Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009

Scholars

1 Hegemony

Hegemony
Hegemony...................................................................................................................................................................1
Hegemony..........................................................................................1 ***Uniqueness***.............................................................................7 ***Uniqueness***.............................................................................7

Uniqueness – Readiness Up – Troops.........................................................................................................................8
Uniqueness – Readiness Up – Troops................................................8

Uniqueness – Readiness Up – Effectiveness .............................................................................................................9
Uniqueness – Readiness Up – Effectiveness .....................................9

Uniqueness – Readiness Up – Technology...............................................................................................................10
Uniqueness – Readiness Up – Technology.......................................10

Uniqueness – Readiness Up – Funding.....................................................................................................................11
Uniqueness – Readiness Up – Funding............................................11

Uniqueness – Readiness Low – Troops....................................................................................................................12
Uniqueness – Readiness Low – Troops............................................12

Uniqueness – Readiness Low – Effectiveness..........................................................................................................13
Uniqueness – Readiness Low – Effectiveness..................................13

Uniqueness – Readiness Low – Technology/Funding..............................................................................................14
Uniqueness – Readiness Low – Technology/Funding......................14

Uniqueness – Soft Power Up....................................................................................................................................15
Uniqueness – Soft Power Up............................................................15

Uniqueness – Soft Power Low .................................................................................................................................16
Uniqueness – Soft Power Low ........................................................16

Uniqueness – Unilateralism Up................................................................................................................................17
Uniqueness – Unilateralism Up........................................................17

Uniqueness – Unilateralism Low..............................................................................................................................18
Uniqueness – Unilateralism Low.....................................................18

Uniqueness – Multilateralism Up.............................................................................................................................19
Uniqueness – Multilateralism Up.....................................................19

Uniqueness – Multilateralism Down.........................................................................................................................20
Uniqueness – Multilateralism Down................................................20

Uniqueness – Credibility Up.....................................................................................................................................21
Uniqueness – Credibility Up............................................................21

Uniqueness – Credibility Down ...............................................................................................................................22
Uniqueness – Credibility Down ......................................................22

Uniqueness – Iraq Hurts Heg....................................................................................................................................23
Uniqueness – Iraq Hurts Heg...........................................................23

Uniqueness – A2: Iraq Hurts Heg.............................................................................................................................24
Uniqueness – A2: Iraq Hurts Heg....................................................24

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009
Scholars

2 Hegemony

Uniqueness – Afghanistan Hurts Heg.......................................................................................................................25
Uniqueness – Afghanistan Hurts Heg..............................................25

Uniqueness – A2: Afghanistan Hurts Heg................................................................................................................26
Uniqueness – A2: Afghanistan Hurts Heg........................................26

Uniqueness – Obama Hurts Heg...............................................................................................................................27
Uniqueness – Obama Hurts Heg......................................................27

Uniqueness – A2: Obama Hurts Heg........................................................................................................................28
Uniqueness – A2: Obama Hurts Heg...............................................28

Uniqueness – Heg Sustainable..................................................................................................................................29
Uniqueness – Heg Sustainable.........................................................29

Uniqueness – Heg Unsustainable .............................................................................................................................30
Uniqueness – Heg Unsustainable ....................................................30

Uniqueness – Rogue Threats Up...............................................................................................................................31
Uniqueness – Rogue Threats Up......................................................31

Uniqueness – Rogue Threats Down..........................................................................................................................32
Uniqueness – Rogue Threats Down.................................................32

Uniqueness – Civil Military Relations Up................................................................................................................33
Uniqueness – Civil Military Relations Up........................................33

Uniqueness – Civil Military Relations Down...........................................................................................................34
Uniqueness – Civil Military Relations Down...................................34 ***Links***....................................................................................35 ***Links***....................................................................................35

K2 Heg – Social Services .........................................................................................................................................36
K2 Heg – Social Services ................................................................36

K2 Heg – Domestic Policy........................................................................................................................................37
K2 Heg – Domestic Policy...............................................................37

K2 Heg – Humanitarianism......................................................................................................................................38
K2 Heg – Humanitarianism..............................................................38

K2 Heg – Poverty......................................................................................................................................................39
K2 Heg – Poverty.............................................................................39

K2 Heg – Multilateralism.........................................................................................................................................40
K2 Heg – Multilateralism.................................................................40

K2 Heg – Hard Power ..............................................................................................................................................41
K2 Heg – Hard Power .....................................................................41

Not K2 Heg – Social Services...................................................................................................................................42
Not K2 Heg – Social Services..........................................................42

Not K2 Heg – Domestic Policy.................................................................................................................................43
Not K2 Heg – Domestic Policy........................................................43

Not K2 Heg – Humanitarianism ..............................................................................................................................44

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009
Scholars
Not K2 Heg – Humanitarianism ......................................................44

3 Hegemony

Not K2 Heg – Poverty...............................................................................................................................................45
Not K2 Heg – Poverty......................................................................45

Not K2 Heg – Multilateralism..................................................................................................................................46
Not K2 Heg – Multilateralism..........................................................46

K2 Multilateralism – Unilateralism..........................................................................................................................47
K2 Multilateralism – Unilateralism..................................................47 ***No Balancing***........................................................................48 ***No Balancing***........................................................................48

Counterbalancing Down...........................................................................................................................................49
Counterbalancing Down...................................................................49

No Balancing – Benign Heg.....................................................................................................................................50
No Balancing – Benign Heg.............................................................50

No Balancing – Russia/EU.......................................................................................................................................51
No Balancing – Russia/EU...............................................................51

No Balancing – India ...............................................................................................................................................52
No Balancing – India ......................................................................52

No Balancing – Asia Generic....................................................................................................................................53
No Balancing – Asia Generic...........................................................53

No Alternative to U.S. Hegemony............................................................................................................................54
No Alternative to U.S. Hegemony...................................................54

***Yes Balancing***...............................................................................................................................................55
***Yes Balancing***......................................................................55

Counterbalancing Up................................................................................................................................................56
Counterbalancing Up.......................................................................56

Multipolarity Now.....................................................................................................................................................57
Multipolarity Now...........................................................................57

Nonpolarity Now.......................................................................................................................................................58
Nonpolarity Now.............................................................................58

Yes Balancing – EU .................................................................................................................................................59
Yes Balancing – EU ........................................................................59

Yes Balancing – Russia/China..................................................................................................................................60
Yes Balancing – Russia/China.........................................................60

AT: Benign Hegemony.............................................................................................................................................61
AT: Benign Hegemony....................................................................61

AT: We Solve Bad Parts of Heg (Multilateralism)...................................................................................................62
AT: We Solve Bad Parts of Heg (Multilateralism)...........................62

***Soft Power Good***...........................................................................................................................................63
***Soft Power Good***..................................................................63

.........................65 Soft Power Solves Terrorism.................................................71 Soft Power Causes Prolif/Genocide.............66 Soft Power Solves Democracy......................74 Heg Good – Chinese Containment.......................................80 Heg Good – Iraq Stability......................................................76 Heg Good – Democracy.............................................78 Heg Good – East Asian Stability.....................73 Heg Good – Caspian Stability..............................................................................................................................................................................................68 ***Soft Power Bad***........................................................................................77 Heg Good – East Asian Stability......................................................................79 Heg Good – Global Economy.....................71 Soft Power Causes Resentment/Terrorism..............................................................................................................................79 Heg Good – Iraq Stability....................80 Heg Good – Laundry List.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................64 Soft Power K2 Heg.....................................76 Heg Good – Deter Rogue States................................................................................................................65 Soft Power K2 Heg..64 Soft Power K2 Heg....................69 Soft Power Not K2 Heg................................................................78 Heg Good – Global Economy................................................................................................................................Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Scholars 4 Hegemony Soft Power K2 Heg....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................83 ........................................................................................................73 ***Heg Good***....................................72 Soft Power Causes Prolif/Genocide......................................................................................................................................................81 Heg Good – Middle East Stability.......................................................................................................................................66 Soft Power Solves Terrorism.................................................77 Heg Good – Deter Rogue States......................................................................................................................................................82 Heg Good – Middle East Stability.....................................................................68 Soft Power Solves Misc.............................................................82 Heg Good – South China Sea.............................................................70 Soft Power Causes Resentment/Terrorism.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................70 Soft Power Not K2 Heg...67 Soft Power Solves Democracy........................................................................67 Soft Power Solves Misc.......................................................................69 ***Soft Power Bad***.................72 ***Heg Good***.......................................................................................................................75 Heg Good – Democracy..................................................................................................................74 Heg Good – Caspian Stability...........................................................................75 Heg Good – Chinese Containment............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................81 Heg Good – Laundry List................................................................................................................................

84 Heg Good – Warming ............................92 Heg Bad – China Relations .................97 Heg Bad – Nuclear Terrorism.........................................................................................................................92 Heg Bad – Caspian Sea Stability (2/2)....................................................................................................................91 Heg Bad – Caspian Sea Stability (1/2)...............................................................................................................................................100 Heg Bad – Space .....................102 Heg Bad – Terrorism ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................102 .....................................95 Heg Bad – Middle East Prolif.................................89 ***Heg Bad***..........89 Heg Bad – Blowback ....................................................................................101 Heg Bad – Space ..........................................................................................................................................96 Heg Bad – Nuclear Terrorism.........................99 Heg Bad – Prolif ........................................88 ***Heg Bad***..................................................98 Heg Bad – Preemptive Wars.................................................................86 Heg Good – War...............................88 AT: Heg Bad – Imperialism.......Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Scholars Heg Good – South China Sea...................................................................................................98 Heg Bad – Prolif ....................................86 Unipolarity Good – War............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................93 Heg Bad – China Relations ...............................................................................100 Heg Bad – South China Sea ..................87 AT: Heg Bad – Imperialism.................................101 Heg Bad – Terrorism ......................................................................................................................................................................................................90 Heg Bad – Blowback ....................................................94 Heg Bad – Economy.......................99 Heg Bad – South China Sea ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................97 Heg Bad – Preemptive Wars..............................................................................90 Heg Bad – Caspian Sea Stability (1/2)......87 Unipolarity Good – War........................................................................................................................................................................................................................94 Heg Bad – Iraq Instability...........95 Heg Bad – Iraq Instability.......................................................................................................................................84 Heg Good – Space Dominance.......................................................................91 Heg Bad – Caspian Sea Stability (2/2)......................................83 5 Hegemony Heg Good – Space Dominance.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................85 Heg Good – Warming ...............................................................................................................................96 Heg Bad – Middle East Prolif................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................93 Heg Bad – Economy....................................................85 Heg Good – War..............................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Scholars 6 Hegemony Heg Bad – Terrorism ........................................................................................................................................................................................................103 Unipolarity Bad – War .................................................104 AT: Power Vacuum....................................................................105 ...105 AT: Power Vacuum......103 Heg Bad – Terrorism ................104 Unipolarity Bad – War ............................................................................................................................................

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 7 Trade-Off DA ***Uniqueness*** .

http://www. Quotas have gone up each year. Tennessee recruiters in the various branches have met or exceeded their targets. AD: 7/8/09) JC Military recruiters are seeing a lot of Sextons walk into their offices. "We're seeing a nice mix of recent college graduates affected by the economy who can't find a job. Air Force and Marines replenished nationwide. "My business dropped way off. The Defense Department has missed its combined active-duty recruiting goals only three times since 1980: in 1998. new college graduates. small-business owners.com/article/20090708/NEWS01/907080395/1006/Economy+boosts+military+recr uiting. who will enter basic training Aug. The numbers have increased each year. Navy. and career switchers who find themselves behind a desk after 10 years who don't want to do that any longer. scientists.tennessean. Many have college diplomas. . The individual service branches have had scattered off years. Economy boosts military recruiting. 7/8/09. The new brand of recruits keeps the Army. 1999 and 2005. My wife suggested I join. lawyers." The average recruiting age remains about 21 years old. executive officer for the U. partly because of a mandate handed down from Congress for all recruiters to bring more people into the service. but the pool of candidates has become more diverse: mother-daughter teams. Christine Gupton." said Maj. Army Nashville Recruiting Battalion. but the economy contributed to my decision.S. people looking for stable jobs and paychecks that cannot be found in other industries because of the economy. 19 at Fort Knox. among others. reporters for The Tennessean. some hold master's and doctoral degrees. Ky. "My desire took a back seat to providing for my family.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 8 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Readiness Up – Troops Enlistment increasing now Sanchez and Young 7/8 (Christina and Nicole." said Sexton.

Internet-based business wire service and news aggregator.jsp?seq=998572&category=. Speaking before the United States Senate Armed Services Committee. http://www." Johnson highlighted provisions from the new legislation that suggested rule changes that have also been supported by the Obama administration. a panel of witnesses applauded the provisions of the committee's Defense Authorization Act for making key adjustments to the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Administration Officials Support Military Commission Reforms.com/Forex/News/ShowStory. Jeh Johnson.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 9 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Readiness Up – Effectiveness Obama increasing military effectiveness now RTTNews 7/7 (Realtime Financial News. 7/7/09. Propose Additional Areas Of Focus. expressed confidence that the administration could work with Congress to ensure that "military commissions can emerge from this effort as a fully legitimate forum. These provisions include a ban on the in-court use of statements obtained by cruel interrogation methods. He argued that the ban would "go a long way toward enhancing the legitimacy and credibility of commissions" in the face of criticism that interrogation methods "amount to cruel. AD: 7/8/09) JC (RTTNews) . inhuman or degrading treatment.forextv. General Counsel for the Department of Defense." . At the hearing.Top members of the Obama administration told lawmakers Tuesday that the United States is on the right path to improving the effectiveness of military commissions and enhancing national security.

S." Hunter said Tuesday he was dissatisfied with that reasoning. Hunter. undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. Duncan D." McGinn wrote in the letter released by Hunter's office. who says there are more deserving troops from America's current conflicts than the five who have won the honor. North County Times Staff Writter. wrote Hunter a letter earlier this month suggesting electronic warfare may be one reason why only a handful of U. techniques and procedures. "Precision-guided. "Technological advancements have dramatically changed battlefield tactics. MILITARY: Technology cited for low number of Medal of Honor winners. Gail McGinn. . 6/16/09. He wants a congressionally mandated review of how the Medal of Honor award has been bestowed in recent years. http://www. stand-off weapons allow our forces to destroy known enemy positions with reduced personnel risk.com/articles/2009/06/16/military/z40a54a4775849706882575d7005b1751.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 10 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Readiness Up – Technology Military technology use increasing – Fewer casualties Walker 6/16 (Mark. troops have been awarded the nation's highest military award for valor in Iraq and Afghanistan.northcountytimes.txt. AD: 7/8/09) JC Is high-tech warfare making combat safer and leading to fewer Medal of Honor winners from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? That's the suggestion of a Defense Department official in a letter to Rep. R-El Cajon.

The Air Force will shrink only slightly. Our defense budget is almost half the world's.pittsburghlive. veterans and homeland security.000 servicemen.the units will have higher readiness. . It is also more than we spent at any point during the Cold War. To understand why that is conservative. Then we began another buildup in 1998 that nearly doubled non-war defense spending. AD: 7/8/09) JC The Defense secretary proposes breaking up the Army's modernization program. we simply gave back the Reagan buildup and kept spending at average Cold War levels. The Navy is likely to shrink to 10 carrier battle groups instead of 11. But the people who were to fill out the 48 would be stuffed into 45 -. But the decline will take decades. research fellow in defense and homeland security studies at the Cato Institute and a Ph. the military's size will barely budge under this plan.but they will be replaced with others. consider how much we spend on defense relative to both our purported rivals and our past.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_623281. candidate in political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.D. spending on a national missile defense program would be cut by only about 15 percent. Cut military spending in half. When that struggle ended. http://www. the wars. the Army would grow to only 45 brigade combat teams rather than 48.html. Second. the Future Combat Systems and canceling some of the vehicles -. Yes. Gates wants to halt personnel reductions in the Air Force and Navy and continue to expand the Army and Marines by 90. 5/3/09. as was planned.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 11 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Readiness Up – Funding Military funding increasing despite cuts Friedman 5/3 (Benjamin. All told. even leaving out nuclear weapons.

ottawacitizen.com/news/Iraq+troop+strength/1367405/story.000. to cut Iraq troop strength by 12.The United States will reduce the number of troops in Iraq by around 12.html.000 in the next six months. "Two brigade combat teams who were scheduled to redeploy in the next six months. cutting troops now Cocks 3/8 (Tim. military said on Sunday.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 12 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Readiness Low – Troops U. 3/8/09. will not be replaced. U. combat brigades in Iraq from 14 to 12 will cut the number of American troops. currently around 140. Reducing the number of U.S. engineers and intelligence.S. http://www. by 12. AD: 7/8/09) JC BAGHDAD -. .000.S. the U.S. along with enabling forces such as logistics. a step in President Barack Obama's plan to end combat operations in August 2010." the U. said Major-General David Perkins.S. Reuters.000. military said in a statement. forces in Iraq. spokesman for U.S.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 13 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Readiness Low – Effectiveness Military worn out now hamstringing readiness Tauscher 2/12 (Ellen. we cannot afford to have a "hollow Army.7 million troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have been deployed more than once. senior military officials determined that there has been an overall decline in military readiness and there remains a significant risk that the U. is as dire as it was after the war in Vietnam when our troops were fatigued. Douglas is haunted by nightmares of beheadings. when more than a third of the 1. That's why Congress must pass legislation making sure the military services guarantee "dwell time. The pace of deployments needed to sustain combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has taken a toll on our servicemen and servicewomen. fortunately.cgi? f=/c/a/2009/02/12/EDFH15S3HS. These are classic symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and. The demands of multiple deployments in quick succession have taken a toll on our troops. 2/12/09. AD: 7/8/09) JC Having fought two wars on two fronts for more than seven years. After four tours of duty in Iraq and rushed rest periods between.com/cgi-bin/article. our equipment was worn out. They have missed their children's births. Del Campo and the rest of our men and women in uniform deserve and need more time between deployments to adjust from the intense stress of counter-insurgency warfare. airmen and Marines.sfgate. http://www. and to pursue educational opportunities and other goals. Reservists and National Guardsman should have at least three months of rest for each month of deployment. who silently endure emotional fatigue and distress. their parents' funerals and learned of divorces on blogs and Web sites. Our troops need more time between deployments. He says he is irritable and always on a heightened sense of security even though the battlefields of Iraq are thousands of miles away. chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee." a period of time to rest and regroup.S. experiencing higher rates of suicide. sailors. The situation today. As dangerous as the world can be. who is now working at Travis Air Force Base in my congressional district.DTL&type=printable. Active-duty troops should have at least a month of rest for every month they were deployed in a combat zone. our troops are tired and our military's equipment is worn out. who suffer on a personal level." Last year. for our soldiers. to reconnect with their wives and children. a 26-year-old former Air Force military policeman. military might not be able to respond effectively if confronted with a new crisis. Del Campo is seeking treatment at a local Veterans' Administration hospital. Take Douglas Del Campo. and our military leaders said we had a "hollow Army. divorce and post-traumatic stress disorder." . This has hampered the military's ability to respond to another crisis somewhere else in the world to protect America's interests.

Krulak added. Charles C. jettison old ways of thinking.from counterinsurgency missions and nation building to traditional warfare and stability operations. by some 14 percent or $3. inarticulate. for the most part. have accepted this narrative hook. Krulak in 1998 Congressional testimony. This means that the U. however. The media. line and sinker and made it the analytical framework through which virtually all defense budget stories have been written. This is in part because Defense Secretary Robert Gates has done a masterful job of public relations. "Our opponents. the Army's Fiscal Year 2010 budget request is two percent less than what the service had requested in 2009." And. military must retain its ability to fight and win conventional wars precisely so that it can prevent such wars from ever happening. but they have failed to develop a coherent and persuasive narrative that links these systems into a more comprehensive and overarching 21st Century defense strategy. not adding. Doing their homework means listening to U.S. after all. is bold. the so-called military-industrial complex is timid.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 14 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Readiness Low – Technology/Funding Obama cutting military funding for technology now Guardiano 6/24 (John. Modernize the Military Now. moreover. it will be the stepchild of Chechnya." he presciently observed. military requires more money to modernize and more modern defense systems. They have defended particular military systems that give jobs to their constituents.5 billion. Military weakness. military absolutely requires new capabilities and new weapon systems to address new 21st century threats At the same time. however. They will not try to match us tank for tank and plane for plane in an attempt to fight the kind of Industrial Age war to which we are accustomed. to America's military arsenal. Yet. Jettisoning old ways of thinking means acknowledging that the Cold War is over. In reality.S." predicted then Marine Corps Commandant Gen. The media-academic complex. Thus in possession of superior firepower. the U. that they do their homework. That would require. and politically and culturally clueless. is itself a provocation and an invitation to war.S. and politically and culturally savvy. Indeed. He also is absolutely right when he says that military engagements of the future will be defined by hybrid threats (which involve the full spectrum of conflict) and irregular tactics. "Instead. Yet too many advocates of military modernization have allowed themselves to be depicted as narrow-minded defenders of parochial interests. "The threat of the early 21st Century will not be the son of Desert Storm. He has wisely depicted himself as a "reformer" who is squaring off against allegedly greedy. the media-academic complex has won this engagement without firing a shot. And the Army. highly articulate. . AD: 7/8/09) JC Advocates of military modernization have been largely silent even as the Obama administration pushes through the most significant weapon systems cuts since the Carter administration." The U. Army procurement accounts (which include modernization) are being cut even more dramatically. http://spectator. and embrace new military and strategic realities. "will not be doctrinaire or predictable.org/archives/2009/06/24/modernize-the-military-now/1. they will seek to fight us where we are least able to bring our strength to bear. by contrast. is being especially hard hit. military leaders and understanding U. 6/24/09. military requirements in the 21st century. "one thing is certain: this 21st Century threat will be far more difficult to manage.S.S. Secretary Gates is absolutely right when he says that the military must reorient itself to fight and win 21st century conflicts. and that a full-scale conventional conflict involving set-piece battles is extremely unlikely. Cold War-era defense contractors. which is bearing the brunt of the burden in this long war. Marine and member of Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) modernization program. the Obama administration is subtracting. That's a shame because advocates of military modernization have the better argument if only they were able to make it. And embracing new military and strategic realities means recognizing that we are in an era of persistent military engagement which will span the full spectrum of conflict -.

but the real victory was the transformation of the cultures behind the Iron Curtain by their attraction to Western values. but it might end up affecting the economies of other countries even more. 6/30/09. What is soft power? The man who developed the concept. AD: 7/8/09) JC Together with the worldwide outpouring of grief ranging from mass dance tributes in a Philippines prison to an Eiffel Tower moonwalk.S." Since Nye first wrote about the concept in 1990 it has been embraced by the Chinese regime. this country must strengthen other important elements of national power.” or “seeking to be a leader” of the international system. military containment prevented Soviet expansion. soft power – New Presidency and Jackson’s death Hartcher 6/30 (Peter. Liu presents a comprehensive analysis of the post-financial crisis world and cautions China against coming to premature conclusions about a rapid decline in U. Ben Bradshaw. Liu Jianfei sees U. "One of the most important lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that military success is not sufficient to win." Kim said. Rudd rather cheekily gave him a copy of The Charm Offensive: How China's Soft Power Is Transforming The World. the death of Michael Jackson has brought an extraordinary collection of tributes from world political figures. The gratuitous bellicosity and offensive high-handedness of the Bush team sent world regard for the US to its lowest level since at least the Vietnam War. http://www.S. said he did not understand the concept of soft power. In a recent issue of Sousuo yu Zhengming. AD: 7/9/09) JC Echoing this view is Liu Jianfei. professor and associate director of the International Strategy Institute at the Communist Party Central School.html?page=-1. appointed by Bush and now serving under Obama.S.” says Liu. is a wiser man. It includes the power of culture. . explains: "Hard power is the ability to coerce others by using carrots or sticks as either bribes or threats." he said in a 2007 speech to student officers. “China still needs more time to develop and open up to the outside world. a periodical published by the Shanghai Social Science Association. but we need to continue down the road of reform and development and not adopt hegemonic tendencies. influence as indispensable in shaping a new world order and cautions China about taking “too high a profile. of example. as a former director of the CIA and now as Secretary of Defence. wrote in 2005: "Since the Iraq invasion and Abu Ghraib. This is new … America has lost the protection of its soft power … Since World War II this has been the legitimating complement to military might. Senior Fellow in the Freeman Chair for China Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and Research Intern in the Freeman Chair in China Studies at CSIS and is currently pursuing a Masters degree from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. America is nowadays considered guilty until proven innocent. a dimension of US influence severely damaged by eight years of George Bush. Two of the great heroes of the postwar world's struggle for democracy. Venezuela's President." is how Nye put it to the BBC. “The financial crisis will undoubtedly weaken U. recalled admiring his tapdancing skills. So soft power was essentially the transformative force. overall power. "My message today is not about the defence budget or military power. Taro Aso. hard power. economic and soft power terms—will remain limited” [13]. Increased U. which has long pursued ideas of marshalling China's "comprehensive power" to amplify its influence in world affairs. Joshua Kurlantzick. This remarkable moment of worldwide political and popular unity is a reminder of the immensity of American soft power. Nelson Mandela of South Africa and Kim Dae-jung of South Korea. But soft power is the ability to get what we want by attracting others. But while the Chinese launched a campaign offering trade deals and goodwill to its neighbours to build their soft power.au/opinion/soft-power-jackson-and-a-new-anthem-for-american-politics-20090629-d2ek. "If I can get what I want because you want it too. of desirability. said he had played Jackson's Billie Jean as the first dance at his civil union.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 15 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Soft Power Up U. although criticising an excess of media coverage. by an American journalist. The Japanese Prime Minister.com. Nye.brisbanetimes. 7/9/09. China also needs the cooperation and trade of the United States and other Western countries in order to succeed” [14]. issued statements of condolences." The advent of Barack Obama restored tremendous amounts of US soft power because of the global goodwill that greeted his elevation. based on my experience serving seven presidents. When he met Bush in September 2007." Kevin Rudd pointedly noted the contrast between China's shrewd pursuit of global credibility and America's reckless squandering of it. Joe Nye of Harvard University. by getting them to want the things we want. of values. who worked as a defence official in the Clinton administration. My message is that if we are to meet the myriad challenges around the world in the coming decades. the US inflicted terrible damage to its soft power. Robert Gates. Hugo Chavez. Reaction to Jackson's death illustrates anew the reservoir of soft power the US commands. and Britain's Culture Secretary. editor of an international affairs journal. “Many are calling for China to be the new leader in the new world order. “The overall negative influence affecting the power of American hegemony—in military. nonetheless called the death "lamentable news". Bush's defence secretary. Donald Rumsfeld. New Perspectives Quarterly. In short. The result was obvious. Most surprising was that the implacable enemy of all things American. but it is not limp. Herald’s International Editor. "We lost a hero to the world. influence is indispensible Glaser and Morris 7/9 (Bonnie and Lyle. Soft power: Jackson and a new anthem for American politics. It may be soft power. Rumsfeld's successor. I am here to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use soft power and for better integrating it with hard power. again: "During the Cold War. it saves me a lot of carrots and sticks.S. The marketers of designer brands understand the value of the concept because it is the basis of their incomes.S.” he says. Nathan Gardels.

unco-operative or even supposedly friendly – has been no more productive. say the critics. The Iranian government has hardened its stance on nuclear materials. persisted with its support for Iraqi insurgents. And see what happened. This would make all the difference. senior editor of The Atlantic Monthly. The new president’s conservative and neoconservative critics rolled their eyes. soft power ineffective Crook 7/6 (Clive. Mr Obama’s speech in Cairo on US-Islamic relations was welcomed in much of the Muslim world and had most US liberals swooning in admiration. Mr Obama’s friendly outreach to other states – be they hostile. US opinion on Barack Obama’s foreign policy divided on predictably partisan lines. and stamped on its own people when they challenged a rigged election.au/bs. http://www. . North Korea just as deranged. What a surprise: the world is not smiling back. and his unwarranted apologies for supposed US sins. They attacked Mr Obama’s naive overtures to dictators. which Mr Obama visits this week. seeking not to humiliate but to reach an accommodation. they believed. AD: 7/8/09) JC Before the Iranian election. 7/6/09. China is about as implacable.businessspectator. So much for soft power. The strength behind Obama's smile. Those critics see Iran as one more proof they were right. a columnist for National Journal and a commentator for the Financial Times. Russia. bullies and bribes its near-abroad with as little finesse as usual.S. Europe just as feckless.com. Now the picture is more complicated.nsf/Article/Thestrength-behind-Obamas-smile-pd20090706-TP2JE?OpenDocument&src=sph. Mr Obama’s supporters admired his desire to restore US standing in the world and his willingness to talk “without preconditions” to governments his predecessor despised.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 16 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Soft Power Low U. The administration spoke respectfully to Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad.

it turns out. . Obama." The Post reported Saturday. traditional wars did not seek specific congressional input on detention.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/28/AR2009062802288. seems poised for a nearly wholesale adoption of the Bush administration's unilateral approach to detention. Will Obama Follow Bush Or FDR?. and "Congress may try to assert too much control over the process. The legal arguments for unilateralism are strong in theory. Securing such input for our current war." Obama is considering creating a longterm detention apparatus by presidential executive order based on essentially the same legal authorities the Bush administration used. The unilateral approach. President Obama faces much the same choice. past presidents in shorter. senior fellow at the Broookings Institution and teaches at Harvard Law School and served as an assistant attorney general in the Bush administration.washingtonpost. and he appears sorely tempted to follow the same road.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 17 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Unilateralism Up Obama acting unilaterally now Wittes and Goldsmith 6/29 (Benjamin and Jack. by contrast. for the same reasons: "White House officials are increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may be impossible. lets the president define the rules in ways that are convenient for him and then dares the courts to say no. http://www. is still hard. 6/29/09. The attraction is simple. to put it bluntly. AD: 7/8/09) JC Today.html? hpid=opinionsbox1. seductive and familiar.

