperation with law enforcement officials is unethical because it leads to the
re-rape of these victims by the criminal justice system when they are forced to testify
against their traffickers and share explicit details of their traumatic experiences-
George 11. We must prioritize helping the mental state of being of these victims and
prevent them from getting the threat of deportation. Deporting the victims would
only further support human trafficking.

Lack of obtaining status prior to having to provide assistance makes it that much
harder for victims to effectively aid law enforcement---giving them an opportunity to
settle in the United States makes it comparatively easier to obtain relevant
Chakraborti 14 — Aretha Chakraborti, J.D. May 2014, Columbia Law School; M.Phil. 2010, University
of Cambridge; B.A. 2008, Northwestern University, “Article: Alien Human-Trafficking Victims in The
United States: Examining the Constitutionality of The TVPA And INA's Assistance Requirements,” 17 U.
Pa. J.L. & Soc. Change 55, Lexis Nexis

Another possible interest is promoting trafficker prosecution. However, discrimination on the basis of
alienage to block certification and federal services receipt unless the alien victim is willing to testify
does not serve this interest either. Without removal from traumatizing ICE detention or HHS
processing, and without healthcare, counseling, English-language assistance, and other long-term
services that can rebuild a victim's sense of security and individual personhood, how capable or effective can a
victim actually be in assisting an investigation or prosecution? 71 Limiting the care received by an alien
victim by hinging service receipt on [*71] willingness to assist undermines the victim's actual capacity to
assist, 72 and thereby does not support the prosecutorial interest purported by the TVPA. Here, the
discrimination contravenes the interest alleged rather than supports it.

Even if the neg wins the rest of the link turn---it’s irrelevant because subpoenas act as
a failsafe if the testimony could be make or break for a trafficker’s trial
Chakraborti 14 — Aretha Chakraborti, J.D. May 2014, Columbia Law School; M.Phil. 2010, University
of Cambridge; B.A. 2008, Northwestern University, “Article: Alien Human-Trafficking Victims in The
United States: Examining the Constitutionality of The TVPA And INA's Assistance Requirements,” 17 U.
Pa. J.L. & Soc. Change 55, Lexis Nexis

As was the case in changing INA language, the better

option is that the Court should recommend the TVPA remove
its assistance requirement as a condition for certification and services receipt. Federal and state
investigators and prosecutors can still seek out or subpoena the assistance of alien and citizen victims.
However alien victim services receipt will not be hinged on willingness to assist, and predictably, post-
service receipt aliens may be more willing to come forward to assist, thereby increasing their likelihood
for receiving CP status. In turn, investigators and prosecutors may receive more information to help fight
trafficking, which could justify increased federal budget allocations toward victim services programs.
Impact Framing o/v
You should evaluate the impacts through probability – certainty that our impacts
are harming lots of people outweighs a tiny risk of the DA
3 DA’s on Util
- Justification DA – allowing structural violence to occur devalues life and allows it
to be erased, justifying war.
- Masking DA – Util prioritizes the rich white privileged male and the impacts
impacting them, not the ones that affect minorities. Its this same way thinking that
justifies horrible working conditions for migrants in agriculture because its "the
most good for the greatest amount of people".
- Decision Overload DA – Any % of xtn means we always prepare for an endless
amount of worst case scenario and never address s/v. Theres an endless amount of
scenarios for econ collapse and war, prioritizing every one means we never really
solve for immigrants

Extend our Piatelli 96 evidence- Big Util impacts play to your cognitive biases
and get blown up out of proportion to seem realistic by a long link chain.
However when you assess the actual feasibility of the link chain, the possibility
of such impacts are rendered astronomically low.
You must prioritize the preservation of basic human rights, anything else is an
abdication of human trafficking victims. Without a durable solution to this
problem, victims lose their value to life and without a value to life, death has
no meaning. That’s Human Rights Watch and Shue.
Suffering of the body and human rights is the a priori question in this round.
You must prioritize the preservation of human rights – that is tordes 11
AT Yes War
Right now war is at an all time statistical low thanks to the mutually assured
destruction through nuclear war, the growing economic interdependence of countries,
and proxy states. Even if trump was to escalate issues in the world, there are tons of
checks on conflict including congress, the courts, the American public and
international pressures. Our evidence is more recent than their’s and is more capable
of taking into account
WM — the plan mandates that it would be legal immigration — if they win their
definition of legal immigration the plan would fiat that the T visas become permanent
and provide a path to citizenship

