You are on page 1of 88

China Trade Disad

DDI CO ‘08
Miller

THE CHINA TRADE DISAD

1NC
THE CHINA TRADE DISAD..............................................................................................................................1
1NC..........................................................................................................................................................................1
CHINA 1NC...........................................................................................................................................................4
CHINA 1NC...........................................................................................................................................................5
ENERGY/TRADE UNIQUENESS......................................................................................................................6
ENERGY/TRADE UNIQUENESS......................................................................................................................7
ENERGY COOPERATION UNIQUENESS......................................................................................................8
TRADE UNIQUENESS.........................................................................................................................................9
TRADE UNIQUENESS.......................................................................................................................................10
TRADE RELATIONS HIGH.............................................................................................................................11
TRADE RELATIONS HIGH - AT: TEXTILES..............................................................................................12
LINK EMPIRICALLY PROVEN......................................................................................................................13

LINK EMPIRICALLY PROVEN......................................................................................................................14

LINK EMPIRICALLY PROVEN......................................................................................................................15

LINK EMPIRICALLY PROVEN......................................................................................................................17


LINK EMPIRICALLY PROVEN......................................................................................................................18
CAP LINK............................................................................................................................................................19
GENERIC LINK..................................................................................................................................................20
GENERIC LINK..................................................................................................................................................21
GENERIC LINK..................................................................................................................................................22
GENERIC LINK..................................................................................................................................................23
GENERIC LINK..................................................................................................................................................24
GENERIC LINK..................................................................................................................................................25
GENERIC LINK..................................................................................................................................................26
GENERIC LINK..................................................................................................................................................27
GENERIC LINK..................................................................................................................................................28
1
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

REDUCTIONS IN EMISSIONS LINK.............................................................................................................29

REDUCTIONS IN EMISSIONS LINK.............................................................................................................30


REDUCTIONS IN EMISSIONS LINK.............................................................................................................31
REDUCTIONS IN EMISSIONS LINK.............................................................................................................32
REGULATION LINK.........................................................................................................................................33
REGULATIONS LINK.......................................................................................................................................34
MANDATORY CURB LINK.............................................................................................................................35
CLIMATE CHANGE LINK...............................................................................................................................36
COMPETITIVENESS LINK.............................................................................................................................37
ENVIRONMENTALISM LINK........................................................................................................................38
ENVIRONMENTALISM LINK........................................................................................................................39
STEEL INDUSTRY FORCES PROTECTIONISM........................................................................................40
INDUSTRIES SET POLICY..............................................................................................................................41
INDUSTRIES SET POLICY..............................................................................................................................42
TRADE WAR IMPACT- ECON........................................................................................................................43
TRADE WAR IMPACT- ECON........................................................................................................................44
TRADE WAR IMPACT- ECON COLLAPSE/WAR......................................................................................45
TRADE WAR IMPACT- ECON........................................................................................................................46
TAIWAN WAR....................................................................................................................................................47
TAIWAN WAR....................................................................................................................................................48
TAIWAN WAR....................................................................................................................................................49
SPRATLEYS IMPACT.......................................................................................................................................50
SPRATLEYS IMPACT.......................................................................................................................................51
SPRATLEYS IMPACT.......................................................................................................................................52
SPRATLEYS IMPACT.......................................................................................................................................53
INDIAN RELATIONS MODULE.....................................................................................................................54
INDIAN RELATIONS IMPACT- KASHMIR WAR......................................................................................55
CHINA ECON IMPACT....................................................................................................................................56
CHINA ECON IMPACT....................................................................................................................................57
CHINA ECON IMPACT- ASIAN WWIII........................................................................................................58
CHINA ECON IMPACT- CHINA/RUSSIA WAR..........................................................................................59
HONG KONG ECON IMPACT........................................................................................................................60
2
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

RELATIONS IMPACT- NORTH KOREA......................................................................................................61


RELATIONS IMPACT- PROLIF.....................................................................................................................62
FREE TRADE IMPACT- NUCLEAR WAR....................................................................................................63
FREE TRADE IMPACT- DEMOCRACY.......................................................................................................64
FREE TRADE IMPACT- TERRORISM..........................................................................................................65
FREE TRADE IMPACT- ECONOMY.............................................................................................................66
FREE TRADE IMPACT- INNOVATION........................................................................................................67
FREE TRADE IMPACT- WAR.........................................................................................................................68
FREE TRADE IMPACT- ENVIRONMENT...................................................................................................69
DA TURNS WARMING- CHINA COOP.........................................................................................................70
DA TURNS WARMING- CHINA COOP.........................................................................................................71
DA TURNS WARMING- CLIMATE TREATY..............................................................................................72
DA TURNS WARMING- CLIMATE TREATY..............................................................................................73
DA TURNS WARMING- PROTECTIONISM................................................................................................74
DA TURNS WARMING- PROTECTIONISM................................................................................................75
DA TURNS WARMING- PROTECTIONISM................................................................................................76
DA TURNS WARMING- PROTECTIONISM................................................................................................77
DA TURNS COMPETITIVENESS- CHINESE MARKETS..........................................................................78
DA TURNS COMPETITIVENESS- FREE TRADE.......................................................................................79
DA TURNS EU TRADE- GLOBAL PROTECTIONISM...............................................................................80
DA TURNS EU TRADE- WTO..........................................................................................................................81
AT: PEACEFUL MODELLING........................................................................................................................82
AT: CAP/TRADE NON-UNIQUE.....................................................................................................................83
AT: CHINA WAR INEVITABLE.....................................................................................................................84
AT: REALISM.....................................................................................................................................................85
AT: NO TARIFFS................................................................................................................................................86
AT: CURRENT TRADE DISPUTES- WTO SOLVES...................................................................................87
AT: CURRENT TRADE DISPUTES- WTO SOLVES...................................................................................88

3
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

CHINA 1NC

US China trade relations are high and improving- but protectionist legislation must be avoided
(Xinhua News Agency, 6/11/08, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/11/content_8342751.htm

WASHINGTON, June 10 (Xinhua) -- The U.S.-China economic relationship is growing in a positive direction through the on-
going, dynamic and respectful discussions of the Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED), U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson
saidTuesday. Delivering a speech outlining the goals of the high-level economic talks the two countries will hold next week, Paulson
described the bilateral economic relationship as "complex, broad and important to both our countries and to the world
economy."The SED has brought progress faster and more broadly on issues important to the U.S. and global economy than would
have been possible otherwise, Paulson said, notingit is important to resist calls for erecting protectionist barriers. "It is clear that
our strategy for robust engagement with China- intensive dialogue but with resort to WTO dispute settlement and WTO-sanctioned
trade remedies if needed - is more productive than protectionist policies or legislation," he said here in his prepared remarks. On
June 17-18, high-level delegations from China and the United States will meet in Annapolis, Maryland, north of Washington, for the
fourth round of SED launched in December 2006. The upcoming discussions will focus on five areas, Paulson said. These are:
managing financial and macroeconomic cycles; developing human capital; the benefits of trade and open markets; enhancing
investment; and advancing joint opportunities for cooperation in energy and the environment. Paulson expressed his confidence that
next week's meeting "will move the United States and China even further forward to a stronger economic future."

A new climate regimes strikes fear into US industries- they force through protectionist tariffs- a trade war results
(Robert Collier, visiting scholar at the Center for Environmental Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, is writing a
book about China and global warming. He has been with the San Francisco Chronicle from 1991 to the present as a senior foreign
affairs correspondent (since 2002), a member of the editorial board (2001-2002), and a foreign affairs reporter (1994–2001). May 6,
2008, “China faces trade war climate challenge”, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/JE06Cb01.html

China in recent months has taken center stage in the international debate over global warming. It has surpassed the United States as
the world's largest source of greenhouse gases, and it became developing nations' diplomatic champion at the recent United Nations
climate negotiations in Bali. Now China may become the target of a full-fledged trade war that could destroy, or perhaps rescue,
the chances of bringing rich and poor nations together to fight global warming. The focus on China intensified late last year, when
data from the International Energy Agency and other research organizations revealed that China had overtaken the United States as the
largest source of greenhouse gases,and, more ominously,that its emissions are growing at a ratethat exceeds all wealthy nations'
capacity to decrease theirs. Even if China met its own targets for energy conservation, its emissions would increase by about 2.3
billion tonnes over the next five years, far larger than the 1.7 billion tonnes in cutbacks imposed by the Kyoto Protocol on the 37
developed "Annex 1" countries, including the United States. After the inconclusive end of the UN-led Bali talks on the global
environment, worry has grown among US and European industries - especially iron, steel, cement, glass, chemicals, and pulp and
paper - that any new climate treaty would put them at a big disadvantage against their fast-growing competitors in China. In
response, the US Congress is moving to create a system of trade sanctions that would levy heavy taxes on imports from other
major greenhouse gas emitters.

4
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

CHINA 1NC

China trade war will escalate to full scale military conflict


(Ben Landy, Ben Landy, Director of Research and Strategy at the Atlantic Media Company, publisher of the Atlantic Monthly,
National Journal, and Government Executive magazines. Landy served in various research and project management positions at the
Brookings Institution and Center for Strategic and International Studies, two leading public policy think tanks in Washington, D.C.
Ben holds a bachelor of arts degree from Yale University. April 3, 2007, http://chinaredux.com/2007/04/03/protectionism-and-
war/#comments,)

The greatest threat for the 21st century is thatthese economic flare-ups between the US and China will not be contained, but might
spill over into the realm of military aggressionbetween these two world powers. Economic conflict breeds military conflict. The
stakes of trade override the ideological power of the Taiwan issue. China’s ability to continue growing at a rapid rate takes
precedence, sincethere can be no sovereignty for China without economic growth. The United States’ role as the world’s superpower
is dependent on its ability to lead economically. As many of you will know from reading this blog, I do not believe that war between
the US and China is imminent, or a foregone conclusion in the future. I certainly do not hope for war. But I have little doubt that
protectionist policies on both sides greatly increase the likelihood of conflict–far more than increases in military budgets and
anti-satellite tests.

HOT WAR WITH CHINA ENSURES EXTINCTION


(STRAIT TIMES, June 25, 2K, Pg. l/n)

THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington
were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on
such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has
already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking
China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent,
Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers
elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political
landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upsetby the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between
India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US
war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the
Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military
defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on
future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which
could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter
acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China, 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The
US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities.Beijing also seems
prepared to go for the nuclear option.A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non
first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic
Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still
abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear
weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come
to pass, we would see the destruction of civilization.

5
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

ENERGY/TRADE UNIQUENESS

STRONG US- CHINA TRADE AND ENERGY RELATIONS NOW


(Thomson Financial News, 6/18/08, US, China announce launch of new investment talks, energy cooperation,
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/06/18/afx5130797.html)

The US and China today formally announced the launch of talks that the US hopes will result in more transparency and
certainty for US investors in China, as well as options for settling investment disputes with China. As part of today's US-China
Strategic Economic Dialogue, the two countries also signed a ten-year environment and energy cooperation agreement, a deal
that moves forward an agreement from last year to cooperate in these areas in the wake of rising oil prices and concern over
the environment. 'Our interests in this area are very aligned,' US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said today in his closing
statement to the SED. Paulson added that the two countries will work on energy conservation and efficiency as part of this effort. 'This
is a highlight of this round of the SED,' said Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan in his accompanying closing statements. The two
countries also established a TransportationForumintended to identify the infrastructure needed to support various modes of
transportation and to enable the free flow of trade between the US and China.

6
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

ENERGY/TRADE UNIQUENESS

ENERGY COOPERATION IS CURRENTLY BOOSTING TRADE


(Barry Wood, Voice of America News, 6/18/08, http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-06-18-voa74.cfm)

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson hailed the achievements of the talks, the fourth round in a strategic economic dialogue
launched two years ago. He said the 10-year energy and environmental agreement is particularly significant as the US and
China are the world's biggest oil consumers and biggest emitters of green house gases. The investment treaty-which will take
some time to negotiate-would enhance each nation's access to the other's market. The two countries already have a huge and
growing trade relationship. The Chinese delegation was headed by Vice Premier Wang Qishan.

7
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

ENERGY COOPERATION UNIQUENESS

THE US AND CHINA ARE CURRENTLY GOING TO COOPERATE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
(Du Guodong , Tuesday, June 17, 2008 , “Vice premier: China-U.S. energy cooperation would produce win-win results”,
http://english.gov.cn/2008-06/17/content_1018512.htm)

Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan has called for stronger cooperation between China and the United States in energy, the
environment and other related areas, saying that bilateral cooperation in these areas would lead to win-win results. "The
Chinese government gives high priority to energy and resources conservation and the protection of the environment. It is committed to
building a resource-conserving and environment-friendly society," Vice Premier Wang wrote in an article published by The Financial
Times on Monday in its North American edition. "However, China is a big and populous developing country at a stage of
accelerated industrialization and urbanization. This has led to heavy consumption of energy and resources and made the task
of protecting the environment a daunting one," he said. "So it is highly significant that the fourth China-U.S. Economic
Dialogue, which will be held in the U.S. this week, will promote long-term cooperation in energy, the environment and other
related areas," said Wang, who heads a Chinese delegation to take part in the fourth China-U.S. Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED),
scheduled to be held in Annapolis, Maryland, on Tuesday and Wednesday. To meet the challenges brought about by the pressures of
growing demand, Wang said China has endeavored to achieve the following goals: intensifying energy and resource conservation,
developing renewable energy, and actively adapting to global climate change. "There is a broad scope for cooperation between
China and the U.S. in energy and environment," he wrote. "Stronger cooperation between the two countries in energy and the
environment will enable China to respond better to energy and environmental issues and also bring about tremendous
business opportunities and handsome returns for American business." According to the intent of the 10-year cooperation
between China and the U.S. in energy and environmental protection, Wang said the two countries should, on the basis of the principles
of mutual complementarity and win-win progress, focus their cooperation in energy, pollution reduction and protection of natural
resources. The Chinese vice-premier proposed three approaches to strengthen bilateral cooperation in these areas. First,
China and the United States should build joint laboratories or research and development centers for energy and
environmental protection technologies, and provide platforms to promote industrial applications of such technologies. Second,
the two countries should jointly formulate and implement fiscal,taxation, financial and trade policies to encourage innovation
and cooperation in and transfer of energy-conserving and environment-friendly technologies. Third, the two sides should use
existing multilateral and bilateral dialogue mechanism and exchange platforms to enhance consultation and coordination,
strengthen cooperation in training, exchanges of technical personnel, and data-sharing. Vice-Premier Wang hoped that through
dialogue and cooperation in these areas, China and the United States will promote all-round development of the constructive and
cooperative relationship between the two countries, to better serve the interests of their peoples. The SED was launched jointly by
Chinese President Hu Jintao and U.S. President George W. Bush in September of 2006. The dialogue is held twice a year, alternating
between the two countries. The previous meeting was held in December in Beijing.

8
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

TRADE UNIQUENESS

US CHINA TRADE TIES GROWING NOW


(Xinhua News Agency, 6/20/08, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/21/content_8410358.htm)

A leading U.S. business leader said here Friday that the U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED) has played an
important role in bilateral economic and trade cooperation and that the SED should continue in a sustained and effective
manner. At a meeting with visiting Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan, Harold McGraw III, chairman of Business Roundtable, an
association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies, suggested that business leaders of the two countries should also
establish and hold such dialogues as an effective complement to government-to-government dialogue. McGraw, who is the
president and CEO of the McGraw-Hill Companies, urged both governments to support such dialogues. Wang was meeting with
McGraw and leaders of other member companies of Business Roundtable to hear their opinions and suggestions about China-U.S.
economic and trade relations. Wang told the U.S. business leaders that the Chinese economy will maintain a rapid growth in a
relatively long period of time and that the Chinese government will create a good environment for enterprises of both
countries to conduct dialogue and mutually beneficial cooperation. The Chinese vice premier arrived in New York on Thursday
after co-chairing the 4th session of the China-U.S. Strategic Economic Dialogue in Annapolis, Maryland, and meeting U.S. President
George W. Bush and U.S. lawmakers in Washington. He said the purpose of the Strategic Economic Dialogue is to raise
questions, seek consensus, and implement results, and to prevent trade protectionism and conservatism from hampering the
development of bilateral economic and trade cooperation, so as to ensure that such cooperation benefits the people of both
countries.

9
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

TRADE UNIQUENESS

China continues to invest in US


Lawrence S. York, founder and editor of SeriousBull (Market watching company), 7/6/08, Has China Become the US Treasury’s Best
Friend?, http://seekingalpha.com/article/85212-has-china-become-the-u-s-treasury-s-best-friend
The US economic picture by all accounts (except George Bush's) is deteriorating with forecasts that as many as 300 US
banks may fail and that Stagflation is becoming an ever greater reality (stagnant growth accompanied by rising inflation).
US investors concerned that Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) would not be able to manage their debt service when
combined with their payoff guarantees on $12 trillion of US mortgages, sold both companies' stock, calculating that a Fed
bailout was certain and that stockholders would lose out. Russia, andperhaps other sovereign investors, likewise have
reason to sell their US government sponsored holdings. Russia is paying back the Bush Administration for its aggressive
and unfriendly behavior, missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and the US intervention to derail World Bank loans for
Russian oil pipelines. But not China. China reportedly increased its holdings in US Government mortgage-back securities
a thousand-fold from 2000-2006 according to the US State department. And recently, according to a Bloomberg news report by
Andy Mukherjee, China Investment Bank (for the 12 months ended April) again sharply increased its holdings in Fannie
and Freddie debt some 26% compared to a year earlier by purchasing an additional $67 billion more debt. Now we can assume
that China is a contrarian investor seeking to catch a falling knife using its foreign reserves to speculate for gain, or we can
speculate that China may have an inside track to the US Treasury (i.e. that China has been reassured by Treasury Secretary
Paulson that they have no need to fear and sell). Indeed the Treasury would be much obliged if China were to purchase Russia's
redemptions as well, because the US Treasury will stand behind the debt.

China US Trade Relations High


Li Ruogu, Chairman and President of China’s Exim Bank, 2008-05-09 07:24, Real Issues in U.S China Trade Imbalance,
(http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2008-05/09/content_6672305.htm)

While pursuing sound economic development, China is opening up its economy and actively seeking to expand its economic
and trade ties with the developed world, including the US. At present, China and the US have become economically
interdependent and their interests intertwined. The US has made significant gains from its economic and trade relations
with China. First, low-priced and good-quality goods and services imported from China have raised the consumer surplus and
eased the inflation pressure in the US. According to a Morgan Stanley report, trade with China in 2004 alone saved American
consumers $100 billion and created 4 million new jobs. Second, China's imports from the US have added new momentum to
the US economy. For five consecutive years, China has been the fastest growing market of American exports. And over
the past decade, US exports to China increased more than 350 percent, which is about six times the growth of US exports to
other regions. Whereas China was the 13th largest export market for US products in 1995, it is now the US' fourth largest
market. Third, US investments in China have yielded high returns. As of November 2007, US investors had poured in a total of
$56 billion into 51,555 enterprises in China. These investments have obtained high returns and shared China's economic
success.

10
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

TRADE RELATIONS HIGH

US to boost high tech trade with China


China Daily, Periodical in China, US to Boost high Tech trade with China, 2006-06-10, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-
06/10/content_613560.htm

The Bush administration is to revise laws to facilitate export of hi-tech equipment to China under a new policy designed
to narrow its ring trade gap with the world's fastest growing economy. The new policy will spare the need for US
exporters in such sectors as semiconductor equipment and electronics to apply for licenses for sales to Chinese companies,
according to an AFP report on Saturday. And, the administration will also ensure closer scrutiny of key technology purchasers
in China, a senior US Department of Commerce official said. The changes to Washington's so-called China Export Control
Policy will achieve "growth in civilian high-tech trade and enhanced security," undersecretary of commerce for industry
and security David McCormick said. "These changes to technology export controls for China are a 'win-win'", he told a forum
of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. He said Washington would encourage other nations to
take similar steps. The new policy, McCormick emphasized, would prevent exports of US technologies for incorporation into
the weapons systems in China. For example, he said that the cutting edge composite technology that helps China build
commercial aircraft will not find its way into the Super-7 next generation fighter aircraft. US high-tech exports to China last
year reached US$12 billion dollars and the new licensing flexibility would further open up "potentially hundreds of millions
of dollars" worth of American sales to Chinese companies, McCormick said.

US Sino Relations are getting even better!


Barry Wood, Reporter for Newsvoa.com, June 18th, 2008, “US, China Agree on Energy Cooperation, Start of Work on Investment
Treaty”, (http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-06-18-voa74.cfm)

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson hailed the achievements of the talks, the fourth round in a strategic economic dialogue
launched two years ago. He said the 10-year energy and environmental agreement isparticularly significant as the US and
China are the world's biggest oil consumers and biggest emitters of green house gases. The investment treaty-which will
take some time to negotiate-would enhance each nation's access to the other's market. The two countries already have a
huge and growing trade relationship. The Chinese delegation was headed by Vice Premier Wang Qishan.

US China trade relationship growing in a positive direction


Xinhua News Agency, 6/11/2008, Primary periodical for Chinese economics, “Paulson: Economic Relations with China Growing in a
positive direction”, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/11/content_8342751.htm

WASHINGTON, June 10 (Xinhua) -- The U.S.-China economic relationship is growing in a positive direction through the
on-going, dynamic and respectful discussions of the Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED), U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry
Paulson said Tuesday. Delivering a speech outlining the goals of the high-level economic talks the two countries will
hold next week, Paulson described the bilateral economic relationship as "complex, broad and important to both our
countries and to the world economy." The SED has brought progress faster and more broadly on issues important to the
U.S. and global economy than would have been possible otherwise, Paulson said, noting it is important to resist calls for
erecting protectionist barriers. "It is clear that our strategy for robust engagement with China- intensive dialogue but with
resort to WTO dispute settlement and WTO-sanctioned trade remedies if needed - is more productive than protectionist
policies or legislation," he said here in his prepared remarks. On June 17-18, high-level delegations from China and the
United States will meet in Annapolis, Maryland, north of Washington, for the fourth round of SED launched in December
2006. The upcoming discussions will focus on five areas, Paulson said. These are: managing financial and
macroeconomic cycles; developing human capital; the benefits of trade and open markets; enhancing investment; and
advancing joint opportunities for cooperation in energy and the environment. Paulson expressed his confidence that next
week's meeting "will move the United States and China even further forward to a stronger economic future."