Obama immediately takes the side of the ousted demagogue. Which of those stable nations do we support and which do we not? Tricky stuff. Freedom and democratic values were too important to be left to the slow march of history. We would topple all the tyrants and chase down any sympathizers to tyrants. given that people with the ability to choose might frequently choose to be enemies of the United States? And sometimes nations that aren't free are stable. We'd impose them with our military might! The result was the quagmire in Iraq. which can be in the best interests of our own security.news-sentinel. But President Obama seems to want to lurch too far in the other direction. let's cherish our own. American unilateralism seemed to be the order of the day.” but the simpler truth might be that he just wants to take the easy way of negotiating with whoever is in power.dll/article?AID=/20090704/EDITORIAL/907040341. no matter what country we had to invade and whether the rest of the world liked it or not. He makes overtures to the thugs in Iran. and now we have a weenie. The News-Sentinel editorial page editor. He snubs Cuban dissidents and hints that talks might be possible with the Castro brothers. So we had a cowboy leading our national defense. But when a would-be dictator is ejected from Honduras. Isn't there some kind of rational way of protecting America's interests somewhere between those two extremes? How much do we want to support democracy everywhere. then stays too quiet too long when people take to the streets in protest of a rigged election and then get squashed. While we mull others' freedom.com/apps/pbcs. . AD: 7/8/09) JC Under George Bush. Critics say our president is “siding with the tyrants.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 18 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Unilateralism Low Obama taking actions opposite from Bush’s unilateralism Morris 7/4 (Leo. with all those lives lost and all that money spent and a thoroughly disillusioned American public. 7/4/09. http://www.

http://news.com/english/2009-06/25/content_11596392. Suan Rice. the Group of Eight industrialized countries. all have their own strengths and mandate. .htm. and it gives us all a chance to exchange views on how to respond." she said. "We also believe that we should use every instrument at our disposal to tackle different dimensions of the crisis. such as the UN General Assembly.small and large countries alike -can be heard." she said.S. the Development Committee of the World Bank. permanent representative to the United Nations.The United States on Wednesday voiced its support to the multilateral efforts to promote sustainable development worldwide and recognized the unique role of the United Nations to have voices of countries heard. are struggling to manage and respond effectively to the crisis. the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. the Group of 20 largest economies in the world. The UN is a unique forum where all voices -. Rice said." she said. "The subject that we are here to address is of deep matter to us all. the Annual Ministerial Review of the Economic Community of West African States. the U. she said. to exchange. unlike the Bush administration's adherence to unilateralism. and we are working in many venues to address its causes and its consequences. social. and sustainable development policies across the globe." Rice made the statement which once again shows that the Obama administration embraces multilateralism. "We recognize that many countries around the world. to listen.S. June 24 (Xinhua) -. Several global and regional for a now further this goal. 6/25/09. and all enjoy representation from both developing and developed countries.xinhuanet. "We understand that this conference is particularly important for addressing the needs of the world's most vulnerable populations. AD: 7/8/09) JC UNITED NATIONS. told a high-level UN conference on world financial crisis that "the United States is here to participate in this important conversation." "Our dialogue here should focus on finding practical ways to mitigate the development consequences of the current crisis and to see the UN perform its crucial development roles with new urgency. envoy says." she said. and the International Monetary Fund. especially the poorest and the most vulnerable. On the UN role." she said." she said. attracting criticism from the world. "The UN's universal membership and its well-institutionalized intergovernmental process gives it a unique advantage in responding to many dimensions of the crisis.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 19 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Multilateralism Up Obama administration embracing multilateralism now Xinhua 6/25 (Chinese news agency. the UN Commission on the Status of Women. to work with you in a spirit of cooperation." "The United States supports multilateral efforts to increase the coherence of economic. backs multilateral efforts to tackle global financial crisis. U." "It offers a truly global platform to discuss how the financial crisis has affected all countries.

Saudi Arabia.nationalinterest. Drawing back from the world or continuing to act (and expend blood and treasure) while others sit on the sidelines are not attractive options for the administration. If. The American penchant for “unilateralism” and desire to pursue action unhindered by the need to build consensus with other states. One of Gates’ party was quoted in the New York Times as saying. As President Obama said. 6/12/09. There is a familiar litany of excuses as to why this consensus has dissipated. And foreign governments are not inclined to take much more decisive measures to ensure the deproliferation of either regime. in both economic and security terms.” The GSA.” The philosophical basis of the GSA was the belief that a threat to one state posed a threat to the entire system. Iran and India an offer they can’t refuse: Either join us or we leave. The End of Multilateralism. say.S. And what happens if the United States were to decide that it is time to end the free-riding of the rest of the world on American efforts in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Such a proposal was advanced by Stanley Weiss. it is a regional problem that demands regional solutions. But until the world experiences another 9/11-style shock to the system. of an Iranian or North Korean nuclear weapon detonating on their territories. No other country. Most see whatever capabilities Pyongyang and Tehran are acquiring as meant to deter Washington—not to threaten the rest of the world. a senior editor at The National Interest. North Korea. Etzioni saw in this emergent GSA a way for the United States to receive “considerable assistance in its drive to deproliferate Iran and North Korea. for instance. therefore. in the past. there was little agreement about the next steps that should be taken. or the threat is containable.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 20 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Multilateralism Down The U. . The fact that Gates left Asia to tour U. We are seeing other countries of the world preparing to live with the realities of a nuclear-armed North Korea and an Iran with a significant nuclear infrastructure at its disposal. is a professor of national-security studies at the U. beginning with the Iraq War.S. http://www. The blame that many in the rest of the world ascribe to the United States for the current global economic crisis—that “U. In the months after 9/11. And the United States is in no position to unilaterally assume upon itself the functions of the GSA. however. the GSA would work to eliminate threats to the stability of the international system as a whole.aspx?id=21600. The lesson of 9/11 was that a successful strike against one state would have negative ramifications for every state. But there is another shift that has taken place. is running up against a growing attitude in many parts of the world that the concerns the United States are identifying as threats to global peace and security are really just problems for America alone. climate change. Naval War College. And it is to see many of the world’s major threats as problems for the United States alone. economic irresponsibility” has inflicted hardship on other countries by dragging down the world’s economy. believe that the six-party talks on North Korea have failed. is dead. at least as envisioned by Etzioni in the months after the 9/11 attacks. Amitai Etzioni saw the emerging foundations of what he termed a “Global Safety Authority” (GSA) as states worked together to pool intelligence on terrorists and collaborated more closely in efforts such as the Proliferation Security Initiative to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction. in the New York Times: It is now clear that the United States alone cannot stabilize the situation in Pakistan or Afghanistan. No speech is going to change that reality. Few capitals are losing sleep over the prospect. Most countries.S.org/Article.S. It is time for America to make China.” This commitment. trade or a whole host of other issues. missile defense sites—and proclaimed both that he had “good confidence” the system in Alaska could deal with a “launch from a rogue state such as North Korea” and that “the way is opened in the future to add to the number of silos and interceptors up here”—signals that Washington could easily pull back to a more defensive position to protect American interests. nations had focused only on specific threats to their own national security. of Business Executives for National Security.” because there was a growing awareness that these states “pose a danger to others. when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates met with his counterparts at the Shangri-La Dialogue this past week. AD: 7/8/09) JC The Obama administration entered office pledging a renewed commitment to multilateralism— approaching global issues as “joint problems requiring joint solutions. The feeling seems to be that either there is no threat to the global system. “There’s no prescription yet on what to do. seems prepared to do the “heavy lifting” needed to exert significant pressure on either Tehran or Pyongyang. there is going to be no decisive multilateral action taken—on Iran. A shared community of interests would bind the key powers of the world together. is taking unilateral actions now Gvosdev 6/12 (Nikolas. And yet.

the ability of the United States to weather such crises of legitimacy in the past hardly guarantees that it can lead the system in the future. In the end. the legitimacy of a system's leader hinges on whether the system's members see the leader as acceptable or at least preferable to realistic alternatives. The United States continues to have a far larger share of the human and material resources for shaping global perceptions than any other state. and the allure of lucrative longterm cooperation. the bargaining hands of the leading states were often strengthened by the general perception that they could pursue their interests in even less palatable ways-notably. these states accomplished such feats partly through the unsubtle use of power: bribes. and the United Kingdom-were able to revise the international institutions of their day without the special circumstances Ikenberry and Kagan cite. legitimacy might merely be the result of the Bush administration's approach to diplomacy and international institutions. and the United Kingdom fostered rules on piracy. in 1833.S. Reshaping the World Order. and colonialism to suit its interests as a developing maritime empire in the nineteenth century. And largely because of the power position the United States still occupies. But there are reasons for optimism. history provides abundant evidence that past leading states-such as Spain. as well as the unrivaled wherewithal to produce public goods that reinforce the benefits of its global role.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 21 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Credibility Up Conditions ripe for U. Key underlying conditions remain particularly favorable for sustaining and even enhancing U. Moreover.S. there is no prospect of a counterbalancing coalition emerging anytime soon to challenge it. http://www. Given its naval primacy and global trading interests. Wohlforth as Daniel Webster professor of government and chair of the Department of Government. through the naked use of force. too. Less obvious but often more important. the United Kingdom was able to propel the slave trade to the forefront of the world's agenda for several decades after it had itself abolished slavery at home.devex. indirectly affecting the development of new rules by defining the problems they were developed to address. AD: 7/9/09) JC Of course. 4/24/09. France instituted modern concepts of state borders to meet its needs as Europe's preeminent land power in the eighteenth century. . France. No other state has any claim to leadership commensurate with Washington's.Brooks as associate professor of government. leading states have had the power to set the international agenda. Invariably. Spain fashioned both normative and positive laws to legitimize its conquest of indigenous Americans in the early seventeenth century. As Wilhelm Grewe documents in his magisterial The Epochs of International Law. Some of the apparent damage to U. Legitimacy is not necessarily about normative approval: one may dislike the United States but think its leadership is natural under the circumstances or the best that can be expected.com/articles/reshaping-the-world-order. The bottom line is that the United States today has the necessary legitimacy to shepherd reform of the international system. coercion. Dartmouth College . neutral shipping. legitimacy in the years ahead. credibility now Brooks and Wohlforth 4/24 (Stephen and William.S.

as well as a political system extolled for its superiority to all other systems. The end of empire. While the dangers we face were once diverse and scattered. But from China's rapidly rising status as a global player. America is facing a wide array of increasingly troubling threats.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jan/19/barack-obama-rome-empire. America has been the leader of the free world for the last 60 years.co. while struggling internally to recover from an economic collapse not seen since the Great Depression. to rising tensions in South Asia and the Middle East. in collapsing the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein. America has spread itself too thin and is unable to respond to new threats as they emerge with either a convincing show of military force or a skilled use of soft power to leverage its credibility in the world. 1/19/09. America has paved the way for an even less palatable Iranian dominance in the region. to Russia's show of force in Georgia. . http://www.guardian. AD: 7/10/09) By virtue of its economic and military power. Moreover. American supremacy in a post-cold war environment seems outmatched by a progressively more unstable world. Like Rome.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 22 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Credibility Down Failed use of soft power has destroyed US credibility Guess 1/19 (Steven. the Iraq war pushed many of our enemies to see us as a common threat where religious differences would have otherwise made cooperation impossible. Writer for the Guardian.

S. which posited that the US would eventually decline by overreaching. soft power. The ballooning current account deficit is now more than 6 per cent of gross domestic product. President George W. as well as in human terms. AD: 7/9/09) JC Scholars such as Wu Xinbo. Prof Kennedy's theory turned out to apply most immediately to the Soviet Union. and diminished ability to get countries ‘on board’ with U.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 23 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Iraq Hurts Heg Iraq has destroyed U. economically and diplomatically. Years ago. Iraq has also contributed to the dilution of American primacy. soft power and legitimacy after the U.S.com/cms/s/0/683c4bb6-0b4c-11dd8ccf-0000779fd2ac.for all its corrective mechanisms and dynamism .S. but the US . legitimacy and soft power Glaser and Morris 7/9 (Bonnie and Lyle. invasion of Iraq. Bush has fought costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This places downward pressure on the dollar. Failed War in Iraq has drastically decreased U.has not proved to be immune. 7/9/09. professor and associate dean of the School of International Relations and Public Affairs at Fudan University. Poor regulation of the US mortgage market and the credit crisis it spawned have exacerbated these problems. heg Haass 8 (President of Council of Foreign Relations) online: http://www. The US fiscal position declined from a surplus of more than $100bn in 2001 to an estimated deficit of about $250bn in 2007. the United States “lost its ‘lofty sentiments’ after it invaded Iraq and is feeling more ‘frustrated and lonely’ which will lead it to seek more cooperation with other big powers” [8]. The conflict has proved to be an expensive war of choice . Senior Fellow in the Freeman Chair for China Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and Research Intern in the Freeman Chair in China Studies at CSIS and is currently pursuing a Masters degree from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. stimulates inflation and contributes to the accumulation of wealth and power elsewhere in the world. .S. According to Wu. just as other great powers had.ft.S. a decrease in its ability to influence its allies.html?nclick_check=1 US economic policy has played a role as well.militarily. allowed discretionary spending to increase by 8 per cent a year and cut taxes. Zhang points to a diminution in U. senior fellow and deputy director of Political Studies Section at the Institute of American Studies in the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). Similarly. foreign policy initiatives after the invasion of Iraq—all signs that augur a decline in America’s legitimacy abroad [9]. the historian Paul Kennedy outlined his thesis about "imperial overstretch". and Zhang Liping. highlight a major shift in U.S.

American foreign policy attention was directed at the Middle East. not that there might be demonstrations in Tibet. you might say. in a world supposedly awash in anti-US sentiment. 4/26/09. Japan and South Korea have in his view been strengthened by the Iraq campaign. He writes: "The Iraq war has had one important.S. Beijing was far more worried by the earlier US-led NATO intervention into Kosovo because it was based purely on notions of human rights in Kosovo. that are more popular and receive greater adherence in Asia than before. the Iraq campaign was not a serious negative for the US. whom she replaced. through to the Asian middle class. Each of these nations sent substantial numbers of troops to help the US in Iraq. http://www.25197. Something a little weird in the coffee? It goes against every aspect of conventional wisdom. Japan and many others.au/story/0. Beijing was shocked. Even in majority Islamic societies. is vastly more pro-American than his predecessor. Surely the author of this sentence is on the ganja. Iraq. Even with China. to all manner of non-government organisations.with Australia. Heg – Troop deployments Sheridan 4/26 (Greg.html.23599516-25377. His thesis. from Hollywood through to liberal politicians such as Hillary Clinton calling for a boycott of the Olympic opening ceremony. it is American values. The overall picture is infinitely more complex than the anti-Bush narrative of the Iraq war would suggest. Such notions could theoretically be used to justify action (not necessarily military action) against China over Taiwan and Tibet. to European leaders that China thought it had in its pockets. proAmerican leaders keep winning elections. Esteem for US rises in Asia. Yet Green's positive thesis is fascinating. their populations allegedly radicalised and polarised by Bush's campaign in Iraq and the global war on terror more generally. election results don't show any evidence of these trends. through even to the Mandarin-speaking Rudd.00. Lee Myung-bak. AD: 7/9/09) JC THE US war in Iraq has strengthened its strategic position. a justification with which the Chinese were much more comfortable. Yet these have shown the brittleness of China's much-touted soft power. He is also one of America's foremost experts on Japan and northeast Asia generally. and also because they wanted to use the Iraq campaign as an opportunity to strengthen their alliances with the US. Mike Green holds the Japan chair at Washington's Centre for Strategic and International Studies and was for several years the Asia director at the National Security Council. who criticised the Chinese to their faces in Beijing. More importantly in terms of Green's analysis. on the other hand. and before the Olympic torch relay. Green states and acknowledges the negatives. pernicious impact on US interests in Asia: it has consumed US attention.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 24 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – A2: Iraq Hurts Heg Iraq has strengthened U. More generally. especially in terms of key alliances. and the only way this could be reversed would be if it lost the will to continue the struggle and abandoned Iraq in defeat and disarray. stated only marginally less boldly.com. India. Green was writing before the controversies surrounding Beijing's actions in Tibet broke out. the Chinese cooperated closely with the Americans in the war on terror. elected in a landslide in December. applied strictly to the US position in Asia. there is the question of soft power. Similarly. especially in tackling what they alleged was extremism among some of the Muslim Uighurs in the vast Xinjiang province. Further. They did this because they believed in what the US was doing in Iraq. More generally. with his traces of anti-Americanism.news. is correct. at a time when China developed a massive trade surplus with the US. . Foreign Editor of the Australian. In the most recent local elections in Indonesia." This has prevented the US from following up in sufficient detail on some positive developments in Asia. The US's three most important Asian alliances . The same is true of France's Nicolas Sarkozy. who was heavily defeated. and far less congressional and public hostility was directed at China than might otherwise have been expected. Germany's Angela Merkel is certainly more pro-American than Gerhard Schroeder. Green argues that the preoccupation with Iraq may have made it easier for the Bush administration to responsibly and effectively manage US public opinion on China. Roh Moo-hyun. is one of the US's most brilliant strategic analysts. was justified on the basis of weapons of mass destruction.theaustralian. Green also acknowledges that the US's reputation has taken a battering among Muslim populations in Asia. and in national elections in Pakistan. First. unlike Mark Latham. but rather at just how unpopular they were in international civil society. in the politics and civil societies of Asian nations such as Indonesia. the Islamist parties with antiAmerican rhetoric fared very poorly. Then again. But the author of this thesis. or more accurately the universal values of democracy to which the US adheres. the same is also true of South Korea's new President. Similarly Kevin Rudd was elected as a very pro-American Labor leader.

One of the reasons it's a concern is because it's simply isn't enough to change the military position. When the Iraq War started. staff reporter. One of the concerns. US Policies Empower Taliban: Experts. militarily or civilly. AD: 7/8/09) JC Elizabeth Gould: What we've been observing over and over again is that the United States (and its goals and objectives) keeps coming up against a reality check that doesn't add up. which is still through a military lens and has already been designated as a failure. http://www.000 troops would been needed to stabilize the country. That's one of the experiences we had in 2002. So it was inadequate from the very beginning. What's going on in Helmond is the Obama Administration is trying to establish some credibility for the first time. Something like 400.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 25 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Afghanistan Hurts Heg Afghanistan killing US heg now Avard 7/7 (Christian. the actual ability to change the way in which we approach the region.000 and 450. that even though General Stanley McChrystal is making statements that Afghan civilians are his top priority. The United States doesn't have any credibility. there are other issues which have been contentious and very difficult for the United States to really incorporate in a meaningful way. . it would have required between 400.000 soldiers [to stabilize the country].opednews.com/articles/US-Policies-Empower-Taliba-by-Christian-Avard-090706-465. That was the combined force of the United States and NATO and like Elizabeth said. in terms of backing up the civilian government. Fitzgerald: The original force structure was 1.html. it built and built. What we're dealing with is the follow-up. 7/7/09.6 soldiers per thousand residents. there was absolutely no question [in everyone's mind] that the Taliban was going to return to Kabul. That was a given and in the ensuing years.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009
Lab

26 Trade-Off DA

Uniqueness – A2: Afghanistan Hurts Heg
Despite conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. is the sole superpower Brooks and Wohlforth 4/24 (Stephen and William, Dartmouth College - Brooks as associate professor of
government, Wohlforth as Daniel Webster professor of government and chair of the Department of Government, Reshaping the world order: how Washington should reform international institutions., http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-10406952/Reshaping-the-world-order-how.html, 3/1/09, AD: 7/9/09) JC So why has opinion shifted so quickly from visions of empire to gloomy declinism? One reason is that the United States' successes at the turn of the century led to irrational exuberance, thereby setting unreasonably high standards for measuring the superpower's performance. From 1999 to 2003, seemingly easy U.S. victories in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq led some to conclude that the United States could do what no great power in history had managed before: effortlessly defeat its adversaries. It was only a matter of time before such pie-in-the-sky benchmarks proved unattainable. Subsequent difficulties in Afghanistan and Iraq dashed illusions of omnipotence, but these upsets hardly displaced the United States as the world's leading state, and there is no reason to believe that the militaries of its putative rivals would have performed any better. The United States did not cease to be a superpower when its polities in Cuba and Vietnam failed in the 1960s; bipolarity lived on for three decades. Likewise, the United States remains the sole superpower today.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009
Lab

27 Trade-Off DA

Uniqueness – Obama Hurts Heg
Obama’s policies destroy US Heg Defense & Foreign Affairs' Strategic Policy 9 (Journal of the International Strategic Studies Association,
Defense and Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy, p. 2, March 2009, AD: 7/9/09) JC The United States Administration of Pres. Barack Obama, however, appears to have taken a doctrinaire approach to the US' strategic position which -- even apart from the questionable approach to economic recovery -- invites disaster to itself and to the traditional allies of the US and to the West in general. It is an approach which fails to learn anything from history. To begin, the Obama White House appears to believe that its mere appearance as the antithesis of the former Government of Pres. George W. Bush is sufficient to transform the fortunes of, and attitude to, the United States. It is true that many former friends and adversaries of the United States have welcomed the appearance of the Obama Administration, but for many -- such as the governments of Iran, Russia, and the like, and groups such as HAMAS and HizbAllah -- what has been welcomed has been the perception that the US can no longer be a cause of concern for their own security. It is true that the Obama election platform was, in part, to remove the perception globally that the US represented a threat to other states. However, the result in Moscow and Tehran has not been to see the new face of the United States in a more positive light, but to see the US now as a toothless tiger, a power which is now, by its own hand, contemptible.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009
Lab

28 Trade-Off DA

Uniqueness – A2: Obama Hurts Heg
Obama popularity boosting US credibility globally The Times 6/20 (UK News Service, The Soft Power Moment,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6539341.ece, 6/20/09, AD: 7/10/09) JC “How they approach and deal with people . . . will send a pretty clear signal to the international community about what Iran is and is not.” This was a sensible formulation. It makes clear where America’s sympathies lie. And it undercuts the expected claim by Iranian hardliners that the US is meddling. Mr Obama enjoys huge popularity around the world, especially in Iran. He is ideally placed to rekindle faith in the US as a champion of democratic values and uphold the cause of liberty. But there is a difficulty, which he recognises, in throwing his weight behind any of the contenders in Iran. Any such statement would be seized on by the clerical establishment as proof that the US was threatening intervention and that Iran must redouble it vigilance against the “Great Satan”. Any overt US support for Mr Mousavi — himself no pro-Western liberal — would be the kiss of death. As Mr Obama said, “the United States can be a handy football”. The US President is a skilful orator who understands soft power. He has already shown, in his speech in Cairo, how he is able to inspire those yearning for a more democratic and open system without yoking their cause to American policies. Now it is time to do the same over Iran. It is time to speak out on the broader theme of liberty, human rights and respect for democratic process. The US does not need to pick a winner in Iran. But it does need to hold up a light for freedom. The world expects it. And so do millions of Iranians. Nothing sustained Anatoly Shcharansky and other jailed Soviet dissidents as much as President Reagan’s vocal support. Mr Obama needs to offer that support to a jailed nation.

the United States is a pivotal power. from anywhere that can advertise online. January.albeit one that has become more hierarchical with the growth of income inequality -. Consumers can buy locally. with the right policies.” p." in which the rise of new global powers inevitably means the relative decline of U. The networked world provides a hopeful horizon. The results of these collisions were determined by military and economic power. On January 20. influence. Soon. In this world. the editor of Newsweek International. To this end. just as they are already reducing the amount of pollutants that head its way.February 2009. The leading countries in the Atlantic hemisphere are more peaceful. This is what Fareed Zakaria. at least in terms of geopolitics. . Iran seeks nuclear weapons. and Europe. able to set the global agenda and unlock innovation and sustainable growth. able to link their new home with markets and suppliers in their old homes. THE HORIZON OF HOPE The United States' advantage is rooted in demography. At the same time.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 29 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Heg Sustainable US heg sustainable – multiple reasons Slaughter 9 (Anne-Marie.S. In this world.as well as a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation. immigrants can be a source of jobs rather than a drain on resources. the psychologist Carol Gilligan wrote about differences between the genders in their modes of thinking. however. of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. however. the United States strengthens its ties with India as a hedge against a rising China. able to profit simultaneously from its position in the Atlantic hemisphere and from its deep ties to the Asian hemisphere. from revived local agricultural and customized small-business economies. below the state. regardless. stable. Here. Having fewer people will make it much easier for the United States to develop and profit from new energy technologies. Businesses in the United States can orchestrate global networks of producers and suppliers. Barack Obama will set about restoring the moral authority of the United States.S. a broadly defined area that includes Africa. products. Foreign Affairs. The United States has a relatively horizontal social structure -. the heterogeneity of the U. the United States should see its immigrants as living links back to their home countries and encourage a two-way flow of people. She observed that men tend to see the world as made up of hierarchies of power and seek to get to the top. and culture. At the same time. described by the political scientist Arnold Wolfers as a system of self-contained states colliding with one another. the United States has a clear and sustainable edge. the Americas. The emerging networked world of the twenty-first century. only 20-30 percent of the size of China's or India's. the two lenses she identified capture the differences between the twentieth-century and the twenty-first-century worlds. These traits are great advantages in a global economy increasingly driven by networked clusters of the world's most creative people. and ideas. “America's Edge Subtitle: Power in the Networked Century. has dubbed "the post-American world. whereas women tend to see the world as containing webs of relationships and seek to move to the center. a billiard-ball world. Princeton. 94) Almost 30 years ago. exists above the state. population will allow Washington to extend its global reach. and at the same time globally. This world still exists today: Russia invades Georgia. Gilligan's observations may be a function of nurture rather than nature. they will shield it from conflicts brought about by climate change. The United States is the anchor of the Atlantic hemisphere. 2009. geography. The United States has a relatively small population. and through the state. and economically diversified than those in the Asian hemisphere. The twentieth-century world was. the state with the most connections will be the central player. The United States has the potential to be the most innovative and dynamic society anywhere in the world. The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans have long protected the United States from invasion and political interference.

The U. information. economy more vulnerable to inflation as well as currency crises. and U.S. But the reality of American strength should not mask the relative decline of the United States' position in the world -.S. and a move to denominate oil in euros or a basket of currencies is possible.foreignaffairs. troops. GDP growth is hardly the only indication of a move away from U. Haas 8 (Richard. Russia. They are growing at a projected rate of $1 trillion a year and are an increasingly important source of liquidity for U. is the world's largest.. exchanges and even launching initial public offerings (IPOs). firms.-produced news and commentary. http://www.S. Kuwait. Power and influence are less and less linked in an era of nonpolarity. Pakistan.S. and naval forces that are the world's most capable.html) In this world. mostly the result of oil and gas exports. is competing with New York as the world's financial center and has already surpassed it in terms of the number of IPOs it hosts.S. Bollywood produces more films every year than Hollywood. Both Beijing and Moscow have diluted international efforts to pressure the government in Sudan to end its war in Darfur. Alternative stock exchanges are springing up and drawing away companies from the U.S. These government-controlled pools of wealth. in particular. and innovation. a step that would only leave the U. entreaties. now total some $3 trillion.S. such as military effectiveness and diplomacy. the United States is and will long remain the largest single aggregation of power.is another. The trend also extends to the worlds of culture and information. The dollar has weakened against the euro and the British pound. Venezuela.S.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 30 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Heg Unsustainable Hegemony is not sustainable – current trends show decline in all facets of US power. GDP accounts for over 25 percent of the world's total.S. calls for others to reform will tend to fall on deaf ears. large numbers of lightly armed soldiers can prove to be more than a match for smaller numbers of highly trained and better-armed U. The rise of sovereign wealth funds -. and Zimbabwe. U. has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to resist U. a large number of which are growing at more than two or three times the rate of the United States. A majority of the world's foreign exchange holdings are now in currencies other than the dollar. Many of the most costly pieces of modern weaponry are not particularly useful in modern conflicts in which traditional battlefields are replaced by urban combat zones. North Korea. and it is likely to decline in value relative to Asian currencies as well. meaning that the size and significance of these funds will continue to grow. air. share of global imports is already down to 15 percent. The United States is also a major source of culture (through films and television). Measures of military spending are not the same as measures of military capacity. U. .S.and more than $700 billion if the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are included -.S. economic dominance.and weakened by the reluctance of China and Russia to sanction Iran. After all.-led sanctions will accomplish less. China proved to be the country best able to influence North Korea's nuclear program. assistance programs will buy less. as have Iran. Washington's ability to pressure Tehran has been strengthened by the participation of several western European countries -.-produced and disseminated television are multiplying. The proliferation of information is as much a cause of nonpolarity as is the proliferation of weaponry. High energy prices.in countries such as China. fueled mostly by the surge in Chinese and Indian demand. September 11 showed how a small investment by terrorists could cause extraordinary levels of human and physical damage. U.S. Although U. and the United Arab Emirates -. Web sites and blogs from other countries provide further competition for U. Alternatives to U. Its economy. CFR pres. In such environments. London. this percentage is sure to decline over time given the actual and projected differential between the United States' growth rate and those of the Asian giants and many other countries. with a GDP of some $14 trillion.S.S. It spends more than $500 billion annually on its military -. meanwhile. are here to stay for some time.org/20080501faessay87304/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity. Saudi Arabia.and boasts land.and with this relative decline in power an absolute decline in influence and independence. primacy is also being challenged in other realms. May/June.

http://www. because Obama wants to pursue a world free of nuclear weapons at the same time the enemies of the US and the EU are trying to develop them. AD: 7/8/09) JC With all the nuclear attention these days focused on the burgeoning programmes in Iran and North Korea.neurope.php.eu/articles/95322. analysts said. Old Cold War enemies still have a nuclear stake too. will pit the old foes against one another again. It will also prove a dilemma. which the United States and European Union fear will become rogue threats armed with nuclear bombs. where ramping down nuclear arms is a key part of the agenda.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 31 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Rogue Threats Up Rogue threats up now New Europe 7/5 (European weekly news. the visit of US President Barack Obama to Moscow. 7/5/09. What to do? . this time at the negotiating table.

http://www.com/article/600/42/378820. On April 5. Lynn said the United States was committed to an effective defense against "rogue" threats. has an effective defense against rogue threats Reuters 6/17 (U. there are Russian radars near Iran that would provide helpful early warning detection in the case of an Iranian ballistic missile launch. he said." Missile defense cooperation with Russia has been a consistent goal since the 1990s." Lynn testified. including North Korea and.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 32 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Rogue Threats Down The U. "For example.S. . Says Missile Defense Not Finalized.in southern Russian and Azerbaijan -.S. Iran. Obama said the United States planned to go forward with a missile defense system that is "cost-effective and proven" as long as a threat from Iran persists. AD: 7/8/09) JC "The United States will work to identify new areas where our two countries could advance our missile defense cooperation. 6/17/09.htm. where he hopes to build on calls from both capitals to reset relations.themoscowtimes." He said the possible use of the radars -.would be discussed when Obama visits Moscow from July 6 to 8. "if it continues down its current path.