WM — we provide a direct path to LPR and Citizenship

Gott 5
Lynsay Gott Associate Attorney at Kozoll & Associates Immigration Law PLLC, Senior Attorney WMR
Immigration Law Group, PC, Human Rights USA Acting Executive Director Human Rights USA, Program
Director Human Rights USA, Human Rights USA Staff Attorney & Equal Justice Works Fellow Human
Rights USA, Research Fellow University of Cincinnati College of Law, (“UNREALISTIC BURDENS: HOW THE
Nationality Law Review, 2005,
on=journals, Hein Online) EH

One novel aspect of the TVPA is that it allows for temporary legal immigration status for trafficking victims in two
forms: continued presence 4 or the T nonimmigrant visa (T visa). 5 The purpose of continued presence is to aid
law enforcement in prosecuting traffickers. A victim cannot apply for this remedy; rather, a federal law
officer must request continued presence from a local immigration official, but only for a victim who is
willing to assist in the investigation and/or prosecution of the traffickers. If a victim receiving continued
presence later ceases to work with law enforcement her status can be revoked.' 6 Victims who receive continued
presence can work and can receive social services.' 7 Trafficking victims can apply directly for T visas, which grant
legal immigration status for three years, including work authorization as well as the same benefits given
to refugees. After the three years expire, the individual can apply for adjustment to lawful permanent
resident status. 18 While this provision seems incredibly helpful, achieving T nonimmigrant status
involves meeting significant requirements designed to limit its applicability. To be eligible for a T visa,
an applicant must be a victim of a "severe" form of trafficking and physically present in the United
States on account of that trafficking.1 9 Furthermore, an applicant must comply with "any reasonable
request for assistance" from law enforcement if she is over 18 years of age and must show that she
would suffer a heightened form of "extreme hardship" described as "involving unusual and severe
harm.""° T visa allotments are capped at 5,000 people per year,21 a fraction of the number of people
trafficked into the United States annually.

“Legal immigration” includes temporary admission for employment and residence–

the plan does that
Wasem 12 (Ruth Ellen Wasem, Specialist in Immigration Policy, “Overview of Immigration Issues in the
112th Congress,” 1-12-12)
The scope of legal immigration includes permanent admissions (e.g., employment-based, familybased
immigrants) and temporary admissions (e.g., guest workers, foreign students). There are some foreign nationals
admitted temporarily in a conditional status who may be on a path to permanent residence. The challenge inherent in reforming the
system of legal immigration is balancing the hopes of employers to increase the supply of legally present foreign
workers, the longings of families to re-unite and live together, and a widely shared wish among the various stakeholders to improve the
policies governing legal immigration into the country.

Prefer our interpretation of the topic:

1.) Aff Flex – temporary worker protections are key to affirmative ground, H1B &
H2A visa affs are central – the neg overlimits - forcing the aff to be just LPR
severely constrains the affirmative – the temporary counterplan beats all the
best affs
2.) Topic education – We access the best literature – employment-based, residency
requirements set a clear limit on the topic and create the best debates over
economy and heg advantages.

Functional limits check – the neg can read international counterplans to take in
refugees, and affs under our interpretation still link to core neg generics like the
midterms and wage disads.