11
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

TRADE RELATIONS HIGH - AT: TEXTILES

US China textile deal said to be reached, increased trade expected.


China Daily, US, China said to reach textile deal, 11/7/07, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-11/07/content_3743482.htm

These officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the deal has not yet been announced, said it could be signed as early
as Tuesday when U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman and Chinese officials will be in Geneva. They said that the tentative deal
was reached during the fifth round of discussions, which took place over the past week in Washington. Both sides agreed on the
major issues, they said, and discussions were continuing on details. The deal would be similar to an agreement China reached with
the 25-nation European Union earlier this year. However, in a victory for U.S. manufacturers, the deal would last through 2008, one
year longer than the EU agreement. U.S. textile and apparel companies and their labor unions have been pushing for a
comprehensive deal to stem a flood of Chinese imports that began last January when global quotas, in place for more than three
decades, were lifted. The Bush administration has been reimposing quotas, known as "safeguards," for individual categories of
clothing and textiles. The industry wanted a comprehensive deal covering all threatened categories of U.S. production and lasting for
three years. The safeguard quotas were only good for a year at a time. The tentative agreement would allow for imports of most
clothing and textile categories covered by the deal to increase by 8 to 10 percent in 2006, by around 13 percent in 2007 and by
around 17 percent for 2008. All of these percentages would be above the 7.5 percent growth allowed under the safeguard
procedures. U.S. retailers had said they would reluctantly go along with a comprehensive deal as long as the growth in imports was
sufficient to allow them to obtain reliable supplies.

12
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

LINK EMPIRICALLY PROVEN

LINK EMPIRICALLY PROVEN- THE CAP AND TRADE BILL THAT DIED IN JUNE ALREADY HAD TARIFFS
AGAINST CHINA THAT WOULD HAVE SPARKED A TRADE WAR
(The Economist, Jun 5th 2008, “A convenient truth, sadly ignored”, http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?
story_id=11496890)

The cap-and-trade scheme that America's Senate began debating this week would also allow firms to fulfil some of their
obligations through green investments in other countries. But the bill in Congress would allow only a small number of offsets, and
only from factories that do not compete with American firms—a big hurdle in a globalised world. Worse, to make the bill more
palatable to China-bashing politicians, its authors have strengthened provisions that would impose tariffs on energy-intensive
imports from countries that are not taking “comparable action” against climate change, meaning all developing countries.
That is a recipe for a trade war, which would only compound the economic pain of global warming. Just when a deal is possible,
the stage is being set for a tragedy of Wagnerian dimensions.

13
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

LINK EMPIRICALLY PROVEN

LINKS EMPIRICALLY PROVEN- THE FAILED CLIMATE CHANGE BILL INCLUDED A CARBON TARIFF
(Mark Langner, Green Street Investor, 6/5/08, “Emissions regulations cause Carbon Tariffs to “level the playing field”
http://www.greenstreetinvestor.com/warner-lieberman-cap-and-trade-bill-levels-competitive-playing-field-for-manufacturers/)

Buried within the 1000+ page Warner-Lieberman climate change act is a provision for something called “international reserve
allowances” and what is quickly being dubbed a “Carbon Tariff.” Essentially the provision applies a cross-border, per ton,
carbon tax on imported goods that are manufactured in countries that do not have limits on carbon emissions. If an
item creates 2 tons of carbon dioxide in its manufacture and a 1 ton carbon credit trades for $30 - then the tariff would be $60 on that
item. I don’t know if the bill requires the government to use the revenues to purchase carbon offsets - though that or putting it into an
environmental clean up fund would be sensible.

14
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

LINK EMPIRICALLY PROVEN

US trade policies will force comparable tariffs on China – empirically proven

Trevor Houser et. al , visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, is also a partner at the Rhodium Group,
a practice helping decision makers in the public and private sectors analyze and understand global economic and policy trends,May
2008 Rob Bradley, Britt Childs, Jacob Werksman, Robert Heilmayr “Leveling the Carbon Playing Field International Competition
and US Climate Policy Design” PETERSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS WORLD RESOURCES
INSTITUTE http://pdf.wri.org/leveling_the_carbon_playing_field.pdf

“Comparable” but Not Sufficient


Advocates of incorporating trade measures into climate policy hope providing a future US administration with the ability to threaten
punitive tariffs at the border will both win industry support for overall legislation and provide incentives to other countries to take
similar action. In the best case scenario, trade measures are a stick that stays firmly planted in the administration’s back pocket, never
actually needing to be invoked. Unfortunately, the history of US trade policy suggeststhat what is initially intended as a negotiating
tool often becomes an embedded part of public policy (box 3.3). In recent hearings on the Lieberman-Warner bill, both organized
labor and the American Iron and Steel Industry expressed serious reservations with the 2020 start date for the trade measures included
in the legislation.5 Regardless of when the review is conducted, it is highly likely that carbonintensive industries in the United States
seeking protection from imports will take issue with the administration’s determination of what constitutes “comparable action”
byother countries on climate change. The European Union by any definition would pass a nationwide “comparable action” test, as it
has a considerably more ambitious climate policy than the United States. However, aluminum producers in the European Union are
not directly covered by climate targets (although they do face higher power prices from generators that are covered). Going forward,
China could choose to implement policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions while imposing no additional costs on
carbonintensive manufacturing whatsoever. Under such a scenario, it is quite plausible thatindustry and labor groupswould
seekadditional legislation from Congress, making the review process a “private right of action,” as happened with the antidumping
regime.

15
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

16
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

LINK EMPIRICALLY PROVEN

Cap and trade would include carbon tariffs on foreign nations – proven through Warner Lieberman bill

Mark Langner6/5, 2008 “Warner Lieberman Cap and Trade Bill Levels Competitive Playing Field for Manufacturers”
http://www.greenstreetinvestor.com/warner-lieberman-cap-and-trade-bill-levels-competitive-playing-field-for-manufacturers/

Buried within the 1000+ page Warner-Lieberman climate change act is a provision for something called “international
reserveallowances” and what is quickly being dubbed a “Carbon Tariff.” Essentially the provision applies a cross-border, per ton,
carbon tax on imported goods that are manufactured in countries that do not have limits on carbon emissions. If an item creates 2 tons
of carbon dioxide in its manufacture and a 1 ton carbon credit trades for $30 - then the tariff would be $60 on that item. I don’t know
if the bill requires the government to use the revenues to purchase carbon offsets - though that or putting it into an environmental clean
up fund would be sensible.

17
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

LINK EMPIRICALLY PROVEN

THE CAP AND TRADE BILL FAILED DUE TO INDUSTRIES- THE REPUBLICAN FILIBUSTER WAS BECAUSE OF
FEARS THAT THE CAP HURTS BUSINESSES AND INUDSTRIES
(Eliza Strickland, June 6th, 2008, “Republicans Put the Kibosh on Climate Change Bill”,
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/06/republicans-put-the-kibosh-on-climate-change-bill-2/

After one brief week of Senate debate over the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill, it’s officially dead.
Senators can now put their good intentions back on the shelf until next year, when the issue of regulating greenhouse gas emissions is
expected to be raised again under a friendlier administration (both presumptive presidential nominees say they support such
regulations). In this go round, Democrats couldn’t gather the 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibusterand bring the bill up
for a vote. In fact, the final vote was 48-36, short of a majority, but Democrats had letters from six absent senators (including Barack
Obama, John McCain, and Ted Kennedy) saying that they would have voted for the policy had they been present. “It’s just the
beginning for us,” proclaimed Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, a chief sponsor of the bill in the Senate, noting that 54 senators had
expressed support of the legislation, although that’s still short of what would be needed to overcome concerted GOP opposition. “It’s
clear a majority of Congress wants to act,” Boxer said at a news conference [AP]. The debate was notable not for the seriousness with
which the legislators confronted the issue of global warming, but rather for the amount of squabbling and petty partisan tricks it
occasioned. In one exchange on the Senate floor, Senator John Kerry tried to break into Senator James Inhofe’s long speech decrying
the bill. After being rebuffed a fourth time, Mr. Kerry was exasperated. “With all due respect,” he said, “we are here to have a debate.
It is hard to have a debate when you are talking all by yourself.” Even for the Senate, where members are well-known to prefer
talking to listening, the amount of unilateral jabbering on the climate bill has been remarkable, with lawmakers both for and against it
arguing repeatedly over how much time was allotted for them to speak [The New York Times]. The Republican leader, Mitch
McConnell, also demanded that the entire 492-page document be read aloud into the record on Wednesday, a maneuver that sent
senators scurrying from the floor for nine hours, only to be forced to return after 10 p.m. for a late-night quorum call. The debate
that did occur showed a stark disagreement on the economic costs of cutting back greenhouse gas emissions. The bill would
have required major emitters such as power plants, refineries, and factories to buy emissions permits in a cap-and-trade
system. Republicans complained that the measure would saddle the U.S. economy with higher energy costs, which could hurt
businesses and ultimately would be passed on to consumers. “Before we sacrifice the U.S. economy and American jobs, we
need to quantify the benefits of having a relatively slight reduction in greenhouse gases and compare it to the huge costs
imposed on the U.S. economy and American families,” said Jon Kyl, R-Ariz [San Francisco Chronicle].

18
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

CAP LINK

THE DEMS IN CONTROL OF CONGRESS- ANY CAP AND TRADE RESULTS IN CHINA BASHING
(Adam Smith, 06/08/2008, “Climate Change, Kyoto and impacts on China and India”,
http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/1018/)

The cap-and-trade scheme that America’s Senate began debating this week would also allow firms to fulfil some of their
obligations through green investments in other countries. The problem as so often is the American Congress, which is likely to
restrict the amount of offsets, to factories that do not compete with American ones - nonsensical to say the least- and thus
panders to the anti-trade, anti-China brigade. This is made worse by the fact that the Congress is contrlled in both houses by
the Democrats and even worse by the fact that Barack Obama has shown himself to be weak on trade issues.

19
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

GENERIC LINK

Uncompetitive industries call for protectionist measures

Marc Faber PhD is economics , CEO of many corporations 2003 “Why US protectionism can not be the answer”,
http://www.ameinfo.com/26611.html)

But what about protective duties, quotas, and regulatory measures that would prevent service jobs from migrating overseas? It is on
this point that I disagree with Klaus Bockstaller. Import duties and quotas will make matters worse and not just in the long term but
also immediately. Let me explain. First of all, import tariffs and quotas on a large scale would increase prices for manufactured goods
in the US and, combined with the ongoing inflation for services, would lead to higher inflation rates across the board and, therefore,
depress bond prices further. In turn, rising interest rates would bring the refinancing boom, which has kept consumption up, to an
abrupt end. In addition, selective tariffs, such as were imposed on steel imports, will not create jobs. Because of the steel tariffs, US
steel prices are now far above steel prices in Asia, Russia, and Brazil. So, what is the result? Manufacturers of goods with a heavy
steel content (such as car-part manufacturers) are shifting production overseas, where not only labor but also now steel prices are
lower. And if across-the-board import duties were levied, such duties would not only hurt foreign manufacturers, but also US
companies, which in the last few years have set up production capacities overseas and import their products back to the US (I
understand that about 50% of US imports originate from US companies overseas). In fact, under careful analysis, it should be obvious
that the lack of competitiveness of US companies has led to the shift overseas of goods production and the provision of services.
Import duties or restrictions will 'protect' unproductive and uncompetitive industries and make them even less competitive, since
duties will now diminish the competitive pressures. For the US economy, rising protectionism would also mean far higher inflation
rates, as well as a huge competitive disadvantage on the global markets for US corporations. Sure, the lowest-cost providers of
services and producers of goods would temporarily be hurt, but the world's economic geography is now mutating rapidly. Already, the
Asian markets combined are far larger than the US economy in a number of sectors.

Industries perceive that emissions controls will decrease competitiveness by undermining domestic
markets

The World Bank, 2008 (International Trade and Climate Change, Economic, Legal, and Institutional Perspectives, Vol 2
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContent Server/WDSP/IB/ 2007 /11 /
15/000310607_20071115153905/Rendered/PDF/41453optmzd0PA101OFFICIAL0USE0ONLY1.pdf)

There is a widespread concern regarding international competitiveness of major industries,especially in the energy-intensive sector
,among countries that have undertaken several measures to reduce GHG emissions. These countries especially worry that higher
energy costs not only burden them domestically but also give competitors in countries that do not have these measures (especially the
United States and China) a competitive edge and an unfair advantage. Generally,climate change measures can be grouped as
regulatory measures, fiscal measures,market-based instruments,or voluntary agreements (see appendix2 for a detailed description of
each specific measure).As illustrated in table 2.1, the choice of policy instruments differs significantly across nations, reflecting
institutional, economic, and policy structures. The higher costs usually accrue from fiscal and regulatory measures, or a combination
of these measures, that are levied by these countries.

20
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

GENERIC LINK

Industrial lobbies will push for an all-out trade war with China

Robert Collier, a visiting scholar at the Center for Environmental Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, is writing
a book about China and global warming. He has been with the San Francisco Chronicle from 1991 to the present as a senior foreign
affairs correspondent (since 2002), a member of the editorial board (2001-2002), and a foreign affairs reporter (1994–2001).May 6,
2008China Business| China faces trade war climate challenge, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/JE06Cb01.html

In response, the US Congress is moving to create a system of trade sanctions that would levy heavy taxes on imports from other major
greenhouse gas emitters. Ironically, the American plan is taking shape even before the US takes any action to reduce its own
emissions, inviting charges of hypocrisy, violation of international law, and threatening a major trade war.
The tariff proposal, contained in the central piece of global warming legislation now before Congress, would impose emission
controlson domestic industries starting in 2012. It would also levy punitive tariffs on greenhouse-gas-intensive products imported
fromcountries that lack "comparable action" to that of the US, starting in 2020. Industrial lobbies and labor unions are pushing
hard for these sanctions to take effect more quickly.
European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and industrial chambers of commerce
strongly advocate a similar tariff system, leading many analysts to predict that the EU will also adopt some sort of green tariff system
in the next few years.
Warning of an "all-out trade war" if the sanctions go forward, US Trade Representative Susan Schwab argues that green trade
sanctions would violate World Trade Organization rules. In a recent letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, she wrote,
"We believe this approach could be a blunt and imprecise instrument of fear, rather than one of persuasion, that will take us down a
dangerous path and adversely impact US manufacturers, farmers, and consumers."

21
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

GENERIC LINK

Efforts to reduce emissions result in carbon tariffs against China

The Canadian Press, 3/27/08, Carbon Tariff on China possible to curb pollution,
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/380403#

Countries such as Canada and the United States may start imposing a "carbon tariff" on goods from China and other developing
countries which have become the biggest contributors to global greenhouse-gas emissions, CIBC World Markets said Thursday.
The investment bank's report says China, India and other developing economies have expanded so massively they have surpassed
theestablished industrialized world in belching out carbon dioxide pollution blamed for climate change.
"And once surpassed, the gap is growing rapidly," wrote economists Jeff Rubin and Benjamin Tal.
"Already, non-OECD emissions are a massive 2,500 million metric tonnes more than the OECD – a gap that is now equal to almost 20
per cent of the latter's total emissions."
With advanced countries enacting carbon taxes, carbon trading systems and other measures to lower emissions, Rubin and Tal believe
the growing pollution from poor countries will provoke penalties against their exports.
Many in the West assumed that since industrialized nations were primarily responsible for the historical build-up of greenhouse gases
in the world, they should bear the brunt of efforts to cut back, a view that underpinned the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, which exempted
developing countries.
But the CIBCWM economists see a shift in sentiment.
"As the OECD countries begin to impose greater economic sacrifices on their own economies as part of decarbonization efforts,
tolerance for the carbon practices of its trading partners, or more precisely the lack thereof, will diminish dramatically," they write.
"Already Europe, which is well ahead of North America in terms of domestic carbon pricing, is talking about a carbon tariff that it can
apply to imports from countries that don't play by the same carbon rules."
They add that the concept is likely to gain currency in the U.S. and Canada.
The report fingers China as the world's top greenhouse-gas polluter, surpassing the U.S. and pulling away.
Since the beginning of the decade, it says, China's emissions have increased about 120 per cent and are greater than Canada, India,
Spain and Japan combined.
A key reason is China's reliance on heavily polluting coal. As a result, Chinese emissions per unit of energy are double those of
Canada, the report says.

22
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

GENERIC LINK

Climate policy puts US manufacturing in competition with China

Trevor Houser et. al , visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, is also a partner at the Rhodium Group,
a practice helping decision makers in the public and private sectors analyze and understand global economic and policy trends,May
2008 Rob Bradley, Britt Childs, Jacob Werksman, Robert Heilmayr “Leveling the Carbon Playing Field International Competition
and US Climate Policy Design” PETERSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS WORLD RESOURCES
INSTITUTE http://pdf.wri.org/leveling_the_carbon_playing_field.pdf

As political momentum surrounding climate change builds in theUnited States, policymakers are taking a fresh look at national
climate policy and America’s involvement in multilateral climate negotiations. And as in years past, the
potential economic impact of any US effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions stands as a central question in the Washington policy
debate. Of particular concern is the effect climate policy would have on carbon-intensive US manufacturing. Many of these industries
are already under pressure from international competition, particularly large emerging economies such as China, India,
and Brazil that are not bound to reduceemissions under the current international climate framework. As the US Congress takes up
domestic climate legislation, policymakers are looking for ways to avoid putting US carbon-intensive manufacturing at a
competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis countries without similar climate policy, lest a decline in industrial emissions at home
is simply replaced by increases in emissions abroad. While this objective would be best achieved through a
harmonized international climate policy, the differences between countries in level of economic
development, political conditions, obligations stemming from historic emissions, and responsibilities
arising from future emissions mean harmonization is still a long way off. The question then, in the design of
domestic US climate policy today, is how tolevel the playing field for carbon-intensive industries during a period of transition—
where trading partners are moving at different speeds and adopting a variety of policies to reduce
emissions—and how to do so in a way that does not threaten the prospects for a broader international
agreement down the road.

23
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

GENERIC LINK

US will engage in brinksmanship approach to regain competitive edge


Trevor Houser et. al , visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, is also a partner at the Rhodium Group,
a practice helping decision makers in the public and private sectors analyze and understand global economic and policy trends,May
2008 Rob Bradley, Britt Childs, Jacob Werksman, Robert Heilmayr “Leveling the Carbon Playing Field International Competition
and US Climate Policy Design” PETERSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS WORLD RESOURCES
INSTITUTE http://pdf.wri.org/leveling_the_carbon_playing_field.pdf

Implications for International Engagement An important assumption of proponents of trade measures is that they
will help drive other countries to the negotiating table and thus strengthen global climate action. Current legislative proposals would
only impose penalties on carbon-intensive imports from countries that had not implemented climate policy “comparable” with that
taken in the United States. The rationale is that giving countries an economic incentive to participate in international climate change
mitigation efforts will make them more inclined to submit to greenhouse gas reduction targets. After all, access to international
markets is likely to be a higher priority for many governments than international climate negotiations. Perhaps trade measures could
raise the politicalfocus on mitigation options for America’s major trading partners. And as mentioned earlier, the United States is not
alone in considering the use of trade measures for such ends. On a recent trip to Beijing, French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned
that if the Chinese government did not take action on climate change, Chinese goods could face restrictions in entering the European
market.10 Multilateral action would not only expand the coverage in terms of industrial emissions (the United States accounts for 14
percent of the global total) but also expand the degree of protection for US industry and increase the leverage on the behavior of
nonparticipating countries (see box 3.4 on the disadvantages of unilateral action). Yet there is reason to be skeptical of the likelihood
that the threats of trade measures alone, whether unilaterally by the United States or in concert with Europe and Japan, will force
developing countries to take a different position in international negotiations. Developing-country leaders, like politicians in many
other countries, need to act tough for the domestic audience. This is particularly true in the case of China,which is also the primary
focus of most trade measures currently proposed. In judging extraterritorial “conditions” in other countries, it is helpful to consider a
“reciprocity test”: What would be the US reaction, for instance, to a provision adopted by the Indian Parliament or the Chinese
Communist Party that conditioned Indian or Chinese actions on those of the United States? Threats of punitive trade sanctions against
Beijing have failed to make headway on issues far less contentious then climate change and in which the United States had
considerably more leverage (box 3.5). And as climate change is an issue that can be solved only with the involvement of the
developing world, China in particular, there is considerable risk in a brinksmanship approach on the part of the United States. That
said, Beijing has demonstrated the willingness and ability to make painful adjustments to the structure of the Chinese economy in
order to be part of a multilateral framework, when it perceives such membership to be in its national interest. With China surpassing
the United States as the world’s largest CO2 emitter (on an annual basis), the country’s leadership is under growing domestic and
international pressure to take accountability

24
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

GENERIC LINK

Congress would place tariffs to gain back market shares in China

Trevor Houser et. al , visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, is also a partner at the Rhodium Group,
a practice helping decision makers in the public and private sectors analyze and understand global economic and policy trends,May
2008 Rob Bradley, Britt Childs, Jacob Werksman, Robert Heilmayr “Leveling the Carbon Playing Field International Competition
and US Climate Policy Design” PETERSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS WORLD RESOURCES
INSTITUTE http://pdf.wri.org/leveling_the_carbon_playing_field.pdf

The Fourth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released in 2007, brought a new sense
of certainty that the Earth’s temperature is warming as a result of human activity. Discussion in the press, through documentary film
and by advocacy groups, has expanded public awareness of the policy challenge global climate change presents. In state houses
around the country, legislators have begun tackling those policy issues at a local level, and strong popular support for nationwide
action has prompted dozens of hearings in both the House of Representatives and Senate. Yet as the US Congress starts drafting
federal climate legislation, many of the same concerns raised about the Kyoto Protocol are still front and center in the policy debate.
Specifically, _ concern that a climate regime that omits greenhouse gas emissions caps on some large emitters will be
environmentally ineffective, as rapid growth in major emerging economies will render emissions reductions in the United
States irrelevant; and _ concern that the US economy will suffer from the loss of investment, market share, and jobs in industrial
sectors sensitive to theadditional cost of reducing carbon emissions. Progress made in international climate negotiations suggests that
post- Kyoto agreements (to take effect in 2013) will ask more of developing countries than the Kyoto Protocol did. Yet commitments
will likely vary considerably by country, given differences in levels of economic development, political conditions, obligations
stemming from historic emissions, and responsibilities arising from future emissions. The question for US policymakers drafting
legislation today is how to address domestic concerns during a period of uncertainty about the shape of the multilateral framework to
come. Of particular concern is the effect climate policy would have on carbon-intensive US manufacturing. Many of these
industries are already underpressure from international competition, particularly large emerging economies such as China, India,
and Brazil that are not bound to reduce emissions under the current international climate framework. As the US Congress takes up
domestic climate legislation, policymakers are looking for ways to avoid putting US carbon-intensive manufacturing at a competitive
disadvantage vis-à-vis countries without similar climate policy, lest a decline in industrial emissions at home is simply replaced by
increases in emissions abroad. In considering measures to level the playing field for carbon-intensive US manufacturing industries
under a domestic climate regime, policymakers seek to (1) prevent a decline in output by US producers in the face of higher costs, (2)
guard against “emissions leakage” (migration of US industrial emissions to other parts of the world) from a loss of market share to
more carbon-intensiveforeign producers, and (3) create incentives for other countries to reduce emissions. This book evaluates the
effectiveness of a wide range of policy options in achieving these goals as well as their impact on other industries, the overall
environmental effectiveness and economic efficiency of domestic climate policy, and the prospects for reducing emissions
internationally.