April 2009.” said Feaver. ‘I want your military advice. as well as varying perspectives from the executive branch. Don’t substitute military judgment for strategic judgment. James Jones. Panel discusses civil-military relations at Fort Leavenworth. http://csis. Writer for Washington Independent. development and conflict prevention play. D. and emphasize areas of agreement. Obama administration focusing on increasing civil military relations now Barton and Unger 9 (Frederick and Noam . the Obama Administration is launching related policy reviews. As such. and expanding civilian capacity. http://washingtonindependent. Her new additional deputy at the State Department has been charged with boosting the resourcing and effectiveness of U. one of the leading scholars of civil-military relations.” in advancing US national security. Bush's administration. on February 11. fostering development. foreign assistance. Eric Shinseki. along with defense and diplomacy. “Obama was right to signal to the military. a professor of political science at Duke University and a national-security staffer for both Clinton and George W. where military advice is one of my concerns. and development. http://www. both holdovers from former President George W. government’s international affairs agencies and broader efforts to reform U. AD: 7/10/09) JC "The Obama administration has taken dramatic steps to avoid a fight with the military. Productive Obama-Military Relationship Possible. and Director of National Intelligence retired Navy Adm. Consult." Kohn said. upon taking office. AD: 7/10/09) JC This is a critical moment for the United States’ approach to global engagement. AD: 7/10/09) JC To Peter Feaver. and I will factor it into my strategic decisions. don’t steamroll — and don’t capitulate. He highlighted the retention of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and nomination of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm.. that comment was auspicious.Conflict Reconstruction Project with the generous support of the Connect US Fund.pdf. Secretary of Veterans Affairs retired Gen. Center for Strategic and International Studies and Brookings Institute. The day-long workshop also sought to explore pathways for rebalancing civilian-military roles and to ensure necessary increases in civilian capacity. “Obama had it pitch-perfect. 2009.S.C. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has repeatedly noted “the decisive role” reconstruction.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090421_brookingscsiscivmil. and he has called for greater resources for civilian agencies. N. Obama pitch-perfect on civil-military relations now Ackerman 8 (Spencer. Similarly. foreign assistance.com/18335/productive-obama-military-relationship-possible. Dennis Blair. There’s only one commander in chief.C. Fort Leavenworth Lamp. Workshop participants offered a range of expertise in defense. Civil-military relations. 3/27/09. 11/13/08. Concerns have been rising over an apparent imbalance in American statecraft. Capitol Hill. diplomacy. Kohn said President Barack Obama purposely sought out other former senior military leaders for his administration. Be honest about disagreements. more than 40 policy experts and practitioners convened at Brookings to discuss efforts to build civilian stabilization capacity within the U. the uniformed military will have to keep certain principles in mind as well.S. Bush. Make Petraeus a partner.army.’” Whether a Commander-in-Chief Obama can continue the tone that Candidate Obama sounded in July remains to be seen. civil society and the research community.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 33 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Civil Military Relations Up Civil-military relations up King 3/27 (Will. as a sign to the rest of the military of respect for the senior military leadership and continuity during difficult wartime conditions. Within this context.S. Obama and the military can have a productive relationship. However. This event was hosted by Brookings Global Economy and Development and the Center for Strategic and International Studies Post. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton highlighted development as “an equal partner. provided that Obama operates along some simple principles. Michael Mullen for a second term. principally resulting from too heavy a reliance on the military. She has also announced aims to reverse the “migration of the authority and the resources to the Defense Department.” and committed to bolster USAID with clear authorities and resources. not an adversary. and you’re not him.mil/news/2009/03/27/18852-panel-discusses-civil-military-relations-at-fort-leavenworth/. According to interviews with active and retired military officers. including National Security Advisor retired Marine Corps Gen. . Similarly. noting that first lady Michelle Obama's first official visit outside Washington. was to Fort Bragg.

reminding the Marines here that the president had quickly approved and publicly announced the additional 4. or hint. If his Washington Post report is accurate. should censor their advice and judgments based on what they think the President ultimately will decide. "oops. Dennis C." Nicholson said. what is needed is an unambiguous statement from the President himself: "Give me your candid military advice. he should -.we can't win in Afghanistan by force of arms.000 to help train the Afghan army. How do you think Obama might look at this? Jones asked. Gates." There is nothing wrong from a civil-military relations point of view for President Obama to decide that he is not going to approve any more troop deployments to Afghanistan. [Marine Brigadier General] Nicholson had told Jones that he was "a little light. Jones went on. 17. which included Nicholson's Marines.Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton." more than hinting that he could use more forces. The president has a right to be wrong about commander-in-chief decisions. if there were new requests for force now.which in the military and elsewhere means "What the [expletive]?" Nicholson and his colonels -. and the director of national intelligence.foreignpolicy.000 more troops for Afghanistan. which seems authoritative because it reads like a verbatim transcript of the meeting (is Bob Woodward on the trip?). from Harvard in 1990." . retired General Jim Jones is a civilian presidential advisor) that they should not be candid in their advice lest it tick off the president or the secretary of defense. military commanders in Afghanistan. If it is the BGEN Nicolson's military judgment that he needs more troops to execute the mission. sounds a very discordant note. Soon after that. 7/1/09." According to Bob Woodward. indeed." Everyone in the room caught the phonetic reference to WTF -.com/posts/2009/07/01/the_white_house_and_woodward. the notion that President Bush did not want to hear whether the battlefield commanders believed they needed more troops was false. "They then said. above all. But it is wrong for him. fluorescent-lighted room. But this report. "At a table much like this. http://shadow.all or nearly all veterans of Iraq -. he did want to hear that advice and would have been appalled if one of his advisors had told the military. referring to the polished wood table in the White House Situation Room. It is his right to make that call even if his judgment is wrong about whether the new troops are in fact necessary to carry out the strategy. But a wise commander-in-chief wants to at least know about the perspectives of the lower ranking officers. General Petraeus) who may have a bigger-picture military perspective. The White House and Woodward. That is absolutely within his rights as commander-in-chief and.000 plus 4. And. Well. "We don't have enough force to go everywhere. Nicholson and the colonels said nothing. the military. and that sort of thing. So far so good.000 more. the National Security Advisor committed a serious civil-military relations mistake that could haunt the administration over the coming year.seemed to blanch at the unambiguous message that this might be all the troops they were going to get. he must -.' " Jones said. "the president's principals met and agreed to recommend 17. we think we can turn this around. is the Alexander F. Mullen. that is exactly what happened recently in Afghanistan. But Jones recalled how Obama had initially decided to deploy additional forces this year. the president would quite likely have "a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment. as reported by Bob Woodward: During the briefing. General Jones.D. If Woodward's (and others) earlier reporting on the Bush years is accurate.convey that information up his chain of command and the President must be made aware of that piece of military advice. Jones said. Nicolson's military judgment could be superceded by a more senior military commander (say." we need an additional 4.000. Now suppose you're the president. Then there is this extraordinary exchange. or suggest to) the military that they. I will not always approve every request you send my way. even or especially if you think the advice runs counter to what you think I will decide." The principals -. he alone has the political-military competence to adjudicate across all of the risk trade-offs that such a decision would entail. probably thousands more. and the requests come into the White House for yet more force. the military got that impression. Blair -.S.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 34 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Civil Military Relations Down Civil-military relations down now – Bob Woodwarded Feaver 7/1 (Peter. and this had a deleterious effect on civilmilitary relations and on policymaking. He was talking about the importance of the non-military aspects of the strategy -. How do you think he might feel? Jones let the question hang in the airconditioned. The note came during a meeting General Jones had with U. Let me make the decisions.made this recommendation in February during the first full month of the Obama administration. I expect the Obama team will have to go into some serious damage control to deal with this story. to tell (or signal. Up until now the administration has been nearly pitch-perfect on the issue of how to talk to the military about securing military advice in high command decision making and how to talk about the military advice they get. 'If you do all that. after all those additional troops. Hehmeyer professor of political science and public policy at Duke University and director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies. If accurate. casting his eyes around the colonels. Ph. In my judgment. "don't ask for this because it will make the President angry. as in Bob Woodwarded. the principals told the president. or his senior staff.no. at least from Secretary Rumsfeld. but I will never approve of you trying to hide bad news from me because you think it will make me mad. The president approved the deployments. a wise commander-in-chief does not want the military hearing from civilian presidential advisors (and in this context." Jones said. AD:7/8/09) JC The Obama administration has just been Woodwarded. Jones told them.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 35 Trade-Off DA ***Links*** .

Those interests might be resources allocated for social services. it was obliged to avoid wastage of public money. fueled the validity of accountability as an ideology to justify the government’s hegemony. such as through the mass media. 235). 282) Social services key to accountability Cheung and Ngai 8 (Chau-kiu and Steven Sek-yum.pdf. And argued that journalists are “by no means free agents” (p. which the government helped sustain. The shaping of these ideologies entails both coercion and consent. The mass media play an important role in the shaping of this ideology. or unconscious. and some argue that at least a hint of coercion may be involved.com/content/2wv6445m08718785/fulltext. News sources are more likely to be the most powerful public officials. City University of Hong Kong and Department of Social Work. http://www. 55-56. but also the ability of the dominant groups to project their own ways of representing the world. Accountability in social services. pg. The political environment of Hong Kong emphasized democracy. they would almost certainly use that power to pressure the journalists were journalists to rely less upon them. This environment implicitly required social service agencies to be transparent in demonstrating their performance. .springerlink. Herbert Gans (1979) studied the way that network news and major news magazines decide what is news. Chinese University of Hong Kong. (p. PhD in anthropology. dominant groups in capitalist societies rule through special-purpose alliances. taken-for-granted ideas embedded in material practices. 2006. accountability. Department of Applied Social Studies. Demonstrating accountability would benefit each social service agency in acquiring resources. Hegemony also becomes a process of shaping ideology so the power of dominant groups appears natural and legitimate. and transparency. These representations are manifested as ideologies. According to this theory. AD: 7/9/09) JC Recall the theory of hegemony from Chapter 1 (Gramsci. As the outreaching social work service eventually largely depended on funding by public money.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 36 Trade-Off DA K2 Heg – Social Services Social services key to hegemony Lackey 6 (Jill Florence. Surviving Hegemony Through Resistance and Identity Articulation Among Outreaching Social Workers. 9/30/08. In essence. AD: 7/10/09) JC Accountability Accountability was a frame for governmental hegemony or regulation in that it was necessary to avoid wastage in spending public money and provide the bases for political struggles concerning resource acquisition. The alliances may include subordinate groups who negotiate their limited consent in return for getting some of their interests represented in the power bloc. Hegemony involves not only political and economic control. the political environment. 1971). Since the news media constitute their major communication outlet to the citizenry and are essential to the performance of their duties and the maintenance of their power.

27. 2. institutions also change in the course of long-term evolution. he admits that structural theory “lacks a conception of process. Rather.S. pg.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 37 Trade-Off DA K2 Heg – Domestic Policy Domestic policy key to structure and hegemony Cho 3 (Chansoo. They absorb the pressures from the international system. Doing so would not make clear the linkages between domestic and international politics that constitute the core of foreign economic policy process. ASIAN PERSPECTIVE. Vol.S. There is a wide variety of mediating mechanisms between the two. they have their own logic of existence and operation.”57 . Vol. . The term “bipartisanship” was coined by Arthur H. foreign economic policy. . Then should our attention be turned to the problem of structure versus process (or agency) in explaining social and political outcomes? Rather than doing so. In other words. however. FOREIGN ECONOMIC POLICY CHANGE. Assistant Professor Division of International Studies Kangnam University. 6-7. I have used “semi-permanently” to emphasize that institutions are both subject to and resistant to change. channel such external signs to the concerned domestic groups. No. with domestic institutions standing out as playing a mediating role. No. Obama’s strong executive power in domestic policy key to hegemony Cho 3 (Chansoo. But structure and process are not interacting directly. can be more misleading than illuminating in understanding the changes in U. hegemonic transition during the period of 1945 to 1960. however. In contrast. Executive politics of the FDR years. the postwar rise of executive politics accompanied “bipartisanship” in foreign policy. Assistant Professor Division of International Studies Kangnam University. Now the way to do that is to say politics stops at the seaboard. it would be more useful to look at the ways in which structure and process interact over the issues under consideration. ASIAN PERSPECTIVE. Structure needs a hegemon. AD: 7/10/09) JC In this section I argue that the shift to executive politics in the domestic policy process facilitated U. pg. 3 At the same time. Simultaneously. 27. AD: 7/10/09) JC Pitting Lake against Kindleberger. 2003. 6-7. domestic institutions are a semi-permanently organized transmission belt between international structure and domestic policy process. Kindleberger could be seen as an “inverted” structuralist in that according to him the indispensability of a hegemon derives from the inherently unstable international economy. was constrained by party politics and compromised by intragovernmental as well as sectoral conflicts. Indeed.”2 He also indicates the importance of the foreign-policy executive in the formulation of trade policy as well as national security issuearea. Vandenberg. HEGEMONY AND THE VARIETY OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS: EXECUTIVE-LEGISLATIVE RELATIONS AND U. HEGEMONY AND THE VARIETY OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS: EXECUTIVE-LEGISLATIVE RELATIONS AND U. but its spirit found its best expression in the words of Secretary of State Dean Acheson: “[Y]ou cannot run this . 2003. and distribute the costs of coping with changes from the outside. Lake cannot be categorized as a single-minded structuralist. the Republican Senator from Michigan. 2.S. the foundation of executive politics was laid during Roosevelt’s tenure. or an explanation of how the constraints or interests derived from the international economic structure are transformed into decision or political strategies within particular countries. country under the Constitution any other way except by fixing the whole organization so it doesn’t work the way it is supposed to work. Once institutions are established. As shown in the discussion on the New Deal institutional changes. FOREIGN ECONOMIC POLICY CHANGE.S.

which is the guardian of this law. to try to impose its view of order by way of coercion.” in Austin Sarat and Thomas R. eds. but rather to discuss its practical relevance to victims of conflicts through the efforts of the ICRC. the United States is a hegemonic power in the Gramscian sense.. in which the United States clearly displays primacy in military power. Human Rights: Concepts. 836 (December. Then I will show that there is often confusion about its relation to international human rights law (HRL). most of this law is international humanitarian law designed to protect a zone of human dignity even in the midst of organized killing. including some law professors. Mach Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 2004. pg.” --David Rieff: A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in Crisis. pp. (New York: Simon and Schuster. AD: 7/9/09) JC The International Committee of the Red Cross and International Humanitarian Law David P. 2002). An-Na’im. no. or have not changed all that much.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 38 Trade-Off DA K2 Heg – Humanitarianism Hegemonic powers must follow humanitarian law Forsythe 4 (David P. the working title of which is The Humanitarians: the International Committee of the Red Cross. Where this is not the case. University Professor and Charles J. There is still a law of war. and even the United States is obligated to apply this law. Kearns.” International Review of the Red Cross. Forsythe 1 “No century [compared to the twentieth century] has had better norms and worse realities. Contests. It is also the most important economic power. as the invasion of Iraq demonstrates. But some things have not changed. Contingencies. Much has changed in international relations after the cold war. believe that much attention to human rights has become legalistic. 715-729. with too much attention to legal technicalities. and helping to apply the law. Hegemony and the Laws of War: The Politics of Humanitarian Law and Diplomacy. Finally I will show that in relation to IHL the ICRC. 70. helping to disseminate the principles and rules of the law. The central point of this essay is not to provide a legal commentary on the specifics IHL. the United States may choose to dominate. Just as some authors. “The Legal Protection of Human Rights in Africa: How to do More with Less. p. . 3 so I believe that 1 This essay is drawn from a book project now in progress. 3 Abdullahi A. 1. Apparently the phrase “international humanitarian law” (IHL) was first used by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1953. 1999). 2 Dietrich Schindler. one hyperpuisance as the French say. A theme running throughout this chapter is that one can over-emphasize IHL as a technical legal subject compared to humanitarian diplomacy. exercises three roles by whatever name: helping to develop the law. “Significance of the Geneva Conventions for the contemporary world. note 4. Across much of international relations. We now live in a world of one superpower. 2 In this essay I will first show that there remains lack of clarity about the precise scope of IHL.

The power position of the U.com/news/nationworld/chi-perspec0308diplomacymar08.S. The New AMERICAN IMPERIALISM: BUSH’S WAR ON TERROR AND BLOOD FOR OIL. a state's power depends on the size and quality of its military forces and other power assets.S. Economic strength key to U.S. economy. Since the Cold War. hegemony has rested on three unchallengeable pillars: overwhelming U. AD: 7/9/09) JC From Rome to the United States today. heg Fouskas 5 (Vassilis K.S. power is a result of economic strength—the prerequisite for building and modernizing military forces. the superiority of American production methods and the relative strength of the U. Asia and the oil-rich Persian Gulf.S.0. p. http://www. U. 24) Since the United States emerged as the dominant global superpower at the end of World War II. And so the size of the economy relative to potential rivals ultimately determines the limits of power in international politics.chicagotribune. but American leaders in recent years chose to pursue far more ambitious goals than merely maintaining the status quo. 2005. the rise and fall of great nations have been driven primarily by economic strength. professor of political science at the University of Chicago.4785661. dollar acting as the reserve currency .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 39 Trade-Off DA K2 Heg – Poverty Economic superiority key to hegemony Pape 3/8 (Robert A. Over time. military superiority over all its rivals.S. 3/8/09. Realities and Obama's diplomacy. At any given moment. however. Lecturer in International Relations at the University of Stirling. with the U. seeking to ensure peace and stability not just in its own neighborhood. America has maintained a vast array of overseas commitments. the Western hemisphere. is crucial to the foreign policy aims that it can achieve. and control over global economic markets. Maintaining these commitments requires enormous resources. .story. but also in Europe.

US Ambassador to the United Nations.nato. several allies did not favor the use of force to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait. especially if the stakes involved do not warrant the military costs.S.S. and reconciliation limited any debate on their fading role in the world. its preference should be to have its allies and friends contribute their fair share. The effectiveness of these non-military options can be enhanced by skillful diplomacy. No. It has many options: arming and training the victims of aggression. In most European countries.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 40 Trade-Off DA K2 Heg – Multilateralism Working within coalitions and with other governments and NGOs is key to preserve US heg. policies that were all the more effective as they showed enough flexibility to respond to and alleviate these doubts. vital interests unilaterally if necessary can facilitate getting friends and allies of the United States to participate -. . or other powers.” The Washington Quarterly. Whatever doubts some of these countries harbored were overcome by U.int/docu/conf/2003/030718_bxl/serfati-transatlpart. Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay. And when the United States uses force in critical regions. pg. the imperative of U. When it comes to lesser interests the United States should rely on nonmilitary options. Indifference to the postwar world was no longer an option for either side of the Atlantic. 84 Spring 1995) Overextension is a mistake that some of the big powers have made in the past. and economic instruments such as sanctions and positive incentives. For example. “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War.pdf) Whatever its inspiration. thereby sapping its energies and undermining support for its global role. multilateralism served the United States and its allies well. the US must be involved Serfaty 3 ("Studies Renewing the Transatlantic Partnership" Simon Serfaty director of European Studies CSIS May http://www. it might not be able to protect them at all. It is quite possible that if the United States cannot protect its interests without significant participation by allies. Vol. If the military participation of these allies had been indispensable for military success against Iraq. Saddam Hussein's forces might still be in Kuwait and Iraq might now possess nuclear weapons. providing technical assistance and logistic support for peacekeeping by the United Nations. protection. 18. Such a development can occur if the United States is not judicious in its use of force and gets involved in protracted conflicts in non-critical regions. While Multilateralism is effective. support for reconstruction. in the run-up to the Gulf war.S. Having the capability to protect U. 2. regional organizations.especially on terms more to its liking.

military to threaten and. if necessary. Asia and the Middle East -.newamerica. This is because the American public is not prepared to pay the costs necessary if the United States is to be a "hyperpower.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 41 Trade-Off DA K2 Heg – Hard Power Hardpower is critical to maintaining US hegemony Lind 7 (Michael.net/publications/articles/2007/beyond_american_hegemony_5381) Finally. http://www. to use military force to defeat any regional challenge-but at a relatively low cost.S.S. the military hegemon of Asia and the military hegemon of the Middle East. In each of these areas. the global hegemony strategy insists that America’s safety depends not on the absence of a hostile hegemon in Europe. New America Foundation. Beyond American Hegemony. or involuntarily.but on the permanent presence of the United States itself as the military hegemon of Europe. because the United States assumed their defense burdens (reassurance). military intimidated them into acquiescence (dissuasion). Asia and the Middle East depends on the ability of the U.the traditional American approach -. American military hegemony in Europe. domination either voluntarily.S." . because the superior U. the regional powers would consent to perpetual U.

largely because the underlying interventionist philosophy of welfare states is at odds with the volatility and unpredictability of international influence. Senior Lecturer. modernity. for instance. modernity. as long as welfare states jealously guarded their sovereignty.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 42 Trade-Off DA Not K2 Heg – Social Services Social services don’t increase international influence Edgeworth 3 (Brendan. 83). . law and other social domains. This development also appears in the growing need for legislators and law reform agencies to make use of other knowledges (economics. postmodernity. the importance of fitting rules to the changing empirical context in which they are to operate (always typical of legislative activity) imposes analogous demands on the judicial and executive branches of the state. 1978: 78. 2003. As institutional mechanisms directed to imposing legal limits on national sovereignty they represent the beginnings of a break with one of the defining features of legal modernity. Law. politics) in order to understand the interaction between . Edgeworth 3 (Brendan.and interdependence of. This “sovereignty of purpose” is reflected in “the waning of ‘artificial reason’”. 2003. in the form of the tradition. these emergent international institutions were able to exercise very limited influence over domestic affairs at the very time when those states extended their regulatory reach within the confines of national borders. by a keener attention to the purposes lying behind the law to see if they can be effectively carried out by instant decisions in an increasingly volatile social environment. More evi. Accordingly. It is reflected in the case of judicial reasoning. that is. deontological style of legal interpretation more concerned to look to the formal meanings of terms (Nonet and Selznick. AD: 7/10/09) JC The consolidation of the legal sovereignty of the nation state in the form of the welfare state coincided with the emergence of international institutions such as the United Nations and the European Community that pulled in the opposite direction. sociology. pg 92. AD: 7/10/09) JC The “new primacy of cognitive over normative considerations”. Yet for all their promise these law-making bodies had little initial effect on the form and content of domestic law. postmodernity. pg 92. Law. Senior Lecturer.

and implementation. denotes control over external policy alone. and usually with the collaboration of local peripheral elites. 1986. Control is achieved either formally (directly or indirectly) or informally through influence over the periphery’s environment. hegemony. political articulation. noting that Sparta’s “allies. AD: 7/9/09) JC A final useful distinction is between imperialism and hegemony. Control of both foreign and domestic policy characterizes empire. Hegemony.unlike the imperialized “allies” subject to Athens. the analytical separation of foreign policy from domestic policy helps define imperial outcomes. control of only foreign policy. exercised a considerable degree of domestic autonomy. Reflecting important differences in world politics.” despite their subjection to Spartan hegemony during the Peloponnesian War. .who rules and what rules.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 43 Trade-Off DA Not K2 Heg – Domestic Policy Hegemony precludes domestic policy Doyle 86 (International relations scholar. pg 40. the scope of imperial control involves both the process of control and its outcomes. The scope of the outcomes covers both internal and external issues. Empires. by contrast. In sum. aggregation. Thucydides first drew this distinction. decision making. adjudication.

Hegemony and Inter-Imperialist Rivalries. Associate Professor of Political Science. In his book. which has undercut efforts by U. leadership.S. after 1989." the result of cooperative. objective.S.S. Geir Lundestad referred to U. hegemony were present even during the Gold War. they have increased considerably.S. U. Sept 2001. who wrote in 1997: "One of these days. efforts to resist these challenges.. which in turn require these "humanitarian" military assertions to reaffirm the dominant position of the United States. There has been a concomitant rise in U. Overwhelmingly.It happened because the world wanted it to happen [emphasis added]. since it is widely assumed that the western allies have always welcomed U. hegemony has been maintained partly through forceful behavior. American Empire.S. . mutually beneficial activity between Americans and Europeans.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_4_53/ai_78413139/.. Humanitarian intervention has emerged as NATO's principal mission--and principal justification--in the postCold War world. Washington's New Interventionism: U. but with the end of the Cold War.. U. the American people are going to awaken to the fact that we have become an imperial nation.S. above all. Second. Some readers may find this argument odd. maintaining hegemony forcefully now Gibbs 1 (David N. University of Arizona. the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.S.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 44 Trade-Off DA Not K2 Heg – Humanitarianism Humanitarianism irrelevant – U.S. [2] This image of a "benign" American hegemony has more recently been popularized by Irving Kristol. http://findarticles.S.S. These challenges to U. the containment of allies has remained a central U. they ignore the ambivalence with which U." [3] The problem with such views is that they gloss over two important facts: First. widely regarded as the most successful alliance in history. With the demise of the Soviet Bloc. AD: 7/9/09) JC A major assumption underpinning this argument is that the post-Cold War era has triggered increased tensions among the capitalist democracies. foreign policy thus entailed a measure of "double containment"--to contain Communism and the capitalist allies of the United States in Europe simultaneously..no European nation can have--or really wants to have--its own foreign policy. allies to establish independent foreign policies. allies have always viewed their subordinate position.S. the United States has sought to reassert its power through a revitalization of the Cold War institutional structures. hegemony over Europe during the Cold War as a case of "empire by invitation.

It is the plain fact that economic power is not the sole force acting in society. and through. 2004. http://oll. the interests of the wealthy are doomed. AD: 7/10/09) JC Aside from market defects. In order to draw the picture more realistically. Dollars are produced by economic capability. . Lessons from the Failure of the Communist Economic System. and agreements between the different actors in economic life and with its typical lobbying. votes flow in accordance with political opinion. alliances. Unless the holders of dollars represent interests which coincide with the independently derived opinions of the voters.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 45 Trade-Off DA Not K2 Heg – Poverty Poverty not key to heg Petro 71 (Sylvester. However. treaties. which substantially affects economic decision making in a corporate society. 9/29/71.libertyfund.php%3Ftitle=1663&chapter=37632&layout=html&Itemid=27. The Economic-Power Syndrome. Economic power is not convertible into political power. AD: 7/10/09) JC 3. MD. we must take into account political power. the increase in the mutual influence and dependence of the respective subjects. the medium of exchange in politics is the vote. Economic power doesn’t guarantee international power Rusmich and Sachs 4 (Ladislav and Stephen. The medium of exchange owned by the possessors of economic power is money.org/? option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show. Economic and political powers grow together with. The authors of these models traditionally refuse to admit any type of dominance of one economic agent over another as a systemic feature of economy. their views cannot be accepted as a realistic look at the present corporate society with all its formal and informal coalitions. Orthodox models of free market and perfect competition premise a historically equal position of the market participants regardless of the type (or ripeness) of the market. pg 147-148. some additional causes appear that vitiate our idyllic picture of the market mediation of the social usefulness of power agents’ activity. as well as among the individual suppliers and consumers as between the two sides of the market as such. Institute of Economic Affairs.

Winner of the Bradley Prize for Promotion of Liberal Democracy. you see. national interest on the planet—ours Multilateralism only drags America down Krauthammer 4(Charles. is intended to restrain that power. does liberal internationalism want to tie down Gulliver. But why should America be? Why. "Democratic Realism: An American Foreign Policy for a Unipolar World" – American Enterprise Institute) Historically. "Democratic Realism: An American Foreign Policy for a Unipolar World" – American Enterprise Institute) But that. and particularly on a unipolar power. But multilateralism imposed on Great Powers. multilateralism is a way for weak countries to multiply their power by attaching themselves to stronger ones. most outsized. Which is precisely why France is an ardent multilateralist.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 46 Trade-Off DA Not K2 Heg – Multilateralism Multilateralism only drags down US hegemony Krauthammer 4 (Charles. To tie down Gulliver with a thousand strings. What I do know is that today it is a mistake to see liberal foreign policy as deriving from anti-Americanism or lack of patriotism or a late efflorescence of 1960s radicalism. Winner of the Bradley Prize for Promotion of Liberal Democracy. I don’t know. constricted by the will—and interests—of other nations. To domesticate the most undomesticated. is the whole point of the multilateral enterprise: To reduce American freedom of action by making it subservient to. dependent on. . in the end. to blunt the pursuit of American national interests by making them subordinate to a myriad of other interests? In the immediate post-Vietnam era. this aversion to national interest might have been attributed to self-doubt and self-loathing.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 47 Trade-Off DA K2 Multilateralism – Unilateralism Unilateralism inevitably leads to multilateralism Krauthammer 4 (Charles. Germany. These states are seeking the best bargains for themselves given the distribution of power. Winner of the Bradley Prize for Promotion of Liberal Democracy. "Democratic Realism: An American Foreign Policy for a Unipolar World" – American Enterprise Institute) Moreover. US unipolarity encourages states to help the US solve global issues rather than start them Wohlforth 99 (William. unilateralism is often the very road to multilateralism. International Security. the optimal policy is ambiguity: to work closely with the United States on the issues most important to Washington while talking about creating a counterpoise. But until the distribution of power changes substantially.") Neither the Beijing-Moscow "strategic partnership" nor the "European troika" of Russia. this bargaining will resemble real-politik in form but not content. its willingness to act unilaterally if necessary—that galvanized the Gulf War coalition into existence. That process necessitates a degree of politicking that may remind people faintly of the power politics of bygone eras.led world order and a legacy of actual behavior that amounts to bandwagoning. For many states. . Without the president of the United States declaring “This will not stand” about the invasion of Kuwait—and making it clear that America would go it alone if it had to—there never would have been the great wall-to-wall coalition that is now so retroactively applauded and held up as a model of multilateralism. As we learned from the Gulf War. Assistant Professor of International Relations in the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. it is the leadership of the United States—indeed. Such policies generate a paper trail suggesting strong dissatisfaction with the US. "The Stability of a Unipolar World.. Summer 19 99. and France entailed any costly commitments or serious risks of confrontation with Washington.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 48 Trade-Off DA ***No Balancing*** .