Prefer reasonability — competing interpretations are a bad model for establishing a

topic – creates a race to the bottom, incentivizes moving the goal posts, and results in
substance crowd-out
Impeachment Scenario
No blue wave – recent elections
Graham 7-6 [Jordan, covers congressional politics and county government for the Orange County
Register. “Will Democrats improve on primary’s blue ripple with stronger turnout in November
For Southern California Democrats hoping to parlay anti-Trump fervor into a Blue Wave of voter turnout, the region’s June 5 primary provided
mixed results. Call it a blue ripple. While some figures point to a Democratic surge that could help the party win key congressional and
assembly seats in November’s general election, other results have disappointed local Democratic leaders and
suggested that Republicans might withstand the challenges. In June, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and
San Bernardino counties all saw their highest turnout in at least two decades for a mid-term primary election, an uptick that seems to
have been driven by left-leaning voters, according to recently certified county-level election results. More than 2.7 million ballots were cast
across the four counties, nearly doubling the 2014 primary total. And people voting for Democrats were disproportionately responsible for the
increased turnout. Among the added voters, nearly three in four cast their ballots for a Democratic gubernatorial candidate. In Orange County,
where Democrats are targeting four GOP-held congressional seats that could help flip the partisan control of the House of Representatives,
Democratic gubernatorial candidates outperformed Republicans for the first time in at least three decades and likely ever. Fred Smoller, a
political scientist at Chapman University in Orange, said those results should hearten Democrats. “Republicans should indeed be worried,”
Smoller said. “The first rule of politics is to follow the passion. This year, Orange County Democrats are on fire. They despise (President Donald)
Trump and his congressional supporters. They are at odds with Republicans on Obamacare, gay rights, guns, climate change and environmental
regulations. This explains the… surge in Democrat turnout.” But when viewed in a different light, the election results could suggest
trouble for Democrats in November. Despite the high turnout of left-leaning voters, Republicans managed to
garner more support in several key races. In Los Angeles County’s 25th Congressional District, incumbent
GOP Congressman Steve Knight cumulatively beat his four Democratic challengers by nearly 4
percentage points despite Democrats holding a nearly 4 percentage point voter registration advantage
in the district. Knight will face Democrat Katie Hill in November’s top-two runoff. In Orange County, Republican candidates
jointly outperformed Democrats in three of the four competitive GOP-held congressional districts,
including the ones being defended by U.S. Reps. Mimi Walters and Dana Rohrabacher, and retiring Rep.
Ed Royce’s open seat. In the Inland Empire, Republican Bill Essayli bested incumbent Assemblywoman
Sabrina Cervantes, D-Riverside, in the two-candidate 60th Assembly District primary. Democrats also
were shut out of November’s 8th Congressional District runoff, with two GOP candidates advancing. And
in Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, registered Republicans turned out at higher rates
than registered Democrats – typical for a mid-term primary, but a result some Democratic Party leaders
have nevertheless said is disconcerting. Los Angeles County election officials didn’t immediately provide data on partisan
turnout. “I don’t see anything in June that causes me to worry as a Republican,” said GOP political
strategist Dave Gilliard. “I think Democrats have to be disappointed.” Gilliard noted that GOP candidates
collectively outperformed Democrats in most of the competitive congressional races despite Democrats significantly
outspending Republicans in all of those contests and in the hard-fought governor’s race. Looking forward to the general election, Gilliard, who
is running the statewide campaign in support of a November initiative to repeal a recent increase to state gasoline taxes, said he thinks the
ballot measure will galvanize Republican turnout and motivate swing-voters to vote conservative. “I’m
just not seeing that there’s going to be any big Blue Wave in November,” Gilliard said. “I think our voters are prepared and
know what’s at stake in these elections – the balance of partisan power.” But Democrats too can find encouraging takeaways from the primary
votes cast in the contested congressional seats. In the race for retiring GOP Rep. Darrell Issa’s district, Democratic candidates cumulatively beat
Republicans, spurring handicappers to speculate Democrats are favorites to take the seat in November. And in the Knight, Walters,
Rohrabacher and Royce districts, Democrats performed significantly better than in past primaries, narrowing 30-plus percentage point GOP
advantages to single-digit margins in all those seats. Michael Trujillo, a Los Angeles-based Democratic strategist, said he agrees with Gilliard
that the high-spending gubernatorial race helped push Democratic turnout higher than in recent primaries. But Trujillo disagreed that the gas-
tax initiative would help only Republicans, saying there are plenty of voters who want to lower their gas prices but also want to vote against
congressional candidates who have supported Trump’s policies. And he said he expects Democrats to vote in even higher proportions in
November’s general election – a well-known pattern that has repeated for years. “We’re going to work to make sure that Democrats close the
gap and take those seats,” Trujillo said. “It’s going to be a real fight.”