25
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

GENERIC LINK

US industries will force tariffs on china to even market playing field

Trevor Houser et. al , visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, is also a partner at the Rhodium Group,
a practice helping decision makers in the public and private sectors analyze and understand global economic and policy trends,May
2008 Rob Bradley, Britt Childs, Jacob Werksman, Robert Heilmayr “Leveling the Carbon Playing Field International Competition
and US Climate Policy Design” PETERSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS WORLD RESOURCES
INSTITUTE http://pdf.wri.org/leveling_the_carbon_playing_field.pdf

Trade Measures
The second approach to leveling the playing field for US industry is to impose similar costs on foreign producers at the
border.Trade measures can be used under either a cap-and-trade or carbon tax system, though their design and
implementation differ within each system. European policymakers first put forward the notion of imposing border
tariffs on imports from countries that are slow to reduce emissions and targeted them at the United States.
But as theUnited States starts drafting its own climate policy, the discussion of trade measures is focused clearly on China.
Advocates of such measures claim they will both protect domestic industry and provide US negotiators with the leverage of market
access to force developing countries to the bargaining table. As designed, and if taken unilaterally, such measures will
likely fail on both counts. While policymakers have China in mind when considering the use of trade measures, only 14
percent of cement, 7 percent of steel, 3 percent of aluminum, 4 percent of paper, and less than 1 percent
of basic chemicals imported into the United States come from China. Canada is the largest source of
imports in all carbon-intensive industries considered in this book except one (Trinidad and Tobago is the
largest for chemicals), with Europe and Russia not far behind. In most proposals, the imposition of border tax
adjustments or allowance requirements is conditioned on whether the trade partner has enacted domestic climate policy “comparable”
to that in theUnited States. Europe and Canada, the two largest sources of carbon-intensive imports, would
likely pass this test with flying colors. And among developing countries that are less likely to have adopted
“comparable” policy at home, many have industries that are cleaner, on average, than those in the United
States. As opposed to relatively carbon-intensive Chinese producers, many firms in Latin America and oil-
exporting countries have newer and more efficient equipment and use low-carbon energy sources like
hydropower and natural gas.

26
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

GENERIC LINK

Climate change allows protectionists to kill free trade

GABRIEL STEIN, Chief International Economist, Lombard Street Research, 22-JUN-07, The International Economy,
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6910875/Will-environmentalism-become-the-new.html

The case for free trade was conclusively proven more than two hundred years ago. Yet simple though it is, it seems to constantly need
to be restated. The temptation for politicians, trade unionists, and business leaders to blame "the other" for their own shortcomings,
and their inability to grasp that trade and growth are not zero-sum games, means that they are always ready to resort to at least
threatening protectionism. True, the experience of the 1930s and the undoubted benefits of the post-1945 freer trade
environmentmean that very few advocate trade bartiers as such. Instead, we get pious appeals to "level playing fields" or "decent
standards for workers." But we know that this often is rubbish. The alternative to low-paid work in an emerging economy is not full
trade union rights and an American standard of living; rather, it can all too often be unemployment, crime, or prostitution. Add to this
the new mantra of climate change. For protectionists, it is a God-send. "I am not in favor of protectionism--I only want to save the
planet."

27
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

GENERIC LINK

China’s growing economic growth will fall once the U.S. feels the need to make
an agreement to reduce these emissions.

Matthew Chen& Joe Barnes, Baker Institute, China opposes emissions limits , May 2008, The Global Energy Market:
Comprehensive Strategies to Meet Geopolitical Risks, http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/IEEJexecsummaryFINAL.pdf

Achieving such an agreement—even with a change in Washington’s attitude—will be difficult. China, in


particular, has sharply divergent interests from the United States and the E.U. Despite China’s spectacular economic
growth in recent years, it remains poor in comparison with the advanced economies of North America and Western
Europe. Beijing sees robust economic growth not just as a means to raise living standards but also to bolster regime
legitimacy.Agreements on emissions that might constrain China’s economic growth are therefore viewed with great suspicion.
This is particularly true because of the composition of China’s energy mix: coal dominates its electricity sector and the
country is rapidly becoming a major consumer of oil. Despite planned increases in hydroelectric power, China’s
growth will be fueled largely by hydrocarbons for the foreseeable future. Like many countries in relatively early
stages of economic development, China has, until very recently, placed a very modest emphasis on environmental protection.

28
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

REDUCTIONS IN EMISSIONS LINK

Any regulations cause industries to force through tariffs and create cartels

Jonathan H. Adler, Director of environmental studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute., 1999
"Rent Seeking Behind the Green Curtain", http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg19n4b.html,

In the regulatory context, rent seeking typically consists of pursuing government intervention that will provide a comparative
advantage to a particular industry. By restricting entry or reducing output, regulations often reduce competition, create cartels, and
increase returns. Thus, tariffs andlicensing restrictions are regulatory measures commonly sought by rentseekers. Less-direct
measures can heighten preexisting comparative advantages or manufacture a comparative advantage out of incidental differences in an
industrial sector.
While often disparaged, rent seeking can be viewed as the natural outgrowth of firms seeking their best interests in a regulated
environment. If regulations are here to stay, the argument goes, a firm might as well make the best of the situation. In fact, given the
courts’ current interpretations of antitrust laws, one could consider rent seeking as the only legal form of predation. Whether
defensible or not, rent seeking has become rather pervasive in regulatory policy. As economist Robert McCormick notes, "There
is abundant evidence in the economic literature that when the flag of public interest is raised to support regulation, there is always a
private interest lurking in the background."
There is no reason to expect environmental regulations to be immune from the economic pressures that create rent seeking in other
contexts. In fact, by their very nature, environmental regulations are conducive to rent seeking, for in the environmental context, both
regulated firms and "public interest" representatives stand to gain from reductions in output and the creation of barriers to entry.
Regulated firms and public interest groups may not always agree on the nature and design of specific regulatory programs, but they
often share a common interest.

29
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

REDUCTIONS IN EMISSIONS LINK

EFFORTS TO REDUCE EMISSIONS RESULT IN CARBON TARIFFS AGAINST CHINA


(The Canadian Press, 3/27/08, Carbon Tariff on China possible to curb pollution, http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/380403#)

Countries such as Canada and the United States may start imposing a "carbon tariff" on goods from China and other developing
countries which have become the biggest contributors to global greenhouse-gas emissions, CIBC World Markets said Thursday. The
investment bank's report says China, India and other developing economies have expanded so massively they have surpassed
the established industrialized world in belching out carbon dioxide pollution blamed for climate change. "And once surpassed, the
gap is growing rapidly," wrote economists Jeff Rubin and Benjamin Tal. "Already, non-OECD emissions are a massive 2,500
million metric tonnes more than the OECD – a gap that is now equal to almost 20 per cent of the latter's total emissions." With
advanced countries enacting carbon taxes, carbon trading systems and other measures to lower emissions, Rubin and Tal believe
the growing pollution from poor countries will provoke penalties against their exports.

30
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

REDUCTIONS IN EMISSIONS LINK

FORCED REDUCTIONS IN EMISSIONS CAUSE PROTECTIONIST BARRIERS AGAINST CHINA


(Stratfor,November 29, 2007, “Global Market Brief: Carbon Tariffs as New Protectionism”,
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/global_market_brief_carbon_tariffs_new_protectionism)

The European Union, and likely the United States, soon will agree to significant and long-term reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions. These agreements will dramatically increase the price of energy for consumers and industries in participating
countries. Thus, energy-intensive industries in countries that are not part of these agreements will have significant — and
growing — cost advantages in the coming decades. Faced with losing manufacturing industries, countries reducing greenhouse
gas emissions will have little choice but to take protective measures that some will see as fair compensation for tackling
climate, but others (especially China) will see as protectionist nontariff barriers to trade.Carbon tariffs would
disproportionately affect China’s economy, since the country’s industries are far more dependent on carbon-emitting fossil
fuels than are others. Recent reports say that as much as one-fourth of China’s carbon emissions are directly caused by the
production of exports for the European Union and the United States — the same goods that fuel China’s economy. After 2007’s
numerous toy recalls and “Made in China” scares in the United States and the European Union, along with World Trade Organization
(WTO) intellectual property rights-related challenges from the European Union and United States, China likely would view the
carbon tariff issue as yet another Western act of political aggression against it. France can propose all the green taxes it wants,
but Germany is the key to such proposals’ success. EU industry and jobs are at stake, and economic tension is mounting between
Germany and China. The strong euro and the weak yuan — which is tied to the declining dollar — are diverging to such extremes that
the imbalance is beginning to threaten Germany, which is more insulated than other EU states from the increasing influx of cheap
Chinese goods into the EU market. While France is the most active carbon tariff advocate internationally, the idea is far from foreign
to efficiency- and environmentally-conscious Germany, where the idea of a domestic carbon tax is closer to reality than anywhere else
in Europe. Emboldened by Germany’s consternation with China, Sarkozy brought up the carbon tariff idea in part to threaten China
ahead of U.N. climate negotiations slated for Dec. 3-14 in Bali, Indonesia. China has adamantly opposed any post-Kyoto climate
agreement setting mandatory emissions targets similar to the European Union’s and has shown some support for U.S. President
George W. Bush’s voluntary emissions program, a Kyoto competitor. France and other EU nations hope that threats like Sarkozy’s
will force China to give a little ground on carbon emissions; if not, the threat will remain. Though the EU will take the lead on
pushing for any energy-related retaliatory tariffs, the United States has an increasing interest in implementing such tariffs. The U.S.
ambassador to the European Union recently endorsed trade sanctions as a way of pressuring China and India into reducing
their emissions, and claimed that a WTO-compliant way to account for emissions — such as requiring a fee on goods based on
the carbon emitted during manufacturing — could be possible. If China does not price carbon into its economy, several sectors of
the U.S. economy will be hit particularly hard. For instance, China exports a significant amount of cheap steel compared to the United
States, in part because China produces steel less efficiently, producing much more carbon dioxide per ton. If the United States
imposes a carbon price for steel on domestic production as part of its carbon reduction plans — making its industry even less
competitive — and China continues to pollute at similar levels, pollution may actually increase as more steel production moves
to China. U.S. jobs will suffer as well. Thus, U.S. environmentalists, labor and industry will be on board for implementing
carbon tariffs. As the European Union embarks on even stricter emissions targets in its post-Kyoto discussion, and China likely
makes only slight alterations to its carbon-intensive economy, discussion of carbon tariffs will not abate and could eventually be
brought to the WTO. Trade measures that aid domestic industries while addressing environmental concerns often make contentious
WTO cases, but there are precedents for ruling in favor of environmental matters over business interests. In 2001, the United States
won a WTO case in which several Southeast Asian nations challenged its prohibition of importing shrimp captured in ways that harm
endangered turtle species. If China remains noncommittal about cutting its emissions, and if carbon tariff proposals fail, other forms
of disguised protectionism — such as carbon labeling — will be proposed. This already is occurring in some parts of Europe and
is similar to genetically modified food labeling and country-of-origin labeling, which businesses and governments often promote to
benefit domestic and local industry.

31
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

REDUCTIONS IN EMISSIONS LINK

EMISSIONS REGULATIONS ENSURE TARIFFS ON CHINA


(Timothy Gardner, Reuters News Service, 6/9/08, http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/48684/story.htm)

First, if the United States embarks on a carbon emissions reduction program, the placement of a tariff on imports of emissions-
intensive goods like cement, steel and chemicals would ensure that China and other rapidly industrializing countries do their
part on global warming. The tariff would aim to equal the price that US carbon regulation had added to the same products
made domestically.

32
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

REGULATION LINK

ANY REGULATION CAUSES INDUSTRIES TO FORCE THROUGH TARIFFS AND CREATE CARTELS
(Jonathan H. Adler, Director of environmental studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute., 1999
“Rent Seeking Behind the Green Curtain”, http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg19n4b.html,

For years many academics have suggested that regulatory policies are more the result of interest-group manipulation than
dispassionate consideration of the public interest.Many firms find it easier to lobby for wealth transfers than to compete for
wealth in an open marketplace. This practice is commonly referred to as "rent seeking." The "rents" sought are economic returns
in excess of those that a competitive marketplace would allow. As defined by economist Robert Tollison, "Rent seeking is the
expenditure of scarce resources to capture an artificially created transfer." Rent seeking occurs, in part, because firms can
receive concentrated benefits through government action while the costs are dispersed throughout the whole of society. In the case of
sugar subsidies, for example, the benefits accrue directly to U.S. sugar producers, while the costs, estimated at $1.4 billion per year,
are paid by sugar consumers in the form of higher sugar prices. When such policies are enacted, a narrow interest arguably wins while
everyone else loses. In the regulatory context, rent seeking typically consists of pursuing government intervention that will provide a
comparative advantage to a particular industry. By restricting entry or reducing output, regulations often reduce competition,
create cartels, and increase returns. Thus, tariffs and licensing restrictions are regulatory measures commonly sought by
rentseekers. Less-direct measures can heighten preexisting comparative advantages or manufacture a comparative advantage out of
incidental differences in an industrial sector. While often disparaged, rent seeking can be viewed as the natural outgrowth of
firms seeking their best interests in a regulated environment. If regulations are here to stay, the argument goes, a firm might
as well make the best of the situation. In fact, given the courts’ current interpretations of antitrust laws, one could consider rent
seeking as the only legal form of predation. Whether defensible or not, rent seeking has become rather pervasive in regulatory
policy. As economist Robert McCormick notes, "There is abundant evidence in the economic literature that when the flag of
public interest is raised to support regulation, there is always a private interest lurking in the background." There is no reason
to expect environmental regulations to be immune from the economic pressures that create rent seeking in other contexts. In fact, by
their very nature, environmental regulations are conducive to rent seeking, for in the environmental context, both regulated
firms and "public interest" representatives stand to gain from reductions in output and the creation of barriers to entry.
Regulated firms and public interest groups may not always agree on the nature and design of specific regulatory programs,
but they often share a common interest.

33
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

REGULATIONS LINK

INDUSTRIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS FORCE US ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ON


OTHER COUNTRIES
(Elizabeth R. DeSombreand J. Samuel Barkin, March 14-18, 2000, “Domestic Sources of International Trade and Environment
Conflicts” International Studies Association, 41st Annual Convention Los Angeles, CA)

As with almost all U.S. economic sanctions for environmental protection, they were created by Congressional legislation. More
importantly, they have their origins in domestic regulations by which U.S. actors are bound. The process thus begins with
pressure from U.S. actors in the domestic arena. Industry actors that are bound by U.S. regulations work to ensure that they
do not suffer competitively, relative to their foreign counterparts not bound by the same environmental regulations.
Environmental organizations push for regulations to be applied to all actors in an issue area whose behavior can impact the
resource in question, regardless of where they are geographically located. The intersection of the interests of these two diverse
groups comes in imposing threats of economic harm against foreign actors that do not uphold the same environmental
regulations U.S. actors are required to.

34
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

MANDATORY CURB LINK

MANDATORY CURBS ON INCENTIVES DESTROY GLOBAL TRADE


(Competitiveness Enterprise Institute, October 19, 1998, “Implementation Of Kyoto Protocol Would Curtail U.S. Trade With
Developing Countries, Spark Protectionism, CEI Policy Analysts Say”, http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,02700.cfm)

Implementation of mandatory curbs on greenhouse gas emissions in industrialized nations – under a Protocol agreed to at Kyoto
in December 1997 and heavily promoted by international activist organizations – would seriously curtail U.S. trade with developing
countries, according to policy analysts with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based public policy research
group. Speaking before standing-room-only audiences at a series of workshops in Buenos Aires October 8-9, Marlo Lewis, CEI's Vice
President for Policy and Coalitions, and James Sheehan, director of International Environmental Policy, made a strong case for sound
science and economic caution in addressing the global warming issue. "The globalization of the world economy and the
interdependence of nations are more than just cliches," said Marlo Lewis. "They are powerful realities that nations ignore at
their peril." Lewis pointed out that the fall of Japan's economy has pulled down the economies of its neighbors, and predicted that a
Kyoto-induced "Norte Americano Flu" would have a similar negative impact on Argentina and Latin American nations. Developing
countries, especially those in Latin America, can expect problems in three areas: 1. REDUCED TRADE: The United States is the
largest market for goods from developing countries, importing some $800 billion worth last year, up from just $300 billion in 1984.
Some $100 billion of the current total now comes from Latin America, including 10 percent of Argentina's exports, 20 percent of
Brazil's, and 90 percent of Mexico's. Clearly, the continued growth and strength of the U.S. economy is critical to economic growth in
Latin America. Any downturn – and some economic analysts see Kyoto leading to a 4 percent drop in U.S. GNP – would decrease
U.S. demand for Latin American imports. 2. RESURGENT PROTECTIONISM: In the United States, fossil fuels account for 85
percent of all energy use and generate 65 percent of the electric power. If, under Kyoto, carbon-intensive U.S. industries lose
international market share and begin shifting production facilities (and jobs) overseas, look for the U.S. Congress to respond
with carbon tariffs, carbon quotas, or other trade barriers in an effort to stem this "carbon leakage." 3.

35
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

CLIMATE CHANGE LINK

CLIMATE CHANGE ALLOWS PROTECTIONISTS TO KILL FREE TRADE


(GABRIEL STEIN, Chief International Economist, Lombard Street Research, 22-JUN-07, The International Economy,
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6910875/Will-environmentalism-become-the-new.html)

The case for free trade was conclusively proven more than two hundred years ago. Yet simple though it is, it seems to constantly
need to be restated. The temptation for politicians, trade unionists, and business leaders to blame "the other" for their own
shortcomings, and their inability to grasp that trade and growth are not zero-sum games, means that they are always ready to
resort to at least threatening protectionism. True, the experience of the 1930s and the undoubted benefits of the post-1945 freer trade
environment mean that very few advocate trade bartiers as such. Instead, we get pious appeals to "level playing fields" or "decent
standards for workers." But we know that this often is rubbish. The alternative to low-paid work in an emerging economy is
not full trade union rights and an American standard of living; rather, it can all too often be unemployment, crime, or
prostitution. Add to this the new mantra of climate change. For protectionists, it is a God-send. "I am not in favor of
protectionism--I only want to save the planet."

36
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

COMPETITIVENESS LINK

COMPETITIVENESS CAUSES PROTECTIONISM AND SPARKS TRADE WARS


(Paul Krugman, 1994, “Competitiveness- A Dangerous Obsession”,
infoshako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/~takasaki/Teaching_U/IEU/Krugman(1994).pdf)

During the 1950s, fear of the Soviet Union induced the U.S. goverment to spend money on useful things like highways and science
education. It also, however, led to considerable spending on more doubtful items like bomb shelters. The most obvious if least
worrisome danger of the growing obsession with competitiveness is that it might lead to a similar misallocation of resources.
To take an example, recent guidelines for government research funding have stressed the importance of supporting research
that can improve U.S. international competitiveness. This exerts at least some bias toward inventions that can help
manufacturing firms, which generally compete on international markets, rather than service producers, which generally do
not. Yet most of our employment and value-added is now in services, and lagging productivity in services rather than
manufactures has been the single most important factor in the stagnation of U.S. living standards. A much more serious risk is
that the obsession with competitiveness will lead to trade conflict, perhaps even to a world trade war. Most of those who have
preached the doctrine of competitiveness have not been old-fashioned protectionists. They want their countries to win the global
trade game, not drop out. But what if, despite its best efforts, a country does not seem to be winning, or lacks confidence that it
can? Then the competitive diagnosis inevitably suggests that to close the borders is better than to risk having foreigners take
away high-wage jobs and high-value sectors. At the very least, the focus on the supposedly competitive nature of
international economic relations greases the rails for those who want confrontational if not frankly protectionist policies. We
can already see this process at work, in both the United States and Europe. In the United States, it was remarkable how quickly the
sophisticated interventionist arguments advanced by Laura Tyson in her published work gave way to the simple-minded
claim by U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor that Japan's bilateral trade surplus was costing the United States
millions of jobs. And the trade rhetoric of President Clinton, who stresses the supposed creation of high-wage jobs rather than
the gains from specialization, left his administration in a weak position when it tried to argue with the claims of NAFTA foes
that competition from cheap Mexican labor will destroy the U.S. manufacturing base.