. Emerging big four economies flaunt power at summit. Russia. AD: 7/8/09) JC MOSCOW (AFP) — Brazil. But while they will express determination to act together during the current economic crisis and beyond. http://www. they are years away from being a counterbalance to established global institutions.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ie-Cbti6FYBb4IznPXZ0qCVDCN5w.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 49 Trade-Off DA Counterbalancing Down Nations don’t have the power to counterbalance global institutions like the United States now Smolchenko 6/13 (Anna. analysts say. Associated Free Press. India and China flaunt their unity against more established powers this week as the four emerging economic giants hold the first summit of their grouping. 6/13/09. known as BRIC.

org/20080501faessay87304/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity. acted in a manner that has led other states to conclude that the United States constitutes a threat to their vital national interests. May/June.foreignaffairs. CFR pres. which has not stimulated such a response. Haas 8 (Richard. But it has not.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 50 Trade-Off DA No Balancing – Benign Heg No counterbalancing – benign hegemony means other nations don’t perceive a threat. . for the most part.S. Bush has not alienated other nations. but this has tended to lead more to denunciations (and an absence of cooperation) than outright resistance. Doubts about the wisdom and legitimacy of U. foreign policy are pervasive.. it surely has. This is not to say that the United States under the leadership of George W.html) The fact that classic great-power rivalry has not come to pass and is unlikely to arise anytime soon is also partly a result of the United States' behavior. http://www.

http://www. which ceased to be a threat 15 years ago. he hopes to be able to finance better intelligence gathering that anticipates threats. As part of his plan for greater EU defense cooperation both inside and outside NATO. Russia is also disappearing. nuclear proliferators. and since he took office. Sarkozy has put a lot of new pieces on the board. literally gobbling up. he's moving them all at once. Newsweek 8 (6/30. and embraced Israel enthusiastically. whether from terrorists.000 combat forces quickly and efficiently to the far corners of the world while dealing effectively with catastrophic events at home.nytimes." and presented collective defense as the key to greater unity. Travel across Russia today. a vast exchange program for officer training. and he is putting the French military back in the business of dealing with threats that really matter. Russia lost its western satellites almost two decades ago." And with more modern equipment. and he's breaking precedents the French thought were immutable. as during Soviet times. The E. plundering.com/id/142565) The spectacle of Sarkozy's grandstanding as he gets ready for the big parade may be reminiscent of many a French president who struggled to show that he and his country were still relevant players. Filling the vacuum they have left behind are hundreds of thousands of Chinese. Gone is the geopolitical posturing of French presidents who wanted to act as a counterbalance to American power. He has praised the United States unabashedly. and Europe. speaking the week after the Irish voted down the Treaty of Lisbon. outright buying and more or less annexing Russia’s Far East for its timber and other natural resources. whose activists agitate from Belarus to Uzbekistan. relations with Jerusalem have looked like a love-in.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t." says Tomas Valasek of the Centre for European Reform.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 51 Trade-Off DA No Balancing – Russia/EU Russia can’t balance – its headed for disappearance. which is nonnegotiable.000 over the next half-dozen years and focusing on a smaller. unlike previous French presidents who tended to worry about the sensibilities of rich Arab tyrants. meaning it will be not much larger than Turkey by 2025 or so — spread across a land so vast that it no longer even makes sense as a country. officials say that annexing Russia is perfectly doable. we should start perhaps with the hardest case: Russia. lighter military. "All democracies are accountable for Israel's security. http://www. far from restoring its Soviet-era might. city after city of crumbling. The more Europe gets its gas from North Africa and oil from Azerbaijan." By slashing the number of soldiers to 225. cyberwarriors or climate change. all the while holding the lever of being by far Russia’s largest investor. it’s just a matter of time. America Strategy Program sr. Instead. Sarkozy wants to be able to deploy 30. Russia will have to decide whether it wishes to exist peacefully as an asset to Europe or the alternative — becoming a petro-vassal of China.S. less corrupt private sector from below. Khanna 8 (Parag. 1/27. In the coming decades. fellow.U. "You are a great and positive gush of wind in French politics. whose economy remains roughly the size of France’s. 1. "The French are realizing that not even they are able to go it alone. The clearest outline of Sarkozy's foreign-policy and defense ambitions came in the speech he delivered to the French military elite last week.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) In exploring just a small sample of the second world.newsweek. failed states. Privately.U. Already during the cold war it was joked that there were “no disturbances on the Sino-Finnish border. The forced Siberian migrations of the Soviet era are being voluntarily reversed as children move west to more tolerable and modern climes. The EU won’t counterbalance the US – France proves.Sarkozy has also made it clear that next year France will rejoin NATO's integrated command structure for the first time since President Charles De Gaulle pulled out of it in 1966. the less it will rely on Russia. while appearing to be bullied by Russia’s oil-dependent diplomacy. is staging a long-term buyout of Russia. but it is about as radical a change in foreign-policy and national-security doctrine as they've seen in decades. heatless apartment blocks and neglected elderly citizens whose value to the state diminishes with distance from Moscow. also finance and train a pugnacious second-world block of Baltic and Balkan nations. some E." Sarkozy wrote in 2006. What they are witnessing may not be a revolution on a par with the storming of the Bastille. Its population decline is a staggering half million citizens per year or more. Sarkozy promised that France would remain "a great military power. and you’ll find. France will prepare for action in what Defense Minister Hervé Morin has called "an arc of crisis going from Mauritania to Afghanistan. Sarkozy telegraphed his contempt for geopolitical game- playing in the style of his predecessors well before his election last year. in which he shifted priorities away from resisting invasion. why is Russia not a superpower but rather the ultimate second-world swing state? For all its muscle flexing. and U. Sarkozy proposed a complete restructuring and unification of Europe's defense industries. p.” a prophecy that seems ever closer to fulfillment. Apparently stabilized and resurgent under the Kremlin-Gazprom oligarchy." Israeli President Shimon Peres told him on a visit in March. while London and Berlin welcome Russia’s billionaires. . allowing the likes of Boris Berezovsky to openly campaign against Putin. Rather than manning garrisons left over from colonial days in Francophone Africa. But unlike his predecessors. perhaps even a European military college and unified headquarters. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development provides the kinds of loans that help build an alternative. and emphasized flexibility in an uncertain world where dangers have become "diverse and ever-changing.

In other words the job-pattern of the current boom has nothing or little to offer the majority of Indian workers. where approximately 13 million is added to the workforce every year. which are strongly needed if the huge unskilled masses in India shall find appropriate employment.D. The current appearance of progress is misleading. when its factories are “more heavily populated by robots than human workers. which really indicates that India seriously is trying to deal with these two cardinal problems. once. in a country.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 52 Trade-Off DA No Balancing – India India can’t balance the US – socio-economic problems prevent it’s ascendence. http://kaalhauge. which multiply every year in alarming numbers. which is in question but the issue regarding its institutional and structural functions). there are two..dk/2008/02/18/india-will-rise-%E2%80%93but-how-far-can-one-rise-on-clay-feet/) The basic problem is that the current boom doesn’t touch on the basic structural fallacies in India. It is true that the new financial budget is allocating more money to the elementary school level but the problem of the elementary school system is entangled in cultural attitudes. The first is the deplorable elementary school system in India. However.” Indeed. caste-habits. including the wave of the coming generation of lowskilled workers. which means that India is a very “jobless” economy. India is increasingly squeezed between its growing masses of unemployed (and underemployed) and its inability to produce the necessary low-skilled labour intensive industries. it is a play on empty rhetoric. and the lack of a sufficient elementary school-system has make sure that there is no end to the supply of this misery. The second is that the boom has not triggered any major grow of a low-skilled labour intensive industry in India. India is characterized by low labour-elasticity vis-a-vis its growth rate.weblogs. India will not be able to establish any sustainable growth before it has solved these fundamental problems. So before India begin to dream of racing with China. teacher-privileges and fundamental institutional weaknesses and its solutions is not simply a matter of financing. The relative few jobs. The much talk about India’s becoming urbanization ignores the fact that the jobs. which have little other than the noun “India” in common. wondered how India would create jobs. which are created during the current boom. which should facilitate this process of urbanization is simply not there. India is marching down the path of major social conflicts. Do not believe in the hype of India’s as the next economic superpower.asb. this is a problem of the highest cardinal importance. Nielsen 8 (Jens. The reality is that India cannot find jobs to its rapid growing masses and the majority of these masses is – and will remain – low-skilled and to a large degree illiterates. Especially. Generally. The number of main workers out of the total Indian population is constantly falling although the Indian population become younger and younger. In other words. Of these fallacies. are generally job for higher educated professionals or higher skilled workers. The problem is that there is nothing. Naturally. which India so far have ignored for the last 60 years. Since more and more Indian factories are increasingly automating. . Stephen Roach of the Morgan Stanley. 2/18. poli-sci Ph. which is most devastating. the number of women in the workforce in India is record low. the current boom in India is “real” in the sense that a few Indian states and some segments of the population experience real growth. from 19912001. Jobless India is also a tale of an increased gender-bias. (It is not the growth. But the function of this growth will not be an answer for India as a whole and will increasing split India into two radically separated worlds. Indeed. then it is clear that the solution to the problem hardly comes from the established industry. the fraction of Indians in the actual workforce is supposed to have fallen from approximately 34 to 30% (so much for the “demographic dividend”). it will be well advised to start solving those basic structural problems. which again is reflected in the relative few women who take a higher education in India.

such as India.S. leaders welcome these countries’ determination to protect their autonomy as China rises. This policy is attractive to Asian leaders who want to build national capabilities and increase their respective country’s room to maneuver in the emerging Asian order and who recognize that cooperation with the United States to strengthen their economic and military capabilities will accelerate this process. This is very different from containment.S. “It’s not possible to pretend that [China] is just another player. As former Indian foreign secretary Shyam Saran notes. policy rekindles traditional wariness in India. it is not because India is weak but because India is strong. “This is the biggest player in the history of man. although U. “America’s Grand Design in Asia”) Accelerating the rise of friendly. “It is very useful to remind China. India. The Washington Quarterly. The United States is trying to build strength in its Asian partners.” said Singapore’s former prime minister. it is more about encouraging or shaping China’s view of the international system in a constructive way. The Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. the implications for the United States of trends in Asia are inescapable. hegemonic designs. official. not subordinate or contain them in Cold War– type alliance structures in which the United States institutionalizes its own dominance.S. The Washington Quarterly. and Vietnam about perceived U. thereby helping to preserve a pluralistic Asian security order. The United States is pursuing a grand design to shape that new balance in ways that preserve its interests in a pluralistic security order that is dominated by no one regional power and that aligns it increasingly closely with democratic and like-minded centers of strength is a rising Asia. Nonetheless. enhance their autonomy. who are setting standards we agree with. their very independence also means that they are wary of U. U. independent Asian powers. Yet. . Nonetheless. Indonesia. interests and values as China rises. Vietnam. Relative U. the United States values its key Asian partners for their growing strength. policy seeks to build and bind together friendly centers of power in Asia to help maintain a regional balance that preserves U. alliance would actually improve Tokyo’s relations with Beijing. Korea. dominance.S. The United States is not pursuing this design to contain China but to shape its geopolitical options as a country at a “strategic crossroads.” Rising Asian influence doesn’t constrain the US Twining 7 (Transatlantic Fellow based in Oxford and New Delhi and concurrently the Fulbright/Oxford Scholar at the University of Oxford. … The size of China’s displacement of the world balance is such that the world must find a new balance” within a few decades. “We want to encourage the rise of friendly. and ASEAN—that makes it naturally resistant to Chinese domination. “If there is a greater focus today on India in the [United States].” Washington is limiting China’s potential strategic choices by strengthening and cultivating friendly Asian powers along its periphery that will constrain and constructively channel Beijing’s regional and international ambitions.S. We are being recognized as a country which has [an] array of capabilities and has the potential to emerge as a very important power in the future. in 1993. Lee Kuan Yew.S. Japan. power will wane as China and India rise.S. Ironically.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 53 Trade-Off DA No Balancing – Asia Generic Asia is not countering US leadership Twining 7 (Transatlantic Fellow based in Oxford and New Delhi and concurrently the Fulbright/Oxford Scholar at the University of Oxford. “America’s Grand Design in Asia”) U.” says former National Security Council official Michael Green. Washington’s policy of building new centers of power in Asia is premised on a congruence of interests with states such as India and Japan in strengthening their national capabilities and expanding their security horizons to shape the emerging order of the new century. The Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.S.” Former Japanese prime minister Junichiro Koizumi controversially maintained that building Japanese strength within the U. but we also want to bind their interests to ours.S. “that there are other emerging powerful countries. and countervail growing Chinese influence.” says one U. independent centers of power in Asia may allow the United States to maintain its privileged position within an “asymmetrically multipolar” Asian security order characterized by multiple power centers—China. Indonesia.

But today power is diffuse.html?mode=print. two world wars. http://www.S. In a multipolar system. or conflictual. June 2008. Hegemony Collapse of U. Then.S. How does nonpolarity differ from other forms of international order? How and why did it materialize? What are its likely consequences? And how should the United States respond? NEWER WORLD ORDER In contrast to multipolarity -. and the onset of nonpolarity raises a number of important questions. a bipolar system emerged. President Council on Foreign Relations. Foreign Affairs .a nonpolar international system is characterized by numerous centers with meaningful power. Nor do concentrations of power revolve around two positions. in this case the United States. when the balance breaks down. AD: 7/10/09 ) The principal characteristic of twenty-first-century international relations is turning out to be nonpolarity: a world dominated not by one or two or even several states but rather by dozens of actors possessing and exercising various kinds of power. But after almost 50 years. no power dominates. or the system will become bipolar. revolving around a balance of power.an international system dominated by one power. Multipolar systems can be cooperative.. in which a few major powers work together on setting the rules of the game and disciplining those who violate them. bipolarity gave way to unipolarity -. even assuming the form of a concert of powers. hegemony leads to apolarity Haass 8 (Richard N. or the system will become unipolar.which involves several distinct poles or concentrations of power -.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 54 Trade-Off DA No Alternative to U. They can also be more competitive. and many smaller conflicts.foreignaffairs. .org/20080501faessay87304/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity. This represents a tectonic shift from the The twentieth century started out distinctly multipolar. with the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 55 Trade-Off DA ***Yes Balancing*** .

China backs Russia's two big gripes with the US: "The security of some states cannot be ensured at the expense of others." At the root of the global financial crisis.org.. Especially upsetting for Russia is its continued military largesse to Georgia. the missile shield in Eastern Europe and the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. 6/25/09. The sides will actively facilitate practical work on a draft treaty on the prevention of the deployment of weapons in outer space. AD: 7/8/09) JC Yekaterinburg. This summit appeared to have coaxed India a step closer.. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev was busy charting a new economic and political reality in the heart of Eurasia.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 56 Trade-Off DA Counterbalancing Up Russia. The BRIC countries comprise 15 per cent of the world economy. While the US plays its tiresome geopolitical games on Russia's eastern borders. and of the use of force or threats to use force against space facilities. and Russia and China are eager to have India upgrade its position of observer to member. and ironically as the fiefdom of Boris Yeltsin." the joint Chinese-Russian statement says. is that the US makes too little and spends too much. Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil and the Indian prime minister looked on approvingly.htm. Brazil. which satisfies the more pro. China. Journalist for Al-Ahram Weekly. following the yearly meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). he lectured. "The summit must create the conditions for a fairer world order. India and China have also weathered the financial crisis better than the world as a whole. as the SCO security agenda has shifted to emphasise dealing with growing security threats from Afghanistan. But the headlinestealer was the BRIC summit. India and China) held their first summit. famous tragically as the spot Lenin chose to have the Tsar and his family executed in 1918. Chinese leader Hu Jintao also joined Medvedev in denouncing US plans to militarise outer space: "Russia and China advocate peaceful uses of outer space and oppose the prospect of it being turned into a new area for deploying weapons.ahram. "The artificially maintained unipolar system".eg/2009/953/in2. he concluded. witnessed something no less remarkable last week when leaders of the so.called BRIC nations (Brazil.. one formerly strong reserve currency. The SCO.US India. http://weekly. has become a key counterweight to US hegemony in the world." . as Presidents Hu Jintao of China.. who finished off the Russian revolution itself in 1991. Russia. India and Brazil are counterbalancing the United States now Walberg 6/25 (Eric. including the expansion of militarypolitical alliances or the creation of global or regional missile defence systems. is based on "one big centre of consumption. Holding the two meetings together meant that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh attended the SCO for the first time. Russian and China's Eurasian security organisation." he read out. 40 per cent of global currency reserves and half the world's population. Reinventing the wheel. financed by a growing deficit and.

What we have today. Many poor regions of the world have realized that they want the European dream. With London taking over (again) as the world’s financial capital for stock listing. while Jay-Z drowns in American soft power seems on the wane even at home. Every country in the world currently considered a rogue state by the U. 1. economic or strategic lifeline from China. the world’s money will be safely invested in European banks. rather than bestriding the globe. America’s unipolar moment lasted through the 1990s. not the American dream. And the others are left to choose their suitors in this postAmerican world. The post-cold-war “peace dividend” was never converted into a global liberal order under American leadership. China is not only securing energy supplies. but that was also a decade adrift. a German member of the European Parliament. This is geopolitics in the 21st century: the new Big Three. Many of the foreign students we shunned after 9/11 are now in London and Berlin: twice as many Chinese study in Europe as in the U. European technologies more and more set the global standard and European countries give the most development assistance. has a hard time getting its way even when it dominates summit meetings — consider the ill-fated Free Trade Area of the Americas — let alone when it’s not even invited. the only problem is that it doesn’t really need one. we are competing — and losing — in a geopolitical marketplace alongside the world’s other superpowers: the European Union and China.S. Europe is more like Mercury — carrying a big wallet. Europe spends its money and political capital on locking peripheral countries into its orbit. China is cutting massive resource and investment deals. America controls legacy institutions few seem to want — like the International Monetary Fund — while Europe excels at building new and sophisticated ones modeled on itself. is a global. The Big Three make the rules — their own rules — without any one of them dominating. European and Chinese worldviews. strategists and legislators increasingly see their role as being the global balancer between America and China. lagging decades behind China in both development and strategic appetite. claiming it was an overreach that would bring the collapse of the from Venus. America Strategy Program sr. What other superpower grows by an average of one country per year. social policy to try to integrate restive Muslim populations and economic strength to incorporate the former Soviet Union and gradually subdue Russia. the selfdescribed “friend of America.U.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 57 Trade-Off DA Multipolarity Now The world is now multipolar. it is also making major strategic investments in the financial sector. was not truly an “East-West” struggle.nytimes. America’s share of global exchange reserves has dropped to 65 percent. In America’s own hemisphere. an increasingly depopulated expanse run by Gazprom. It’s a trend that will outlast both President Nicolas Sarkozy of France. with others waiting in line and begging to join? Robert Kagan famously said that America hails from Mars and Europe The E.S. not American-style presidential strongman rule. So now. binding it closer to the E. And Europe’s influence grows at America’s expense. Gisele Bündchen demands to be paid in euros.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) At best. the region’s answer to America’s Apec. 500 euro notes in a recent video. Khanna 8 (Parag. .. and if they do it well. fellow. p. and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has proposed that OPEC no longer price its oil in “worthless” dollars.S. regardless of her visiting the Crawford ranch. The whole world is abetting China’s spectacular rise as evidenced by the ballooning share of trade in its gross domestic product — and China is exporting weapons at a rate reminiscent of the Soviet Union during the cold war.” and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany. In Africa. President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela went on to suggest euros. not an incoherent Islam embroiled in internal wars. Jorgo Chatzimarkakis. it remained essentially a contest over Europe. The East Asian Community is but one example of how China is also too busy restoring its place as the world’s “Middle Kingdom” to be distracted by the Middle Eastern disturbances that so preoccupy the United States. for the first time in history. Europeans use intelligence and the police to apprehend radical Islamists. In Europe’s capital. they profit handsomely. Not Russia. And if America and China fight. calls it “European patriotism.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t. 1/27. too. multipolar battle.gov. Each year European investment in Turkey grows as well. Many Americans scoffed at the introduction of the euro. it’s no surprise that China’s new state investment fund intends to locate its main Western offices there instead of New York.’s market is the world’s largest. we offer no equivalent. Algeria or Azerbaijan to Europe. While America fumbles at nation-building. Europeans play both sides. Previous eras of balance of power have been among European powers sharing a common culture. Yet today. We didn’t educate them.U. technocrats. the more we will see the planetary stakes of the new global game. even if it never becomes a member.U. It doesn’t help that Congress revealed its true protectionist colors by essentially blocking the Dubai ports deal in 2006. but in reality. from Canada to Cuba to Chávez’s Venezuela. Africa wants a real African Union like the E. Iran being the most prominent example. pinning America down while filling whatever power vacuums it can find. so we have no claims on their brains or loyalties as we have in decades past. European project. It may comfort American conservatives to point out that Europe still lacks a common army. The cold war. Activists in the Middle East want parliamentary democracy like Europe’s. dam-builders and covert military personnel. And each year a new pipeline route opens transporting oil and gas from Libya. Across the globe. now enjoys a diplomatic. it is deploying tens of thousands of its own engineers. as with the new East Asian Community. aid workers.” The multicivilizational. Persian Gulf oil exporters are diversifying their currency holdings into euros. Brussels. and not India. More broadly. Meanwhile. The more we appreciate the differences among the American. http://www. The U.

They can also be more competitive. and the United States -contain just over half the world's people and account for 75 percent of global GDP and 80 percent of global defense spending. the European Union (EU).a nonpolar international system is characterized by numerous centers with meaningful power. and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East. revolving around a balance of power. Indonesia. the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Russia. Mexico. finance. Power is now found in many hands and in many places. Pakistan in South Asia.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 58 Trade-Off DA Nonpolarity Now The world is nonpolar. Japan. a bipolar system emerged. But after almost 50 years. by a variety of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and corporations. the United Nations. CNN). Australia. Greenpeace). or the system will become bipolar. the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.China. arguably. in this case the United States. and NGOs of a more benign sort (the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The twentieth century started out distinctly multipolar. by regional and global organizations. Egypt. and the onset of nonpolarity raises a number of important questions. such as California and India's Uttar Pradesh. How does nonpolarity differ from other forms of international order? How and why did it materialize? What are its likely consequences? And how should the United States respond? NEWER WORLD ORDER In contrast to multipolarity -. May/June. Then. and South Korea in East Asia and Oceania. and from the side. Today's world differs in a fundamental way from one of classic multipolarity: there are many more power centers. This represents a tectonic shift from the past. one of the cardinal features of the contemporary international system is that nation-states have lost their monopoly on power and in some domains their preeminence as well.. Multipolar systems can be cooperative. But today power is diffuse. when the balance breaks down. would states within nationstates. the Arab League. religious institutions and movements.html) The principal characteristic of twenty-first-century international relations is turning out to be nonpolarity: a world dominated not by one or two or even several states but rather by dozens of actors possessing and exercising various kinds of power. even assuming the form of a concert of powers. including those that dominate the worlds of energy. Indeed. the Organization of American States. two world wars. Chile. such as New York. Nigeria and South Africa in Africa. no power dominates. bipolarity gave way to unipolarity -an international system dominated by one power. with the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union. can be deceiving. Then there are the large global companies. and quite a few of these poles are not nation-states. A good many organizations would be on the list of power centers. too. terrorist organizations (al Qaeda). power. So. by militias. or conflictual. in which a few major powers work together on setting the rules of the game and disciplining those who violate them. CFR pres. Israel. Doctors Without Borders. however. Today's world is increasingly one of distributed.org/20080501faessay87304/richard-n-haass/theage-of-nonpolarity. OPEC. and those that are functional (the International Energy Agency. At first glance. the World Bank). political parties. http://www. Nor do concentrations of power revolve around two positions. Iran. including those that are global (the International Monetary Fund. The major powers -. rather than concentrated. India. Appearances. and many smaller conflicts. and Venezuela in Latin America. the World Health Organization). drug cartels. from below. or the system will become unipolar. those that are regional (the African Union. the Taliban). Argentina. the EU. the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation). the Mahdi Army. Other entities deserving inclusion would be global media outlets (al Jazeera. In addition to the six major world powers. In a multipolar system. and manufacturing. the BBC. Haas 8 (Richard. States are being challenged from above.foreignaffairs. there are numerous regional powers: Brazil and. and Shanghai. and cities. militias (Hamas.which involves several distinct poles or concentrations of power -. the world today may appear to be multipolar. São Paulo. . Hezbollah.

in addition to being unethical and unjust. Hamas is trying to make them aware of the reality of the Palestinian cause and limit the effect of Israeli propaganda as much as possible. Khanna 8 (Parag. President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela went on to suggest euros. not the American dream. Many of the foreign students we shunned after 9/11 are now in London and Berlin: twice as many Chinese study in Europe as in the U. Many Americans scoffed at the introduction of the euro. More broadly. p. a German member of the European Parliament. Persian Gulf oil exporters are diversifying their currency holdings into euros.nytimes. The EU is counterbalancing US influence. social policy to try to integrate restive Muslim populations and economic strength to incorporate the former Soviet Union and gradually subdue Russia. but in reality.’s market is the world’s largest. has a hard time getting its way even when it dominates summit meetings — consider the ill-fated Free Trade Area of the Americas — let alone when it’s not even invited. 1. as with the new East Asian Community. The E.balance to the American role. Each year European investment in Turkey grows as well. we offer no equivalent. He holds that the greatest problem facing the European position is its dependency on American politics and its unwillingness to cross lines set by Washington.htm) France. American soft power seems on the wane even at home. the only problem is that it doesn’t really need one. the world’s money will be safely invested in European banks. It may comfort American conservatives to point out that Europe still lacks a common army. He said that Hamas wants to break the isolation forced on it by Israel and America since it won the last elections and to try to open up more doors. Activists in the Middle East want parliamentary democracy like Europe’s. Youssef reported a number of European officials he has met in Gaza and several European capitals as saying that they currently cannot overstep US policy. http://www. . Jorgo Chatzimarkakis. We didn’t educate them. The U. Europe spends its money and political capital on locking peripheral countries into its orbit. it’s no surprise that China’s new state investment fund intends to locate its main Western offices there instead of New York. so we have no claims on their brains or loyalties as we have in decades past. fellow. Algeria or Azerbaijan to Europe.U.. Brussels. 1/27.U. strategists and legislators increasingly see their role as being the global balancer between America and China. Many poor regions of the world have realized that they want the European dream. And each year a new pipeline route opens transporting oil and gas from Libya. With London taking over (again) as the world’s financial capital for stock listing.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t. Al-Ahram 8 (6/4. regardless of her visiting the Crawford ranch.” The Europeans play both sides. And if America and China fight. Meanwhile. It’s a trend that will outlast both President Nicolas Sarkozy of France. Europeans use intelligence and the police to apprehend radical Islamists. which will assume presidency of the European Union next month. And Europe’s influence grows at America’s expense. They say this because the isolation the world has imposed on Hamas has brought results opposite to those desired -. Yet today. technocrats.S. America’s share of global exchange reserves has dropped to 65 percent. the region’s answer to America’s Apec.S. they profit handsomely. the self-described “friend of America.” and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany. with others waiting in line and begging to join? Robert Kagan famously said that America hails from Mars and Europe from Venus. America Strategy Program sr.eg/2008/899/re1. not American-style presidential strongman rule. binding it closer to the E.U. Africa wants a real African Union like the E.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 59 Trade-Off DA Yes Balancing – EU The EU is successfully balancing the US. claiming it was an overreach that would bring the collapse of the European project. and if they do it well. Youssef holds that the EU will continue to place Hamas on the list of terrorist organisations until the current US administration completes its term. While America fumbles at nation-building. What other superpower grows by an average of one country per year. It doesn’t help that Congress revealed its true protectionist colors by essentially blocking the Dubai ports deal in 2006. America controls legacy institutions few seem to want — like the International Monetary Fund — while Europe excels at building new and sophisticated ones modeled on itself. wants to create a counter. which attempts to monopolise influence on developments in the Arab-Israeli conflict. though they are convinced that placing Hamas on the list of terrorist organisations is a "mistake and lacks good judgement and balance". European technologies more and more set the global standard and European countries give the most development assistance.org. Europe is more like Mercury — carrying a big wallet. even if it never becomes a member.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) In Europe’s capital. http://weekly. while Jay-Z drowns in 500 euro notes in a recent video. and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has proposed that OPEC no longer price its oil in “worthless” dollars. calls it “European patriotism. He stressed that through its communications with European officials.ahram. Youssef pointed out. Gisele Bündchen demands to be paid in euros.

S. http://news.'' Medvedev said. Medvedev came to China from a stop in neighboring Kazakhstan. dominance. MSN News 8 (5/23. and taking a similar approach to the Iran nuclear issue.a further sign of improving ties between the one-time Cold War rivals. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev meeting with Chinese journalists on the eve of his visit to Beijing. China and Russia have built a relationship intended to serve as a counterweight to U. reaching a long-delayed agreement on demarcation of the 2. plan for a global missile defense system "does not help to maintain strategic balance and stability or strengthen international efforts to control nonproliferation. plans for a global missile defense system.700 mile (4.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/23/china. His arrival in Beijing was to come after a stop in neighboring Kazakhstan on Thursday.russia. The agreement came after new Russian President Dmitry Medvedev arrived Friday in Beijing on his first overseas trip since his inauguration earlier this month -. as the two began meetings Friday to bolster their partnership with expanded nuclear cooperation.com/international/article.The presidents of China and Russia have condemned U. Putin greatly strengthened relations with China. dominance. The trip is Dmitry Medvedev's first since his inauguration earlier this month as the hand-picked successor to Vladimir Putin. but continued friction remains -. underscoring the importance the two countries place on a relationship that both see as a counterbalance to U. the leaders said a U. CNN 8 (5/23. allowing them to counterbalance the US. sharing opposition to Kosovo's independence and U. reaching an oil pipeline deal with Kazakhstan and negotiating a gas agreement with Turkmenistan. he traveled to London _ via Belarus _ with a message Russia wanted closer ties to the West.S. When his predecessor Putin went abroad for the first time as president in 2000. They have taken a coordinated stance on several global issues. China and Russia have made highly symbolic political overtures to one another.html) BEIJING. There is also rich symbolism in Medvedev's choice of China as the main destination of his first foreign trip." he said. Russia sent rescue crews and a mobile hospital to the disaster area in central Sichuan province.in. . holding joint military maneuvers and engaging in high-level talks on creating a "multi-polar world". ''We are ready to conduct general dialogue on all aspects of our strategic partnership. The official Xinhua News Agency said Medvedev's two-day visit will include talks with President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao. In recent years. Hu thanked both Medvedev and Putin _ now prime minister _ for assistance offered after the May 12 quake that struck central China. But continued friction between the neighboring giants remains _ especially over oil and gas in Central Asia.S. http://edition.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 60 Trade-Off DA Yes Balancing – Russia/China Russia and China are counterbalancing the US. who is visiting China for offering speedy aid after last week's powerful earthquake.msn. In a joint statement signed with Chinese President Hu Jintao. China (AP) -.ap/index.especially over oil and gas -. Sino-Russian relations are high.'' Medvedev offered his condolences to quake victims and relatives of more than 55.in Central Asia. ''We are sure that it will give a powerful impulse to the development of strategic partnership and cooperation.aspx?cp-documentid=1414630) Beijing: Chinese President Hu Jintao thanked Russia's new president Dmitry Medvedev. missile defense plans. where he was seeking to preserve his country's clout in energy-rich central Asia and send a message to both Beijing and the West that Moscow continues to see the region as its home turf. China already has won a cut of the region's riches.000 dead. where he was seeking to preserve his country's clout in the energy-rich Central Asian region." The two leaders' talks were to conclude later Friday with a series of agreements including a US$1 billion (?630 million) deal on Russian help building a uranium enrichment facility for electricity generation and regular shipments of low-enriched uranium to China. "Russia is ready to provide all the necessary assistance and aid to our Chinese friends."You must have no doubt that we will do everything necessary.S.300-kilometer) border.cnn.S.'' Hu said. At the start of their talks. ''Your visit to China is very important and will allow us to not only preserve but to advance all the good undertakings we have had." Moscow and Beijing have formed closer ties in recent years as part of their efforts to counterbalance Washington's global dominance.