No link — recently passed human trafficking reform was popular and bipartisan
Daly 18 (Matthew, AP Congressional reporter specializing in energy, environment, politics, and
oversight. Former chairman, Standing Comm. of Correspondents, Former WH reporter. Graduated from
amherest with honors in polisci, worked for Associated Press, The Washington Post, HuffPost,
Bloomberg Businessweek, NPR, Fox News, The Independent, Chicago Tribune, Washington Times, ABC
News, Time Magazine and more, “House bill targets money laundering by human traffickers”,

WASHINGTON - The government would take modest steps toward hindering money laundering by human
traffickers under legislation approved Tuesday by the House as lawmakers found a widely popular cause
to tackle in a mostly discordant election year. The bipartisan bill would require an existing presidential task
force to recommend how Congress can better thwart money laundering by traffickers. Another federal council
would suggest improvements in how U.S. agencies train investigators to pursue such cases. The State Department would also have to factor
money laundering into its annual rating of how well countries combat human trafficking. The House approved the bill, 408-2. It now goes to the
Senate. Estimates of human trafficking victims vary, but recent reports put the number at tens of millions of people globally. It generally
includes coerced sexual exploitation, prostitution, military service, labour and even organ donation. TheHouse also approved a
separate bill imposing harsher penalties on predators convicted of stalking children, including people who
pursue them online. The bill would add five years to maximum federal prison terms for convicted stalkers of
minors under age 18. Victims' advocates say 7.5 million people are stalked annually in the U.S., with federal figures showing that about 1 in 4
of them report online stalking. The bill was approved 409-2 and now goes to the Senate. The strong bipartisan support for both
bills is crucial for legislation to move through Congress in the months approaching the November midterm
elections. Partisan divisions are likely to block approval of major measures on infrastructure,
immigration, health care and other high-profile issues. President Donald Trump is expected to sign related
legislation this week making it easier for prosecutors and sex trafficking victims to take legal action
against websites that list ads for prostitutes. Children's advocates say such advertising is one way minors are sexually exploited.

Pro-immigration policies key to 2018 Dems victory – turns out the base, minority
voters, and college-educated whites.
Barreto 18---Matt, political scientist at U.C.L.A. and a co-founder of the polling firm Latino Decisions,
"Democrats can win on immigration" New York Times, February 11,]