37
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

ENVIRONMENTALISM LINK

ENVIRONMENTALISM CAUSES PROTECTIONISM


(JIM O'NEILL Head of Global Economic Research, Goldman Sachs International, 22-JUN-07, The International Economy,
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6910875/Will-environmentalism-become-the-new.html)

Will environmentalism become the new protectionism? It could! The intense focus on the environment and climate change is
yet another obvious reason why the G7/G8 global governance structure needs an immediate overhaul. As with many other
critical global economic (and social) issues, without the large emerging economies at the same table as the G3, it is highly unlikely
that we all see the potential optimal solutions from the same vantage point. It will be difficult anyhow, but unless we introduce modern
governance structures, the chances are vastly reduced. Protectionism related to environmental issues will creep higher as will
protectionism more broadly unless China in particular joins the G7/G8 processes as an equal partner to the likes of the United
States, Japan, and some European countries. The case for India is not quite yet fully established, but within a few years it is
highly likely. The way the question has been posed to us to answer, especially the statement that China and India are making a
"conscious" trade-off between raising their living standards at the cost of an increasingly "degraded" environment, sums it
up. The prime goal for most countries is to raise the living standards of their citizens. If we in the so-called Developed West
think we can persuade them, there might be a better balance to achieve it. Let's join them as an equal partner to regularly discuss these
and many other issues. Recent debates in the wake of the G8 summit leave the impression that environmental standards are to
be used as an excuse for protectionist policies. The strategy of the U.S. president who refused to make any clear-cut
commitments without the inclusion of China contributed to this line of thinking.

38
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

ENVIRONMENTALISM LINK
ENVIRONMENTALISM SPARKS PROTECTIONISM
(WILLIAM E. BROCK III, Former U.S. Trade Representativ
e and Secretary of Labor, 22-JUN-07, The International Economy, http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6910875/Will-
environmentalism-become-the-new.html)

Over the past few decades, demands for egregious acts of protectionism have been faced with a slow but increasing reluctance
in Washington, in part because most Americans have realized that in many cases the affected firm's competitive weakness was
largely self-imposed. The result has been a growing reliance on a rules based world trading system, a slow but steady improvement in
more open markets, and a rapid, even dramatic, growth in world trade In sum, the forces of protectionism were being hard pressed,
thus the need for new and more acceptable arguments to justify governmental intervention. Yet just as the demands and
"justifications" for protectionism seem endless, so too are the methods and tactics employed by those who prefer market
intervention to competition. Environmentalism to the rescue! There is no question that there is broad and deep public support
for actions to improve the environment and address hot topics such as global warming. Thus the opportunity presents itself.
One has only to witness the intensity of efforts to hold hostage every currently negotiated free trade agreement, no matter how
small the beneficiary nation, to force the U.S. Trade Representative to incorporate enforceable labor and environmental
standards before it can pass muster in the U.S. Congress. The task for our economic and trade leadership is to find a way to craft
approaches which satisfy the public demand for environmental progress, and that will require global as well as bilateral agreements,
without allowing those agreements to become a subterfuge for protectionism. The potential for error is large, and the potential
consequences enormous.

39
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

STEEL INDUSTRY FORCES PROTECTIONISM

THE STEEL INDUSTRY CONTROLS POLICIES OVER PROTECTIONISM


(Stephen Spruiell, Staff reporter for National Review and National Review Online who covers politics, trade, the federal budget and
the media. August 30, 2006, “Protectionism - Tariffs, Subsidies, and Trade Policy”, http://www.globalenvision.org/library/15/1211)

When protectionist policies are enacted, certain domestic industries are protected at the expense of others. So in the end, it
comes down to which industries can exert the most influence over domestic politics. In the United States, the powerful steel,
textile and agribusiness lobbies have kept those industries protected from foreign competition in ways that hundreds of other
industries have not; and while unprotected industries have faced stiff foreign competition, they have also faced higher prices
on steel, textiles and agriculture.

40
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

INDUSTRIES SET POLICY

INDUSTRIES DETERMINE ENERGY POLICY- NO INTERFERENCE IS POSSIBLE


(Timoth Wirth and John Podesta, 2003,“Industry Lobbyist Dominate Energy Policymaking”)

Unfortunately, energy policymaking in the United States in recent years has been neither decisive or strategic. U.S. energy
policy is reminiscent of Mark Twain’s quip about the weather: everyone talks about it, but no one does anything. This inertia has
deep roots. Vested interests—in the oil, utility, and transportation indistries, for example – have been powerful economic and
political players protecting the status quo and brooking little interference from the outside.

41
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

INDUSTRIES SET POLICY

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ARE CONTROLLED BY INDUSTRY GROUPS


(Jonathan H. Adler, Director of environmental studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute., 1999
“Rent Seeking Behind the Green Curtain”, http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg19n4b.html,

Most Americans recognize that politics has a lot to do with the pursuit of power, privilege, and special interests; however, there is
a general presumption that environmental politics is somehow different. We take for granted that environmental laws are what they
seem; that the legislators who enact those laws and the bureaucrats who implement them are earnestly struggling to protect public
interests; and, that these laws will be enforced in a fair and sensible manner. All too often, however, environmental regulations are
designed to serve narrow political and economic interests, not the public interest. The details of environmental policies have
major economic consequences. America spends well over 2 percent of the gross domestic product on pollution control, and the figure
is rising. As the cost of environmental regulation increases, so does the value of potential comparative advantages in the
marketplace. Seeking regulatory policies that will carve out niche markets or obstruct competition becomes an increasingly
profitable investment. One should not be surprised that economic interests lobby, litigate, and make alliances with "public
interest" organizations to ensure favorable treatment for their own interests and to utilize environmental regulations to
transfer wealth. Attempts "to gain a competitive advantage through manipulation of the regulatory process [are] occurring
with increasing frequency," notes former Environmental Protection Agency Deputy Administrator A. James Barnes.

42
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

TRADE WAR IMPACT- ECON

PROVOKING CHINA OVER TRADE COLLAPSES THE ECONOMY FASTER THAN A NUCLEAR STRIKE
(Bill Ridley, 2005, “U.S. BULLIES CHINA - DOLLAR CRISIS LOOMING” http://www.gold-
eagle.com/editorials_05/ridley061605.html)

In analyzing the precarious predicament that has $1.94 trillion U.S. Treasury debt owned by foreign banks, most notably China,
the overloaded U. S. debt burden is already teetering on a fine line. Any hint of a problem in maintaining support of U.S. bonds
would create an instantaneous meltdown of the greenback with a simultaneous surge in the price of gold. However despite this, the
Treasury Department warned China last month they have until November to make their exchange rate more flexible or they will be
labeled as currency manipulators. This charge would start bilateral talks on the exchange rate and possibly retaliatory action. Currently
the yuan is pegged with the U.S. dollar at 8.3:1 giving China, with its low labor costs, an excellent trade advantage which both
Republican and Democratic politicians have been strongly complaining about for the last few years. I would have to conclude that
these bureaucrats are only looking at the trade imbalance with China and ignoring the tenuous nature of the important
reliance on foreign debt purchases. As Business Week warned, a revaluation of the yuan could have other serious repercussions for
the dollar. "With a stronger currency peg versus the dollar, China would purchase fewer bonds, as would Asian central banks if they
were to cut back on currency market intervention. And further weakness in the Treasury market with a resulting bump higher in
interest rates, could weigh on the long-gestating US recovery. In that regard, US lawmakers should be very careful what they wish
for."Provoking China is a dangerous game and could have extremely serious consequences not only for the U.S. economy but
the world economy. If China ever pulls the trigger on their "primary weapon" the dollar will crash and gold will break $600
in a heart beat and just keep going.Zhu Min, general manager and advisor to the President for the Bank of China was quoted in the
China Daily last year saying that: "The United States is benefiting from China using its trade surplus to buy U.S. Treasury paper as a
reserve currency, along with other Asian nations. But in the long run, this is not sustainable.... China will focus more and more on
domestic demand, which is growing fast. Then we won't be able to finance the U.S. deficit.""All Beijing has to do is to mention the
possibility of a sell order going down the wires. It would devastate the U.S. economy more than a nuclear strike."

ECONOMIC COLLAPSE CAUSES NUCLEAR WAR


(Walter Mead, 1992, Policy Analyst, World Policy Institute)

They and their leaders have embraced market principles -- and drawn closer to the west -- because they believe that our system can
work for them. But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period
of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India - These countries with their billions of
people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.

43
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

TRADE WAR IMPACT- ECON

A trade war will destroy businesses on both sides


Dan Steinbock, staffwriter for China Business, 10/18/2007, Multinationals fear US China Trade War,
<http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/IJ18Cb01.html>

After several Chinese product recalls in the US, China retaliated by rejecting US goodsfor quality deficiencies. Now,
Washington and Beijing have filed complaints against each other at the World Trade Orgaization (WTO). The US Congress is
about to enact legislation that would levy punitive duties on Chinese goods. This could lead to unintended consequences for
both American consumers and the wider US economy. Some 119 leading multinational companies agree - including Boeing,
Citigroup, General Motors, and Microsoft. They have called on Congress to reject protectionist legislation against China,
arguing that "imposing unfair barriers to trade in the name of currency valuation or product safety is not a solution to the
underlying concerns". It was "a vote for free trade", reported the state-owned China Daily, which, as so many other Chinese
observers do, argues that rising protectionism among some US lawmakers "seriously threatens the interests of China, the
United States itself and the world at large". The flat world in Guangzhou As the high-speed ferry took off from Hong Kong, the
young municipality worker continued to read his copy of Thomas Friedman's bestseller, The World is Flat. He had about an
hour to go before the ferry would dock in Guangzhou. "This book has a great following in China," he said. "The world is flat."
In Guangzhou, the capital of southern China's Guangdong province, such views are common. With 92 million people and a
GDP of US$284 billion in 2005, Guangdong is the most prosperous province in China, accounting for more than 12% of the
national total. It also has the highest volume of imports and exports. But Friedman's world may be fading. "Exaggerating
individual cases and doubting the quality of all made-in-China products has hurt our reputation and caused economic losses to
our exporters," said Qi Xiuqin, a high-level official at China's quality supervision administration (GAQSIQ) in mid-September.
According to a recent GAQSIQ report, some 30% of a sample of 2,500 Chinese exporters suffered economic losses from the
imposition of technical trade barriers last year. The companies lost $35.9 billion, up from $28.8 billion in 2005. Increasing
friction Last April, the United States took China to the WTO over piracy and copyright protection. Beijing said that the
decision would "seriously damage" bilateral cooperation and harm business ties. Washington has brought four complaints
against China to the WTO since 2006.
International trade, however, is a two-way street. In mid-September China filed a complaint against the US over its combined
countervailing anti-dumping rulings on Chinese coated paper. The WTO case is the first initiated by Beijing against
Washington in five years. After high-profile Chinese product recalls in the US, Chinese inspectors have seized, returned or
rejected a slate of US-made product shipments - from orange pulp and dried apricots with high levels of bacteria and
preservatives, to powdered milk imports too toxic for children. In the most recent case, a shipment of 47 tons of frozen sardines
originating from the US was rejected. Chinese regulators said it was infected with disease-inducing bacteria. 'Playing with fire'
Last summer, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agreed to co-sponsor legislation that would levy punitive duties on
Chinese goods. The bipartisan bill introduced by senators Max Baucus, Chuck Grassley, Charles Schumer and Lindsey
Graham, would permit US companies to seek anti-dumping duties on Chinese imports based on the undervaluation of the
currency. During the past few weeks, US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has repeatedly warned Congress against making
legislation aimed at punishing China over its economic policies. "When we look at taking unilateral actions aimed at another
nation, this can have enormous repercussions to our economic well-being," Paulson said. "You know, we're playing with fire."
Typhoon arising As we approached Guangdong, the municipality worker set aside his book. "For Chinese people, it is
sometimes hard to understand America," he said. "We have opened our doors to Coca-Cola, Ford, Motorola, and GE. We want
to do business. We believe that it's a win-win to China and America. We thought that America believed in a flat world."

44
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

TRADE WAR IMPACT- ECON COLLAPSE/WAR

TRADE WARS WITH CHINA CAUSE GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE AND A US CHINA WAR
(Henry C K Liu, Asia Times Online, 8/20/05, Trade wars can lead to shooting wars,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH20Dj01.html)

US geopolitical hostility toward China will manifest itself first in trade friction, which will lead to a mutually recriminatory trade
war between the two major economies that will attract opportunistic trade realignments among the traditional allies of the
United States. US multinational corporations, unable to steer US domestic politics, will increasingly trade with China through
their foreign subsidiaries, leaving the US economy with even fewer jobs, and a condition that will further exacerbate anti-
China popular sentiments that translate into more anti-free-trade policies generally and anti-China policies specifically. The
resultant global economic depression from a trade war between the world's two largest economies will in turn heighten further
mutual recriminations. An external curb from the US of Chinese export trade will accelerate a redirection of Chinese growth
momentum inward, increasing Chinese power, including military power, while further encouraging anti-US sentiment in
Chinese policy circles. This in turn will validate US apprehension of a China threat, increasing the prospect for armed conflict.
A war between the US and China can have no winners, particularly on the political front. Even if the US were to prevail
militarily through its technological superiority, the political cost of military victory would be so severe that the US as it currently
exists would not be recognizable after the conflict and the original geopolitical aim behind the conflict would remain elusive, as
the Vietnam War and the Iraq war have demonstrated. By comparison, the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts, destructive as they have
been to the US social fabric, are mere minor scrimmages compared with a war with China.

45
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

TRADE WAR IMPACT- ECON

TRADE WAR WITH CHINA CAUSES RECESSION


(USA Today, 6/14/07, Tensions Push Congress to get Even with China, http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/trade/2007-06-12-
trade-war-usat_N.htm)

But even as the mood in Congress hardens, some economists are warning that the likely congressional action could backfire.
Stephen Roach, Asia chairman for investment bank Morgan Stanley, calls the prospect of a trade war between the world's
largest and its fastest-growing economies "the biggest risk to the global economy."Imposing duties on Chinese imports would
result in "a direct hit on the American consumer" as prices of products such as clothing, furniture, computers and appliances
rose. If China retaliated by curtailing purchases of U.S. government securities, long-term interest rates would rise and the value of
the dollar sink. The effect of this action-reaction cycle on an already fragile economy, as the USA enters the presidential
election year of 2008, could be enough to tip it into recession, Roach warns. The Shanghai newspaper Jiefang Ribao agrees:
"Once a trade war breaks out, it will be devastating for China and the United States."

46
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

TAIWAN WAR
MAINTAING CLOSE RELATIONS AND TRADE TIES ARE CRITICAL TO PREVENT WAR OVER TAIWAN
(Joseph S. Nye , 01-20-2008, “Fear Factor in US-China Relations”
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2008/01/137_17603.html)

Opinion polls indicate that one-third of Americans believe that China will ``soon dominate the world," while nearly half view China's
emergence as a ``threat to world peace." In turn, many Chinese fear that the United States will not accept their ``peaceful rise."
Americans and Chinese must avoid such exaggerated fears. Maintaining good U.S.-China relations will be a key determinant
of global stability in this century. Perhaps the greatest threat to the bilateral relationship is the belief that conflict is inevitable.
Throughout history, whenever a rising power creates fear among its neighbors and other great powers, that fear becomes a cause of
conflict. In such circumstances, seemingly small events can trigger an unforeseen and disastrous chain reaction. Today, the
greatest prospect of a destabilizing incident lies in the complex relationships across the Taiwan Strait. China, which regards
Taiwan as an integral part of its territory that has sheltered behind the U.S. navy since the days of the Chinese civil war, vows that any
Taiwanese declaration of independence will be met by force. The U.S. does not challenge China's sovereignty, but it wants a peaceful
settlement that will maintain Taiwan's democratic institutions. In Taiwan itself, there is a growing sense of national identity, but a
sharp division between pragmatists of the ``pan-blue alliance," who realize that geography will require them to find a compromise
with the mainland, and the ruling ``pan-green alliance," which aspires in varying degrees to achieve independence. The two sides in
Taiwan will face off in a presidential election on March 22. Current polls suggest that former Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou of the
Kuomintang (KMT) leads Frank Hsieh of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). But some observers fear that the incumbent
DPP President Chen Shui-bian will seek a pretext to prevent a defeat for the pro-sovereignty camp. He is currently advocating a
referendum on whether Taiwan should join the United Nations, which China views as provocative. Chen replies that it is China ``that
is acting provocatively today." America is clearly concerned. Recently, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a news
conference that ``we think that Taiwan's referendum to apply to the U.N. under the name 'Taiwan' is a provocative policy. It
unnecessarily raises tensions in the Taiwan Strait and it promises no real benefits for the people of Taiwan on the international stage."
She also reiterated the administration policy opposing ``unilateral threat by either side to change the status quo." The same day,
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates criticized China for unexpectedly curtailing American ship visits to Chinese ports because of
American arms sales to Taiwan. According to Gates, he had told Chinese officials that American arms sales were consistent with past
policy and that ``as long as they continued to build up their forces on their side of the Taiwan Strait, we would continue to give
Taiwan the resources necessary to defend itself." Gates added, however, that despite China's rising defense budget, "I don't consider
China an enemy, and I think there are opportunities for continued cooperation in a number of areas." In principle, the Taiwan issue
need not lead to conflict. With increasing change in China and growing economic and social contacts across the strait, it should
be possible to find a formula that allows the Taiwanese to maintain their market economy and democratic system without a
placard at the U.N. Thus far, the U.S. has tried to allow for this evolution by stressing two bright lines: no independence for Taiwan
and no use of force by China. But, given the danger of incidents that could grow out of political competition in Taiwan or
growing impatience in the Peoples' Liberation Army on the mainland, the U.S. would be wise to encourage more active
contacts and negotiations by the two sides.The U.S. has a broad national interest in maintaining good relations with China, as
well as a specific human rights interest in protecting Taiwan's democracy. The U.S. does not have a national interest in helping
Taiwan become a sovereign country with a seat at the U.N., and efforts by some Taiwanese to do so present the greatest danger of a
miscalculation that could create enmity between the U.S. and China. Already, some Chinese suspect the U.S. of seeking an
independent Taiwan as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" for use against a future Chinese enemy. They are wrong, but such suspicions
can feed a climate of enmity. If America treats China as an enemy today, it will ensure future enmity. While we cannot be sure
how China will evolve, it makes no sense to foreclose the prospect of a better future. America's current policy combines
economic integration with a hedge against future uncertainty. The U.S.-Japan security alliance means China cannot play a "Japan
card." But, while such hedging is natural in world politics, modesty is important for both sides. If the overall climate is one of distrust,
what looks like a hedge to one side can look like a threat to the other. There is no need for the U.S. and China to go to war in this
century. Both sides must take care that an incident concerning Taiwan does not lead in that direction. Americans and Chinese
must avoid letting exaggerated fears create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

47
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

TAIWAN WAR

The US and China are both willing to go to war over Taiwan


Michael E. O’Hanlon, senior fellow of foreign policy at the Brookings Institute, 5/1/2005, The Risk of War Over Taiwan is Real,
<http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2005/0501asia_ohanlon.aspx>

And Britain, which takes over the six-month EU presidency in June, will only be able to hold off such pressures for so long.
The recent friendly visit by Lien Chan, the Taiwanese opposition leader, to mainland China may also suggest that the risk of
war, and therefore the stakes in the EU arms embargo issue, are both rather low.Nonetheless, Mr Zoellick is more right than
wrong. In the absence of strong constraints on future high-technology sales, lifting the European arms embargo on China
would be a big mistake. There really is a chance of a Sino-US war over Taiwan, which may ebb and flow month to month but
nonetheless remains quite real. And any European decision to lift the embargo could make any war more likely and more
costly in lives and assets.The reasons are simple. First, China is serious about being willing to risk war to prevent Taiwan's
secession. Second, although many in China as well as Europe cannot quite believe it, the US is just as serious about defending
Taiwan. And third, even though American military power remains far superior to that of China, the Chinese do not need to
equal US power to make any war over nearby Taiwan very challenging for American forces. Given the right catalyst from
Taipei, therefore, US deterrence of China could fail and the world's first true war between nuclear weapons states could
ensue.It is not just China's ruling communist party that considers Taiwan a part of China; an increasingly nationalistic
population does as well. In fact, the Chinese see themselves as patient and restrained because they are simply demanding that
Taiwan not secede, rather than insisting on immediate reunification. They worry that if Taiwan broke away, it would encourage
other separatist movements in places such as Tibet and Xinjiang province, and weaken China strategically at the very moment
it is poised to regain its status as a global power. China's leaders operate on the assumption that Taiwanese secession would
doom their own prospects for holding on to power. At a minimum, they would have to show they had gone the extra mile to try
to prevent secession, meaning that even an unsuccessful military operation might be preferable to inaction.And as bizarre as it
may seem, the US really would fight to prevent faraway Taiwan from being conquered. This is true not only because President
George W. Bush publicly said so in 2001, but also for deeper reasons. First, US credibility as a dependable security partner
would be on the line in any conflict over Taiwan. After a half-century of coming to Taiwan's aid in crises, to back down when
the going got tough would cause every other US ally around the world to doubt the strength of America's commitment. Among
other implications, more countries might then pursue their own nuclear deterrents. Second, and more positively, Taiwan's
vibrant democracy elicits strong support in the US. This goes for Democrats as well as Republicans; it was the Clinton
administration, after all, that sent two aircraft carriers toward the Taiwan Strait in 1996 in reaction to China's firing of missiles
near the island.Unfortunately, many Chinese doubt America's real commitment to Taiwan. Some argue that the US is casualty
averse (despite the evidence from Iraq) and would back down from a fight over a distant island—especially a fight against
another nuclear-armed state. They realise there is no binding treaty obliging the US to defend the island, and that the language
of America's 1979 Taiwan Relations Act as well as other policy statements would give Washington numerous excuses not to
fight (especially if, in Chinese eyes at least, Taiwan had clearly provoked the war). Other Chinese believe their recent
successes in diplomatically and economically wooing much of the Asia-Pacific region—and Europe—mean that the US, rather
than China, would be isolated in any future conflict.Even the military balance gives China hope that it would emerge
successful in a crisis over Taiwan. A Chinese invasion of Taiwan remains highly unlikely, given the inherent difficulties of
amphibious assault in an era of 24-hour reconnaissance and precision strike capabilities. But China has other military tools and
options. In addition to threatening missile attacks, for example, it may be able to conduct a naval blockade of Taiwan.
Estimates differ over the strength of the American force needed to defeat such a Chinese attempt, and the losses that would be
incurred. But this very uncertainty may give Beijing hope, and a lifting of Europe's arms embargo could give it even more
hope.The chances of a Sino-US war over Taiwan are not enormous, but are sufficiently real to be taken seriously. It is for
Europeans to determine their future policy on selling arms to China, of course. But the US is on solid ground in asking that any
new policy be made with eyes wide open about the huge strategic and military stakes at play.