Associate Professor of Bush School of Government and Public Service @ Texas A&M U. the burden of proof is on the hegemon to demonstrate to others that its power is not threatening.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 61 Trade-Off DA AT: Benign Hegemony The US is not perceived as benign—unilateralist polices are menacing to other powers. although some may have a great deal more virtue than others. International Security 31. that is. Project Muse) Many primacists believe that the United States can be a successful. and the Middle East. 56 Even in a unipolar world. there is a considerable literature purporting to show that the quality of international politics among democracies differs from that between democracies and nondemocracies. virtue imposed on others is not seen as such by them. In today's world. power means that whenever the United States believes its interests are threatened. China. however. the hard fist of U. benevolent hegemon because it is a liberal democracy. International Security 31. and conduct their affairs based on shared values and norms (transparency. and peaceful dispute resolution). 2006. The mere fact that the United States is a democracy does not negate the possibility that other states will fear its hegemonic power. although primacists assert that U. Project Muse) In international politics there are no benevolent hegemons. realpolitik—not regime type—determines great power policies. democracies have not just teetered on the brink. not all of the other major powers will believe themselves to be threatened (or to be equally threatened) by the hegemon.S. give-and-take. the ability of the United States to reassure others is limited by its formidable—and unchecked—capabilities. “The Unipolar Illusion Revisted: The Coming of the United States’Unipolar Moment”.2. and around. which always are at least a latent threat to other states.2. the gross imbalance of U." accord each other respect. live and let live. democracy has many different—contested—meanings. constitute a "pluralistic security community. Far from being an offshore balancer that is "stopped by water" from dominating regions beyond the Western Hemisphere. and thereby to establish extraregional hegemony in Europe. 72 To say that two states are democracies may conceal more than it reveals. But doing so is difficult because in a unipolar world. Certainly. 69 Contrary to liberal theory. but there is powerful evidence demonstrating that democracies do not behave better toward each other than toward nondemocracies. US democracy doesn’t make heg benevolent—democracy doesn’t decrease international fear of US hegemonic power Layne 6 (Christopher. it will act like other hegemons typically have acted. theories that posit a special democratic (or liberal) peace are contradicted by the historical record. . 2006. “The Unipolar Illusion Revisted: The Coming of the United States’Unipolar Moment”. 2006. power is "offshore. they have gone over it. "No great power has a monopoly on virtue and. Layne 6 (Christopher. American power is both onshore (or lurking just over the horizon in the case of East Asia) and in the faces of Russia. These ideas comport with the Wilsonian ideology that drives U. and the Islamic world. democracies (and liberal states) have threatened to use military force against each other to resolve diplomatic crises and have even gone to the brink of war.S. the United States has acquired the means to project massive military power into. in Europe.S. Eventually. 55 This is not to say that the United States is powerless to shape others' perceptions of whether it is a threat. Project Muse) Precisely because unipolarity means that other states must worry primarily [End Page 21] about the hegemon's capabilities rather than its intentions. other states dread both the overconcentration of geopolitical influence in the United States' favor and the purposes for which it may be used. Layne 6 (Christopher. and the Persian Gulf.2. This argument rests on wobbly reasoning. 7-41. Eurasia.S. “The Unipolar Illusion Revisted: The Coming of the United States’Unipolar Moment”." this manifestly is not the case. grand strategic behavior. When important geopolitical interests are at stake. hegemony is nonthreatening because U. For example. 7-41. International Security 31. Associate Professor of Bush School of Government and Public Service @ Texas A&M U.S. The most notable example of a war among democracies occurred in 1914 when democratic Britain and France went to war against democratic Germany. compromise. 57 There is no such thing as a benevolent hegemon. East Asia. 70 Today. First. All great powers are capable of exercising a measure of self-restraint. As Paul Sharp writes. On the contrary. Associate Professor of Bush School of Government and Public Service @ Texas A&M U. the term "democracy" itself is subjective. 71 [End Page 26] Second. Indeed. some are bound to regard the hegemon's power as menacing. but they are tempted not to and the choice to practice restraint is made easier by the existence of countervailing power and the possibility of it [End Page 27] being exercised. 7-41. power is tangible. democracies cooperate with each other. notwithstanding that it is a democracy. East Asia." 74 While Washington's self-proclaimed benevolence is inherently ephemeral.

Proquest) Many American foreign policy analysts have concluded that the Iraq crisis has demonstrated the folly of a unilateralist American grand strategy. And they must do so. no. there still is a risk that Iraq will come apart at the seams. At worst. centered on France and Germany). wars are fought to attain political objectives. they say. military occupation or to accept an American-imposed government. containment was an effective strategy for dealing with Saddam Hussein. Prof Political Science at the University of Miami “A New Grand Strategy”. And if recent acts of violence against American military personnel are indicative. their natural inclination is to act unilaterally. it is far from clear that the people of Iraq are prepared to acquiesce either to the U. 289. Atlantic Monthly. And it is far from clear that the United States is going to be more secure now that Saddam Hussein is removed from power. The debate about whether the U. the administration’s policy toward Iraq is —in the memorable phrase of German chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg in July 1914—a leap into the dark. . If Iraq posed a serious and imminent threat to the United States.S. the United States faces the prospect of a lengthy and costly period of pacifying and reconstructing Iraq. The reason is simple: it pays to be selfish in a self-help world.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 62 Trade-Off DA AT: We Solve Bad Parts of Heg (Multilateralism) Multilateralism is a sham—realism dictates that so long as the US is so preponderant. however. policy. As University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer says: “States operating in a self help world almost always act according to their own self-interest and do not subordinate their interests to the interests of other states. international politics is an “anarchic” system because there is no central authority able to make and enforce laws and maintain order. as the early months of the postwar occupation suggest. To heal the transatlantic breach. or London. 1. At best. then Washington need not be constrained by the opposition of NATO Europe (or at least its hard core. it will act unilaterally. great powers always put their self-interest first.”49 The nature of international politics impels great powers to think of themselves first— thus. and in which each can employ the means of its choice—including force—to advance its interests. Although the ultimate success of American forces on the battlefield never was in doubt. international politics is a “self-help” system in which each actor must rely primarily on its own efforts to ensure its survival and security. should act multilaterally or unilaterally rests on a false dichotomy. In international politics. What does seem apparent is that the unsettled political situation in Iraq following the war is likely to have crucial ramifications for regional stability. p. These considerations. international politics is an especially competitive realm. Jan 2002. One instance will not negate the larger trend Layne 2 (Christopher & Ben Schwarz.S. First.50 Second. Assoc. Consequently. there remain—serious questions about the wisdom of the administration’s policy. as the leading realist scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt recently have pointed out. are the real defects in U. Berlin. or to the interests of the so-called international community. vol. but rather that there were—and despite the battlefield success. not the failure to defer to Paris and Berlin.S. In the jargon of international relations scholars. the lesson from the Iraq crisis is of the imperative need for the United States to work multilaterally in concert with Europe. The best argument against the Bush administration’s Iraq policy was not that the United States needed to placate Paris.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 63 Trade-Off DA ***Soft Power Good*** .

But in an information age. 261) Ironically. not only aggregates the capabilities of advanced nations. For Jacksoni. Dismissing the importance of at. the only way to achieve the type of transformation that the neoconservatives seek is by working with others and avoiding the backlash that arises when the United States appears on the world stage as an imperial power acting unilaterally.S. broad acceptance of the United States by the Japanese public "contributed to the maintenance of US hegemony" and "served as politi cal constraints compelling the ruling elites to continue cooperation with the United States. Finally. Harvard IR prof. Soft power is key to hegemony – avoids backlash and provides staying power.ans like Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. Once that happened.. we develop common outlooks and approaches that improve our ability to deal with the new challenges. but its interminable committees. their impatience with institutions and allies may undercut their own objectives. Power fiows from that attraction. in September 2003.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 64 Trade-Off DA Soft Power K2 Heg Soft power is key to sustain hegemony due to alliances and information sharing. NATO. Nye 4 (Joseph S.'"^ Popularity can contribute to stability. power in an information age will come not only from strong defenses but also from strong sharing. “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy”. this may not matter.fer to punish the dictator and come home rather than engage in tedious nation building. but polls show that over the decades. 119. as the RAND Corporation's John Arquila and David Ronfeldt ar. In the Japan case. however. for ex. no. we will benefit if we are able to attract others into institutional alliances and eschew weak. p.. What is more. A traditional realpolitik mind-set makes it difficult to share with others. “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy”. "I don't be. no. We cannot afford that. it became more attractive to the Japanese public.ening those we have already created.tional legitimacy and burden sharing with allies and institutions. Initially.traction as merely ephemeral popularity ignores key insights from new theories of leadership as well as the new realities of the information age. vol. such sharing not only enhances the ability of others to cooperate with us but also increases their inclination to do so. other countries will set their expectations in directions that are conducive to our interests. procedures. 119. for example. ."^' But for serious neoconservatives.heve it's our job to reconstruct the country. like Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. if the United States is an attractive source of security and reassurance. vol.'' As we share intelligence and capabilities with others. For example. Rather than having to put together pick-up coalitions of the willing for each new game. The United States benefits when it is regarded as a constant and trusted source of attraction so that other countries are not obliged continually to re-examine their options in an atmosphere of uncertain coalitions. Nye 4 (Joseph S. the most likely way to obtain staying power from the American public is through developing interna. They understand the importance of soft power but fail to appreciate all its dimensions and dynamics. 2. and exercises also allow these nations to train together and quickly be.ample. Japanese politicians began to build it into their approaches to foreign policy. the attractiveness of the United States will be crucial to our ability to achieve the outcomes we want.-Japan security treaty was not very popular in Japan. p. the U.gue. As for alliances. 261) In the global information age. because democracy cannot be imposed by force and requires a considerable time to take root. Rumsfeld said of Iraq. 2.come interoperable when a crisis occurs. Harvard IR prof. They would pre.

by the United States both caused distrust by allies and increased suspicions by many nations who believe that the United States masks evil goals behind the rhetoric of idealism. Inconsistent uni. For one thing. p. Shaping public opinion becomes even more important where author. Nye 8 (Joseph S.In contrast to hard power that rests on coercion and is derived from military and economic might. p. Monash U Global Terrorism Research Unit Honorary Research Associate. I cannot help but fully endorse the sentiments of Prime Minister Lee. but the conditions for projecting soft power have transformed dramatically in recent years.ence others to aspire to share such values. Even when foreign leaders are friendly.tries like Burma or Syria.. but on the ability of a nation to co-opt others to follow its will through the attractiveness of its culture. . For example. diplomacy aimed at public opinion can become as important to outcomes as the traditional classified diplomatic communications among leaders.tent with the long-term policy goals of the State Department. America's leadership and purpose has become more critical than ever. “Why America Can Not Ignore Soft Power”. soft power rests. http://ann.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 65 Trade-Off DA Soft Power K2 Heg Soft power is key to US leadership. Monash U Global Terrorism Research Unit Honorary Research Associate. On May 3. not on coercion. ideas and institutions. 3/22. one that is consis. “Why America Can Not Ignore Soft Power”. values. For example. public relations and ephemeral popularity'. but is considerably broader. There is an urgent need for the US to evolve and develop an overall foreign policy which has coherent principles and acknowledges the merits of soft power. However. 7. the decline of American soft power created a disabling rather than an enabling environment for its policies. It contains very real power . Soft power is increasingly critical to leadership. While there is still a need to provide accurate information to populations in coun. 2007. using hard power. 3/22. Public support was not so important when the United States successfully sought the use of bases in authoritarian countries. Soft power includes propaganda. The competi. 16-17) However. Harvard IR prof. Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stated in Washington that in this tumultuous period. but it turned out to be crucial under the new democratic conditions in Mexico and Turkey. such as Mexico’s vote in the UN or Turkey’s permission for American troops to cross its territory.sagepub. In such circumstances. their leeway may be limited if their publics and parliaments have a negative image of the United States. nearly half the countries in the world are now democracies. there is a new need to garner favorable public opinion in countries like Mexico and Turkey.com/cgi/content/abstract/616/1/94) Promoting positive images of one’s country is not new. 19) Soft power has always been an important element of leadership. it would be in the interests of the United States to create internal mechanisms for a more consistent and stable foreign policy.tive cold war model has become less relevant as a guide for public diplomacy.an ability to gain objectives. it can lead by example and foster cooperation. p. in the global information age. when the United States sought support for the Iraq war. where the government controls information. When a state can persuade and influ.itarian governments have been replaced. where parliaments can now affect decision making. It is much more than 'image. the Cold War was won with a strategy of containment that used soft power along with hard power. Shuja 8 (Sharif. Communication technology is shrinking the world and creating ideal conditions for projecting soft power through the control of information. Shuja 8 (Sharif.lateral actions. we are seeing the increase in the importance of soft power. Soft power is key to sustain US hegemony.

forces in Afghanistan wrapped up less than a quarter of al Qaeda. Nye 4 (Joseph S. Kuala Lumpur. but the inherent attractiveness of U. We need a better strategy for wielding our soft power. and yields the greatest influence in relation to the other bases along as this strong attraction exists. and expert. “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy”. America's neglect of soft power is undermining its ability to persuade and influence others. describe the five bases of power: reward. and Russia had their own self-interest in mind when they opposed the war against Iraq.ing intelligence.ples. Although it would have been best to move ahead with broad support using soft power. Shuja 8 (Sharif. require the willing assistance of other nations and peo.questiaschool. The fault of the Bush administration could lie in their immediate use of coercive power without the exploration of the other bases of power before declaring war. We need to adopt policies that appeal to moderates and to use public diplomacy more effectively to explain our common interests. and the achievement of a variety of other objectives including efforts to promote democracy overseas. America's partners cooperate partly out of self-interest. which decreases attraction. but U. 3/22. Harvard IR prof.hard power is insufficient. The United States cannot bomb al Qaeda cells in Hamburg. whether shar. and thus referent power. The authors point out that referent power has the broadest range of power. Soft power is key to solve terrorism. The most negative power is coercion. 19) It is argued that both hard and soft power are important in US foreign policy and in the fight against terrorism. The management and psychology literature has long touted the benefits of using referent power (soft power) over coercive power (hard power). The United States and other advanced democracies will win only if moderate Muslims win. there are some and individuals that are attracted to the US and its culture and others that are not.com/read/5012336040?title=Soft%20Power%3A%20The%20Means%20to%20Success %20in%20World%20Politics. the strategy assessment of the US's use of soft power is not a new or novel idea. pohcies can and does influence the degree of co.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 66 Trade-Off DA Soft Power Solves Terrorism Soft power is key to solve terrorism . Monash U Global Terrorism Research Unit Honorary Research Associate. 257) Look again at Afghanistan. the US could not use what they did not have." Raven and French (1959). . http://www. coercive. essential. But it is important to note that France. Success against them depends on close civilian cooperation. but the use of 'carrot and stick' alone cannot achieve these objectives. many European countries have long shared feelings that their cultures are far superior to that of the US.S.nancial flows. legitimate. It needs broad cooperation for intelligence gathering and the restriction of ter. which had been eroding for many years prior to the administration. referent. no. Germany.AD: 7/10/09) JC Although worthwhile. We will have to learn better how to combine hard and soft power if we wish to meet the new challenges.rorist finances. a transnational network with cells in sixty countries. vol. p. 119. Pace U. The hard power of military and economic strength is. There are places where the US cannot go in search of terrorist leaders. Cristo 5 (Danna A. “Why America Can Not Ignore Soft Power”. The major failure of the Bush administration in gaining broad support for the war against Iraq may in fact be a failure in assessing the strength of the referent power of the US. Referent power is based on identification and attraction. Equally important. The suppression of terrorism. Soft power is critical to solve terrorism. This is especially true of Islamic fundamentalists who believe that the US's secular culture is evil and corrupt. p. "The Bases of Social Power.. coordinating police work across borders. 2. and the ability to attract the moderates is critical to victory.S. 2005. In relation to the rest of the world. or tracing global fi. These countries had a long history of trying to weaken the containment of Iraq to ensure that they could have good trading relations with it.operation. In their classic article. Precision bombing and Special Forces defeated the Taliban government. Moreover. of course. the current struggle against Islamist terrorism is not a clash of civilizations but a contest whose outcome is closely tied to a civil war between moderates and extremists within Islamic civilization. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. or Detroit.

including enhancement of the public image of multilateral institutions like NATO or the UN. The fact that the United States squandered its soft power in the way that it went to war meant that the aftermath turned out to be much more costly than it need have been. the multilateral Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) legitimized discussion of human rights behind the Iron Curtain and had consequences that were unforeseen by those who signed its Final Act. 2. http://ann. Reconstruction in Iraq and peacekeeping in failed states are far more likely to succeed and to be less costly if shared with others rather than appearing as American imperial occupation.com/cgi/content/abstract/616/1/94) In addition. and particularly their combination. the greatest threats the American people face are transnational terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. vol. during the cold war. 257) According to the National Security Strategy. and it laid the foundations for the end of their empire” (as quoted in Thomas 2003. they got it. 7. .. For example. In 1975. there are times when cooperation. meeting the challenge posed by trans. no.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 67 Trade-Off DA Soft Power Solves Democracy Soft power is key to democracy. “the Soviets desperately wanted the CSCE. As former CIA director Robert Gates concluded.. Similarly. efforts to promote democracy in Iraq and elsewhere will require the help of others. Soft power solves terrorism and democracy promotion. Harvard IR prof. 119. “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy”. Nye 4 (Joseph S. despite initial American resistance. Harvard IR prof. Yet. Nye 8 (Joseph S. American public diplomacy in Czechoslovakia was reinforced by the association of the United States with international conventions that fostered human rights. can make it easier for governments to use such instruments to handle difficult tasks like peacekeeping. p. 257). or countering terrorism.sagepub. promoting democracy. p.national military organizations that could acquire weapons of mass destruction requires the cooperation of other countries—and cooperation is strengthened by soft power.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009
Lab

68 Trade-Off DA

Soft Power Solves Misc
Soft power is key to solve warming, disease, terrorism, and organized crime. Nye 4 (Joseph S, “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy”, Harvard IR prof., vol. 119, no. 2, p. 264)
Because of its leading edge in the information revolution and its past investment in military power, the United States will likely remain the world's single most powerful country well into the twenty-first century. French dreams of a multipolar mihtary world are unlikely to be realized anytime soon, and the German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, has explicitly eschewed such a goal.^^ But not all the important types of power come out of the barrel of a gun. Hard power is relevant to getting the outcomes we want on all three chessboards, but many of the transnational issues, such as climate change, the spread of infec- tious diseases, international crime, and terrorism, cannot be resolved by mili- tary force alone. Representing the dark side of globalization, these issues are inherently multilateral and require cooperation for their solution. Soft power is particularly important in dealing with the issues that arise from the bottom chessboard of transnational relations. To describe such a world as an American empire fails to capture the real nature of the foreign policy tasks that we face.

Soft power is key to solve climate change and terrorism. Khanna 8 (Director of the Global Governance Initiative and Senior Research Fellow in the American Strategy
Program at the New America Foundation. Council on Foreign Relations: “The United States and Shifting Global Power Dynamics”) online: http://www.cfr.org/publication/16002/united_states_and_shifting_global_power_dynamics.html To the extent that our grand strategy will involve elements of promoting good governance and democracy, we will have to become far more irresistible as a political partner, offering incentives greater than those of other powers who do not attach any strings to their relationships. Even if you are agnostic on this issue, we are all aware that this is a perennial plank of American diplomacy and if we want to be even remotely effective at it, we have to up our ante in this arena of rising powers. This I believe is part of what you would call “non-military spending on national security,” a course of action I strongly advocate for the Middle East and Central Asia.
An equally important component of grand strategy will have to be a realistic division of labor with these rising powers, something both of us clearly emphasize. Whether the issue is climate change, public health, poverty reduction, post-conflict reconstruction, or counterterrorism, we do not have the capacity to solve these problems alone—nor can any other power. I argue that we need serious issue-based summit diplomacy among concerned powers (and other actors such as corporations and NGOs) to get moving quickly on these questions rather than (or in parallel to) allowing things to drag through their course in cumbersome multilateral fora. This last point is crucial: the missing ingredient to a globalized grand strategy is the U.S. foreign policy community cleverly leveraging the strengths, activities, and global footprint of the U.S. private sector and NGO communities into what I call a diplomatic-industrial complex. It is in changing our foreign policy process, as much as some of the

goals, that our success lies.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009
Lab

69 Trade-Off DA

***Soft Power Bad***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009
Lab

70 Trade-Off DA

Soft Power Not K2 Heg
Soft power fails to solve hegemony, proliferation or democracy while causing backlash. Philadelphia Inquirer 98 (“Political Power is not Susceptible to the Charms of a Big Mac Attack”, 6/17, LN)
But what also struck me, as I munched fries in Yogya, was the gap between America's power to shape global culture and its power to influence global affairs. Our domination of the airwaves, soundwaves and Web sites won't bring democracy to Jakarta. Throughout Indonesia's recent political upheavals, America's influence has been almost zilch. This disconnection is important to ponder. After the Cold War ended, many analysts believed the nature of power had changed. "In an age of information-based economies and transnational interdependence, power is becoming ... less tangible and less coercive," wrote Harvard professor Joseph Nye Jr., who held key diplomatic and intelligence posts in the first Clinton administration. The kind of power that matters now, Nye argued - in a phrase that became a buzzword - is "soft power." Soft power means that a country's ideas (democracy, free trade, consumerism) are so attractive that others will imitate them. America's culture (and the hold it has on the global imagination) are supposed to be an important source of soft power. Nye and others thought the importance of soft power would continue to grow relative to that of "hard power" - typified by military strength. Soft power was supposed to be an essential tool of the "world's sole remaining superpower." It was supposed to make "them" want to be like "us." But as I watched events unfold in Indonesia, soft power seemed irrelevant. It hardly served to bolster democracy. What young Indonesians see as the essence of America is consumer goods and media images of sex and violence. They know almost nothing about America's democratic values. Only those Indonesians with deeper knowledge of the United States (from studies abroad or professors) know that America is defined by both consumerism and democracy. Nor does the McWorld syndrome make leaders in other countries saturated by U.S. cultural exports toe the U.S. line. Soft power won't soften up Chinese leaders. McWorld won't make those leaders desist from exporting missile technology; that requires the hardpower technique of sanctions, which the Clinton team has found difficult to apply. The same holds for Japan, where a McDonald's sprouts in every neighborhood and an Elvis look-alike cult dances on Sundays in a downtown park. The veneer of U.S./global culture, despite its omnipresence, does not penetrate the foundation of Japanese-ness. Thus, American pleas for Japan to deregulate its economy and bail out its failing banks so Tokyo can power a new Asian growth spurt fall on deaf ears. Japanese leaders are willing to let the yen's value plummet, even though that drags all Asian economies down with it, because they think cheap exports will get their country out of its recession. No hard-power tools are easily at hand for Washington to pry open the Tokyo mindset. And all the McDonald's in Asia won't change Japanese thinking. Soft power is even less effective in countries that have resisted U.S. consumer products. McDonald's is in India (although it doesn't serve beef, since cows are sacred). But in a country long closed to Western exports and deluged with its own, home-produced movies, the Ameri-global culture has yet to take hold. But even if it had, that wouldn't have stopped India's government from exploding the bomb. The blasts were about hard power. Perhaps therein lies the clue to the relevance of soft power, or its lack. Since the Cold War's end, using hard power is tougher, because the objectives are less clear. A lot of wishful thinking has emerged about the impact of America's global empire of burgers and bytes on the projection of U.S. power. McWorld is great for exports (and for convincing foreign youths that their countries should go, and stay, capitalist). But in real power terms, it is still hard power that matters. The only punch delivered by a burger in Yogya is the bite of the hot chili sauce.

that has big implications for America's storyteller -. by nature they will like a strong horse. the overwhelming majority cited "attachment to spiritual and moral values" as the best aspect of their own societies. its dismissal of the key aspects of the Geneva protocols on treatment of prisoners of war and the government wiretapping of its own citizens. with ever fewer exceptions. the publisher-editor of the German weekly Die Zeit has put it directly: "Between Vietnam and Iraq. But perhaps more disturbing to those who once held up America as a model has been not only Guantanamo. Bin Laden said it well himself: "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse.org/20020901faessay9731/michael-hirsh/bush-andthe-world. The Katrina catastrophe in New Orleans not only exposed anew unsolved racial issues but revealed to a shocked world the burgeoning inequality that has crept back into American society as the welfare state has withered. however. It is still power. which has won for so long.as well. There is also resistance to the mere fact of America's overwhelming cultural dominance.com/nathan-gardels/hollywood-in-the-world-a_b_23412. Huffington Post 6 (6/20. the just use of force against fascism and the containment of Soviet power.foreignaffairs. America's soft power is losing its luster for several reasons. violence. interventionism of the 1990s made no headway against this implacable enemy. Hirsh 2 (Michael. is losing its universal appeal.Hollywood -. The reluctant U.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 71 Trade-Off DA Soft Power Causes Resentment/Terrorism Soft power breeds resentment – our culture is intrinsically offensive to other peoples.html) The hegemonists are right about one thing: hard power is necessary to break the back of radical Islamic groups and to force the Islamic world into fundamental change. doubt whether a majority still shares America's founding commitment to the secular principles of the Enlightenment. particularly from Asia and the Muslim world. the Abu Ghraib prison abuse and the Haditha massacre but the White House defense of torture. the rule of law. we are witnessing a mounting resistance. Though projected through movies and music. America's story. as Nye has said. Seized by the marketing machine. promiscuity and pornography" that pollsters called "the Hollywood image. A masterful drama like Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane" would be impossible to make in Hollywood today. Hollywood entertainment has. eroding the natural sympathy after 9/11. Clinton's policy of offering his and NATO's credibility to save Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo won Washington little goodwill in the Islamic world. http://www. The rise of the Christian right has made many./Oct.huffingtonpost." The United States must be seen as the strong horse.individual freedom." Now. Soft power does not necessarily increase the world's love for America. while the most common answer to the question about what they admired least in the West was "moral decay. former Newsweek foreign editor. and it still makes enemies. .. to the American medium's libertarian and secular messages. Josef Joffe. Certainly the unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq has fueled intense anger at America. and so has resentment of America.html) This vast influence of American culture in the world is what Harvard professor Joseph Nye has called "soft power. America's cultural presence has expanded into ubiquity. sex and special effects." Hard power is key – soft power approaches don’t solve terrorism.S. In a recent Gallup Poll of 8. politics in the information age is about whose story wins. If. that power has been based fundamentally on ideals more or less realized in practice -. Needless to say. hewn to the blockbuster formula of action. In foreign policy it has meant the defense of human rights. in Europe in particular. Sept. Fewer and fewer are buying into the American narrative. http://www.000 women in Muslim countries. social and economic opportunity.