To no one’s surprise, President Trump, who has been doubling down on his anti-immigrant rhetoric, used his
State of the Union address to draw parallels between the Central American gang MS-13 and law-abiding immigrants in the United States. The
next week, he reiterated that “MS-13 killers” are “pouring into our country.” This kind of language, long a Trump trademark, was used as a
political strategy just a few months ago in Virginia during the failed bid of the Republican candidate for governor, Ed Gillespie. It was also on
display in the campaign of Kim Guadagno, a Republican who lost the race to replace Chris Christie as governor of New Jersey. In
their quest
to retake the House or the Senate (or both), Democrats should not shy away from incorporating and
welcoming immigrants into their own rhetoric. When Republicans embark on meanspirited immigrant
bashing, Democrats should take notes from Harry Reid’s 2010 re-election victory in Nevada and Ralph Northam’s
2017 gubernatorial win in Virginia. Both Mr. Reid and Mr. Northam rebuffed racially charged anti-immigrant
campaigns, standing up for Dreamers, and in the process winning over Latino voters alongside a coalition of
progressive and moderate college-educated whites. In 2010, Mr. Reid made a strong stand for the Dream Act while
competing against a Republican, Sharron Angle, who ran a nativist campaign equating immigrants with gang members. Mr. Reid defied the polls
and won re-election on the strength of very high Latino turnout — and no signs of a white working-class backlash. According to the exit polls,
Mr. Reid ran 11 percentage points ahead of Ms. Angle among white voters who earn less than $50,000 and, according to data compiled by
Latino Decisions, a polling organization that I co-founded, won an estimated 90 percent of the Latino vote. In 2016, Nevada proved to be one of
the bright spots for Democrats. Mr. Reid’s strategy was embraced by his successor, Catherine Cortez Masto, who became the first Latina
elected to the Senate. In
the wake of Mr. Trump’s victory, there has been a renewed focus on the so-called
white working-class vote, a demographic segment that has been getting smaller each year and has been
trending away from Democrats for a long time. While it is true that compared with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton lost ground with that segment
of the electorate,
the clues to a new Democratic majority may be found in the coalition that elected Mr.
Northam governor of Virginia, or perhaps more accurately, voted against Mr. Gillespie and his immigrant
bashing. In Virginia, polling data has made it clear that Mr. Gillespie’s MS-13 rhetoric backfired among minority voters as well as, crucially,
among many whites. Mr. Northam won a majority of white college-educated voters, who made up a larger share of the electorate in 2017 than
they did in 2016. Mr. Gillespie matched Mr. Trump with noncollege whites, but their turnout was down. And minority voters in 2017
matched their 2016 electorate share — for the first time ever there was no drop-off from the
presidential to the gubernatorial election. The Democrats also expanded their margin of victory in Virginia from five percentage
points in 2016 to nine points in 2017. Before the vote in Virginia, pundits on both the right and left were speculating that Mr.
Gillespie’s anti-immigrant strategy was working. But in the end, election results and polling data in Virginia proved all
that thinking was wrong. While each state has its own demographics and distinct politics, Virginia has voters who span demographic
and economic spectrums. Majorities of voters of all races and ethnicities rejected anti-immigrant stereotypes as
ugly and wrong. According to an election eve survey of voters by Latino Decisions, Latino voters said that Mr. Gillespie’s MS-13 ads made
them less enthusiastic about him, by a 45-point margin. But it wasn’t just Latino voters. By a 23-point margin (52 to 29), whites in Virginia also
said the MS-13 ads turned them away from Mr. Gillespie, as did African-American and Asian-American voters by larger margins. Data speaks
louder than punditry, and our regression analysis of survey data paints a clear picture. Exposure to Mr. Gillespie’s MS-13 ads actually helped
drive white college-educated voters away from the Republicans. When we analyzed findings for white independents and Republicans, voters
who were aware of the MS-13 ads were significantly more likely to vote for Mr. Gillespie’s Democratic opponent. What should be alarming for
Republicans is that this effect wasn’t limited to the governor’s race. The Gillespie campaign had coattail effects, but of the wrong stripe. Across
all racial groups, those who were aware of Mr. Gillespie’s MS-13 ads were significantly more likely to vote for Democratic candidates for
Virginia’s House of Delegates. This means that notonly is it morally just for Democrats to position themselves as the
party that stands against hatred and bigotry and in favor of inclusiveness and opportunity, but it is also a
strategically sound position for winning votes. Simultaneously, it sends a clear, welcoming message to
Latino, African-American and Asian-American voters, while also winning over enough of the white voters
who also oppose immigrant bashing. This phenomenon is particularly true of voters who will decide
crucial House and Senate races in 2018: people of color and white college-educated voters — also
known as the Democratic base. Mr. Trump and his fellow Republicans are clearly gearing up for a similar anti-immigrant effort in
2018. But now the mask has been pulled off. Votersuget it. Democrats have an opportunity to speak out strongly against
bigotry. And in doing so, they have a path to victory in 2018 and beyond.