48
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

TAIWAN WAR

China has 1,200 missiles pointing at Taiwan – annihilation is ensured


The National Interest, 6/10/2003, Future War: Taiwan, <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_84/ai_n16689822>
IN LAST week's U.S.-Chinese war over Taiwan, the president was propelled towards conflict by strategic miscalculation,
rather than a bold defense of a popular but geopolitically dispensable ally, according to a senior administration official. The
president had hoped to repel China's rising bellicosity with a show of force, rather than the actual use of force. After Beijing
responded by ratcheting up tensions in the Taiwan Strait, both sides feared that a subsequent climb-down would damage their
global credibility and leadership, the official said. In addition, Washington misread Taiwan's own perceptions of its national
interests, according to a Western diplomat stationed in Asia. Taiwan's ruling party saw its opportunity to assert itself vis-a-vis
Beijing rapidly waning, and believed it had to be claimed. Washington's intelligence deficit regarding Taipei's leadership
further undermined its ability to anticipate and therefore control events, and contributed to the spiraling of tensions."The
national security advisor from the start recommended military force, arguing that China had dangerous expansionist ambitions.
He argued that China's rapacious consumption of the world's raw materials was a liability. He said China had become a
strategic, economic and cultural rival", said the senior administration official, who declined to be identified. "The secretary of
state argued against that. He pointed to the technical advantages Beijing had gained since the European Union relaxed its
moratorium on arms sales. The president opted for a third-way approach between a military response and diplomatic
maneuvering, hoping to intimidate Beijing by flexing some military muscle in the Taiwan Strait. It ended up being a third way
to war."According to the Western diplomat, Beijing had accurately read the president's reluctance to resort to military action
but, like the president, underestimated the potential for war as a result of escalation. And both Washington and Beijing failed to
accurately assess tempers in Taipei.After Taiwan's president last Monday sought an amendment to his country's constitution to
change the country's name from the Republic of China to the Republic of Taiwan, the White House did not see war anywhere
in the offing, said the senior official. Beijing's shrill statement in response was expected to dampen Taiwan's enthusiasm for
independence, particularly Beijing's characterization of Taiwanese government officials as "separatist traitors." The statement
also said, "We urge our Taiwan compatriots to repudiate this irresponsible leadership before it is too late. The People's
Republic of China has said repeatedly that it wants to settle the issue of Taiwan's reunification by peaceful means. Some
provocations are simply intolerable, however."After Taiwan appeared undeterred, the United States shared with Taiwan
satellite data, showing extensive activity at Chinese military airfields directly across the strait from Taiwan, the official said. In
addition, U.S. officials pointed out that China had more than 1,200 missiles targeting the island.The secretary of state urged
the president to issue a statement reiterating Washington's long-standing position against any unilateral changes in the status
quo by either Taipei or Beijing and explicitly condemning the proposal to change Taiwan's constitution, according to the
official.At that point, the president was under significant congressional pressure to stand up to Beijing's confrontation,
particularly from the House majority leader. The president instead issued a statement mildly critical of the Taiwanese proposal.
The official said Washington was blindsided by Taiwan's blunt rejection of the U.S. criticism. "It is up to the people of Taiwan
to decide whether to change the name of our country to the Republic of Taiwan. The communist authorities on the mainland
have nothing to say about it, and even a friend like the United States has no right to interfere in the affairs of a sister
democracy", said Taiwan's foreign ministry in a statement.IN HINDSIGHT, Taiwan's position should have been anticipated by
Washington, said the Western diplomat in Asia, in a telephone interview. Taipei had been increasingly convinced that going on
the offensive was its best defense, given Taiwan's deteriorating geopolitical circumstances. Beijing's strategy of isolating
Taipei had been successful. By the time Taiwan's government proposed the constitutional change, it was recognized by just 16
countries. Taiwan's leaders may have thought that they had nothing to lose by being bold, since the alternative was inexorable
diplomatic extinction, the diplomat said.Also, the changing military balance may have also encouraged the belief that it was
"now or never", the diplomat added. China had been purchasing cutting-edge weapons from Russia for years, and from the
European Union since it dropped its moratorium on arms sales to Beijing. Meanwhile, Taiwan had starved its defense budget,
choosing instead to spend money on domestic priorities. The balance in 2013 was still uncertain, but time clearly was not on
Taiwan's side.

49
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

SPRATLEYS IMPACT
[ Link ]To out–resource the US, China is targeting the Spratlys for energy sources
Time Asia, 9/29/1999, China Flexes its Muscle, <http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/99/0927/spratly.html>
In 1994, China accelerated its claim to the islands, building two concrete structures at Mischief Reef (known as Panganiban to
the Filipinos). More recently, China has been building what appears to be a chain of naval facilities and observation posts
stretching from the Spratlys to the Paracel Islands. The structures, built along a nearly straight line, appear almost to be a
recreation of the Great Wall--this time across China's watery southern frontier. Although Beijing describes the structures as
shelters for its fishermen, their strange architecture suggests fortress-like structures. The anxieties generated by China's
presence are magnified by Beijing's claim to historical rights over all of the South China Sea. Although historical-rights claims
hold little water in international law, physical occupation does. China seems bent on establishing a military presence in the
disputed shoals. The most concerned rival is the Philippines. The structure at Mischief Reef sits within the economic zone
claimed by the Philippines. In escalating but still harmless rhetoric, Defense Secretary Orlando Mercado has described the
construction as part of a "creeping invasion." It's a risky drama. Although the Philippine military is inferior to China's, Manila
has put up a show of resistance. Markers set up by the Chinese navy to guide its ships through the shoals have been used for
target practice by the Philippine air force. Twice this year, Philippine naval craft have rammed and sunk Chinese boats
encountered in waters claimed by Manila. Indeed, there is much more at stake in the Spratlys than just a few reefs and shoals
that disappear at high tide. They straddle some of the world's busiest shipping lanes. And the determination of South China Sea
boundaries will have great consequences in terms of who controls oil, gas and other natural resources in the area. During the
cold war, ironically, China cast a smaller shadow over Southeast Asia. Enmeshed in internal turmoil and constrained by the
Western powers behind a "bamboo curtain," China was less menacing. Its army is clumsy but massive--and Beijing makes an
occupation of periodically rattling its rusty saber. China's record on matters of territory and national pride does not induce calm
on the part of the smaller countries sitting under the belly of an increasingly prosperous dragon.

China will seize the Spratlys in case of economic crisis bombing relations– empirically
proven
Global Security, 12/17/2006, Spratly Islands, <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/spratly.htm>
More than half of the world's supertanker traffic passes through the region's waters. In addition, the South China Sea region
contains oil and gas resources strategically located near large energy-consuming countries. The South China Sea encompasses
a portion of the Pacific Ocean stretching roughly from Singapore and the Strait of Malacca in the southwest, to the Strait of
Taiwan (between Taiwan and China) in the northeast. The Paracels also has a total land area of 10 square kilometers spread
over a sea zone of 15,000 to 16,000 square kilometers. Many of these islands are partially submerged islets, rocks, and reefs
that are little more than shipping hazards not suitable for habitation. The islands are important, however, for strategic and
political reasons, because ownership claims to them are used to bolster claims to the surrounding sea and its resources. The
South China Sea is rich in natural resources such as oil and natural gas. These resources have garnered attention throughout the
Asia-Pacific region. Until recently, East Asia's economic growth rates had been among the highest in the world, and despite
the current economic crisis, economic growth prospects in the long-term remain among the best in the world. This economic
growth will be accompanied by an increasing demand for energy. Over the next 20 years, oil consumption among developing
Asian countries is expected to rise by 4% annually on average, with about half of this increase coming from China. If this
growth rate is maintained, oil demand for these nations will reach 25 million barrels per day - more than double current
consumption levels -- by 2020. Almost of all of this additional Asian oil demand, as well as Japan's oil needs, will need to be
imported from the Middle East and Africa, and to pass through the strategic Strait of Malacca into the South China Sea.
Countries in the Asia-Pacific region depend on seaborne trade to fuel their economic growth, and this has led to the sea's
transformation into one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. Over half of the world's merchant fleet (by tonnage) sails through
the South China Sea every year.

50
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

SPRATLEYS IMPACT

Relations key – China will restrict US navigation in the Spratlys


Dana Robert Dillon, senior policy analyst for Southeast Asia in Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation, 9/5/2001,
How the Bush Administration Should Handle China and South China Sea Maritime Territorial Dispute,
<http://paracelspratlyislands.blogspot.com/2008/01/american-role-in-south-china-sea.html>

In August 2001 the United States Navy held a two-carrier passing exercise in the South China Sea. Navy spokesmen denied
that the exercise was intended to send a message to China, but it was in the right location to do just that. In fact, Washington
needs to do a lot more of the same as a first step toward protecting American interests in the South China Sea. The United
States is the world's largest trading nation; 90 percent of the world's trade moves via ship, and 45 percent of all shipping moves
through Asia's lawless waters. America's continued prosperity requires free access to the markets and producers of Asia, and
the United States Navy is the only reliable guarantor of freedom of navigation in Asia's seas. But China's sweeping territorial
claims in the South China Sea and skewed interpretation of the law of the sea are an explicit threat to the freedom of
navigation. Six countries claim maritime borders in the South China Sea, but Beijing claims virtually the entire waterway as
Chinese territory and declares that foreign warships traversing its maritime territory must first gain China's permission.
Beijing's penchant for unilateral military action against the territorial claims of other countries in the region, such as
establishing a naval outpost on Mischief Reef less than 200 miles from the Philippines, further militarizes the dispute and
forces the countries of Southeast Asia to choose between confronting or submitting to Beijing's threats. Thus far, the U.S.
response to the Chinese challenge has been to remain neutral on the competing maritime border claims and to avoid criticism
of China. Other countries in the region have made attempts to defuse the problem, such as Indonesia's informal conferences in
the 1990s, but Beijing has refused multilateral solutions that do not recognize Chinese sovereignty. If Washington continues to
allow Beijing's willful misinterpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to remain
unchallenged, the South China Sea will become a de facto Chinese lake, the countries of Southeast Asia will be subject to
Beijing's interpretations of international law and sovereignty, and the American Navy will have to ask permission from China
to transit this vital international waterway. To avoid this outcome, the Bush Administration must make it clear to China and
other claimants that the United States opposes extreme claims that interfere with or threaten freedom of navigation.

The US navigates in the Spratlys to prevent Chinese domination


The Inquirer, 5/27/2008, No Spratlys Scenario in US, RP Navy Games in Palawan,
<http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/regions/view/20080527-138999/No-Spratlys-scenario-in-US-RP-Navy-games-in-
Palawan>

PUERTO PRINCESA CITY—American and Filipino naval troops began their joint military exercises here on Monday, but
officials did not include a scenario of potential military conflict between the Philippines and other claimant countries in the
nearby Spratly Islands. The seven-day Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (Carat) exercises will focus on tactics in
“interdiction and interoperability” between the two navies, including a sea-based attack that will be simulated in a coastal
village, among other areas of cooperation. Some 1,200 US Navy men of the USS Tortuga based in Okinawa, Japan, are joining
some 200 Philippine Navy troops in the exercises. The Spratly group of islands is a territory in the South China Sea that is
being claimed by several nations, including China. US officials who attended the Carat launch at the Naval Forces West
(Navforwest) headquarters stressed their country’s position of neutrality with respect to the Spratlys. “Interoperability and
being able to work together in a joint mission is what this exercise is all about,” US Press Attaché Rebecca Brown Thompson
said. Asked if the training exercise will have significance on the Philippine Navy’s capability to project its military capability
in the Spratlys, Thompson said Carat did not plan such a scenario. “The United States has no claims to the Spratlys. But we
support the countries who do have claims working together to come to an agreement,” she said. Lt. Cmdr. Joselito de
Guzman, Navforwest spokesperson, said the games aimed at improving the Filipino soldiers’ ability to deal with acts of
terrorism and strengthen the cooperation between the two navies. Carat will also involve medical and dental missions in the
municipalities of Narra and Aborlan in southern Palawan, he said.

51
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

SPRATLEYS IMPACT

The US will go to war with China on terms of UNCLOS violation


Yann–Huei Song, Scholar at Institute of European and American Studies Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan,
R.O.C., 2005, Declarations and Statements with Respect to the 1982 UNCLOS: Potential Legal Disputes between the United
States and China after U.S. Accession to the Convention, <http://www.southchinasea.org/docs/Song,%20UNCLOS,%20US,%20&
%20China.pdf>

Among the two declarations and the twenty-four statements of understanding to be made by the United States in accordance
with Articles 298(1) and 310 of the UNCLOS upon its accession to the Convention, the following are believed to have the
greatest potential to give rise to legal disputes between the United States and China in the areas of ocean law and politics: the
second declaration concerning the exclusion of certain categories of disputes from dispute settlement procedure; the first five
understandings that relate principally to the U.S. right of innocent passage, transit passage, freedom of navigation and
overflight in the maritime zones of foreign countries, and the right to conduct survey activities in the exclusive economic zone
that are not considered marine scientific research and, therefore, do not require authorization from the coastal state; and the
sixth understanding concerning the U.S. position on those declarations or statements made by other state parties to the
UNCLOS that are in violation of the Convention provisions, in particular, Article 310. The Second Declaration Article 298 (1)
(b) provides that when signing, ratifying, or acceding to the UNCLOS or at any time thereafter, a state may, without prejudice
to the obligations arising under section 1 of Part XV of the Convention, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or
more of the procedures provided for in section 2, Part XV of the Convention with respect to “disputes concerning military
activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes
concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction
excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3.”55 The U.S.
declaration made pursuant to Article 298(1)(b) indicates that the U.S. consent to accession to the
UNCLOS is conditioned upon the understanding that, “under article 298(1)(b), each State Party has
the exclusive right to determine whether its activities are or were ‘military activities’ and that such
determinations are not subject to review.” However, it must be noted that Article 309 of the UNCLOS
disallows states from making reservations or exceptions to the Convention unless expressly
permitted by other articles of the UNCLOS. While Article 298(1)(b) allows states to exclude disputes
concerning military activities from the compulsory dispute settlement procedures provided in section
2, Part XV of the Convention, it is not clear if State Parties have the exclusive right to determine
whether their activities are or were “military activities” and that such
determinations are not subject to review. It is also problematic for the United States to declare that its consent to accession to
the UNCLOS is conditioned upon the aforementioned understanding. If the second declaration to be made by the United States
when acceding to the UNCLOS is considered consistent with Article 298 and Article 310, other state parties to the Convention
are also entitled, after their signing, ratifying, or acceding to the UNCLOS, or “at any time thereafter” to making the same
declaration. Accordingly, it is believed that this declaration could give rise to legal dispute between the United States and
foreign countries, including China. The declaration would also have the potential to destabilize the legal order at sea if
followed by other state parties to the UNCLOS. The First Understanding The first understanding to be made by the
United States underscores the importance of U.S. concern over its rights under international law to take appropriate actions in
selfdefense or in times of armed conflict, including, where necessary, the use of force. This understanding states that nothing in
the UNCLOS impairs the inherent right of selfdefense or rights arising during armed conflict, including any Convention
provisions referring to “peaceful uses” or “peaceful purposes.” For instance, Article 88 of the UNLCOS reads that “[t]he high
seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes”; Article 141 provides that “[t]he Area shall be open to use exclusively for
peaceful purposes by all States whether coastal or land-locked, without discrimination and without prejudice to the other
provisions of the Part;” and Article 301 states that “[i]n exercising their rights and performing their duties under this
Convention, State Parties shall refrain from any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence
of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United
Nations.”

52
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

SPRATLEYS IMPACT

US–China war will ensure global annihilation


Straits Times, June 25 2000“U.S.-China Relations”, Straits Times, Lexis-Nexis
The high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China.If
Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes
unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of
a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics
support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea,
Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, East Asia will be set on fire. And the
conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US
distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly
upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could
enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew
Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army, which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time
thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal
account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said
that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear
weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there
is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China
possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear
option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle
regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies,
told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still
abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of
nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that
should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilization. There would be no victors in such a war. While the
prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts
sovereignty above everything else.

53
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

INDIAN RELATIONS MODULE

CARBON TARIFFS KILL RELATIONS WITH INDIA- INDIA IS IN TALKS WITH CHINA AND THEY FEAR ANY
ATTEMPT TO LINK TRADE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
(The Economic Times, 7 May, 2008, 'Can't link trade to climate change',
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Cant_link_trade_to_climate_change/articleshow/3017025.cms)

NEW DELHI: Rejecting recent attempts to link trade to climate change, the government said that countries like India would
not accept any move by industrialised countries to use climate change to restrict trade. Prime Minister’s special envoy Shyam
Saran said that India rejected all attempts to push developing countries to cut their emissions by linking it with trade.
"Countries like India are saying sorry it’s not a trade issue. Environment can not be used as a trade issue," said Mr Saran, who
added that developing countries could not pass on their obligation or impose conditionalities on developed countries. He was
reacting to attempts made by EU and more recently by Japan to link trade issue with climate change. "There is no even playing field
(for India) even to begin with. There has to be distinction between lifestyle emission and survival emissions. We are also
talking to China, Brazil and South Africa on these issues," Mr. Saran said.

DESTROYING RELATIONS COLLAPSES US HEGEMONY AND ENSURES WARS


(Victor M. Gobarev, security policy analyst and former scholar at GWU, September 11, 2000, “India as a World Power” CATO
Policy Report, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1240)

With regard to liberal and democratic values, America can be proud of its role in the fall of communism in the Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe. Making India, a country three times as populous as all the countries that emerged from the Soviet empire taken
together, a friend of the United States would be another significant achievement. Turning this nuclear-armed giant into an
adversary of the United States would severely weaken American positions not only in Asia but also in the rest of the world.
Conversely, making India an informal strategic partner would enormously strengthen them. India bears directly on several important
U.S. national security interests. For example, India’s joining ranks with China and possibly Russia in an anti-U.S. alliance would
be a disaster for America’s global position, since over time U.S. and NATO military dominance will erode. No one can predict
how a confrontation between the U.S.-led West and nations accounting for half of the planet’s population would end. But the
dangers flowing from such bipolar rivalry would be considerable, and in contrast with the Cold War, this time the Western
powers might not prevail—much less prevail without a catastrophic war.

COLLAPSE OF HEG CAUSES GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR


(Zalmay Khalilzad, Director of the Strategy and Doctrine Program @ RAND and current US Ambassador to Iraq, 1995, "Losing the
Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War," The Washington Quarterly, Spring, p. Lexis)

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to
multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not
as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First,
the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law.
Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear
proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help
preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war
and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global
stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

54
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

INDIAN RELATIONS IMPACT- KASHMIR WAR

RELATIONS WITH INDIA ARE CRUCIAL TO PREVENT KASHMIR WAR


(Bruce Riedel, 12/18/2006, Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution, “India and the United
States: A New Era,” http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/riedel20061218.htm)

Now that President Bush has built on this foundation, he should use the new strategic partnership to move beyond crisis
management between India and Pakistan to try to help the two countries resolve the underlying issue that has brought them
repeatedly to conflict: Kashmir. America has avoided dealing with the Kashmir issue for decades, both because of its complexities
and because India opposed outside involvement, preferring to deal bilaterally with Pakistan. This approach has not worked; the
problem has gotten worse and has repeatedly taken the subcontinent to the brink of disaster. Now is the time for quiet American
diplomacy to exploit our stronger ties with India and our improved relations with Pakistan since 9/11 to try to resolve the
Kashmir quarrel. It is in the self interest of all three nations to do so. The timing is particularly fortuitous since India and
Pakistan have begun their own bilateral dialogue to improve relations since they were last at the brink of war in 2003. That
dialogue has already produced some modest confidence-building measures in Kashmir but has not really engaged the
underlying issues. Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf says he is ready to engage India on Kashmir and has put some interesting
ideas on the table. He should be tested now by both the U.S. and India. Helping him resolve Kashmir would also help him end
Pakistan's long relationship with jihadist terror groups which have dangerous relationships with al-Qaeda. If Kashmir moved toward
peace, Pakistan could more easily put those groups out of business and isolate al-Qaeda. A deal should not threaten India's territorial
integrity; rather it should focus on improving the Kashmiri's lives.