The ethnic Serb army arrives in the mainly Muslim town and begins to round up all Muslim males aged above 12. It is 1995 Srebrenica. All that time the U. In four days. led to years of intensified conflict in which more Palestinians and Israelis have died than in the whole of the preceding 50 years. a Bosnian city under U. headquarters in New York what he was supposed to do. Well.com/article/750) The Oslo Accords. On the fifth day. protection force. (As discussed yesterday. The Dutch blue berets were there on a soft-power mission. It takes them five days to kill everyone. When their commander asked the U. the Serbs start killing the captives. is cantoned in its quarters just a mile away. http://www. the so-called Geneva Accord can only have similar effect.) Bill Clinton's soft-power approach to North Korea gave Kim Jong-il four years in which to develop his nuclear arsenal and continue to thumb his nose at the world. protection.000 men and boys are forced into a makeshift camp held by the Serbs.N. New York Post 3 (12/8.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 72 Trade-Off DA Soft Power Causes Prolif/Genocide Soft power allows proliferation and is complicit with genocide. not quite: Some of the Dutch soldiers turned up their radios and cassette players to the maximum to drown the cries of Muslims being massacred by the Serbs. some 8. the answer was chilling: Observe and report. a contingent of Dutch blue berets. doing nothing. And will not the compromise negotiated by the European Union with Tehran persuade the mullahs to speed up their plans to develop nuclear weapons? Whenever I hear the term "soft power.N. the most praised fruit of soft power. ." I am reminded of one particular scene.N.benadorassociates.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 73 Trade-Off DA ***Heg Good*** .

could also benefit.hold some of the largest oil and gas reserves in the world. Georgia. p. they represent important economic. Eurasian oil resources are pivotal to economic development in the early 21st century. and narcotics -.S. Iran. . lexis) The countries surrounding the Caspian Sea -. contains Russia and is key to checking terrorism and smuggling Kalicki 1 (Jan. Attempts to restore its empire will doom Russia’s transition to a democracy and free-market economy.including a NATO ally in Turkey. and the Middle East. American firms have already acquired 75 percent of Kazakhstan's mammoth Tengiz oil field. U. they will remain vulnerable to Russia's hegemonic impulses. Public Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Scenarios including unauthorized missile launches are especially threatening. p. Cohen 96 (Ariel. the attempt will fail so long as they lack the resources to build strong economic and political institutions. The wars which would be required to restore the Russian empire would prove much more costly not just for Russia and the region. And together with neighboring Armenia. these conflicts may escalate to include the use of weapons of mass destruction. but also the U.are in fact many times greater than those of the North Sea and should increase significantly with continuing exploration. world stability. a neo-imperialist Russia could imperil the oil reserves of the Persian Gulf. “The New Great Game: Oil Politics in the Caucasus and Central Asia”.Although the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will continue to dominate the global energy market for decades to come. and Western jobs would be created. firms in other industries -. and its allies. And until they build close.S. the Mediterranean Sea. As the former Soviet arsenals are spread throughout the NIS. 1065. The proven and possible energy reserves in or adjacent to the Caspian region -. a currently turbulent regime in Iran. The U. eastern Asia. as resources from the North Sea have done in the past. such as radical nationalist Vladimir If Russia succeeds in establishing its domination in the south. Ukraine. Turkey. if these vast oil reserves were tapped and developed. and the virtual absence of the rule of law. Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to the east. and its allies in Europe and the Middle East.S. In addition to these energy-related and commercial interests. and strategic interests for the United States. spark nuclear wars and put a stranglehold on the west. The supply of Middle Eastern oil would become precarious if Saudi Arabia became unstable. if successful. which is now valued at more than $10 billion. a reconstituted Russian empire would become a major destabilizing influence both in Eurasia and throughout the world. and Afganistan will increase. Washington should strengthen its policy toward the Caspian by giving the highest level of support to the cooperative development of regional energy reserves and pipelines. To advance those interests. independence of pro-Western Georgia and Azerbaijan already has been undermined by pressures from the Russian armed forces and covert actions by the intelligence and security services. the threat to Ukraine. but for peace. Turkey. it has extracted a tremendous price from Russian society. Iran to the south. and Uzbekistan.thus represents not only a boon for the United States and the world at large. Moreover. substantive relations with the West. the fledgling Caspian republics are plagued with pervasive corruption. Sept/Oct. And.independent of their huge neighbors to the north and the south -. terrorists. and several fragile new states. have resurrected the old dream of obtaining a warm port on the Indian Ocean. Russian imperialists. Over time. the Caspian serves as a trafficking area for weapons of mass destruction. Foreign Affairs. but also the surest way to provide for the Caspian nations' own security and prosperity. Moreover. or if Iran or Iraq provoked another military conflict in the area. secure. PhD. In particular. in addition to which Russian hegemony would make Western political and economic efforts to stave off Islamic militancy more difficult. American leadership in the Caspian key to stability: boosts American hegemony. Such plentiful resources could generate huge returns for U. political. The cooperative development of regional energy reserves and pipelines -. “Caspian Energy at the Cross-Roads”.Russia to the north. The Zhirinovsky. of course. and security. and stabilize world energy supplies in the future. Moreover. and Azerbaijan to the west -. it should encourage the construction of multiple pipelines to ensure diverse and reliable transportation of Caspian energy to regional and international markets. and the Middle East. Eurasian oil is also key to the economic development of the southern NIS.a role enhanced by the weakness of the region's governments. no. political repression. oil and gas development in the Caspian basin could help diversify. The ongoing war in Chechnya alone has cost Russia $6 billion to date (equal to Russia’s IMF and World Bank loans for 1995). lexis) Much is at stake in Eurasia for the U.S. services -. tens of thousands of U.15 Domination of the Caucasus would bring Russia closer to the Balkans. a former adversary in Russia. Even if they can muster the political will to attempt reform themselves. Only with oil revenues can these countries sever their dependence on Moscow and develop modern market economies and free societies. as the capital generated from Caspian energy development spreads to other sectors. Located at the crossroads of western Europe.including at least 115 billion barrels of oil -. With few exceptions.from infrastructure to telecommunications to transportation and other the United States has important political and strategic stakes in the Caspian region -. should ensure free access to these reserves for the benefit of both Western and local economies. It would endanger not only Russia’s neighbors. Heritage Foundation.S.S. companies and their shareholders. Backgrounder.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 74 Trade-Off DA Heg Good – Caspian Stability First. Second Failure to contain Russian would destabilize all of Eurasia.

strong American capabilities and the containment of China is critical to prevent aggression and war over Taiwan.S. heavy U. Washington could only retard--but not reverse--the defeat of Taiwan. fostering a Japanese-Russian rapprochement. The United States needs expanded joint exercises with states in the region. circulated among officers. response. Measures should be taken to correct the Chinese belief that they can confront the world with a fait accompli in Taiwan. cities to being held hostage. encouraging increased political.The document. forces in the region against possible missile attacks. The United States must develop increased capabilities to protect friendly countries and U. the U. Because of the potential for conflict between the United States and China over issues such as Taiwan. forcemix must emphasize longer-range systems and stand-off weapons. Feb. both the politburo and the Peoples Liberation Army have pledged to use force if necessary to regain the island on which the Nationalists settled after losing the civil war to Mao Tse-tung in 1949. Dealing with such possible challenges from China both in the near and long term requires many steps.S. They recognize the overall superiority of the U.S.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 75 Trade-Off DA Heg Good – Chinese Containment First. failure to deter an invasion sparks a global nuclear war.S. “China Prepares New Show of Strength”. the United States should seek to strengthen its own relative capabilities and those of its friends in East Asia to deter possible Chinese aggression and deal effectively with a more powerful. US Ambassador to the United Nations.S. The steps we should take now in the region must include enhancing military-to-military relations between Japan and South Korea. bases to missile attacks. the local balance of power in the region will be decisive because in this new era wars are short and intense. 2.S. lexis) While a peaceful solution remains a priority. pg. These steps are important in themselves for deterrence and regional stability but they can also assist in shifting to a much tougher policy toward China should that become necessary. intervened. but it would be prudent to take some preparatory steps to facilitate the formation of a new alliance or the establishment of new military bases should that become necessary.S. Chicago Tribune 96 (staff. China's military leaders are considering the possibility of a conflict with the United States. According to the Chinese. and increasing Taiwan's ability to defend itself would also be prudent. Ensuring access to key facilities in countries such as the Philippines. The large distances of the East Asian region also suggest that a future U.S. Second. Such an approach by China would be extremely risky and could lead to a major war. weaknesses include vulnerability of U." and enhancing military-to-military cooperation between the United States and the ASEAN states. forcing the United States to risk major escalation and high levels of violence to reinstate the status quo ante. and America's sensitivity to casualties. According to the emerging Chinese doctrine. 6.S. the U. p. reliance on space. susceptibility of U. China might gamble that these risks would constrain the U. pre-positioning stocks in the region. Vol. commercial interests in China would be damaged and any intervention could lead to a new Sino-Russian alliance. military posture in general should take this possibility into account. 18. Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay. potentially hostile China. Burden-sharing and enhanced ties with states in East and Southeast Asia will be important. No.S.S. including a settlement of the dispute over the "northern territories. would not intervene because U.” The Washington Quarterly. and a Sino-U.military cooperation among the ASEAN states and resolving overlapping claims to the Spratly Islands and the South China Sea. America's need to rapidly reinforce the region in times of conflict. U. 84 Spring 1995) Third.A PLA analysis--leaked to Western media--suggests that in the event of war with Taiwan. “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War. .S. military but believe there are weaknesses that could be exploited while preventing the United States from bringing its full power to bear in case of a conflict over Taiwan.S. New formal alliance relationships--which would be the central element of a containment strategy--are neither necessary nor practical at this time. concludes that even if the U. conflict might lead to a global nuclear holocaust. They would signal to China that any attempt on their part to seek regional hegemony would be costly. In a possible Taiwan conflict China would seek to create a fait accompli.

carnegie.co m/p/articles/mi_m1584/is_n2_v8/ai_19538680/pg_9) Mr. Washington. property rights. “Promoting Democracy in the 1990’s”. Across the globe.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 76 Trade-Off DA Heg Good – Democracy First. “Building a framework for American leadership in the 21st Century . the freezing of North Korea's. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Think about it. chemical. within their own borders. it is the result of sustained American leadership. and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. online: http://www. the movement towards open societies and open markets is wider and deeper than ever before. appears increasingly endangered. Second. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens. Secretary of State. That is the central lesson of the twentieth century -. Albright 97 (Madeleine. Precisely because. and the rule of law. and biological weapons continue to proliferate. civil liberties. with its provisions for legality. http://findarticles.U. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. CARNEGIE COMMISSION ON PREVENTING DEADLY CONFLICT 95 (staff. and the securing of Russia's. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. or the constancy and creativity of our diplomacy. Chairman. Secretary of State” Statement before the House International Relations Committee. DC. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. more than seven years have passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall and five years since the demise of the Soviet Union. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. open. Oct.and this lesson must continue to guide us if we are to safeguard our interests as we enter the twenty-first. Would the American people be as secure if weapons of mass destruction. America is secure. popular sovereignty. democratic consolidation is key to preventing nuclear war. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous. and openness. Democratic countries form more reliable. our economy vibrant. they are the concrete real.org/sub/pubs/deadly/dia95_01. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. they respect competition. Democracy's triumph is neither accidental nor irreversible. The very source of life on Earth. Make no mistake: the interests served by American foreign policy are not the abstract inventions of State Department planners. democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built. instead of being controlled. fell into the wrong hands? That is precisely what would have happened if the Administration and Congress had not acted to ensure the dismantling of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.S. and enduring trading partnerships. . p. leadership is critical to democratization effects. It would not have been possible without the power of our example. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations. democratic ones. ties of our daily lives. accountability. and our ideals ascendant.html lexis) This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. Today. Nuclear. the global ecosystem. the strength of our military.

Thus. no treaty would be any trustworthier than the 1994 Agreed Framework that North Korea violated. Rogue states push the world toward anarchy and away from stability. to rearm for a war of conquest. Zbigniew Brzezinski. “Using Power and Diplomacy to Deal with Rogue States”. the United States should help them by every means possible. January/February 2004. Strong Hegemony and force projection is the only way to deal with rogue states. or. or mountains is quite another. is a Central African affair. Rwanda. Neither would be willing to negotiate away its nuclear arsenal. Terrorist rogue states. In the case of the decades-long slaughter in southern Sudan. living in a world without law and order is not an auspicious prospect.html //wyo-tjc) In today's globally interconnected world. 20 lexis) True. the former national security adviser to President Carter. namely. realistically. Turkey. short of actual war. But their preferred solution is to use political. Most incidents of civil turmoil need not engage U. The Iranian and North Korean peoples want to be free. But watching rogue behavior with complacency or relying on the United Nations courts disaster in the age of weapons of mass destruction. A similar response to rogue states cannot be easily cloned for each contingency but may require the United States to corral allies or partners into a unified policy. strategic interests. the United States can serve a humanitarian cause by calling international attention to Khartoum's genocide of Christian and animist peoples.S. n." The other key goal is "impeding the emergence of a power rival. They do not rule out force if necessary. That Iraq's president. security is to topple the tyrannical regimes in Pyongyang and Tehran. “Neocons. Although the United States does not want to be the world's sheriff. do not endanger U. the ethno-nationalist conflict raised the specter of a wider war. as circumstances dictate. the simmering Congolese fighting is better left to Africans to resolve than to outsiders. meaning that how the United States responds to a regional rogue has worldwide implications. p.S.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 77 Trade-Off DA Heg Good – Deter Rogue States First. jungles. and Zimbabwe. (Think Again). Rogue leaders draw conclusions from weak responses to aggression. These types of conflicts. threaten global commercial relationships. Saddam Hussein. Angola. Fellow at Hoover Institute. that of forging an enduring framework of global geopolitical cooperation. however. events on one side of the planet can influence actions on the other side. Failure to deter Rogues sparks a nuclear crises and war Boot 4 (Max Boot. it should pick its interventions with great care. Regime change may seem like a radical policy but it is actually the best way to prevent a nuclear crisis that could lead to war. drawing in the neighboring countries of Greece. that neocons are agitating for preemptive war.S. Senior Fellow for National Security Studies. in contrast. there is no compelling reason for U. Aside from international prodding. which has drawn in small military forces from Uganda. 140 p. it demands no American intervention. as witnessed by the cold war. online: http://www. Indeed. Neocons think the only way to ensure U. Containment. to bring down these dictators--the same strategy the United States followed with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. or the world will go down the same path as it did in the 1930s. and Russia. however.hoover. economic. military forces. Regrettable as the bloody civil war in Sri Lanka is. diplomatic. the doctrine articulated in response to Soviet global ambitions.edu/publications/epp/94/94a. Even the civil war in the Congo. Deterring security threats is a valuable mechanism to maintain peace. for the ethnic conflict between the secessionist Tamil minority and the Sinhalese majority is largely an internal affair. This said.stanford. it must be emphasized that the United States ought not intervene militarily in every conflict or humanitarian crisis. escaped unpunished for his invasion of Kuwait no doubt emboldened the Yugoslav president. undermine regional order. and it may afford the only realistic option available.S. Political inaction creates vacuums. But in dealing with rogue states deterrence and containment may not be enough. Endless negotiating with these governments--the preferred strategy of self-described pragmatists and moderates--is likely to bring about the very crisis it is meant to avert."(4) Second. military deployment. to take one example. and military pressure. Before NATO intervened in the Bosnia imbroglio in 1995. while doing nothing to provide support for their oppressors. No weapons of mass destruction menace surrounding peoples or allies. Sr. must be confronted with robust measures. offered a realistic guideline for policymakers. call for direct humanitarian intervention. in his campaign to extirpate Muslims from Bosnia-Herzegovina in pursuit of a greater Serbia. which can suck in states to fill the void. Iran and North Korea are the two likeliest culprits. when Europe and the United States allowed Nazi Germany to propagate its ideology across half a dozen states. This objective does not mean. . Political turmoil in Cambodia is largely a domestic problem. dispatching armed forces to far-flung deserts. Offering Washington's good offices to mediate disputes in distant corners is one thing. and to intimidate the democracies into appeasement. The greatest danger to the United States today is the possibility that some rogue state will develop nuclear weapons and then share them with terrorist groups. A global doctrine setting forth all-inclusive guidelines is difficult to cast in stone. Slobodan Milosevic.” FOREIGN POLICY. HENRIKSON 99 (Thomas. cited preventing global anarchy as one of the two goals of "America's global engagement.

He faced resistance from the South Korean government. Professor of International Relations at Princeton University International Security. we would stampede the Japanese into going nuclear. "In the present mood. staff . "Any movement of American forces would almost certainly involve countries and individuals taking the wrong message. no matter how much the United States asserts its commitment to the region. leading to miscalculation and nuclear war. “Why Keep US Troops?”. All of this would influence the behavior of the United States. increasing Asian nuclearization runs the risk of wild-fire proliferation and armsracing. Friedburg 94 (Aaron. "The main one would be this: receding American commitment. there would still be serious difficulties involved in negotiating the transition to such a world." Second. Mr." he said. a deputy assistant secretary of defense during the Clinton administration. when President Carter. Pakistan) and Russia (which would also be affected by events in Japan and Korea). Beijing. Winter. South or. the ultimate beneficiary of this would be China in the long term. A secure Korea makes Japan more confident. it's hard to say how the Chinese might respond. raising questions in an already jittery region about Washington's willingness to maintain stability in Asia. ." said Kurt Campbell. p. which might cause China to accelerate and expand its nuclear programs. from India to China to Japan to Korea). Other Asian leaders would be likely to interpret a troop withdrawal as a reduction of American power. he contends." said Zbigniew Brzezinski. An American withdrawal from Korea could raise questions about the United States' commitment to the 40." "Mind-sets in Asia are profoundly traditional. And frankly. attack on Taiwan and North Korean proliferation. A rapid. The New York Times.000 troops it has in Japan. as well as on its responsibilities as the globe's presumptive supercop. "If we did it. US withdrawal from Asia sparks Japan into rapid nuclear armament. 5. for the moment that an Asia with more nuclear powers would be more stable than one with fewer. China might take the opportunity to flex its military muscle in the Taiwan Straits and South China Sea. small.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 78 Trade-Off DA Heg Good – East Asian Stability First. the Japanese reaction could be quite strong. Brzezinski says. In Japan the prevailing “nuclear allergy” could lead first to delays in acquiring deterrent forces and then to a desperate and dangerous scramble for nuclear weapons. the prospects for a peaceful transition may be further complicated by the fact that the present and potential nuclear powers are both numerous and strategically intertwined. both together) could lead to a similar development in Japan. And that could drive anxious Japanese leaders into a military buildup that could include nuclear weapons. p. p. In Asia. motivated by post-Vietnam doubts about American power. "They calculate political will by the numbers of soldiers. l lexis) Deciding if now is the time depends on how well the United States is able to project power across the Pacific. he argues. Jan. miscalculation. and war. the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency. proposed withdrawing ground forces from the peninsula. Dao 3 (James. The arguments against withdrawal then still apply today. India (and through it." he said. ships and airplanes that they see in the region. Taipei and beyond. which could then have an impact on the defense policies of Taiwan. Withdrawing forces in Korea would reverberate powerfully in Tokyo. As in other regions. nascent nuclear forces will be especially vulnerable to preemption. lexis) Assuming. Brzezinski took part in the last major debate over reducing American forces in Korea. the national security adviser to Jimmy Carter. Mr." In the 1970's. "And under those circumstances. 8. multifaceted expansion in nuclear capabilities could increase the dangers of misperception. whether through reunification or competitive arms programs. The nuclearization of Korea (North. backing down in the face of irresponsible North Korean behavior. North Korea could feel emboldened to continue its efforts to build nuclear arms. Similar shockwaves could also travel through the system in different directions (for example.

American primacy was a prerequisite for the creation and gradual expansion of the European Union. are already on site within the United States itself. Hegemony is key to trade and interdependence—stability opens conditions necessary for growth.nwc. the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. but it is more accurate to say that peace encourages interdependence-by making it easier for states to accept the potential vulnerabilities of extensive international intercourse. A global economic collapse would escalate to full scale conflict and rapid extinction Bearden 2k (Thomas. As an example. in a spasmodic suicidal response. the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict. As the studies showed. suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea. and perhaps most of the biosphere. . Indeed. once a few nukes are launched. The United States also played a leading role in establishing the various institutions that regulate and manage the world economy. they are less likely to worry that extensive cooperation will benefit others more and thereby place them at a relative disadvantage over time. at least for many decades. the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it.S. adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. U. Free Republic. under such extreme stress conditions. “Without America on duty. rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. lexis) History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions.navy. By providing a tranquil international environment.” Second. the current era of “globalization” is itself partly an artifact of American power. primacy is one of the central pillars upon which that system rests. Economic interdependence is often said to be a cause of world peace.htm) By facilitating the development of a more open and liberal world economy. are almost certain to be released. escalating it significantly. there will be no America Online.S. As a number of commentators have noted. www. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. primacy has created political conditions that are conducive to expanding global trade and investment. Spring. they could safely ignore the balance of power within Western Europe and concentrate on expanding their overall level of economic integration. June 24. and states worry less about being dependent on others when they are not concerned that these connections might be severed. Or suppose a desperate Chinawhose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States-attacks Taiwan. and U. Today. forces there. in short. to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations. The expansion of world trade has been a major source of increased global prosperity. Without effective defense. As Thomas Friedman puts it. Investors are more willing to send money abroad when the danger of war is remote. which is often touted as a triumph of economic self-interest over historical rivalries. Prior to the final economic collapse. they will also be less fixated on how the gains from cooperation are distributed. In addition to immediate responses. a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed. JFKSchool of Government Professor at Harvard Univiversity Naval War College Review.mil/press/Review/2002/spring/art1-sp2. including U. American primacy also fosters global prosperity. When states are relatively secure. In particular. “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis”. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that. Because the United States was there to protect the Europeans from the Soviet Union and from each other.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 79 Trade-Off DA Heg Good – Global Economy First.S. Walt 2 (Stephen.

radicalized the populations of surrounding states and even sparked civil wars in other. Iraqi instablity spills over and causes terrorism. revolutionary period? The stakes are too high to wait and find out. I see no reason why Moqtada al-Sadr and other Shiite strongmen would seek any kind of compromise with Sunni leaders in a pluralist government. these unhinged collectivities now have ready access to weapons of mass destruction. the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat of Algeria. http://www. the country will become a far bloodier and more lawless battleground than it is now. Regional conflict would be. civil wars just as often breed new terrorist groups-Hizballah. In short. The consequences of such weapons in the hands of ruthless. or biological weapons where and when they wish. In other similar cases of all-out civil war the resulting spillover has fostered terrorism.washingtonpost. In fact. who and how many they are willing to kill. states may come to rely more and more on dictatorial and authoritarian measures. Such a conflict is unlikely to contain itself. America (and the world) should make sure that Iraq remains a diverse multicultural federation rather than become three isolated and weak enclaves. Regional War and ‘Shiastan’”. But is this even possible? Can this be achieved without a violent. Israel and Syria would stretch out their own claws soon enough.html. Saudi Arabia. The National Interest 7 (“Keeping the Lid On”. Terrorism risks extinction Kirkus Reviews. rootless fanatics are not difficult to imagine. secularity is a precious asset. once the American forces leave. So the bad but not the worst is a state more like India than the former Yugoslavia. and the Tamil Tigers were all born of civil wars. Second. Saddam’s pragmatic view of religion was perhaps the man’s only virtue. Once that happens.com/postglobal/leon_krauze/2007/04/keep_foot_on_or_chaos_and_shia. around the corner. Which is the latter and how to avoid it? The worst outcome for Iraq would be a full-scale civil war that ends in the country’s partition. 99 (Book Review on “The New Terrorism: Fanatiscism and the Arms of Mass Destruction”. created refugee flows that can destabilize the entire neighborhood. panic can grip any targeted society. The technological skills are not that complex and the resources needed not too rare for terrorists to employ nuclear.com/New-Terrorism-Fanaticism-Arms-Destruction/dp/product-description/0195118162) Today two things have changed that together transform terrorism from a ``nuisance'' to ``one of the gravest dangers facing mankind. .amazon. April 30. It wasn’t an insignificant attribute. especially given the aggressive expansionist theocracy next door. http://newsweek. There are no longer any moral limitations on what terrorists are willing to do.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 80 Trade-Off DA Heg Good – Iraq Stability US hegemony in Iraq prevents Iraqi collapse Washington Post 7 (“IF Leave. there have been only two possible outcomes in Iraq: the bad and the worse. the Palestine Liberation Organization. as Al-Qaeda did in Afghanistan. However. neighboring states or transformed domestic strife into regional war. terrorism in the future may threaten the very foundations of modern civilizations. Terrorists frequently find a home in states in civil war. ultranationalists in the US. Lexisnexis. 2007) For a while now. May-June 2007) THE COLLAPSE of Iraq into all-out civil war would mean more than just a humanitarian tragedy that could easily claim hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and produce millions of refugees. To combat such terrorist activities. or any number of other possible permutationsseem to have changed from organized groups with clear ideological motives to small clusters of the paranoid and hateful bent on vengeance and destruction for their own sake. Given the recent history of both the Middle East and Islam. unleashing retaliatory action which in turn can lead to conflagrations perhaps on a world scale. literally.'' First terroristsbe they Islamic extremists in the Middle East. In addition to the destruction of countless lives. Outright Shia domination of Iraq should never be allowed. Many such groups start by focusing on local targets but then shift to international attacks-starting with those they believe are aiding their enemies in the civil war. chemical. The consequences of an enormous “Shiastan” right in the heart of the Middle East could prove to be disastrous. There is little question that.

2. pg. Professor of International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government."17 The bottom line is clear. Proquest) Thus. promote human rights. "American Primacy: Its Prospects and Pitfalls. People running for president do not declare that their main goal as commander in chief would be to move the United States into the number-two position. They understand.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 81 Trade-Off DA Heg Good – Laundry List Heg is necessary to prevent WMD prolif. The United States would accomplish far less if it were weaker. and promote democracy. "Peace must be built upon power. Even in a world with nuclear weapons." Naval War College Review. Walt 2 (Stephen. extensive economic ties. an increasingly vocal chorus of nongovernmental organizations. and primacy is still preferable. that being number one is a luxury they should try very hard to keep. power still matters. and other such novel features. as well as upon good will and good deeds. Iss. 55. . rapid communications. anyone who thinks that the United States should try to discourage the spread of weapons of mass destruction. promote human rights. and it would discover that other states were setting the agenda of world politics if its own power were to decline. advance the cause of democracy. or pursue any other positive political goal should recognize that the nation's ability to do so rests primarily upon its power. As Harry Truman put it over fifty years ago. Vol. as do most Americans. 9 (20 pages) Spring 2002.

As an example. with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary.opinioneditorials. U. However one defines the conflict it is a key battleground and the aftermath of the fighting will dictate what forces sink their roots deep into the Middle East’s future. http://www. Now the party of the donkey is being joined by some Republicans who are prepared to ignore reality in favor of mythical rhetoric. it would cause a shortage in supply which would cause oil prices to skyrocket.yahoo. With this in mind.shtml. In fact. rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. it becomes clear that any instability in the Middle East would threaten the global oil trade. Army.S. we can do cordon and searches. On July 5.com/guestcontributors/jbell_20070709. General Lynch said the “surge forces are giving us the capability we have now to take the fight to the enemy.to believe that a reliance on international cooperation and foreign aid will soothe the ire of Iran. Frontiers of Freedom 7 (“Democrats and Some Republicans Ignore Reality in Iraq”. As the collapse of the Western economies nears.” Lynch explained. building more IEDs (and) carrying those IEDs to Baghdad. we cannot wait until the Administration’s September report before we change course.S. commanders on the ground report the opposite. The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How We Can Solve It. the Democrats have always preferred to plow the easy field of political expediency instead of laboring in the difficult field of policy. it is delusional . reestablishing sanctuaries. is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. President Bush and the Iraqis must move now to finally accept a measure of accountability for this war … transition the mission for our combat troops and start bringing them home from an intractable civil war. and the violence would escalate.whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States . one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing nations as the developed nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders. forces there. Islam Online. If those surge forces go away that capability goes away and the Iraqi security forces aren’t ready yet to do that (mission). are almost certain to be released. commander of Multinational Division Center and the 3rd Army Division said U. The enemy only responds to force and we now have that force. it is contradictory . despite Reid’s hyperventilating. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wrote. in a spasmodic suicidal response. International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions.html. “As evidence mounts that the ‘surge’ is failing to make Iraq more secure.S. we foresee these factors . escalating it significantly. Or suppose a desperate China .S. the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict. the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts. forces begin an untimely departure. The real legacy of the MAD concept is his side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. 7/9/07) It not only seems contradictory. On July 6. and we can deny the enemy sanctuaries. the only chance a nation has to survive at all. “You’d find the enemy regaining ground.” First. Economic collapse causes global nuclear war and extinction.Net 6 (“Frequently Asked Questions About Iraq”. Absent active and engaged U.net/english/In_Depth/Iraq_Aftermath/topic_15.converging to a catastrophic collapse of the world economy in about eight years.com/group/Big-Medicine/message/642) (PDAF0842) Bluntly. causing economic collapse.islamonline. If the global oil trade were disrupted. Second. at least for many decades. Skyrocketing oil prices hamper global economic growth and threaten the world’s economies. . 2000. 2006) Oil is the lifeblood of the global economy.” The general said if U. At worst.attacks Taiwan. March 21. it could cause a recession in many of the world’s oil dependent countries. With respect to Iraq. once a few nukes are launched. Without effective defense. under such extreme stress conditions. The Middle East has about 65% of the world’s total oil resources. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it. suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea. including U. leadership Iraq will become a longterm failed state and a terrorist sanctuary.” Middle Eastern instability sky rockets oil prices.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 82 Trade-Off DA Heg Good – Middle East Stability US leadership is key to Middle Eastern stability and prevent escalation. to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations. http://www. Prior to the final economic collapse. http://groups.and others { } not covered . the day after Reid’s misguided missive. there is no “evidence” that the surge is failing. and Iraqi forces are making “significant progress” in destroying insurgent sanctuaries. As the studies showed.indeed. Bearden 2k (Lieutenant Colonel in the U. Reid and his political brethren have spent far too much time trying to make the case that what is transpiring in Iraq is a civil war. In addition to immediate responses.S. Army Major General Rick Lynch. 2000. and perhaps most of the biosphere.S. al Qaeda in Iraq and their ideological supporters and pave the way for political and social progress. “We can conduct detailed kinetic strikes.

and interoperability.S. and as such. The main countries in the U. A structure of deterrence does not operate on the basis of cooperation between opposing powers. since 1999. the opponent will refrain from attack. the power-projection capabilities of the various states are constrained by a mutual display of force between the United States and the Southeast Asian states on the one hand. In the first -the worst possible scenario -Asian countries would go to war against each other. the U. In substitution of the permanent base arrangements during the Cold War. the United States has maintained its strategy of forward deployment. It might start with clashes between Asian countries over the Spratly Islands because of China's insistence that the South China Sea belonged to it along with all the islands. On the contrary. exercises. a structure of deterrence appears to be in the making. Odgaard 1 (Liselotte. Thus. However.S. interests. . Dr Mahathir also painted three scenarios for Asia.S. Clashes occur between the Chinese navy and the US Navy. Thus. of Political Science. At the same time. China declares war on the US and a fullscale war breaks out with both sides resorting to nuclear weapons. Technological constraints are likely to force Bush to moderate his position on such defence plans. Nor can deterrence be equated with violence and volatility. network of military co-operation agreements are Singapore. Aug 1.S. Bush describes China as a strategic competitor. the consolidation of a structure of deterrence in the South China Sea may provide Southeast Asia with the level of military security and reassurance necessary to allow for the development of stronger co-operative ties with China. he said. The Pacific Fleet begins to patrol the South China Sea.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 83 Trade-Off DA Heg Good – South China Sea First. and Taiwan. Contemporary Southeast Asia. the United States maintains its support for the ASEAN position on the non-use of force concerning dispute settlement in the South China Sea. the NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. they cannot afford to ignore the worst-case scenario of conflict involving China. conflict in the SCS culminated into a global nuclear war.S. The majority of the Southeast Asian states have embarked on a modernization of their naval capabilities. As a consequence. is no immediate threat to the latter. the relationship between the two powers has suffered a downturn because of Chinese opposition to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) air strikes in Yugoslavia. Asst Prof. lexis) The South China Sea constitutes a first line of defence for the littoral states of Southeast Asia. However. policy on the Spratlys may be characterized as guarded non-involvement.S. [4] In line with this hardening of U. the financial crisis of the late 1990s delayed some of these efforts. he said. Thailand. p. South Korea. This geostrategic picture suggests that co-operation on managing the regional balance of power is not on the cards. it is not prepared to play an active part in the Spratly dispute unless freedom of navigation through Southeast Asian waters is threatened. making the Southeast Asian states more reliant on bilateral defence arrangements. Denmark. U. reefs and seabed minerals. the United States would offer to help and would be welcomed by Asean. Instead. Therefore. “Deterrence and Cooperation in the South China Sea”. The Administration of George W. troops have resumed joint exercises with the Philippines from 2000. May 21. the military agreements facilitate training. forward military presence in the pacific deters China and leads to stabilization allowing a political solution to be brokered. American reservations about direct involvement in the Spratly dispute do not imply that cordial relations between the United States and China are on the agenda. On the contrary. in particular with the United States. University of Aarhus. Washington prefers that the regional states settle their disputes without its involvement as long as these do not pose a threat to U. In this scenario. and the Philippines. U. reassurances that research and development on the TMD will continue only leaves China with the option of proceeding with military modernization to build up its deterrence capabilities. and accusations of Chinese military espionage in the United States. Bush is unlikely to call for a revival of the idea of a strategic partnership with China. policy towards China. In general. Although the United States looks at China's Spratly policy as an indication of its possible bid for regional hegemony. Strait Times 95 (staff. aimed at developing a deterrent force as well as a force capable of engaging in military operations at sea. Deterrence is directed at the intentions of opponents: if the existence of deterrent forces are seen to prevent the opponent from achieving gains through aggression. proquest) In his speech. Bush has voiced strong support for a theatre missile defence (TMD) system covering Japan. and China on the other. permitting the United States to be seen to be engaged in Southeast Asia as a flexible regional balancer. The United States shares the widespread perception within Southeast Asia that China's moves in the South China Sea indicate that it might have expansionist intentions. However. Thus. China is a power of second rank compared with the United States. Second. “Choose Your Own Style of Democracy”.

therefore. the US has no peer competitors in space. it is crucial that the United States maintain leadership in Space to deter conflicts and prevent other count Everett 5(Dolman.” the hair-trigger postures of the nuclear competition between the United States and Russia during the Cold War would be elevated to the “ultimate high ground” of space. Space weapons. I have no choice but to hit everything. Vol. The cost of entry will simply be too great. . In other words. should the US reject the hedging strategy and unilaterally deploy weapons in space. as Michael Krepon and Chris Clary argue in their monograph.cdi. At a minimum. U. are inherently vulnerable and.” This should not be surprising to anyone – the United States and the Soviet Union found this out very early in the Cold War. best exploited as first-strike weapons. Editor of Defense News. Air Force officials participating in space wargames have discovered that war in space rapidly deteriorates into all-out nuclear war. Furthermore. like anything else on orbit. Thus. On the other hand. This dithering approach blatantly ignores the current real world situation. and thus took measures to ensure transparency. such a strategy increases the likelihood of a space arms race if and when space weapons are ultimately deployed. 3. as the only plausible response by the US would be to at least match the opposing capabilities. developing the “hotline” and pledging to non-interference with national technical means of verification under arms control treaties. communications and targeting. 1 Winter. Indeed. the most powerful argument in favor of the hedging plan. is most likely if the US follows its counsel. http://www. other states may rationally decide not to compete. Former director of British American Security Information Council -think tank based in Washington and London. using everything I have. any conflict involving ASAT use is likely to highly escalatory. Second. the probability of failure palpable. At present. For the US to refrain from weaponizing until another state proves the capacity to challenge it allows for potential enemies to catch up to American capabilities.cfm?documentID=1745) The negative consequences of a space arms race are hard to exaggerate. Director of Center for Defense Information. “Space Assurance or Space Dominance. given the inherent offensedominant nature of space warfare. "Strategy Lost: Taking the Middle Road to Nowhere. October 2.org/friendlyversion/printversion. in particular among nuclear weapons states. precisely because it quickly becomes impossible to know if the other side has gone nuclear. No. this leads to global nuclear war.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 84 Trade-Off DA Heg Good – Space Dominance First. Unfortunately. such as placing emphasis on early warning radars." High Frontier Journal. the fear of an arms race in space. C. Aviation Week and Space Technology quoted one gamer as saying simply: “[If] I don’t know what’s going on. Hitchens 3 (Theresa. as the objective of an attacker would be to eliminate the other side’s capabilities to respond either in kind or on the ground by taking out satellites providing surveillance. 2K5) Common to all hedging strategy proponents is the fear that placing weapons in space will spur a new arms race. there is no risk for potential peer competitors to try.S.