Even if the dems win every single election there is no way there can be enough
votes for impeachment
Trump non-unique – Trump has been in office for 1.5 years but nothing has
Trump’s Non unique, GOP won’t impeach Trump– even assuming Dem wave
Dorf 18 [Michael C. Dorf Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law Cornell Law School 1-9-2018]
To make clear that I am about to engage in a purely "academic" exercise, I begin
with the obvious political reality: (1) There is
virtually no chance that Donald Trump will be removed from the presidency via the 25th Amendment based
on his past conduct or his inevitable future conduct of a similar sort; and (2) absent irrefutable evidence of
crimes on the order of cannibalistic murder personally committed by Trump, there is also virtually no
chance that Trump will be removed from the presidency via impeachment, even assuming a strong
midterm wave election in which Democrats take the House and the Senate, because Republicans will
still have enough votes in the Senate to block removal.

That is the reality, because it is now clear that there are very few Republicans willing to stand up to Trump when it
really matters. I suppose that it is possible that a sufficient drubbing in the midterm elections could change that--which is why I hedged a bit by saying "virtually"
twice in the prior paragraph. For
practical purposes at least for now, both impeachment and invocation of the 25th
Amendment--no matter how justified--are a mirage.

Populist signal already sent – his 2016 win was high-profile and global

Plan alone discredits populism – huge commitment to the social safety net

No impact – liberalism resilient and collapse doesn’t cause conflict

Busby 13 [Joshua Busby is an Associate Professor in the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of
Texas-Austin 3-8-2013]

Both that article and their earlier one are part of a liberal
order pessimism that captures the current zeitgeist but may look
dated in a few years. I’d put in that category Charlie Kupchan’s book No One’s World, Ian Bremmer’s G-Zero world in Every Nation for
Itself, and perhaps Kishore Mahbubani’s new book The Great Convergence, if his past writings are any indication [though the first chapter is
surprisingly supportive of making the current global order better]. While there is a lot about this piece I like, especially the focus on problem-solving through “coalitions
of the relevant,” I wonder if Barma, Ratner, and Weber are underestimating the resilience of the liberal order and created a straw man version of it as well. The Liberal Order Straw Man Here

is how they described what the liberal order should look like: Consider an objective-based definition: a world in which most countries most of the time
follow rules that contribute to progressively more collective security, shared economic gains and individual human rights. States would gradually downplay the virtues of relative advantage
and self-reliance. Most states would recognize that foreign-policy choices are constrained (to their aggregate benefit) by multilateral institutions, global norms and nonstate actors. They would
cede meaningful bits of sovereign authority in exchange for proactive collaboration on universal challenges. And they would accept that economic growth is best pursued through integration,
not mercantilism, and is in turn the most reliable source of national capacity, advancement and influence. With those ingredients in place, we would expect to see the gradual, steady evolution