KASHMIR WAR CAUSES EXTINCTION


(Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Executive Director of the Washington-based Kashmiri American Council, 2001, “India Pakistan Summit and
the Issue of Kashmir,” Washington Times, http://www.pakistanlink.com/Letters/2001/July/13/05.html)

The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with a
unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, a disputed
territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and
Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear
volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. This apocalyptic vision is
no idiosyncratic view. The Director of Central Intelligence, the Department of Defense, and world experts generally place
Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries. Both India and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear
arsenals and advanced delivery vehicles. Their defense budgets are climbing despite widespread misery amongst their populations.
Neither country has initialed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or indicated an inclination to
ratify an impending Fissile Material/Cut-off Convention.

55
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

CHINA ECON IMPACT

IMPOSING CARBON LIMITS ON CHINA KILLS ITS ECONOMY


(Mary-Anne Toy, April 24, 2007, “China flags hard line on climate”, http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/china-flags-hard-line-on-
climate/2007/04/23/1177180567874.html?page=fullpage)

THE push for a global consensus on reducing greenhouse gases has been dealt a potentially serious blow, with a major report by the
Chinese Government declaring that economic growth must take priority over cuts in emissions. Despite dire warnings about the
effects on China of a warming planet, Beijing's first official report on climate change flatly rejects international pressure to impose
emission limits on its factories and coal-generated power plants as unfair and economically perilous. "If we prematurely
assume responsibilities for mandatory greenhouse-gas emissions reductions, the direct consequence will be to constrain
China's current energy and manufacturing industries," the report says. "Developing the economy and improving people's lives
remains the country's primary task."

LOSS OF CHINESE GROWTH CAUSES GLOBAL DEPRESSION


(Oded Shenkar PhD from Columbia University; Professor of Management & Human Resources, Ford Motor Company Chair in
Global Business Management; editor of several books regarding strategic and managerial issues in East Asia, particularly China, 2005,
“The Chinese Century: The Rising Chinese Economy and its Impact on the Global Economy, the Balance of Power, and Your Job” p.
175)

A doomsday scenario is more likely to be triggered by internal Chinese problems that will then spill into the outside world.
China faces a number of serious risks: Its financial system is close to insolvency and if the government were to lose its ability to prop
it up, it could implode. A decline in the growth rate could send an already high unemployment rate into the stratosphere at a
time when the social safety net is still nascent. Inequality between the coast and the hinterland and between the rich and the poor is
growing by the day, which increases resentment and further erodes the fragile legitimacy of the Communist regime. In this
environment, a trigger in the form of a steep and sudden revaluation could ignite social unrest and set off a violent reaction. A fall in
domestic demand will then cause China to dump its enormous capacity in world markets and, given global overcapacity in
many industries, the impact will be devastating. Foreign competitors will be pushed to sell at a loss, governments will set
emergency tariffs, and exports will chase fewer and fewer open markets. The end result will be global depression on a scale not
seen since the 1930s.

GLOBAL DEPRESSION CAUSES NUCLEAR WAR


(Walter Mead, 1992, Policy Analyst, World Policy Institute)

They and their leaders have embraced market principles -- and drawn closer to the west -- because they believe that our system can
work for them. But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period
of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India - These countries with their billions of
people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.

56
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

CHINA ECON IMPACT

Imposing carbon taxes on China kills the economy


Mary-Anne Toy, April 24, 2007, "China flags hard line on climate", <http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/china-flags-hard-line-
on-climate/2007/04/23/1177180567874.html?page=fullpage>

THE push for a global consensus on reducing greenhouse gases has been dealt a potentially serious blow, with a major report
by the Chinese Government declaring that economic growth must take priority over cuts in emissions.
Despite dire warnings about the effects on China of a warming planet, Beijing's first official report on climate change flatly
rejects international pressure to impose emission limits on its factories and coal-generated power plants as unfair and
economically perilous. "If we prematurely assum[ing] responsibilities for mandatory greenhouse-gas emissions reductions, the
direct consequence will be to constrain China's current energy and manufacturing industries," the report says. "Developing the
economy and improving people's lives remains the country's primary task."
The report, released yesterday, provides another sobering message to rich nations about the difficulty they face in persuading
major developing nations, in particular China and India, to sign up for tough, mandatory limits on greenhouse emissions.It will
also give further ammunition to the Howard Government, which has justified its own refusal to introduce drastic greenhouse-
reducing measures by arguing such schemes are futile unless big polluters such as China and the United States are also on
board.Prime Minister John Howard yesterday echoed some of the sentiment of the Chinese Government report, arguing in a
major speech that maintaining economic prosperity — rather than climate change — was Australia's great moral
challenge.Rejecting the stance of Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd, Mr Howard declared: "Australia emits less greenhouse gas in
a year than the United States or China emit in a month."Do we need to lower carbon emissions over time? Of course we do.
But to say that climate change is the overwhelming moral challenge for this generation of Australians is misguided at best;
misleading at worst."
Although China's per capita emissions are very low compared with developed nations such as Australia, its enormous
population means it is set to overtake the US as the world's top emitter of human-generated greenhouse gases within a year.The
National Climate Change Assessment, a 400-page report written by experts and officials from more than a dozen ministries and
agencies and several years in negotiation, is China's first official assessment of global warming's impact. The report warns that
by the end of the century, the glaciers on the Qinghai-Tibet highlands that feed the Yangtze River could shrink by two-thirds.It
also says heavy rainfall could "spark mud and landslides, and other geological disasters" around the massive Three Gorges
Dam, the world's biggest hydro-electricity project that is a key part of China's efforts to move away from coal-powered
energy.Despite the damning findings, the report emphasises that China cannot afford to restrain economic development.China
has also been working on a national strategy to fight climate change but is not expected to announce emissions caps. The action
plan was due to be released this month but may be delayed.China has previously resisted accepting mandatory international
emissions limits, saying that rich countries are responsible for the accumulation of greenhouse gases and should not penalise
poorer countries such as China, which are trying to fight poverty and need to continue industrialisation to do so.China is a
signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, but as a developing country is exempt from mandatory gas emission targets.China's own
national climate change assessment says coastal cities will need to build or strengthen barriers to ward off rising sea levels and
unless steps are taken, water scarcity and increasingly extreme weather could reduce nationwide crop production by up to 10
per cent by 2030.Wheat, rice and corn growing capacity could fall by up to 37 per cent in the second half of the century.

57
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

CHINA ECON IMPACT- ASIAN WWIII

CHINESE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN RESULTS IN AN ASIAN WORLD WAR THREE


(Tom Plate, professor of Policy and Communication Studies at UCLA where he founded the Asia Pacific Media Network, June 30,
2003, “WHY NOT INVADE CHINA? With allies like the neo-cons, Bush scarcely needs enemies”,,
http://asiamedia.ucla.edu/TomPlate2003/06302003.htm)

But imagine a China disintegrating- on its own, without neo-conservative or Central Intelligence Agency prompting, much less
outright military invasion because the economy (against all predictions) suddenly collapses. That would knock Asia into chaos. A
massive flood of refugees would head for Indonesia and other places with poor border controls, which don’t’ want them and cant
handle them; some in Japan might lick their lips at the prospect of of World War II revisited and look to annex a slice of China.
That would send Singapore and Malaysia- once occupied by Japan- into nervous breakdowns. Meanwhile, India might make a
grab for Tibet, and Pakistan for Kashmir. Then you can say hello to World War III, Asia style. That’s why wise policy
encourages Chinese stability, security and economic growth – the very direction the White House now seems to prefer.

58
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

CHINA ECON IMPACT- CHINA/RUSSIA WAR

CHINESE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE CAUSES CHINA-RUSSIA NUCLEAR WAR


(Alexander Sharavin, October 3, 2001, Director of the Institute of Military and Political Analysis, WHAT THE PAPERS SAY)

China's economy is among the fastest-growing economies in the world. It remains socialistic in many aspects, i.e. extensive and
highly expensive, demanding more and more natural resources. China's natural resources are rather limited, whereas the depths
of Siberia and the Russian Far East are almost inexhaustible. Chinese propaganda has constantly been showing us skyscrapers in
free trade zones in southeastern China. It should not be forgotten, however, that some 250 to 300 million people live there, i.e. at most
a quarter of China's population. A billion Chinese people are still living in misery. For them, even the living standards of a
backwater Russian town remain inaccessibly high. They have absolutely nothing to lose. There is every prerequisite for "the
final throw to the north." The strength of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (CPLA) has been growing quicker than the
Chinese economy. A decade ago the CPLA was equipped with inferior copies of Russian arms from late 1950s to the early 1960s.
However, through its own efforts Russia has nearly managed to liquidate its most significant technological advantage. Thanks to our
zeal, from antique MiG-21 fighters of the earliest modifications and S-75 air defense missile systems the Chinese antiaircraft defense
forces have adopted Su-27 fighters and S-300 air defense missile systems. China's air defense forces have received Tor systems
instead of anti-aircraft guns which could have been used during World War II. The shock air force of our "eastern brethren" will in the
near future replace antique Tu-16 and Il-28 airplanes with Su-30 fighters, which are not yet available to the Russian Armed Forces!
Russia may face the "wonderful" prospect of combating the Chinese army, which, if full mobilization is called, is comparable
in size with Russia's entire population, which also has nuclear weapons (even tactical weapons become strategic if states have
common borders) and would be absolutely insensitive to losses (even a loss of a few million of the servicemen would be
acceptable for China). Such a war would be more horrible than the World War II. It would require from our state maximal
tension, universal mobilization and complete accumulation of the army military hardware, up to the last tank or a plane, in a single
direction (we would have to forget such "trifles" like Talebs and Basaev, but this does not guarantee success either). Massive nuclear
strikes on basic military forces and cities of China would finally be the only way out, what would exhaust Russia's armament
completely. We have not got another set of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-based missiles, whereas the general
forces would be extremely exhausted in the border combats. In the long run, even if the aggression would be stopped after the
majority of the Chinese are killed, our country would be absolutely unprotected against the "Chechen" and the "Balkan"
variants both, and even against the first frost of a possible nuclear winter.

59
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

HONG KONG ECON IMPACT

US trade sanctions against China will destroy Hong Kong’s economy

Social Science Research Network, 2000, US Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China: What is at Stake? - A
Global CGE Analysis, http://search.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=243550

The US trade sanctions against China will seriously disrupt the bilateral trade and both countries will suffer substantial
welfare loss. The trade sanctions will also devastate Hong Kong?s economy, as it serves as a middleman in the US-China
trade and will be caught in crossfire. The trade conflict between the US and China will make the countries involved (US,
China and Hong Kong) less integrated with rest of the world and others more integrated with the rest of the world. Thus,
while the US, China and Hong Kong all suffer welfare losses, other countries all have welfare gains.

60
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

RELATIONS IMPACT- NORTH KOREA

EFFECTIVE US CHINA COOPERATION IS KEY TO PREVENT NORTH KOREAN NUCLEARIZATION


(Yoon Won-sup, Staff Reporter, 2008, “Both Soft, Hard Powers Needed for NK Denuclearization:”
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/02/116_18777.html) By

Harvard Professor Joseph Nye, who pioneered the theory of ``soft power,'' said that the resolution of the North Korea's nuclear
weapons issue would require both soft and hard power. At a lecture for university students in Seoul Tuesday, Nye said that it was
important to use hard power such as economic pressure as well as soft power of naturally letting North Koreans seek a better life to
escape their oppressive regime. He added China's role is important in terms of hard power while South Korea will play an
important role in soft power over the nuclear threat. Nye suggested soft power alone would not solve the nuclear issue by saying
that North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's love of Hollywood movies would not affect Pyongyang's nuclear policy. He stressed
the importance of cooperation among Korea, the United States, Japan and China in order to induce changes in North Korea.

KOREAN NUCLEARIZATION CAUSES EXTINCTION


(Kim Myong Chol, 2002, The Agreed Framework is Brain Dead, http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/0212A_Chol.html)

Without precise knowledge of the location of those target facilities, the American policy planners face the real risk of North Korea
launching a full-scale war against South Korea, Japan and the U.S. The North Korean retaliation will most likely leave South
Korea and Japan totally devastated with the Metropolitan U.S. being consumed in nuclear conflagration. Looking down on the
demolished American homeland, American policy planners aboard a special Boeing jets will have good cause to claim, "We are
winners, although our homeland is in ashes. We are safely alive on this jet." The third and last option is to agree to a shotgun wedding
with the North Koreans. It means entering into package solution negotiations with the North Koreans, offering to sign a peace treaty to
terminate the relations of hostility, establish full diplomatic relations between the two enemy states, withdraw the American forces
from South Korea, remove North Korea from the list of axis of evil states and terrorist-sponsoring states, and give North Korea most
favored nation treatment. The first two options should be sobering nightmare scenarios for a wise Bush and his policy planners. If they
should opt for either of the scenarios, that would be their decision, which the North Koreans are in no position to take issue with. The
Americans would realize too late that the North Korean mean what they say. The North Koreans will use all their resources in their
arsenal to fight a full-scale nuclear exchange with the Americans in the last war of mankind

61
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

RELATIONS IMPACT- PROLIF

RELATIONS ARE CRUCIAL TO PREVENT PROLIFERATION


(Phillip C. Saunders, Director of East Asian Nonproliferation Program, October 23, 2001, “Can 9-11 Provide a Fresh Start for U.S.-
SINO Relations?”, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/sino911.htm)

China and the United States still share numerous common interests in fighting proliferation. In terms of specific
nonproliferation issues, the United States and China both oppose the introduction of nuclear weapons onto the Korean
peninsula and seek to restrain India's efforts to build an operational nuclear arsenal. Both also want to avoid arms races in
Northeast Asia that might lead Japan, South Korea, and even Taiwan to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.
Finally, both the United States and China seek ways to improve the effectiveness of the treaties banning chemical and
biological weapons.

PROLIFERATION CAUSES GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR


(Alan Robock, 17 March 2008, “Time to Bury a Dangerous Legacy – Part II”)

The US and Russia are signatories to the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, which commits both to a reduction of deployed
nuclear weapons by the end of 2012 – to about 1700 to 2200 weapons. This continuing reduction of nuclear weapons is to be
commended, but these new results show that even much more modest nuclear arsenals leave the possibility of a nuclear
environmental catastrophe. Having survived the threat of global nuclear war between the superpowers so far, the world is
increasingly threatened by the prospects of regional nuclear war. The consequences of regional-scale nuclear conflicts are
unexpectedly large, with the potential to become global catastrophes. The combination of nuclear proliferation, political
instability and urban demographics may constitute one of the greatest dangers to the stability of society since the dawn of
humans. Nuclear weapons cannot be used. Only abolition of nuclear weapons will prevent this potential catastrophe.

62
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

FREE TRADE IMPACT- NUCLEAR WAR

PROTECTIONISM CAUSES NUCLEAR WAR


(Michael Spicer Member of the British Parliament, 1996, The Challenge From the East, p. 121)

The choice facing the West today is much the same as that which faced the Soviet bloc after World War II: between meeting head-on
the challenge of world trade with the adjustments and the benefits that it will bring, or of attempting to shut out markets that are
growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for innovative production. The problem about the second approach is not simply
that it won’t hold: satellite technology alone will ensure that consumers will begin to demand those goods that the East is able to
provide most cheaply. More fundamentally, it will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which natural fears will be
fanned and inflamed. A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled and unstable place in which suspicion and
ultimately envy will possibly erupt into a major war. I do not say that the converse will necessarily be true, that in a free trading
world there will be an absence of all strife. Such a proposition would manifestly be absurd. But to trade is to become
interdependent, and that is a good step in the direction of world stability. With nuclear weapons at two a penny, stability will
be at a premium in the years ahead.

FREE TRADE PREVENTS NUCLEAR WARS


(Copley News Service December 1, 1999)

For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of
nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real.Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting
in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further
their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a
worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics.Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in
the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists,
whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government.Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very
much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear
disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and
other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past
might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports
to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is
so important. As exports to the United States and the rest

63
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

FREE TRADE IMPACT- DEMOCRACY

Trade fosters democracy

Helen Milner political scientist and graduate at Stanford, and Keiko Kubota affiliate at world bank, 2005,Why
the Move to Free Trade? Democracy and Trade Policy in the Developing Countries,
http://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/intorg/v59y2005i01p107-143_05.html
Rising international trade flows are a primary component of globalization. The liberalization of trade policy in many developing
countries has helped foster the growth of these flows. Preceding and concurrent with this move to free trade, there has been a global
movement toward democracy. We argue that these two trends are related: democratization of the political system reduces the ability of
governments to use trade barriers as a strategy for building political support. Political leaders in labor-rich countries may prefer lower
trade barriers as democracy increases. Empirical evidence supports our claim about the developing countries from 1970 99. Regime
change toward democracy is associated with trade liberalization, controlling for many factors. Conventional explanations of economic
reform, such as economic crises and external pressures, seem less salient. Democratization may have fostered globalization in this
period.

64
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

FREE TRADE IMPACT- TERRORISM

Trade combats terrorism

Brink Lindsey, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies. August 5 2003, The Trade Front:
Combating Terrorism with Open Markets, http://www.freetrade.org/node/39
In May 2003 President Bush announced plans to create a U.S.-Middle East free-trade area within a decade. The new trade initiative
aims to combat terrorism, and the Islamist extremism that underlies it, by promoting economic and political development in the
Muslim world. The administration moved quickly to begin putting its plans into action by announcing that the United States and
Bahrain would soon commence negotiations for a free-trade agreement (FTA). Meanwhile, negotiations for an FTA with Morocco are
already under way, and a U.S.-Jordan FTA, now in its second year, has produced a boom in Jordanian exports. The Bush
administration should be congratulated for opening a trade front in the war on terrorism. With the proper commitment and follow-
through, a major U.S. trade initiative in the Muslim world can give real encouragement to desperately needed growth and reform in
that troubled region.

65
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

FREE TRADE IMPACT- ECONOMY

Trade solves for US economy

George W. Bush, 3/18/2008, President Bush: Free Trade Agreements Are "Good For Our Economy"
President Bush Promises Additional Action On The Economy If Needed, And Calls For “A Vote On
Colombia This Year”,
http://www.commerce.gov/s/groups/public/@doc/@os/@opa/documents/content/prod01_005407.pdf
And during this time of economic uncertainty, when consumer spending and investment is slowing down, it's important to understand
the role trade has made for our economy. Last year exports accounted for more than 40 percent of our total growth. That's good news.
Export is continuing. This January, exports were up more than 16 percent over last January. If you're worried about the economy, it
seems like you ought to be sending a clear signal that the United States of America will continue to trade, not shut down trade. And
that's what this Colombia vote says."

Key time for trade to save the economy

Ana Isabel Eiras,specializes in international economics and development as a senior policy analyst in the
Center for International Trade and Economics, May 24, 2004, Why America Needs to Support Free Trade,
http://www.heritage.org/research/tradeandforeignaid/bg1761.cfm
The Bush Administration should support free trade by all means at its disposal. Keeping America free of protectionism and special
favors helps to generate opportunities and fosters economic growth. Economic growth is of particular importance today because
eliminating the large federal budget deficit requires either growth to generate tax revenues or something even harder to come by--the
political will to cut spending.

Free trade fosters economic growth by spurring investment and opening job
opportunities

Ana Isabel Eiras,specializes in international economics and development as a senior policy analyst in the
Center for International Trade and Economics, May 24, 2004, Why America Needs to Support Free Trade,
http://www.heritage.org/research/tradeandforeignaid/bg1761.cfm
Economic freedom is essential to economic growth, and the true measure of economic freedom involves more than just the question of
whether tariff and non-tariff trade barriers are present. It involves other barriers to commerce such as inflationary pressures,
regulations that make it more difficult to do business, restrictive banking systems, whether or not property rights are protected, and the
fiscal burden of government. The data presented over the past seven years in the annual Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal
Index of Economic Freedom show clearly that the economies of countries that open their markets grow at a faster pace than the
economies of countries that open their markets less or not at all. (See Chart 2.) Of the 142 nations whose economies have been
observed during this seven-year period, those that opened their markets the most grew twice as fast as those that opened them the
least.A growing economy increases the demand for goods and services, and as demand increases, more businesses start and expand
their operations. Such expansion leads to the creation of more, better-paid jobs. The same is true when the market expands beyond
borders. Gaining free access to other markets opens up new business opportunities, encouraging investment and fostering job creation.

66
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

FREE TRADE IMPACT- INNOVATION


Free trade spurs innovation

Ana Isabel Eiras,specializes in international economics and development as a senior policy analyst in the
Center for International Trade and Economics, May 24, 2004, Why America Needs to Support Free Trade,
http://www.heritage.org/research/tradeandforeignaid/bg1761.cfm
America's ability to compete and innovate derives from its open markets and from the continual search for new markets through the
expansion of free trade. Goods and services flowing across borders foster new ideas and allow U.S. producers to learn about the
market through the failure and success of traded products. As they learn more, they are able to innovate to remain competitive.