98. The U. Maybee 8 (Sean C.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/i49. economic. In addition to fighting and winning the nation’s wars. US Navy commander. and survival of the nation-state through the use of instruments of national power: diplomatic. .ndu. p. by addressing environmental security. US Navy commander. In addition. but the potential impacts of GCC should lead national security policymakers to consider how environmental security will play a role in the future. the US military has a long history of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. military already has a robust capacity to respond and could continue to develop and use it to help other nations to build that capacity. prosperity. The Nation has the economic and informational power to develop and resource effective methods and the international status to foster global cooperation and implementation. http://www. military.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 85 Trade-Off DA Heg Good – Warming US military power and leadership is key to solve climate change.S. 98. and informational power will be the drivers of GCC responses as they provide the needed resources ideas and technology. p. US leadership is key to solve warming.htm) For the purpose of this essay. the United States may foster trust and cooperation while beginning to anticipate some GCC effects. national security is defined as the need to maintain the safety. http://www. Maybee 8 (Sean C.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/i49. It will be through invoking military and diplomatic power that resources are used and new ideas are implemented to overcome any GCC challenges.htm) The national security implications of GCC pose unique challenges for the United States in part because it is best suited to lead counter-GCC efforts.ndu.

states within these regions do not worry as much about each other. It is a good prism for identifying threats. 18. other major powers are not inclined to challenge its dominant position. great-power wars killed over eighty million people. Not only is there no possibility of a "hegemonic war" (because there is no potential hegemon to mount a challenge). because the danger of war is slight. the dominant position of the United States places significant limits on the possibility of great-power competition.S. for at least two reasons. because the U. the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -. regional powers know that launching a war is likely to lead to a confrontation with the United States. World politics might be more interesting if the United States were weaker and if other states were forced to compete with each other more actively. primacy is of benefit to the United States. "American Primacy: Its Prospects and Pitfalls. dominance and dislike playing host to American troops. primacy is a decreased danger of great-power rivalry and a higher level of overall international tranquility. and assessing needs for military capabilities and modernization. U. but it is an important one. 9 (20 pages) Spring 2002. setting priorities for U. Proquest) A second consequence of U.S. Finally. No. pg.S. 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." Naval War College Review. Walt 2 (Stephen. Precluding the rise of a hostile global rival is a good guide for defining what interests the United States should regard as vital and for which of them it should be ready to use force and put American lives at risk. such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems. and to other countries as well. including a global nuclear exchange. Iss.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 86 Trade-Off DA Heg Good – War Hegemony prevents prolif and global nuclear war. US primacy prevents the outbreak of global hegemonic war.S. Vol. this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Miscalculation is more likely to lead to war when the balance of power is fairly even. 84 Spring 1995) Under the third option. such as nuclear proliferation. On balance. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself. the leading state does not need to go to war and weaker states dare not try. For most of the past four centuries. US Ambassador to the United Nations. troops are committed abroad. however. Second.S. but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. Ironically.9 Thus.S. and the rule of law. often punctuated by major wars and occasionally by all-out struggles for hegemony. free markets. however. because in this situation both sides can convince themselves that they might be able to win. U. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival. policy toward various regions and states. In the first half of the twentieth century. threats of regional hegemony by renegade states. but a more exciting world is not necessarily a better one. Vol. but the risk of war via miscalculation is reduced by the overwhelming gap between the United States and the other major powers. Today. for example. and low-level conflicts. but they also do not want "Uncle Sam" to leave. This tranquilizing effect is not lost on America's allies in Europe and Asia. U.democracy.8 The second reason is that the continued deployment of roughly two hundred thousand troops in Europe and in Asia provides a further barrier to conflict in each region. Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay. Professor of International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. relations among the major powers have been intensely competitive. One reason is that because the United States is currently so far ahead. “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War. presence effectively prevents regional conflicts from breaking out. What Joseph Joffe has termed the "American pacifier" is not the only barrier to conflict in Europe and Asia. First.” The Washington Quarterly. Thus.S. because it dampens the overall level of international insecurity. . overlook the fact that the extent of American primacy is one of the main reasons why the risk of great-power war is as low as it is. They resent U.S. enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers. pg. A comparatively boring era may provide few opportunities for genuine heroism. those who argue that primacy is no longer important. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. When the balance of power is heavily skewed. but it is probably a good deal more pleasant to live in than "interesting" decades like the 1930s or 1940s. 55. 2. So long as U. 2.

Russia. or Britain. Maintaining unipolarity does not require limitless commitments. It does not solve all the world's problems. we should not exaggerate the costs. In reality. avoids conflict Wohlforth 99 (William. . and it reduces the salience and stakes of balance-ofpower politics among the major states. the less likely it is that states will need to test it in arms races or crises. Summer 19 99. International Security. the key point is that both theories predict that a unipolar system will be peaceful. unipolarity is a distribution of capabilities among the world's great powers. and the relationship between the two is complex. Rather.41 Partly as a result. security and competition Wohlforth 99 (William. they face incentives to keep their military budgets under control until they observe fundamental changes in the capability of the United States to fulfill its role. Summer 19 99. and the system can be maintained at little extra cost. Assistant Professor of International Relations in the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. As a result.security and prestige competition-that confronted the great powers of the past. This argument is based on two well-known realist theories: hegemonic theory and balance-of-power theory. it minimizes two major problems. states are likely to share the expectation that counterbalancing would be a costly and probably doomed venture.") Unipolarity favors the absence of war among the great powers and comparatively low levels of competition for prestige or security for two reasons: the leading state's power advantage removes the problem of hegemonic rivalry from world politics. Because those concentrations of power were not unipolar. Unipolarity can be made to seem expensive and dangerous if it is equated with a global empire demanding U. consider the two periods already discussed in which leading states scored very highly on aggregate measures of power: the Pax Britannica and the Cold War.S.") To appreciate the sources of conflict that unipolarity avoids. The Crimean War is a case in point. neither the statesmen of the time nor historians over the last century and a half have been able to settle the debate over the origins of the conflict. Determining which state really did threaten the equilib. No such uncertainty-and hence no such conflict-is remotely possible in a unipolar system.rium-or indeed whether any of them did-is less important than the fact that the power gap among them was small enough to make all three threats seem plausible at the time and in retrospect. The war unfolded in a system in which two states shared leadership and three states were plausibly capable of bidding for hegemony. and maintaining the expectation on the part of other states that any geopolitical challenge to the United States is futile. "The Stability of a Unipolar World. involvement in all issues everywhere. Each is controversial.35 For the purposes of this analysis. As long as that is the expectation. both periods witnessed security competition and hegemonic rivalry. Assistant Professor of International Relations in the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. Assistant Professor of International Relations in the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. The problem is that even those who agree that the war arose from a threat to the European balance of power cannot agree on whether the threat emanated from France. Unipolarity solves the roots of the worlds issues. International Security. "The Stability of a Unipolar World. Because the current concentration of power in the United States is unprecedentedly clear and comprehensive. by design. "The Stability of a Unipolar World.") Third. states will likely refrain from trying. Unipolarity. The whole system can thus be run at comparatively low costs to both the sole pole and the other major powers. The clearer the underlying distribution of power is.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 87 Trade-Off DA Unipolarity Good – War Unipolarity prevents power balancing wars Wohlforth 99 (William. It involves managing the central security regimes in Europe and Asia. International Security. Summer 19 99. however.

Nye 4 (Joseph S. as in Uganda. Amy Chua's "Day of Empire"). but blowing things up is not the same as establishing an "imperium"." but this simply obscures important differences in degrees of control suggested by comparisons with real historical empires.pire in the way we think of the European overseas empires of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries because the core feature of such imperialism was direct political control. Power and Peril. compared to other countries. 386. the term "imperial" can be misleading. US Military too overstretched for empire Economist 8 (3/29. America has overstrained its army while leaving the home front vulnerable. and elections—not to men. “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy”. 2. absent formal political control. no. . 255-256) In many ways. 00130613. like Latin. p. and American culture serves as a mag. Americans are concerned that the army has been stretched to breaking point. and its regional commanders sometimes act like proconsuls. The American military has a global reach. Enthusiasm for empire has been replaced by worries about exhaustion and vulnerability. Vol. Others try to rescue the meta. it exercised far more control than the United States does today. Kenya's schools.net. vol. If George Bush wanted to "fight them over there" so that Americans do not have to "fight them over here". but in 2003.^"* The United States has more power resources. The Ameri. than Britain did when it ruled a quarter of the globe. On the other hand. Yes.ain used indirect rule through local potentates. the United States could not even get Mexico and Chile to vote for a second resolution on Iraq in the UN Security Council. But it is a mistake to confuse the politics of primacy with the politics of empire. laws.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 88 Trade-Off DA AT: Heg Bad – Imperialism The US is not an empire. than Britain had at its imperial peak.can economy is the largest in the world. For example.tion external relations—were controlled by British officials. The bookshops Nobody doubts America's unparalleled ability to project its military power into every corner of the world. the Americans have widespread influence. Although unequal relationships certainly exist between the United States and weaker powers and can be conducive to exploitation. Issue 8573) These days the word "imperial" is usually followed by "overstretch". with bases around the world. in fighting them over there. taxes..phor by referring to "informal empire" or the "imperialism of free trade. 119. and that their country remains a terrorist target. the metaphor of empire is seductive. Even where Brit. 3/29/2008. English is a lingua franca. What a difference a bungled war makes. Harvard IR prof. his successor will have to face the possibility that. the United States has less power. The United States is certainly not an em. in the sense of control over the behavior that occurs inside other countries. are full of titles cautioning against the folly of empire (Cullen Murphey's "Are We Rome?". Its acceptance would be a disastrous guide for American foreign policy because it fails to take into account how the world has changed. The British empire did not have that kind of problem with Kenya or India.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 89 Trade-Off DA ***Heg Bad*** .

S. Increasingly. To date. President of the Eurasia Foundation. bomb attacks. the World Trade Center in New York City. the United States. has begun to command more and listen less.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States. Nevertheless. servicemen. Johnson 4 (Chalmers. the United States has been able to get away with these tactics. It demands to have its way in one international forum after another. p. xvi-xvii. declaring that "we resist any attempt by any country to impose conditions on our freedom of trade. whether on U. as a result of the interplay between administration and Congress.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 90 Trade-Off DA Heg Bad – Blowback Hegemony causes international backlash Maynes 98 (Charles William. officials denounce as unprovoked terrorist attacks on its innocent citizens are often meant as retaliation for previ. One man's terrorist is. and Russian joint investment in the Iranian oil industry that would violate America's unilaterally announced sanctions policy against Iran. the effect of power on all men is "the aggravation of self. As Henry Adams warned in his autobiography.fended American targets precisely because American soldiers and sailors firing cruise missiles from ships at sea or sitting in B-52 bombers at extremely high altitudes or supporting brutal and repressive regimes from Washington seem invulnerable. embassies in Africa. while insisting other states forego that right. in its relations even with friends. Questia. Terrorists attack innocent and unde. the patience of others is shortening. are another matter. of course.com) Suppose. 2K4. or an apartment complex in Saudi Arabia that housed U." The link between hegemony and terrorism is air-tight. Since 1993. Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. terrorists from one country attacking in another. In addition. So was the manner in which the entire membership of the European Union immediately rallied behind the French in the controversy over a possible French. a quest for world hegemony could succeed. and soldiers who are subject to criminal prosecution. It imperiously imposes trade sanctions that violate international understandings.S. the United States has imposed new unilateral economic sanctions. or threatened legislation that would allow it do so. President of Japan Policy Research Institute. and what U. Malaysian.ous American imperial actions. The difficulty the United States had in rounding up support. in the recent confrontation with Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was an early sign of the growing pique of others with America's new preemptive arrogance. In March 1998." . President Nelson Mandela strongly rejected a trade agreement with the United States that would limit transactions with any third country.dom fighter. despite all of these obstacles. As members of the Defense Science Board wrote in a 1997 report to the undersecretary of defense for acqui. Foreign Policy Issue: 111. presumptuously demands national legal protection for its citizens. while reflecting on President Bill Clinton's visit to South Africa.sition and technology. diplomats. a sort of tumor that ends by killing the victim's sympathies. even from its allies." Already the surplus of power that America enjoys is beginning to metastasize into an arrogance toward others that is bound to backfire. another man's free. "Historical data show a strong correlation between U. and unilaterally dictates its view on UN reforms or the selection of a new secretary general. the military asymmetry that denies nation states the ability to engage in overt attacks against the United States drives the use of transnational actors [that is. lexis) If drug blowback is hard to trace to its source.S. Summer 1998 (“The Perils of (and for) an Imperial America”. We still should not want it. 60 times on 35 countries that represent over 40 percent of the world's population.

being nearer to Moscow and St. http://www.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 91 Trade-Off DA Heg Bad – Caspian Sea Stability (1/2) Increased US power would be directed towards the Caspian Sea in order to secure both oil and strategic placement near Iran. Riemer 4 (Mathew. presence in the area. Boris Yeltsin commenced the bombing of Grozny. caspian region likely to remain critical for foreseeable future. rather than on socio-political reform and institution-building. Neighboring Azerbaijan is the point of departure for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline -. though in no worse conditions. The recurring instabilities in the region stem from this over-dependence on oil revenues without a genuine industrial production base and from the lack of a firm legacy of state tradition.globalpolicy. the Caspian’s wealth in natural resources may turn into a self-destructive possession. new energy projects in the entirety of Asia. Azerbaijan also borders Iran. further confirming the fateful alignment of these two regions in strategic thinking. The Caspian states emerged from the formal disintegration of the Soviet empire in a manner analogous to the end of colonial rule in the Middle East. In dealing with the state-building problems. Chechnya a mere three years after the breakup of the Soviet Union and launched a decade-long war just because a tiny. Joseph Stalin -. which would anger the Russians even more. initiative cannot resolve mature internal instabilities easily. power and interest news. Most of the countries in the Middle East acquired their statehood following the colonial period.S."war on terrorism" in Chechnya and other neighboring republics. Similar processes might be experienced in the Caspian region. The Caucasus are perhaps the region in which unbridled U.one of the most prominent.S.18 In this sense. which is the prime security manager in the region. are prepared for these growing internal instabilities. jan 12. Their state-building experiences were driven largely by their oil-centered socio-economic structure. Petersburg and more culturally similar than many of the frontier territories to the far east.pdf) The patterns of development pursued by the Caspian states seem to follow an analogous line. Washington wants to be there. .at least so far -. and one in which Western interests are heavily invested. U. Moscow must understand that the U. has no intention of limiting or even leveling its presence in the region and will no doubt be reacting to this inevitability. but as the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the bloody conflicts in the Balkans—especially in Bosnia—indicate. US Influence cannot prevent conflict over the Caspian Sea Aras 2K (BÜLENT. the Caspian states are also oriented more toward the promises of natural riches than toward institutionalized reform. Because of this. the two flashpoints at the moment are Georgia's and Russia's own never ending -. Beginning in the west. recalls the historical experiences of the Middle Eastern countries. mountainous republic on the border of Georgia wanted its independence. At this point.S.htm) It is these countries that the United States and Russia will attempt to woo and intimidate over the coming decade in their competition for political influence in the region that will lead to long-term energy security. a fact evidenced by the artificial boundaries separating them. The reliance on the prospective fruits of natural resources. Furthermore. Given the diminishing returns of a volatile oil market and the declining oil prices predicted for the following decades. which has the possibility of becoming a flashpoint in the coming year because of questions concerning Tehran's nuclear weapons program. www. this area of the country was closer to home so to speak. As much as Moscow is truly offended by U.himself a Georgian -.com/files/caspian. neither these indigenous countries nor the United States.S. Professor Political Science Faith University Istanbul. Moscow has always attempted to keep a tight hand on the reigns of power here. this kind of attitude and policy can easily result in chronic internal tensions within the Caspian states as well as in the Gulf.bulentaras.org/security/natres/oil/2004/0112caspian. In handling inter-state clashes in these regions the United States proved itself well.deported hundreds of thousands of Chechens to Kazakhstan because he believed they were Nazi sympathizers. Within the Soviet realm. during the Second World War. influence most irks Moscow.

eliminates idealistic “Regime Change. We can still salvage relations.S. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished… Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force—military force—in international relations.S.s. first and foremost the United States. he added. Russia saw unilateralism as hazardous to international peace and security. the relationship can still be repaired fairly easily. it invaded Iraq in the face of strong Russian opposition and in the absence of a United Nations Security Council resolution. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization.S.-Russia-Relationship&id=568610) Russia was humiliated.” A full-fledged rupture in U. and not a clash of critical interests between the two nations.” A day later. Russian alarm grew. Moreover they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. conducted its relations with the international community. it was constrained by its major weakness. A pragmatic. consideration of the major interests of the world’s other great powers relatively less important than in it was past. Emboldened by the march of world events. “One state and. they advocated an increasingly assertive unilateral approach to U.” In June 2002. foreign policy that restores primacy to diplomacy.S.” he charged. In stark contrast. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. And what hasn’t happened in world history? However. the concept of a unipolar world. “Regime Change” replaced “Containment” and “proactive war” replaced “preemption. interest-driven U. but only through multilateral action. “Our entire postwar [post-World War II] history teaches us that no country can build a safer world for itself alone. On May 8. what is a unipolar world? …It is [a] world in which there is one master. as unilateralism. cannot build its security to the detriment of others. Unilateralism became arguably the major means by which the U. 2007.S. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system.” and returns emphasis to relations between allies and great powers can overturn the unilateralism that is currently harming the relationship. Excerpts from Putin’s speech at the Munich Conference on Security Policy detail his views and follow: The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world supremacy. unilateralism as posing a threat to its critical interests and wellbeing. Neoconservative thinkers believed that the new “Unipolar” world made U. what is happening in today’s world…is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs. On February 10. 2001. Russian President Vladimir Putin has consistently spoken out on those issues.-russia relationship. Toward that end. has overstepped its national borders in every way. the U. cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Under such an assumption. At the same time. but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within… I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world.S. Today.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 92 Trade-Off DA Heg Bad – Caspian Sea Stability (2/2) US Russian relations are on the brink. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible. is at the root of the worsening relationship. “This is visible in the economic. a wholly Neoconservative approach to foreign policy blossomed in the U.S. uniltateralism. one sovereign. of course. and even more so. rebuilding the u. Russia doesn’t like our unilateralist policies because it sees them as destabilizing. In March 2003. withdrew from the ABM Treaty.-Russia relations is still avoidable. Currently. it views U. he declared that “claims to world domination…still are the cause of many wars” and that “these sorts of claims still linger on today and this is very dangerous. foreign policy toward creating a safer world. Consequently.com/?Rebuilding-the-U. Putin explicitly blamed the United States for such developments. political and economic resources would not suffice. force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. Russia continues to believe that single-power hegemony and a unilateralist approach to foreign policy are dangerous and destabilizing. it is pursuing plans to place 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic to construct a limited missile defense shield against countries such as Iran. Along with this.S. then the military. And with which results? Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems.” Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. President Putin made a seminal speech that detailed his objections to the Neoconservatives’ “Unipolar” vision and U. . In fact. http://ezinearticles. political.S.S. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s—and precisely in today’s—world. a failure to do so will result in counterbalancing wars Sutherland 7 (Well published author on geopolitics and international relations.

about China's long-term policy objectives in Asia is that Beijing aspires to be the regional hegemon and would like to restore a Sino-centric order in this part of the world. Chinese and U. At the same time however. Relations”. and sometimes gets too involved in the internal affairs of other states. it understands that because of the limits of its hard power and especially its soft power. and security.S. that regional security rests on the cooperation of regional members and a blend of various useful approaches (unilateral. misperceptions about China's policy objectives in the Asia-Pacific and certain important conceptual differences on security practices between Beijing and Washington. Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies.S. and as the U. September 2000 (“U. From Beijing's perspective. This observation is wrong. however. role in the region at present. emerging in the mid-1990s. economic and security interests in the region are deep-rooted. track I and track II.). as the sole leader and with U. bilateral and multilateral. now appear to be the most important factor affecting bilateral relations.S. both sides will have to make certain shifts in their current security policies. trade. even though China expects some relative increase in its influence in Asia. peaceful coexistence. While both sides will continue to pursue their own security interests in Asia.htm) Three major factors have constantly troubled Sino-U.S. Security Policy in Asia: Implications for China-U.S. history and values. Secondly. It fails to pay due respect to the voices of other regional players. institutional and non-institutional. security interests in Asia both converge and diverge. Again this is not a correct assumption. Visiting Fellow. being driven out of East Asia. have diverging conceptions of security. begins to contemplate China as a latent adversary.S. Due primarily to differences in their worldviews. wearing out its welcome in the region. role in regional affairs. Misperceptions and Conceptual Differences One popular perception in the U.S. Finally. Beijing believes in the trend of multipolarization rather than unipolarization at both global and regional levels. thus undermining its contributions to stability and prosperity.S. although not an Asian power. its current policy may result in the U. such divergence will become even more conspicuous. policy. Then. relations in the post-Cold War era: human rights. which in turn has led to their different security practices.S. http://www. Another misperception is that in the long run China will endeavor to drive the U. out of East Asia.S. To enable durable.-led bilateral alliances as the backbone.S. Beijing believes. historical experiences and capabilities. human rights and trade may subside as major sources of tension on the bilateral agenda. the study explores how China perceives the U. and its political.brookings. Beijing also feels uneasy with certain aspects of U.S. While there is no danger of the U. the United States is an AsiaPacific power. the United States and China also hold diverging conceptions of national and regional security.S. In fact. China and the U.S. lacking an understanding of their culture. Hegemonic stability vs.S. Washington has been advocating an Asia-Pacific security structure with the U. impact on its security interests. . Beijing has always welcomed a constructive U. In addition to the above misperceptions about China's regional intentions. Security issues.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 93 Trade-Off DA Heg Bad – China Relations US hegemony in East Asia hurts US-China relations Xinbo 2k (Wu. etc. To address these questions more directly. and predicts that with continued economic development and growing intra-regional political consultation in Asia. influence on regional affairs will be more diversified and more evenly distributed. not just on one single country and a set of bilateral security alliances. this paper first considers some of the U. security cooperation In the post-Cold War era. economic and security landscape in this region. As a superpower. each country also has to adapt itself to the changing political.edu/fp/cnaps/papers/2000_wu. the paper concludes with a few policy recommendations as to how China and the United States could manage the bilateral relationship more effectively. This is in essence hegemonic stability. With the de-linking of China's human rights record from its MFN treatment in 1994 and the closing of Beijing-Washington marathon negotiations on China's WTO membership in 1999. China can never achieve a position comparable to its role in the ancient past or to the U.S. First. the United States has been too dominant and intrusive in managing regional affairs.S. as are its commitments to regional stability and prosperity.

S. to a lesser degree. Policy Analysis No. Medicaid fairly rapidly into bankruptcy is the single greatest threat to American global hegemony. http://www.S.1 trillion 2003. .79 But. the height of the Reagan military buildup. nation building. Director of defense policy studies Cato Institute. http://www. as an indication of its overextension. taxpayers an estimated $21 billion so far. allies. economy will be." says Guest. US spending on security is increasing Eland 2 (Ivan. the United States accounts for only 29 percent of the world’s GDP. Policy Analysis No. almost twice as much as the next biggest donor.org/pubs/pas/pa459. services to the rest of the world are not cheap. which will raise annual U. allies are free riding: although the U.pdf) Most of all. most of which are rich U. 459. November 26. The more dependents and protectorates Washington takes on.S.S. foreign aid.The Empire Strikes Out: The New Imperialism and Its Fatal Flaws. the U. Americans born between 1946 and 1964].. And in 2004. and the United Kingdom—U. Washington Bureau Chief for The Economist magazine.pdf) With the war on terrorism. the U. Policy Analysis No. That’s two and a half times the combined spending of all its potential rivals. The United States gave more than 16 billion dollars in aid to developing countries in 2003. the Bush administration has already requested an additional $45. cost of war and reconstruction in Iraq is approaching 200 billion dollars. they either run out of the will to fight or they tend to retreat into themselves.S defense spending 15 percent above the Cold War average. The Bush administration recently pledged to substantially increase America’s core development assistance by 50 percent. According to the Congressional Research Service.S. US spending to maintain hegemonic power is huge Eland 2 (Ivan.pdf) The United States accounts for about 40 percent of total worldwide defense spending. Social Security and. Germany.S. And the looming gap that you see with the retirement of the 'baby boomers' [i. "There is nothing unforeseen about this whatsoever. the greater the burden on the U.org/pubs/pas/pa459.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa459.5 billion for bringing the total to $396 billion.The Empire Strikes Out: The New Imperialism and Its Fatal Flaws. Japan.cato.com/english/archive/2006-06/AmericasRole2006-06-08-voa60. Robert Guest. defense spending is larger than that of the next 15 highest defense spending nations. suspects it may not. And American efforts at nation building in tiny Bosnia and Kosovo have cost U. an increase of 13 percent. the strategy of empire is likely to overstretch and bleed America’s economy and its military and federal budgets. The strategy could also have the opposite effect from what its proponents claim it would have. it would alarm other nations and peoples and thus provoke counterbalancing behavior and create incentives for other nations to acquire weapons of mass destruction as an insurance policy against American military might. Hegemony will bankrupt the US Hoke 6 (Zlatica.cfm? CFID=31442881&CFTOKEN=75492258) But U. When empires run out of money. Another comparison indicates that U. In all. economy is larger than the next three largest economies on the planet—those of Japan. bringing Medicare.e. and the overextension could hasten the decline of the United States as a superpower.cato.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 94 Trade-Off DA Heg Bad – Economy US hegemony destroys the economy Eland 2 (Ivan. Director of defense policy studies Cato Institute. Also. 459.S. for example. the administration plans to spend $2. on the military over the next five years. that is. 459. Director of defense policy studies Cato Institute.voanews. So the question for many observers is whether America can continue to afford its leadership role in world affairs. and other activities related to the strategy are not free. Voice Of America News. budget deficit exceeded 400 billion dollars.S. June 8. http://www.S.The Empire Strikes Out: The New Imperialism and Its Fatal Flaws. November 26. How much more the strategy of empire will cost is unclear. November 26. reaching an all-time high. as it did the Soviet Union and Great Britain. up from 28 percent in the mid-1980s. http://www.