of something resembling an “international community” bound by rights and responsibilities to protect core liberal values of individual rights and freedoms. This strikes me as a
utopian version of the liberal order that could never live up to such grandiose expectations. The liberal order is not only
supposed to have generated some sort of collective buy-in by states but create support for multilateralism, a preference for absolute gains, and
normative convergence. images (1)I think a more limited understanding of the liberal order as it is rather than its ideal is the place to start.
Here, the liberal order’s stability is based more on behavioral outcomes than motivations. The order works because it has
structural properties that bind leaders, including those more interested in national self-interest than mutual
gain. The nature of the rules and interlocking interdependencies create checks on self-serving behavior, such that even
mercantilist or unilateralist politicians from powerful states will be disciplined for, say, putting in protective tariffs on steel or starting a war
without sufficient buy-in from one’s allies. As Dan Drezner wrote in his review of their piece: As Barma, Ratner and Weber point out, this was at best a
partial order even prior to 2008. This matters: a misplaced nostalgia for prior eras of global governance is one reason that so many
commentators think that the system is f**ked right now. Once you realize that the post-1945 liberal order was partial,
riddled with exceptions, and also prone to crisis, suddenly the present day doesn’t look so bad in comparison.
Late 20th and early 21st century globalization may have created sufficient interdependence that actions hostile to
the current global order or even those parallel to it like “routing” around may be self-defeating, that agency to depart from
the current structure comes with a high price. Perhaps states with deep pockets like China or mineral/oil wealth like Russia will be
able to bear those costs for a while and in turn re-shape the global order, but it seems premature to argue that they
have or even want to. As Drezner quipped in his response: Yes, this explains why the publics in the developing world have rejected economic
globalization as an economic strategy — oh, wait, I’m sorry, they haven’t done that, nor have their governments. If anything, the
commitment to a liberal economic order has held up remarkable well since 2008. Too Soon to Suggest “Routing Around” Has
Generated Structural Properties The authors’ biggest problem is trying to read lasting structural changes in the global order off of fragmented, nascent trends. What if these currency swaps,
the proposed BRICs bank, and other endeavors don’t amount to much in the end? Barma and company explicitly reject that “routing around” is some “high-concept description of an
alternative world order” (62), but they do suggest that like “balancing” behavior, “routing around” reflects an analytically important category of action that states will increasingly adopt as a

strategic choice. Or will they? Overly Pessimistic Take on the Liberal Order? I also wonder if the sense of pessimism about the current order is
premature. Yes, there are many problems in how global governance is functioning in different policy arenas, including trade, the
environment, security, you name it. And, some of these like climate change may prove to too big, too complex for us to deal with very
successfully. But, for other issues like trade, we’ve been down this road before of extreme pessimism before a later
breakthrough. Here is Allan Meltzer writing in 1993 on the apparent failure of the then Uruguay Round: What ever happened to the Uruguay Round
to expand the scope of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade? What started as the major trade initiative of the past decade is now almost dormant. Although negotiations must be
completed in less than two months, there has been almost no public discussion of the round for months. Doha may yet fail and not be superseded by anything better. That said, I would take
issue with reading the bad news of the day, on trade, on the U.S. budget impasse, the EU’s financial problems, or failure to deal with crises around the world and use these instances as

when it comes to security, Barma,

evidence of permanent dysfunction in either domestic systems or the liberal order. Security and the Liberal Order Finally,

Ratner, and Weber seem to conflate problems of the liberal order with problems of global governance. They find
fault with the Security Council’s inability to deal with humanitarian problems in the Congo and the ongoing crisis in Syria. But, those are
problems that go beyond the liberal order and to the international system more broadly, which involve a
host of states that have yet to embrace democratic governance. US-Japan21Here, the liberal order is perhaps even more partial than in
the economic arena where democracies and non-democracies alike are jockeying for position. I think their point is that with democratization stalled in the Middle East and problems in the U.S.

it is too soon to draw some closure on what recent events

and Europe, democracy itself does not appear to be a potent magnet of attraction. Again,
like the Arab Spring yet mean for the future of democratization. The aspiration for individuals to have more control over their political life still
seems a potent one.Finally, we should remember that the liberal order, partial as it is, goes
beyond regime type. Where
democracies have consolidated, there are security relationships, like NATO and the U.S.-Japan bilateral alliance, that
remain important, though stressed. And, within Europe, even as troubling as the current situation is, war within the West is off the
table entirely. Moreover, as Ratner has written about elsewhere, the Asia pivot by the United States is an effort to undergird the liberal order
by what is still the world’s dominant military power. Barma, Ratner, and Weber suggest that multipolarity has come along faster than expected,
but in the security sphere, it is too soon to make such a judgment.So, even in the security space, where the
liberal order encompasses a narrower slice of states, the democratic and commercial peace among like-
minded states remains an important tie that binds.