Trade fosters innovation, competitiveness, and the economy

Ana Isabel Eiras,specializes in international economics and development as a senior policy analyst in the
Center for International Trade and Economics, May 24, 2004, Why America Needs to Support Free Trade,
http://www.heritage.org/research/tradeandforeignaid/bg1761.cfm
Innovation is the basis of progress, and competition is the best incentive to innovate. The challenge of having others producing similar
products or offering similar services motivates businesses to find new technologies and better ways to provide what they produce. The
need to remain competitive forces businesses to strive constantly to innovate. As a result, new technologies are born. America is
perhaps the world's best example of how competition fosters innovation. Although at times the United States has become somewhat
protectionist, its economy has been built primarily on the principles of a free market, private enterprise, and competition.In such a
competitive environment, new technologies, from computers to medicines to machinery, have helped the economy to become
increasingly more productive per unit of labor and machinery employed in the production process. Since 1948, according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, multifactor productivity--a ratio of output to combined inputs--in the U.S. private business sector has more
than doubled.2 (See Chart 1.) Productivity has fostered economic growth and, by lowering production costs, has given ordinary
Americans the opportunity to raise their standard of living.

Free trade promotes innovation to solve for disease, pollution, education,


tech, and the economy

Ana Isabel Eiras,specializes in international economics and development as a senior policy analyst in the
Center for International Trade and Economics, May 24, 2004, Why America Needs to Support Free Trade,
http://www.heritage.org/research/tradeandforeignaid/bg1761.cfm
Free trade, however, is good for America, and for a very simple reason: It allows American workers to specialize in goods and
services that they produce more efficiently than the rest of the world and then to exchange them for goods and services that other
countries produce at higher quality and lower cost. Specialization and free trade allow the U.S. to become more competitive and
innovative. Innovation constantly provides new technologies that allow Americans to produce more, cure more diseases, pollute less,
improve education, and choose from a greater range of investment opportunities. The resulting economic growth generates better-
paying jobs, higher standards of living, and a greater appreciation of the benefits of living in a peaceful society. New technologies
bring about change, which, as U.S. economic history shows, benefits society as a whole. In the process, however, some sectors suffer
until they can adapt to the new changes and begin to benefit from them. Today, Americans are experiencing some of that "suffering"
because new technologies are challenging old methods of production.

67
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

FREE TRADE IMPACT- WAR

Free trade solves for war

Ana Isabel Eiras,specializes in international economics and development as a senior policy analyst in the
Center for International Trade and Economics, May 24, 2004, Why America Needs to Support Free Trade,
http://www.heritage.org/research/tradeandforeignaid/bg1761.cfm
Free trade fosters an enormous chain of economic activity, the benefits of which culminate in a social desire to be at peace with
neighboring and even faraway nations with which trade is conducted or might be conducted in the future.When individuals see how
beneficial it is to live in an economically free society; when they see how freedom allows them to improve their lives and those of
their families; when they can create new businesses, engage in commerce, or work for a decent salary or wage, adding dignity to their
lives, they want peace to preserve all these good things.By contrast, when people live under economic oppression and are at the mercy
of a small ruling authority that dictates every aspect of their lives and limits their ability to realize their potential, they resent the life
they have and learn to hate better lives elsewhere. If they cannot enjoy the fruits of their efforts and cannot realize their potential; if
they cannot feel free to do business, work freely, and trade freely; if they do not have anything to gain or to lose, they begin to feel that
any change--even war--might be better. They have no incentive to desire peace with their neighbors.

Free trade fosters peace

Ana Isabel Eiras,specializes in international economics and development as a senior policy analyst in the
Center for International Trade and Economics, May 24, 2004, Why America Needs to Support Free Trade,
http://www.heritage.org/research/tradeandforeignaid/bg1761.cfm
Free trade and economic freedom set the process of growth, innovation, and prosperity in motion. In that process, individuals support
the creation of institutions that are conducive to growth and that preserve peace and prosperity. The greater the level of prosperity, the
greater the likelihood of peace.

68
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

FREE TRADE IMPACT- ENVIRONMENT

Free trade is the best way to help the environment

Heritage Foundation, Oct 1, 2001, Free Trade Can Help Protect Environment, Analysts Say,
http://www.heritage.org/Press/NewsReleases/NR100101.cfm
Free trade is a catalyst for improving a country's environment as well as its economy, which is another reason Congress should give
the president Trade Promotion Authority, a new Heritage Foundation paper says. Contrary to what some environmental activists say,
countries with open economies have better environmental records—and the best way for countries to improve their economies is
through the free trade that Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) allows, Heritage trade experts Ana Eiras and Brett Schaefer write.
"Economic growth is achieved through greater economic liberalization, including free trade," they write. "Countries with higher
incomes are better able to afford economic protection. So those who are concerned with protecting the environment should support a
trade promotion authority that effectively advances free trade."

Trade helps the environment

Reuters, Feb 5, 2007,Free trade can help guard the environment: WTO,
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWAL54336920070205
Proposals in the revived Doha Round of free trade talks could help protect the environment if governments agree to a deal at
forthcoming negotiations, the head of the World Trade Organization (WTO) said on Monday. Measures to cut farming and fisheries
subsidies will stop overproduction while others will lower tariffs on environmentally sound goods and services, Pascal Lamy said on
the fringes of a major U.N. environment meeting in Kenya.

69
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

DA TURNS WARMING- CHINA COOP


US-CHINA ENERGY COOPERATION IS GROWING
(Doug Palmer and Jason Subler, Reuters News, 6/18/08, http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1822194420080618)

U.S. and Chinese officials agreed on Wednesday to launch negotiations on a bilateral investment treaty and to expand
cooperation on energy and environmental issues, but differences remained as to how quickly Beijing should liberalize its markets.
At the conclusion of two days of high-level economic talks, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said an investment pact "would
send a strong signal that our two nations welcome investment and will treat each other's investors in a fair and transparent manner."
He said the ten-year energy framework agreement would engage businesses, academics and leading research facilities to share
knowledge as well as commercialize new alternative energy and environmental technologies. The energy pact will focus on
electricity, air, water, transportation and conservation of forests and wetlands ecosystems. Specific plans for the pact were not
disclosed, but Paulson said it would build upon an energy and environmental cooperation pact announced last December.
Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan, standing beside Paulson at a press conference after the latest round of bilateral talks
dubbed a "strategic economic dialogue," said the two countries will coordinate monetary and fiscal policies, adding both were
committed to the principles of free trade.

70
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

DA TURNS WARMING- CHINA COOP

CLIMATE TARIFFS DESTROY CLIMATE COOPERATION WITH CHINA AND INDIA


(ROSALIE WESTENSKOW, UPI Correspondent, March 10, 2008, “Trade worries tangle CO2 plan”,
http://www.upi.com/Energy_Resources/2008/03/10/Analysis_Trade_worries_tangle_CO2_plan/UPI-43531205163403/

But the measures included in both plans could get the United States in trouble with the World Trade Organization, which
monitors trade between countries, said Christopher Wenk, senior director of international policy with the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, a federation of businesses. "If there are trade restrictions that another country feels … there are endless ways
that there could be some case brought before the WTO," Wenk told United Press International. Any time a country passes a law
that another country feels restricts its ability to trade, the offended country can take the issue to the WTO, which decides whether the
laws under consideration conflict with international agreements. The two most likely candidates to take a cap-and-trade dispute
to the WTO are China and India, Wenk said, but other countries might as well. One sure way to get embroiled in a WTO case is
to implement import restrictions right away, as the steel manufacturers' plan proposes, instead of waiting for a period of several years,
as the IBEW-AEP plan suggests, said David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a non-profit environmental group.
"One of the requirements under the WTO is that before a country uses a trade measure … they have to negotiate with the other
countries involved," Doniger told UPI. "Given the complexity of the climate change problem, that's going to take a number of
years." Doniger said he speculates around 12 years be a reasonable timeframe. However, the administration opposes the import
provisions altogether, according to a letter from Susan Schwab, the U.S. trade representative, sent to several members of the Energy
and Air Quality Subcommittee. "We believe this approach could be a blunt and imprecise instrument of fear … that will take us down
a dangerous path and adversely affect U.S. manufacturers, farmers and consumers," Schwab wrote. Even absent a WTO battle, U.S.
trading partners will likely retaliate if provisions are placed on imports, said Gary Hufbauer, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for
International Economics, a non-partisan research organization. "It's going to be a two-way street," Hufbauer said. "If we go ahead
and start imposing these (measures) willy-nilly, we can expect to receive a return payment." The result, he said, will likely be
a series of trade skirmishes and even trade wars, with the ultimate goal of fighting climate change getting lost in the scuffle.

COOPERATION WITH CHINA DETERMINES WHETHER GLOBAL WARMING CAN BE STOPPED- UNDERMING
COOPERATION MAKES DISASTER INEVITABLE
(WILLIAM CHANDLER , Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March 2008, Breaking the Suicide Pact:
U.S.–China Cooperation on Climate Change)

Together, China and the United States produce 40 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Their actions to curb or expand
energy consumption will determine whether efforts to stop global climate change succeed or fail. If these two nations act to
curb emissions, the rest of the world can more easily coalesce on a global plan. If either fails to act, the mitigation strategies
adopted by the rest of the world will fall far short of averting disaster for large parts of the earth.

71
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

DA TURNS WARMING- CLIMATE TREATY

CLIMATE TARIFFS AGAINST CHINA COLLAPSES ANY CHANCE OF A GLOBAL CLIMATE TREATY
(Robert Collier, visiting scholar at the Center for Environmental Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, is writing a
book about China and global warming. He has been with the San Francisco Chronicle from 1991 to the present as a senior foreign
affairs correspondent (since 2002), a member of the editorial board (2001-2002), and a foreign affairs reporter (1994–2001). May 6,
2008, “China faces trade war climate challenge”, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/JE06Cb01.html

Warning of an "all-out trade war" if the sanctions go forward, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab argues that green
trade sanctions would violate World Trade Organization rules. In a recent letter to the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, she wrote, "We believe this approach could be a blunt and imprecise instrument of fear, rather than one of
persuasion, that will take us down a dangerous path and adversely impact U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and
consumers."Developing nations' allies, meanwhile, are warning that the sanctions plan could destroy the chances of a post-
Kyoto treaty.Chinese diplomats have not responded directly, but they have noticeably hardened their stand on climate talks. In
February, China's top climate negotiator, Yu Qingtai, said at the UN that rich nations, which "caused the problem of climate
change in the first place," must be treated as "culprits," and developing countries as "victims."

72
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

DA TURNS WARMING- CLIMATE TREATY

A PURELY AMERICAN BASED CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM FAILS- ONLY A GLOBAL CLIMATE TREATY CAN
SOLVE GLOBAL WARMING
(Zach Arnold, June 12, 2008, “Cap-and-Trade’s Achilles Heel”, http://breakthroughgen.org/2008/06/12/cap-and-trades-achilles-
heel/)

Cap-and-trade sounds appealing, but an America-focused system will have little effect on emissions Caps. Imagine it’s 2010.
The environmental lobby and its governmental allies have finally managed to implement a carbon cap-and-trade system. Under this
plan, CO2 emissions are limited to those allowed by a set number of permits; companies who emit lots of the stuff have to buy permits
from those who don’t, and as caps increase over time, most everyone is required to lower their emissions. Sounds good, right? An
elegant scheme to be sure, and one that has borne fruit in the past – cap-and-trade policies are widely credited with America’s drastic
reductions in the pollutants that form acid rain. But can a rigorous American cap-and-trade system work similar wonders for CO2? I
don’t think so. What Econ 101 has to say about cap-and-trade When it comes to reducing emissions, an America-only cap-and-trade
system will have little effect. To explain why, we need only resort to that most familiar of adages – “follow the money.” CO2-
emitting businesses will naturally “follow the money” around the world, migrating to wherever they can save the most – that
is, wherever the cost of emitting is lowest. This, of course, is not a peculiar trait of polluting businesses; the accelerating pace
of economic globalization over the past few decades has been driven by this behavior. Manufacturers flit from American factories
to Mexican maquiladoras to Chinese sweatshops in pursuit of cheap labor, and call-center operators transfer jobs from well-paid
Americans to job-hungry (and English-speaking) Indians. You basically do the same thing when you drive an extra few blocks to a
cheaper gas station, rather than pay a few extra pennies per gallon closer by. Carbon emitters like factories, refineries, and power
plants will follow the same logic. As cap-and-trade raises the price of emitting (by forcing companies to retool or to buy permits),
they’ll be increasingly tempted to move to countries where their emissions aren’t taxed. In turn, carbon emissions will simply
move, rather than disappear. Interestingly, as carbon caps become more rigorous, thus raising the price of emissions, the costs of
staying stateside will increasingly outpace the hassle (financial and otherwise) of picking up shop. In this way, stronger climate
policy might end up shooting itself in the foot. Who pays the price? Of course, fleeing cap-and-trade is more of a possibility in
some industries than in others. It’s hard to see, for example, how a CO2-spewing coal plant in Ohio can just move overseas, what with
its transmission lines and customers still in Cleveland and Akron. (This helps explain why SO2 cap-and-trade was so effective – most
SO2 comes from power plants, which can’t move.) Yet the alternative might not be any better for our atmosphere. For example, those
electricity providers that can’t skip town will face a higher cost of generation, which will then be passed on (at least partially) to their
customers. Those industries and firms that purchase electricity will face the same dilemma as those who emit directly, and might just
head over to China as a result - especially if this price pressure is piled on to the economic woes such firms are already facing – high
labor costs, lagging demand, etc. It’s easy to see how this dynamic could create both an economic headache and a political
catastrophe for American climate activists. Assume a cap-and-trade system passes in 2009. As the first few factories and server farms
start moving, and the first few Southern utilities start building their new plants in Mexico rather than Texas, critics will (correctly)
point the finger at cap-and-traders. The resulting spat could dwarf previous scuffles like the call center outsourcing crisis of a few
years ago. And since the incentive to migrate is directly tied to the carbon price, it’s unlikely that environmentalists and their
backers, in the midst of a political firestorm, would be able to raise it incrementally (as many cap-and-trade plans entail).
Looking forward The quandary is straight out of Econ 101: As long as some countries restrict emissions and some don’t, firms
will simply move their emissions rather than eliminate them, resulting in little to no reduction in overall CO2 emissions.
There’s only one solution. A truly global carbon regime, one in which firms can’t escape a single carbon price, will leave no
opportunity for countries to avoid the cost of carbon, and spur CO2 reductions rather than evasion.

73
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

DA TURNS WARMING- PROTECTIONISM

ENVIRONMENTAL TRADE BARRIERS TURN CASE- THEY DESTROY ADOPTION OF NEW ALTERNATIVE
ENERGIES AND UNDERMINE EFFIENCY
(OTTO GRAF LAMBSDORFF, Former German Federal Minister of Economics, 22-JUN-07, The International Economy,
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6910875/Will-environmentalism-become-the-new.html)

Beyond doubt, environmentalism is gaining momentum-not only in politics, but also in business. Customers are increasingly
willing to pay extra for environment-friendly goods in the light of noticeable climate change. Of course, companies want to
take advantage of the market's readiness to pay higher prices. In this context, protectionism is a promising tool for domestic
producers to safeguard high margins by excluding international rivals.For instance, instead of competing for cheaper and
better products, European manufacturers of electronics achieved in 2002 surcharges on imports of energy-efficient bulbs from
China. The 66 percent duty is more than dubious as Europe's leaders are at the same time urging households to make use of
exactly these energy-efficient light bulbs. If the duty ended, market prices of energy-efficient bulbs would equal those of
conventional ones. The consequences of this kind of protectionism are two-fold: first, domestic manufacturers are not forced to
produce more cost-efficiently; and second, many customers who cannot afford the artificial high prices continue to purchase
conventional bulbs. The European Commission acts Janus-faced: While defending unnecessary high prices for energy-efficient bulbs
due to successful lobbying, it is striving for a significant reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. Obviously, the attractive
international market for environment-friendly goods must stay free of protectionism for our planet's sake. Only if premium
energy-efficient products become affordable for the majority can a pivotal contribution to environmental protection be made.
By the way, Australia has just decided to ban incandescent bulbs. Instead of intervening, governments should more often trust and
release market forces to boost environmentalism. The promotion of free trade would be a sufficient first step toward lowering
the energy-efficient bulbs' pricing and as a consequence changing consumer habits. If the Chinese can offer eco-friendly
products under more favorable conditions, let them do the business.

74
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

DA TURNS WARMING- PROTECTIONISM

PROTECTIONISM KILLS THE ENVIRONMENT


(RICHARD KATZ, Co-editor, Oriental Economist Report and TOE Alert, 22-JUN-07, The International Economy,
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6910875/Will-environmentalism-become-the-new.html)

First, protectionism is bad for the environment. World Bank data shows that, while global warming gases per dollar of GDP
initially rise as poor countries industrialize to the per capita income of a country like South Africa or Chile, they tend to fall
back again as countries grow richer. How about organic wastes that factories emit into the water supply? As measured by
pollution per worker, factories in middle-income countries tend to be cleaner than in poor ones, and cleaner still in rich
countries. Not only does environmental awareness grow once people have a full belly and a solid roof, but rich countries can
better afford environmental safeguards. And it is trade that helps transform poor countries into rich ones. Globalization
underpinned the economic miracles that have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians from hunger, infant
mortality, and illiteracy. Not coincidentally, China's rapid development has also engendered a public outcry within China
about the sinking water table, and the air pollution that kills hundreds of thousands each year.

75
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

DA TURNS WARMING- PROTECTIONISM

ENERGY TRADE TARIFFS KILL GROWTH AND UNDERMINES IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL


STANDARDS
(JIM O'NEILL Head of Global Economic Research, Goldman Sachs International, 22-JUN-07, The International Economy,
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6910875/Will-environmentalism-become-the-new.html)

Nevertheless, it would be very unwise to restrict trade with countries that have problems meeting environmental standards. The first
and obvious reason is that these kinds of trade limitations would impair growth and employment. After all, trade is a source of
wealth. Moreover, it is likely that global environmental standards will not be raised by protectionist behavior. Trade
limitations on one side incite retaliations on the other. As a result trade becomes more expensive and the price level increases.
Why should countries that are made poorer by protectionism be more ready to improve their environmental standards?

76
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

DA TURNS WARMING- PROTECTIONISM

FREE TRADE IS KEY TO THE ENVIRONMENT- IMPOSING STANDARDS ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARS FAIL
(GABRIEL STEIN, Chief International Economist, Lombard Street Research, 22-JUN-07, The International Economy,
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6910875/Will-environmentalism-become-the-new.html)

Insisting on imposing environmental standards as a condition for trade will have one of two effects. Either it will create
substantial tension with emerging economies, who rightly claim that today's advanced economies ignored the environment
when they grew rich. In this case the efforts will be unsuccessful and the political consequences harmful. Or else the efforts will be
successful, but at the cost of condemning billions of people in emerging economies to continued poverty. But that would be self-
defeating, since history shows that people care more about the environment the richer they are. Ultimately, the best way to
improve the world's environment is to help poor countries grow rich. An easy way to do that is to practice free trade.

77
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

DA TURNS COMPETITIVENESS- CHINESE MARKETS

EFFECTIVE TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA IS CRUCIAL TO US COMPETITIVENESS- ACCESS TO CHINAS


MARKETS IS THE ONLY WAY US COMPANIES CAN COMPETE GLOBALLY
(Franklin L. Lavin, Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, DC May 18, 2006 , “Risk, Reward, and How to
Win”,Remarks of Franklin L. Lavin, China Roadshow Conference)

Let me begin with the business development side, how to do business successfully in China. Few markets have captivated the
world’s commercial imagination like the possibility of doing business in China. According to industry surveys, U.S. companies
in China are generally successful and report solid sales in the Chinese market. Also, American business people dream of an
opportunity to offer their products to a billion consumers. The Commerce Department wants to do everything possible to help
U.S. companies compete in China and we do just that every day. But, before we encourage everyone here to hop on the next plane
to Beijing, I would like to ask you to think strategically about that market and about your companies’ international trade plans. The
first part of a strategic approach is self-analysis. Why are you thinking about China? What is motivating you to tackle the Chinese
market? The point is that you need a clear understanding of your goals before you try to tackle this market. For most companies, the
goal is MOS – More of the Same. They want more sales, more revenue, more customers, etc. That is a perfectly fine goal, at least
initially, but it suggests starting in an easier market than China. If your business plan is simply replicating your U.S. set of activities
overseas, your U.S. product line, your U.S. management, your U.S. financing – you might not be ready for the China market. You
need to think through how your U.S. model needs to be customized for the China market. Many large companies have no choice
but to do business in China. For those businesses already engaged globally and faced with tough global competitors, China is a
strategic market. They cannot afford not to be there. But for other businesses, China is more of a discretionary activity. You will
need international business acumen to succeed there and there are other countries with lesser barriers to business success. The point is
this: even if China is where you want to end up internationally, it probably is not where you want to start. You might want first to
master the basics of cross border business before you start in China. II. CHINA TRADE POLICY Hold that thought and let me turn
to a few words on U.S. trade policy with China. First, economic cooperation between the United States and China has greatly
benefited both countries and we believe that the dynamic growth that China has realized through free trade will work for our
mutual benefit in the future. For more than 25 years, the U.S. has pursued a policy of open commercial exchange with China. We
have encouraged Chinese leaders to embrace market principles and welcomed China into the global economy. We supported China’s
accession to the World Trade Organization. We have an optimistic goal of a stable and prosperous partnership between America
and China that will be better achieved with China fully participating in the international trading system.

78
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

DA TURNS COMPETITIVENESS- FREE TRADE

FREE TRADE IS KEY TO US COMPETITIVENESS


(Kenneth Juster, Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration in Department of Commerce, December 10th, 2001,
“Globalization, National Security and Export Controls”, http://www.bis.doc.gov/News/archive2001/GlobalizationNScarsdaleNY.htm)

One of the simple and clear points, in my view, is the continued importance of international trade. Indeed, the promotion of
free trade is -- and remains – a fundamental pillar of the Administration’s economic and foreign policy. In our view, free and
open trade sustains economic growth and contributes to economic prosperity. The benefits of free trade are undeniable. Open
markets allow for increased export sales, which lead to more jobs, higher revenues, more profits, and overall economic
growth. Department of Commerce statistics show that exports have accounted for almost one quarter of U.S. economic growth
during the past decade. While the United States negotiated and implemented the North American Free Trade Agreement and the
Uruguay Round trade agreements, the U.S. economy grew at its fastest rate in a generation. Similar statistics show that free trade also
benefits American workers. Jobs supported by international trade pay 13 to 18 percent more than the national average. Free trade also
benefits U.S. consumers. Global competition results in more choices and lower prices in the marketplace. Finally, free trade
enhances U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace. Imports stimulate competition, which leads to technological
innovation and quality enhancement.

79
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

DA TURNS EU TRADE- GLOBAL PROTECTIONISM

TRADE SANCTIONS ON CHINA CAUSE GLOBAL PROTECTIONISM- EU STARTS SANCTIONS


(Canberra Times June 25, 2007 Monday “US-CHINA TRADE WAR WOULD HIT HARD IN ASIA-PACIFIC”)

AS PRESSURE grows in the US Congress for tougher action against China on trade and currency issues, the rest of East Asia
and the Pacific region worries that it will be caught in the crossfire. A bipartisan Bill introduced in the Senate in Washington
earlier this month was designed to trigger tariffs on imports from China if the Chinese currency is not revalued. Many lawmakers in
the United States say that China keeps the value of its currency artificially low against the US dollar to boost exports. Some assert that
the renminbi needs to rise by as much as 40 per cent against the dollar to reflect its real value. Legislators who want to impose
hefty import duties or other penalties to offset China's alleged currency manipulation and export subsidies claim that their intention is
to hurt Chinese interests and stop the remorseless rise of the US trade deficit with China, which hit a record $US233billion ($A274
billion) last year. Instead, they will be striking at the heart of Asia-Pacific economic growth, which is driven by trade and
investment. As China has progressively opened its economy and accepted global rules by joining the World Trade
Organisation in 2001, other East Asian countries have become the leading investors there. To take advantage of China's lower
wages and big market, they have shifted or rather their companies have shifted much of their manufacturing capacity to the mainland.
By doing so, they have also shifted their long-standing trade surpluses with the US to China. The US global trade deficit topped
$800billion last year. Even so, the share of this deficit accounted for by East Asia, including China, in the 10 years to 2006 dropped
significantly, from 70 per cent to 46 per cent. Meanwhile, the US trade deficit with the rest of the world has ballooned. Over the past
decade, it grew by $244billion with East Asia but by $391billion with the rest of the world. Although China needs to apply fairer
trading and currency policies, it is being blamed by US lawmakers, unions and manufacturers for some problems that it did not cause
and cannot fix. And the weapons being deployed by Congress may cause widespread collateral damage. Today, about 60per
cent of China's exports by value are produced or assembled by foreign firms. Some are American and European. But most are
from Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and South-East Asia. The actual added value of Chinese inputs is no more than 30per
cent of the total value of China's exports. So any sanctions imposed by the US Congress would penalise foreign, mainly Asian,
investors in China far more than Chinese domestic companies. China is already the world's fourth-biggest economy and No3
trading nation. The overarching risk is that if the US, still by far the largest economy, imposes harsh protectionist measures on
China, China will retaliate, triggering a trade war. Australia would suffer indirectly. But it could still be hit hard. Much of its trade
is with East Asia. If a dispute between the US and China sparks tit- for-tat trade measures and roils Asian and international markets,
demand for Australian exports will fall. A pall will also be cast over the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum summit that
Australia will host in September. Good sense on both sides in the US-China dispute may yet prevail. The Chinese currency has risen
by more than 8per cent against the dollar since authorities in China began allowing it to creep upward in July 2005. Both the US and
China have much to lose in a trade war. While the US is a vital market for China, the latter helps fund America's deficit. Cheap goods
from China help keep US inflation in check and consumers happy. China is now the US's fourth-largest export market. US sales to
China, worth $55billion last year, have grown by more than 150 per cent in the six years since China joined the WTO. Services are
another promising area for the US in its business dealings with China. America already has a services trade surplus with China of
$2billion and this is expected to rise to $15billion by 2015. The Bush Administration is trying to head off protectionist pressure from
Congress. But if economic ties with China continue to deteriorate, there could be global repercussions. Protectionism might
well infect the international trading system. This would further hurt the export- oriented economies of East Asia. Just this
week, Brussels warned China that it would face similar anger to the ire it is encountering in the US if the European Union's
trade deficit with China, which swelled to $170billion last year, continues to grow.

80
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

DA TURNS EU TRADE- WTO

CARBON TARIFFS ON CHINA KILL DOHA


(CHARLES WOLF, JR. Senior Economic Adviser and Corporate Fellow in International Economics, RAND, 22-JUN-07, The
International Economy, http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6910875/Will-environmentalism-become-the-new.html)

It would indeed be surprising if those favoring protectionism for any of many possible reasons were to forgo advocacy of
imposing carbon standards on imports from less-developed countries that (like the United States) have not signed on to Kyoto
and do not apply caps on carbon emissions. Were such impositions to be invoked, their likely economic effects on China and
India would be adverse, probably leading to retaliatory tariff or non-tariff barriers by these countries on U.S. exports to them
at a time when the latter have been growing more rapidly than our imports from them. Such a sequence would, among other
things, further diminish prospects for resurrecting the Doha Round. I doubt that public and private environmental spending will
(or should) become a consequential "new source of domestic demand" in the United States.

DOHA COLLAPSE DESTROYS THE WTO AND ENDS THE ABIITY TO RESOLVE TRADE DISPUTES
(Phillip Levy, Resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute., 2007, “Trade in the Twilight of the Bush Administration.”,
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.26372/pub_detail.asp, June 20//souders)

The failure of a global trade round (as opposed to a postponement) is uncharted territory. At best, it would leave key issues in
trade unaddressed and shake countries' confidence in the WTO's usefulness as a negotiating forum. At worst, it could cause
countries to lose interest in the WTO. That could lead to uncomfortable questions about why anyone should obey WTO
dispute rulings on existing agreements. The penalties for disobedience in the WTO are often rather small; the main incentive
for obedience has been a desire to respect and uphold the institution. If the institution is no longer seen as useful or viable, that
incentive could disappear. The alternative to progress on Doha may not be the status quo ante; it could be a major step
backwards.

THE EU WILL AVOID STARTING A TRADE WAR WITH THE US OVER CLIMATE CHANGE IF THERE IS AN
EFFECTIVE WTO
(James Kanter and Stephen Castle, January 22, 2008, International Herald Tribune,
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/01/22/us_warns_eu_on_using_climate_change_as_pretext/)

BRUSSELS - The United States warned the European Union yesterday against using climate change as a pretext for
protectionism, setting the stage for trans-Atlantic tension over a new package of EU measures to combat global warming.'We
have been dismayed . . . where we have seen the climate and the environment being used.' The pointed comments by the US trade
representative, Susan Schwab, after talks in Brussels, came just two days before the European Commission introduced its proposals
for cutting EU emissions at least 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. "We have been dismayed at a variety of suggestions where we
have seen the climate and the environment being used as an excuse to close markets," Schwab said after discussions with Peter
Mandelson, her European counterpart. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France has called for a carbon tax on imports to ensure that
European companies that need to comply with tough environmental rules are not undercut by foreign competitors whose governments
are not capping carbon emissions. EU officials were not expected to propose such a measure tomorrow but were expected to keep
alive the possibility of a so-called border tax to keep European industries competitive. The EU pledge to protect European industry by
2011 at the latest will be aimed at assuaging powerful lobby groups from sectors like steel and aluminum manufacturing, which say
they are facing higher costs than their overseas competitors because of the EU's determination to lead the world in climate protection.
Even so,EU officials hope to be able to avoid the issue, not least because any European border tax could be challenged at the
World Trade Organization.

81
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

AT: PEACEFUL MODELLING

CHINA WON’T MODEL US CAP AND TRADE SYSTEMS


(Rep. Joe Barton, (R-Texas), ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee., April 21, 2008, Cap-and-Trade Doesn’t
Work, Hurts Economy, http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=6718)

Some argue that America needs to cap emissions unilaterally because doing so will inspire the world’s big polluters like China
and India to follow us. China, the planet’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, isn’t interested. Each year, China adds more
coal-fired electricity generation than all the power in Texas, and Texas is the U.S. leader in electricity generation. China is
committed to raising its enormous population from poverty, and it has given every indication that it intends to stick with the
current policy of breakneck economic development and job creation. China argues that it has the right to grow and raise its
standard of living closer to ours, and if we want to reduce worldwide emissions, we should do it by ourselves.

EVERY COUNTRY WOULD GET UPSET WITH CLIMATE TARIFFS


(Timothy Gardner, June 9, 2008, “China Issue to Live on After US Carbon Bill Death”,
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/48684/story.htm)

"It won't work. Not a hope," said Rob Bradley, director of international climate policy atthe nonprofit World Resources
Institute, about carbon import tariffs. He said such a tariff could easily be turned against the United States. For example, if
Washington, which has lagged the European Union on climate policy, eventually regulates emissions, the cost of polluting per
tonne of carbon in the early years of its program would likely be well below the costs in the more mature EU program.
Therefore, if the United States institutes its own import tariffs, it could get stung by a similar program in Europe. He said
since the United States is not seen as a global leader on climate,it would be hard for Washington to add disciplinary policy on
imports from other countries. "For the US to stand up and say we'll decide who is naughty and who is nice ... there's just no
appreciation in Washington of how much bad feeling that could create," he said.

82
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

AT: CAP/TRADE NON-UNIQUE

THE CLIMATE BILL WITH THE SANCTIONS THAT CONGRESS WAS MOVING TOWARDS FAILED- BUT THE
TARIFFS WILL BE INCLUDED IN ANY NEW CLIMATE LEGISLATION
(Timothy Gardner, June 9, 2008, “China Issue to Live on After US Carbon Bill Death”,
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/48684/story.htm)

NEW YORK - The US climate bill may be dead but one thorny element of it -- possible tariffs on energy-intensive imports
from rapidly developing countries like China -- will fester as lawmakers form new greenhouse legislation. Introduced to the US
Congress by industrial players such as power utility American Electric Power and industrial worker unions, the issue, also known as
competitiveness in climate legislation, boils down to two ideas. First, if the United States embarks on a carbon emissions
reduction program, the placement of a tariff on imports of emissions-intensive goods like cement, steel and chemicals would
ensure that China and other rapidly industrializing countries do their part on global warming. The tariff would aim to equal the
price that US carbon regulation had added to the same products made domestically. Second, such a tariff would prevent heavy US
industries from relocating to other countries that don't regulate greenhouse gases to lower their operating costs. The US climate bill,
sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, and John Warner, a Virginia Republican, which aimed to cut
greenhouse emissions by 66 percent by 2050, died on Friday with a procedural vote in the Senate. It would have added such a
carbon tariff, also known as a border tax, or an international reserve allowance, on imports starting in 2020. An amendment to the bill
had pushed the imports tax forward to 2014. Pressure from industry will keep the competitiveness issue alive going forward.
"The concern about tight caps from leading industry is very real," Billy Pizer, director of the energy program at the think tank
Resources for the Future, said by telephone.

83
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

AT: CHINA WAR INEVITABLE

WAR WITH CHINA ISN’T INEVITABLE- CONFLICT WILL ONLY HAPPEN IF WE PUT INTO PLACE POLICIES
THAT ANGER CHINA
(Inside the Navy, June 11, 2007, Vol. 20 No. 23, HEADLINE: BAKER TOUTS U.S.-CHINA RELATIONS, REJECTS IDEA OF
INEVITABLE CONFLICT)

The rise of China in an age of American preeminence has led some observers to predict inevitable conflict between the two
countries, but this hawkish analysis should be rejected, according to former Secretary of State James Baker. The top aide to
former President George H.W. Bush and co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group said last week the United States and China are
building the world's "most critical bilateral relationship." He cautioned against demonizing China in a speech before the U.S.-
China Business Council in Washington. "China's rise and America's preeminence are, by any standard, both historic events," he
said. "Taken together, they have prompted observers on both sides of the Pacific to predict an inevitable conflict as Beijing's
ambitions collide with American dominance in Asia and around the world," Baker said. "I think we should firmly reject any
such analysis." Predicting conflict between the United States and China has become fashionable in some circles. An article by
Robert Kaplan published in The Atlantic in 2005 -- called "How We Would Fight China" -- crystallized the forecast of a new Cold
War in the Pacific as China expands its navy. Last month, Michael Pillsbury, an influential Pentagon consultant, said U.S. efforts to
befriend China are not working and the Defense Department should quietly prepare for war. On June 7, two days after Baker's speech,
former Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui said a "savage battle" between the United States and China over the Pacific is in the long
run "inevitable," according to press accounts. Baker cited three reasons for rejecting the idea of inevitable conflict -- beginning with a
warning about self-fulfilling prophecies. "There is no better way of making an enemy than to go looking for one," Baker told the
audience at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. "To view any expansion of China's role in world affairs as somehow 'sinister' will only
increase the misunderstanding and mistrust that already -- to some extent -- complicate the Sino-American relationship."
Second, such an analysis seriously underestimates the broad areas -- economic and strategic -- where Chinese and American
interests converge, he said. Third, predictions of conflict give short shrift to the ability of Washington and Beijing to "manage"
differences when they arise, he added.

84
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

AT: REALISM

USING REALISM TO DETERMINE THAT WE SHOULD KILL CHINA’S ECONOMY THROUGH TARIFFS IS FALSE
AND DANGEROUS
(Yuzhu Wang, Associate professor of Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and a visiting scholar to
University of Chicago, February 6th, 2007, “Power structure and its stability in North- East
Asia,”http://iaps.cass.cn/english/Articles/showcontent.asp?id=831).

The world needs a more generous hegemony. The last but very important point to my argument is I believe that the U.S.
government will behave rationally at most situations. Realists argue that great powers consider more about relative gains when
dealing with international relations, because in a self-help world this is the rational choice. But I argue here, if they make choice
rationally, they will not be offensive, instead, they should be defensive and more generous. First, America is the only hegemony
in a globalized world, and there is an international regime led by America, through which America can take some relative gains.
Second, bilaterally, realists argue the relative gains concerns make cooperation impossible, but in fact, when one side would like
to make concession, cooperation is available. And I think the rising china is one case: although china knows that the U.S.
dominant world order is far from justice, it still works positively within this system, because Beijing learned that the only way
to get justice treatment is accepting the injustice of the world order and cooperate with the leaders.And this is the real
relationship between china and America. Some argues that by engaging china, the united states lose the relative gains, because
china’s GDP growth rates is higher than those of America, but only simple calculation can prove this argument is misleading.
China should keep a 4-time higher GDP growth rate than America to maintain its GDP gap with America from being
widened. Third, though offensive is seemed to be a foolproof method to maintain hegemonic status, its cost may be
forbiddingly high, especially when you try to put down a big country like china. Yes, America may win a war on china easily,
but how about India, which is also experienced rapid growth, and how about Russia? After all, all countries are growth and
become more powerful. America can never have enough power to conquer all these “potential” challengers, and if it really
tries to do so, it may decline even quicker. So, the best way should be using the soft power, focus more on the international
regime and be a generous hegemony.

85
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

AT: NO TARIFFS

FAILURE TO CREATE TARIFFS TO EVEN THE PLAYING FIELD CAUSES ECONOMIC COLLAPSE
(ROSALIE WESTENSKOW, UPI Correspondent, March 10, 2008, “Trade worries tangle CO2 plan”,
http://www.upi.com/Energy_Resources/2008/03/10/Analysis_Trade_worries_tangle_CO2_plan/UPI-43531205163403/

As Congress considers capping carbon emissions, industry representatives say the plan could wipe out the U.S. economy unless the
playing field is leveled between domestic and imported goods. Both the House and Senate are currently looking at implementing a
nationwide cap-and-trade system in an effort to drastically cut carbon emissions. Under such a program, the amount of total emissions
would be capped at a certain level each year, decreasing incrementally over time. Businesses would be allotted a certain share of
emissions but could buy permits to emit more from businesses that kept their emissions below required levels. The effort could help
mitigate climate change, but some worry the costs of such a program will outweigh the benefits, including Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich.
"I am not in favor of the cap-and-trade systems currently being circulated because they could indeed harm the economy and send
jobs overseas," Upton said at a hearing Wednesday of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. U.S. manufacturers
and some economists worry the increasing capabilities of developing economies, like China, could topple domestic industries
forced to operate under a carbon cap. Production costs within a cap-and-trade system would undoubtedly rise, making U.S.
products less competitive in the worldwide marketplace, said Michael Morris, president of American Electric Power (NYSE:AEP),
one of the largest U.S. electric utilities. The fear is that American jobs will be swallowed up by emerging economies, like China,
where production is cheaper -- and less energy efficient. "(A poorly conceived system) would result in the worst of both worlds,
namely the loss of American jobs and industries, along with rampant growth in greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere in the world,"
Morris said. To combat this dilemma, American Electric has proposed a strategy to encourage developing countries to enact
carbon controls. The plan, co-authored by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, urges Congress to
incorporate trade measures into any cap-and-trade legislation. Under the IBEW-AEP proposal, producers in other countries
would have to purchase "international reserve allowances" in order to sell their products in the United States. These
allowances would be similar to the emissions credits or permits U.S. producers would have to purchase in order to emit CO2 under a
cap-and-trade system. The allowances only apply to greenhouse-gas intensive products, such as iron, steel, aluminum, cement, glass
and paper. Producers in countries that take "comparable action" to limit their greenhouse gas emissions would not have to buy the
allowances. "The hope would be that (emerging economies) would implement a comparable cap-and-trade program in their countries
so that they wouldn't have to pay the import allowances as they came into this country," Morris said. "That's the notion of the carrot
side of our program." Another proposal to help U.S. businesses has also caught congressional attention. Conceived by segments
of the steel industry, the plan would establish "carbon intensity standards," or limits on how much CO2 could be emitted in
the production of specific products. These standards would apply to both domestic and imported goods, said Jim Slattery,
partner at the law firm Wiley Rein, testifying at Wednesday's hearing on behalf of the American Iron and Steel Institute and the Steel
Manufacturers Association. "While we cannot force other countries to control their emissions, carbon intensity standards would
encourage both domestic and foreign producers to do so by conditioning access to the U.S. market on compliance with the standards,"
Slattery said.

86
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

AT: CURRENT TRADE DISPUTES- WTO SOLVES

CURRENT TRADE DISPUTES ARE RESOLVED THROUGH THE WTO- ONLY LEGISLATIVE PROTECTIONIST
TARIFFS CAN SPARK A TRADE WAR
(Daniel Ikenson, associate director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute, May 7, 2007, “Growing Pains: The Evolving
U.S.-China Trade Relationship”, http://www.freetrade.org/node/626)

The recent flurry of activity has caused angst and raised questions on both sides of the Pacific. Has the Bush administration
changed course with respect to China? Will its actions ameliorate or exacerbate tensions in the relationship? Will it lead to resolution
of the underlying U.S. complaints and deter Congress from doing something rash? Is a trade war likely? This brief paper offers
answers, along with some of the context and perspective that has been absent from many news reports. In the final analysis, the
administration's trade actions of 2007 do not represent a departure from its longstanding China-trade policy but rather the
next phase in a logical evolution. By using the WTO dispute settlement system to convey U.S. seriousness about achieving
resolution, the administration should be able to keep Congress on the sidelines. If so, lingering issues are likely to get resolved
and a trade war avoided. All bets are off, however, if Congress short-circuits the WTO process and passes punitive legislation
that violates U.S. WTO commitments.

87
China Trade Disad
DDI CO ‘08
Miller

AT: CURRENT TRADE DISPUTES- WTO SOLVES

ALL CURRENT TRADE DISPUTES ARE GETTING HANDLED BY THE WTO AND WON’T CAUSE A TRADE WAR
(Xinhua News Agency, 2007-02-07 , “Trade dispute unlikely to spark trade war between China, U.S.”,
http://www1.cei.gov.cn/ce/doc/cen4/200702072573.htm)

The trade dispute between China and the United States is unlikely to lead to trade war as the two countries share overlapping
interests, said Li Xiangyang, the Deputy Director of the Institute of World Economics and Politics (IWEP) of Chinese Academy of
Social Sciences. The U. S. government Friday filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Geneva, alleging
that China is providing companies with improper subsidies to help its companies compete in world markets. U.S. Trade
Representative Susan Schwab said China's government support for steel, wood, information technology and other industries hurt U.S.
firms and prevent them from competing fairly but did not elaborate. This is the fourth time that Washington complained to the WTO
about China's trade policies. The previous three related to China's auto parts import regulation, brown paper and semi-conductor
sectors. "There is no new or strong evidence that could prove China has launched improper trade policies", said Li. "We hope both
sides could settle the dispute through a consultation." The United States tried to team up with other powers including Japan and
the European Union in filing a WTO complaint against China over its industrial subsidies before, but invitations were not accepted.
The United States has asked to open a consultation process which is the first stage of the dispute settlement procedure of the world
trade body at WTO over China's industrial subsidies. The consultation will usually last two months. If it fails, a WTO panel of
experts will be formed to handle the dispute. "The government should brace for the upcoming consultation with U.S. and
figure out how to settle trade disputes under WTO multilateral regulations", said Jin Bosheng, an expert from the Chinese
Academy of International trade and Economic Cooperation.

88