Whatever the changes.com/New-Terrorism-Fanaticism-Arms-Destruction/dp/product-description/0195118162) Today two things have changed that together transform terrorism from a ``nuisance'' to ``one of the gravest dangers facing mankind. the Palestine Liberation Organization. neighboring states or transformed domestic strife into regional war. 2004 (“Discusson of ‘Notes From Ground Zero’: Power equity and Postwar Construction in Two Eras”. June 30. the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat of Algeria. both governments and NGOs.'' First terroristsbe they Islamic extremists in the Middle East. including the United Nations and European nations. or biological weapons where and when they wish. created refugee flows that can destabilize the entire neighborhood. as Al-Qaeda did in Afghanistan. The technological skills are not that complex and the resources needed not too rare for terrorists to employ nuclear.000 US troops supplemented by allied troops and US mercenaries. we should not of course expect peace and development to reign any time soon. In short. The consequences of such weapons in the hands of ruthless. Policies that sharply reduced US domination of Iraq. and the farflung base structure designed to support US primacy in the region. coupled with a stronger international presence. and the Tamil Tigers were all born of civil wars. Lexisnexis. the tieing of the hands of the present administration by a series of neoliberal policies that deny fiscal authority to the government. This. The Bush administration's attempt to hide the fact that fundamental elements of its flawed policies remain in place seems certain to add fuel to the fire. the needs of the Iraqi people and society are unlikely to be met. has created a situation that ties the hands of any Iraq administration. There are no longer any moral limitations on what terrorists are willing to do. panic can grip any targeted society. states may come to rely more and more on dictatorial and authoritarian measures. In addition to the destruction of countless lives. http://www. To combat such terrorist activities. rootless fanatics are not difficult to imagine. Iraqi instablity spills over and causes terrorism. and the transfer of many of the most lucrative sectors of the Iraq economy to American firms. Many such groups start by focusing on local targets but then shift to international attacks-starting with those they believe are aiding their enemies in the civil war. However. In other similar cases of all-out civil war the resulting spillover has fostered terrorism. reconstruction and reform agendas that will be essential for the reconstruction of Iraq and a reduction of international tensions in a region that is super charged. May-June 2007) THE COLLAPSE of Iraq into all-out civil war would mean more than just a humanitarian tragedy that could easily claim hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and produce millions of refugees. It seems certain that if that multinational presence is predominantly military. civil wars just as often breed new terrorist groups-Hizballah. these unhinged collectivities now have ready access to weapons of mass destruction. unleashing retaliatory action which in turn can lead to conflagrations perhaps on a world scale. Second. or any number of other possible permutationsseem to have changed from organized groups with clear ideological motives to small clusters of the paranoid and hateful bent on vengeance and destruction for their own sake. ultranationalists in the US. together with the dismantling of much of the previous Iraq administrative structure.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 95 Trade-Off DA Heg Bad – Iraq Instability US hegemony causes Iraqi Instability Selden 4 (Mark.html) What policies make sense with respect to Iraq following the transfer of certain formal powers to the handpicked Iraq administration? What is most striking in my view is the continuity of the effort to sustain American domination of Iraq through the permanent stationing of 138. chemical. who and how many they are willing to kill. What can be said with confidence is that the US has embarked on a course that has brought disaster to Iraq and the region and disgrace to the United States. http://www. The National Interest 7 (“Keeping the Lid On”. Terrorists frequently find a home in states in civil war. 99 (Book Review on “The New Terrorism: Fanatiscism and the Arms of Mass Destruction”. Terrorism risks extinction Kirkus Reviews. terrorism in the future may threaten the very foundations of modern civilizations .amazon.nautilus. coordinator of Japan Focus. including the systematic withdrawal of US forces and elimination of US bases. an electronic journal and archive on Japan and the Asia-Pacific. might create more hopeful conditions for relief. Such a conflict is unlikely to contain itself. radicalized the populations of surrounding states and even sparked civil wars in other.org/fora/security/SeldonDiscussion.

The ultimate goal would be to target those “rogue” states outside the established order. During the cold war. decapitate the Israeli civilian and military leadership. for example. and India would not be pressured to moderate their nuclear behavior. logistics. in turn. Gulf relations would be exclusionary. Iran is the top concern on this score. despite the potentially negative effects of their nuclear activities on Gulf states’ security.article?id=4154. Military Review 6 (“Military Planning for a Middle East Stockpiled With Nuclear Weapons”. . fearing its conventional forces are inferior. they have much less time to hide their leaders from enemy attack and fewer places to hide them. the character of the state obtaining WMD would be the primary criterion for counter-proliferation efforts. Finally. Nuclear weapons in the Middle East would lead to regional nuclear war. Many nation-states in the Middle East resemble city-states more than industrialized nations.S. forces in Iraq. 2K6) The bad news is that these experts probably are dead wrong.S. http://www. could resort to the tactical use of nuclear weapons to blunt Iranian conventional assaults in the Gulf. and regimes would feel even more vulnerable than the United States and the Soviet Union did during the cold war. and this could tip a crisis into open warfare. and WMD aspirations. cooperative military exercises. Sitting on hair triggers in the narrow geographic confines of the Middle East.encyclopedia. Saudi Arabia. Egypt could use conventional forces in saber rattling against Israel.S. but theory rarely. Arab friends and allies would not base security on their own indigenous capabilities but rather on continued bilateral dependence on the United States as an outside power. senior Iranian government officials ordered Saudi Hezbollah to bomb Khobar Towers in Dhahran. Israel. if ever. Confidence-building measures in the military realm (such as arms limitations. Egypt had no nuclear weapons in 1973. (4) According to a former director of the FBI. (5) The explosion killed 19 U. and reduce the chances of Israeli nuclear retaliation.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 96 Trade-Off DA Heg Bad – Middle East Prolif First. Tehran has nurtured Hezbollah with arms. and military power projection throughout the region. Iran. and bring about a “regime conversion” or regime change. Marine barracks in Lebanon in the early 1980s and kill about 250 Marines.S. and Israeli forces. Saudi Arabia. including against Syria and Iran. Iran has used Hezbollah to do its dirty work and maintained "plausible deniability" to reduce the chances of American retaliatory actions. isolate them. November 1. and conventional clashes could erupt into a general war. airmen.com/doc/1G1-155824168. training. A Syria armed with a nuclear deterrent might be emboldened to undertake even more aggressive sponsorship of guerrilla war against U.edu/display. US hegemony in the Middle East is would encourage the development of nuclear weapons in the region undermining Yale Global 4(“Gulf Security in a Globalizing World: Going Beyond US Hegemony”.html. states armed with nuclear weapons would be under strong incentives to use them or lose them and to fire nuclear ballistic missiles in a crisis. Along with other Arab states. The strategy worked because the United States has yet to retaliate militarily against Iran. States armed with nuclear weapons in the Middle East might well wage war against one another under a variety of strategic circumstances. Second. diplomatic. http://yaleglobal. a nuclear- armed Iran would be emboldened to sponsor even more aggressive and devastating attacks to push American forces out of the Middle East. there would be only a handful of such warning minutes. the United States would probably treat Iraq as a base for US economic. or transparency on arms buildups) would only apply to friends and allies. Calculating that its nuclear weapons would deter conventional retaliation against it. Nuclear-armed states in the Middle East could also transfer nuclear weapons to terrorist groups. might launch huge salvos of ballistic missiles armed with nuclear weapons against Israel in order to overwhelm Israeli ballistic missile defenses. Pakistan. and US enemies such as Iran on the other. 2004) Under a hegemonic approach. with US “friends and allies” on one side. in 1996. ideological support. conforms to reality. Right now. and money to enable it to serve as an appendage of Iranian foreign policy. Over the past two decades.yale. The theory is appealing. American forces cannot deter a Syria without nuclear weapons from sponsoring jihadist operations against U. and this decision would be based on factors such as internal regime structure. but this did not stop it from attacking Israeli forces in the Sinai. rather. The United States would make a decision on who is excluded. Implicitly. At the height of a regional crisis. the United States and the Soviet Union had about 30 minutes of breathing time from the launch of intercontinental ballistic missiles to their impact. In the Middle East. June 29. much as NATO had planned to do against Warsaw Pact forces in cold-war Europe. Iran might undertake conventional military operations against neighboring states calculating that its nuclear deterrent would prevent a retaliatory American or Arab Gulf state response. support of terrorism. Iranian support helped Hezbollah destroy the U. That was 30 potential minutes of precious time to determine whether warnings of launches were real. WMD would not be viewed as “bad” in and of themselves.

The governments that now possess nuclear weapons object to such intrusive inspections as a "violation of their sovereignty. The question is only whether this will happen before or after the first terrorist nuclear bomb explodes. with several hundred trained mediators who can help prevent conflicts from erupting into violence. worthwhile investment in human survival. they cannot expect to prevent other countries and terrorist organizations from acquiring such weapons--and using them." such an "inspection" would be meaningless. Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. Governments that order tons of bombs to be rained on Iraq and Afghanistan should not be surprised if they plant ideas in the minds of eager imitators. Policing to stop criminals and defense against a foreign attack are justified. The true realists are those who recognize the need for change. Johan Galtung. anywhere in the world. Today's nuclear bombs are vastly more powerful. Today. Fischer 5 (Dietrich. radioactive rubble and over a million people might have been killed outright. This peaceful intervention cost nearly nothing compared with a military peacekeeping operation. We also need a vastly more open world. The double standard. like other species that failed to adapt to new conditions. but don't open the trunk. but bad for you". it is time for the nuclear powers to fulfill their commitment to nuclear disarmament. the Center of London would be strewn with smoking. was able to help end a longstanding border conflict between Ecuador and Peru over which they had fought four wars by suggesting to make the disputed territory into a "binational zone with a natural park". when such searches were introduced after a series of fatal hijackings. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima killed over 200.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 97 Trade-Off DA Heg Bad – Nuclear Terrorism Hegemony increases the risk of nuclear terrorism which will lead to extinction. This is a very inexpensive.htm)) As long as the big powers insist on maintaining nuclear weapons. claiming they need them to protect their security. Those who still believe in the fairy-tale of "deterrence theory" better wake up to the age of suicide bombers. Osama bin Laden once benefitted from support and training financed by the CIA. without advance warning. and scores more would die slowly from radiation disease. Anyone convinced to go straight to heaven if blown up cannot be "deterred" by the threat of horrendous retaliation.' because they falsely believe that we can survive the nuclear age with politics as usual. "You may check under my seat. If even one nuclear device had been detonated in a parked car or a sailboat on the Thames. is stupid and unconvincing.000 people. That only encourages others to pay back in kind. [3] We need to address the root causes of terrorism: long festering unresolved conflicts." Yet many airline passengers also protested at first against having their luggage searched for guns or explosives. rightly pointed out: "The greatest utopians are those who call themselves 'realists. If a suspected weapons smuggler could tell a border guard. governments will reach the same conclusion. jointly administered. Peaceful conflict transformation is a skill that can be taught and learned." What changes must we make if we want humanity to survive? [1] We must stop believing that problems can be solved by applying offensive military force. passengers realize that such inspections protect their own security. 2005 (“The Real Threat is Nuclear Terrorism”. long a Professor of International Law at Princeton University. where all nuclear weapons are verifiably destroyed. "Nuclear weapons are good for us. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) can now inspect only sites that member countries voluntarily place under its supervision. [2] Thirty-seven years after signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Richard Falk. http://www. Sooner or later.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/07/10_fischer_real-threat-nuclearterrorism. compared with the trillion dollars the world spends each year to arm millions of troops. widely regarded as founder of the field of peace research. . and the manufacturing of new ones cannot be hidden. but not military interventions abroad. The IAEA must have the power to inspect any suspected nuclear facilities. which only make the world collectively less secure. If we cling to obsolete ways of thinking--that threatening others will make us safe-- we face extinction as a human species. We need a UN Organization for Mediation. otherwise it is impossible to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Academic Director of The European University Center for Peace Studies. July 10. Believing that nuclear weapons technology can be kept secret forever is naive.

http://www. With this in mind. WMD are defensive weapons that offer poor states a possible defensive shield against the sword of unexcelled U. denounced Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak. So proliferation undermines American regional hegemony in two ways. Bush to wage the first -.S. it discourages intimidated neighbors of the nuclear state from allowing American bases and military build-ups on its soil. New America Foundation.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 98 Trade-Off DA Heg Bad – Preemptive Wars Hegemony leads to preemptive wars because of proliferation of WMDs Lind 7 (Michael. Preventive war (as distinguished from preemptive attack to avert an impending strike) is not only a violation of international law but also a repudiation of America’s own traditions. it is clear that the United States treats countries that possess WMD quite differently from those that do not. Pakistan. a bipartisan majority in the Congress authorized President George W. the obsession with the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) makes perfect sense. North Korea and Iran to obtain nuclear deterrents. . Eisenhower. First. it forces the U. global hegemony strategy. it was perfectly consistent with the radical neoconservative variant of U. Beyond American Hegemony.preventive war in American history against Iraq." Moreover. As an Indian admiral observed after the Gulf War. proponents of the hegemony strategy often advocate a policy of preventive war to keep countries deemed to be hostile to the United States from obtaining nuclear weapons or WMD. "The lesson is that you should not go to war with the United States unless you have nuclear weapons. conventional military superiority. and President Ronald Reagan. Yet. military to adopt costly and awkward strategies in wartime. Kennedy and Johnson all ruled out preventive wars against the Soviet Union and China to cripple or destroy their nuclear programs.S. along with Britain’s Margaret Thatcher.and to date the only -.net/publications/articles/2007/beyond_american_hegemony_5381) Given this premise. Second.newamerica.S. Presidents Truman. Although it turned out to be a disaster. by 2002. The success of the United States in using superior conventional force to defeat Serbia and Iraq (twice) may have accelerated the efforts of India.

tolerating nuclear proliferation in Israel while opposing it in Iran). has been the custodian of nuclear weapons at sea and a contributor to nuclear deterrence strategy in the Pentagon. nuclear weapons. April 3. policies (such as the preventive war in Iraq).S.. British Prime Tony Blair’s approach toward both the Clinton and Bush administrations). Regardless of who pulls the trigger or why. second. Founding President Henry L. Clearly.g..S. Walt stated that states are either accommodating or resisting American power in this so-called era of unipolarity. But instead of calming the situation.S.. The administration’s reassessment has wisely led to a reaffirmation of the value of these programs. By threatening catastrophe. Where does a superpower fly a squadron of bombers if it wants to grab the attention of a covert terrorist organization like Al Qaeda. and (5) delegitimation – attempting to portray U. He focused. humankind must steer in the other direction.. and terrorism.S. a nuclear detonation would be a disaster. the Pew Global Attitudes Project) stems from three sources: first. nuclear signaling is much more than just writing diplomatic notes on a warhead. US primacy is insufficient to reduce the dangers associated with proliferation. toward managing disagreements with less deadly methods. we'll deal also with shadowy networks of terrorists who buy their weapons on the underground market.g. with scattered cells all over the globe? At heart. power through appeasement or acquiescence. 2005) Professor Walt discussed the main themes of his forthcoming book.S. The strategies of accommodation include: (1) “bandwagoning.. objections). and (3) “bonding” or aligning with the United States to shape U. actions as self-interested and illegitimate. http://www. nuclear threats ricocheting among today's players may lead one of the smaller. Stimson Center. and missile defenses – and with many questions about the efficacy of CTR programs. power are undermining Washington’s nonproliferation efforts. Primacy: Implications for Nonproliferation.org/rcpd/pdf/5cnfkrepon. When primacy is accompanied by the unraveling of treaty regimes.org/index. .g.cfm?event_id=110376&fuseaction=events.pdf) This is not a good time to adhere to Cold War formulations for and against arms control.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 99 Trade-Off DA Heg Bad – Prolif Fear of US hegemony leads to nuclear proliferation Wilson Center 5 (“The Global Response to U.S. and with it the dynamics of deterrence. 2003 (“Listen to the Nuclear Chatter”. Taming America: The Global Response to U.” or deflecting U. (2) enlisting the United States to address regional security problems (e. security is weakened. Formerly we worried about countries like Iraq and Iran making their weapons from scratch. each party hopes to extract a measure of safety from the mutual standoff. Walt argued that the adverse perception of American power reflected in opinion polls (e. Primacy (Norton.g. March 4. A mushroom cloud rising over the dead in any city could thrust civilization into an era of unlimited violence just when bio-weapons are creeping into our mass-killing capabilities. but its approach remains unbalanced in significant respects. The incoming Bush administration took office with fixed views about the efficacy of treaties. Washington’s perceived double standard (e. Nuclear proliferation leads to nuclear war—someone will pull the trigger Seaquist 3 (Larry. 2005). in particular.wilsoncenter. German and Russian governments in the United Nations during the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War). US primacy fails to protect against the proliferation of WMDs Krepon 2 (Michael.com/2003/0403/p11s02-coop. Russia’s continuing nuclear relationship with Iran despite U. policy and gain concessions or prestige (e.S. asymmetric warfare. arms control and asymmetric warfare.event_summary. The strategies of resistance include: (1) balancing (as pursued diplomatically by the French.g. on how American global preeminence affects the proliferation choices of other countries. (2) asymmetric responses – such as the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction by “rogue states” in an effort to level the playing field with the United States.un. http://www.csmonitor. and third. But in the future. the sheer magnitude of American power relative to other states. (4) “balking” – just saying no (e. (3) “blackmail” (as North Korea is trying to do with its nuclear weapons program).S. inexperienced parties to panic and shoot. disarmament. That's the theory. opposition to specific U.html) The pattern of nuclear proliferation is shifting. former US Navy warship captain. Qatar). Walt concluded that international concerns about U.

research fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. they would not tolerate China’s ascent to regional leadership. p. It might start with clashes between Asian countries over the Spratly Islands because of China's insistence that the South China Sea belonged to it along with all the islands. Clashes occur between the Chinese navy and the US Navy. The Pacific Fleet begins to patrol the South China Sea. and India on the other. Strait Times 95 (staff. All this has led the United States. Alexander.ksg. This constellation has made Southeast Asia and the South China Sea a strategic theater in the playing field of great power rivalry. With its desire for “world leadership.” the United States regards the rise of China as a threat at the grand strategic level." The Saigon Times Weekly (15 October 2005) http://bcsia.cfm?program=CORE&ctype=article&item_id=1300 China’s expansion of its control in the South China Sea and its influence in Southeast Asia occurs in the context of its rise to the status of world power and regional leader. "Vietnam's Geopolitical Resources.edu/publication. the desire for leadership is the root cause of conflict in the South China Sea Vuving 5. and most of the goods exchanged between the two countries and the Middle East and Europe flow through the Sea. A conflict over regional leadership has emerged in Asia between China on one side and the United States. Washington has strategic interests in it. In this scenario. May 21. China declares war on the US and a fullscale war breaks out with both sides resorting to nuclear weapons. thus taking shelter under America’s global hegemony in order to oppose China’s regional leadership. and India to direct attention toward Southeast Asia and the South China Sea. 80 per cent of oil supplies for China. The South China Sea is of vital interest for both China and Japan. India has sought a “freer” position. conflict in the SCS culminated into a global nuclear war. but basically it is also a strategic alignment with the United States. he said. proquest) In his speech. Although Japan and India have no global ambition. Dr Mahathir also painted three scenarios for Asia. the United States would offer to help and would be welcomed by Asean. he said. Japan. In the first -the worst possible scenario -Asian countries would go to war against each other. Although the South China Sea is not that important to the United States.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 100 Trade-Off DA Heg Bad – South China Sea First. Control of the Sea means control of the major sea lane of communication between the Indian and Pacific Oceans and a lifeline of East Asian economy. Naturally. and seek measures to cope with this new development.harvard. “Choose Your Own Style of Democracy”. 90 per cent of oil supplies for Japan. Japan. Second. Japan has opted for a strategic alliance with the United States. . the two do want to become Asia’s regional powers. reefs and seabed minerals.

US space weaponization leads to WWIII Reynolds 89 (Glenn Harlan.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 101 Trade-Off DA Heg Bad – Space US space dominance leads to proliferation of weapons in space. Michael and Michael. initiatives to extend military dominance into space are therefore likely to raise tensions and impact negatively on U.S.S. U. NY: Westview Press. space warfare preparations. but tenuous.: Henry L.-China and U. elements. a key satellite were to be accidentally lost. Cooperative relations with both countries will be needed to successfully combat proliferation. but uneven.S. Assurance or Space Dominance? The Case Against Weaponizing Space. space warfare competition are not hard to envision. Under these circumstances. Stimson Center. but Moscow and Beijing are unlikely to tender such cooperation if they perceive that U. "The Archduke Francis Ferdinand of World War III may well be a critical U. Depending on the scope and nature of U. Potential adversaries are likely to perceive American initiatives to weaponize space as adjuncts to a U. military doctrine of preemption and preventive war.) Not only does the proliferation of space debris pose a threat to space activities. The likely consequences of a dynamic. but it could pose an even greater threat to those of us on earth. communications. The United States and the Soviet Union (together with. proliferation of weapons in space would be accompanied by terrestrial proliferation. D. in a crisis. and other functions. New York.-Russia relations at a time when bilateral relations have some promising. Washington.C." . strategic objectives include the negation of their deterrents.S. Outer Space: Problems of Law and Policy. Hyman and Krepon 3 (Katz. or Soviet reconnaissance satellite hit by a piece of space junk during time of crisis.S.S.S. April 2003. As space analyst Daniel Deudney has said. If. early-warning. increasingly. 1989. they could also add to Chinese and Russian concerns over the viability of their nuclear deterrents. other powers) depend greatly on space resources to support military intelligence. that loss could be blamed on an adversary and could lead to a potentially disastrous response.

possibly very soon. Making a nuke is no great trick . reinforced by its close allies. Second. Saudi Arabia in 1996. Al Qaeda will probably be the first to use an atomic weapon in an act of terrorism. and shrinking the whole package down to a manageable size requires really expensive engineering and really costly machinery. and the science isn’t complicated. 2004 (“More Reasons to Fear the Bomb”. 2005) While Al-Qa'idah and its allies (if this is the network that is guilty of 7/7) may be opposed to various aspects of Western civilization.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 102 Trade-Off DA Heg Bad – Terrorism First. Since 9/11. the truncated sovereignty of both states has become an important item in the Usamah agenda. US hegemony fuels terrorism Tehran Times 5 (“Iranian Daily Says Al-Qu’aidah Angered by US ‘Hegemony’ Not Western ‘democracy”. And since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 and the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq beginning in March 2003. President of the Mackenzie Institute which studies political instability and terrorism. . the death and destruction that occupation has wreaked upon Iraq in particular has galvanized Arab and Muslim sentiment right across the globe. He has cited the colonial dismemberment of the Arab nation in the early part of the twentieth century and the Western imposition of Zionist Israel upon the Arab heartland a few decades later as traumatic events which have resulted in the humiliation and subjugation of his people. http://www. and in Yemen in 2000 were all targeted against US interests. but Washington's hegemony. and a 20 kiloton package would be adequate for terrorism anyway. Pakistan. Usamah has highlighted other long-standing grievances to justify his operations. some terrorist group is going to use a nuclear bomb. it is apparent from their strategies and their pronouncements that what has angered and incensed them is not Western democracy or Western freedoms as such. and some of the more blurred records for the old Soviet inventory. there will be much more to worry about than merely the damage of the attack. When that day comes. Indeed. Terrorism leads to nuclear war Thompson 4 (John. in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.htm) Sometime.mackenzieinstitute. March 8. and Iran are showing that bomb building 101 isn’t too difficult. Even before the 9/11 episode. a nuclear weapon will someday trickle down into the hands of some non-state actor who is prepared to use them. it was the establishment of US military bases in Saudi Arabia in 1991. and its adverse impact upon the Arab and Muslim world. fear that inevitable day for three reasons.which prompted Al-Qa'idah leader Usamah Bin-Laden to create his own shadowy network. July 20. Making a big hydrogen bomb rather than an atomic bomb is somewhat trickier. Lexisnexis. Al-Qa'idah's bombings in Dhahran. It is an issue which resonates with the masses. The hegemonic control that Washington exercises over Arab oil through what Al-Qa'idah regards as US client states is yet another issue which the network focuses upon. and it need not be complicated or large. It is in this context that he has also chosen to defend the rights of the oppressed Palestinian people: the cause celebrate of the Arab and Muslim world. The emerging nuclear states know that fissionable materials are too expensive to let too much out of their hands.com/2004/terror030204. Between these three of states.the most tangible manifestation of hegemonic power . Besides. but North Korea.the Americans constructed the first weapons sixty years ago.

S. Strategic Insights.” between Islamic fundamentalism and U. pp 233-248.com/02spring/layne. Indeed.S. hegemony is manifested primarily in its overwhelming economic and military muscle. which inescapably has overtones of a “clash of civilizations. as well as from more traditional geopolitical grievances. that it does so makes the United States a lightning rod for those within these countries who are politically disaffected. predominance in the region. http://www.asp#author) Explicitly the decline of Islamic hegemony and the rise of Western hegemony provoked the socialhistorical context for an Islamic minority to embrace fundamentalism vented in terrorism. Director of the Institute of Security Policy.ccc. where jihad or holy war.S. Segell 5 (Glen M. The events of September 11 have brought into sharp focus the enormous cultural clash. the cultural dimension to U. A Senate Judiciary subcommittee on terrorism has taken evidence that the 9/11 attacks were an expression of anger and rage expressing sentiments that embraced martyrdom rooted in an especially strict austere minority Islamism traced back to the fanatical Puritanism of the Bedouin zealots known as the Wahabis.S. First.[6] . Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society. The cause was perceived to have been fueled by Wahabi fundamentalist sentiments. the United States is viewed as just the latest extraregional power whose imperial aspirations weigh on the region. some important states in the region (including Iran and Iraq) aligned against the United States because they resented its intrusion into regional affairs. suspect. and conservative Arab regimes and the source of a cultural assault on Islam. Issue 4. Spring 2002 (“The Washington Quarterly 25. Second. vulnerability to the kind of “asymmetric warfare” of which some defense experts have warned—is the counterhegemonic balancing of the very weak. the self-perception among both elites and the general public that the region has Offshore Balancing Revisited l long been a victim of “Western imperialism” is widespread. For all of these reasons.. to put it charitably. allies are. preeminence is also important. March 2005 (“Wahabism/Hegemony and Agenic Man/Heroic Masculinity”. and the Gulf emirates—whose domestic political legitimacy is contested. default position. Moreover.) US hegemony provoked the social context for radical Muslims to embrace fundamentalism vented in terrorism. the hegemonic role that the strategy of preponderance assigns to the United States as the Gulf’s stabilizer was bound to provoke a multilayered backlash against U. In a real sense. the United States is supporting regimes—Saudi Arabia. http://www. the shah of Iran. “It is hardly likely that Middle Eastern radicals would be hatching schemes like the destruction of the World Trade Center if the United States had not been identified so long as the mainstay of Israel. Because they are concerned about inflaming public opinion (the much talked about “street”). presciently observed several years ago.mil/si/2005/Mar/segellMar05.S. This gave substance to justify terrorism as a means where a warrior legacy of “heroic masculinity” was resurrected within a framework of an anti-modern and anti-Western holy war. Betts.nps. Because of its interest in oil.3. these regimes are not blind to the domestic challenges to their grip on power. an acknowledged expert on strategy. as Richard K. became a compensatory. The choice of America as the target is indicative of its hegemonic role expressing military asymmetry—small players can harm the powerful easily. in the Gulf and the Middle East. which brings a third factor into play.2.twq.[5] This article takes Wahabism through hegemony showing it as the systemic context key to unlocking 9/11 as acceptance by the perpetrators that the ultimate sacrifice of a soldier is to give his life for a cause. liberal ideology. role in the Gulf has rendered it vulnerable to a hegemonic backlash on several levels.”15 (Betts was referring to the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.S. In this vein. Whatever strategic considerations dictate that Washington prop up these regimes.navy.S. Research Fellow with the Center on Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute. Kuwait. bin Laden’s brand of terrorism—the most dramatic illustration of U.pdf) U. The terrorism of Osama bin Laden results in part from this cultural chasm. Finally. although U.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 103 Trade-Off DA Heg Bad – Terrorism US hegemony causes backlash and terrorism Layne 2 (Christopher. The Al-Quaeda terrorist network found this tolerable given the historical Islamic suicide wars of AfIt. both their loyalty and utility as U.

Project Muse) If the United States fails to adopt an offshore balancing strategy based on multipolarity and military and ideological self-restraint.S. the United States should begin to retrench strategically and capitalize on the advantages accruing to insular great powers in multipolar systems. which is a potentially dangerous strategy. Rather than risking these outcomes. have to fight to uphold its primacy. 2006 (“The Unipolar Illusion Revisted: The Coming of the United States’Unipolar Moment”. indeed. 7-41. attempting to sustain U.S. it probably will. especially given that U. primacy may well hasten its end by stimulating more intensive efforts to balance against the United States. Maintaining U. primacy may already be in the early stages of erosion. Associate Professor of Bush School of Government and Public Service @ Texas A&M U. International Security 31. is America's next grand strategy. Paradoxically.2.S. at some point. Unilateral offshore balancing. hegemony is a game that no longer is worth the candle. thus causing the United States to become imperially overstretched and involving it in unnecessary wars that will reduce its power.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 104 Trade-Off DA Unipolarity Bad – War The US’ attempt to hold on to its unipolarity will cause wars Layne 6 (Christopher. .

Japan and Russia join the US as dominant influences. Director of the Global Governance Initiative and Senior Research Fellow in the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. but it too has a stake in cooperation and. the only direction to go from the apogee of power is down. companies. china. lacks the capacity to challenge the US. not least the Chinese model of economic growth without political liberalization (itself an affront to Western modernization theory). India. power.that the world inherently needs a single leader and that American liberal ideology must be accepted as the basis of global order -. Forging collective responses to global problems and making institutions work will be more Relationships will be more difficult to build and sustain.materially or morally. media outlets. terrorist organisations. difficult.net/publications/articles/2008/waving_goodbye_hegemony_6604. January 27) Would the world not be more stable if America could be reaccepted as its organizing principle and leader? It's very much too late to be asking. http://www. This view ignores how the world has changed. international organisations.has paradoxically resulted in America quickly becoming an ever-lonelier superpower.org/publication/16026/what_follows_american_dominion. expert on geopolitics and global governance. Financial Times. Only diplomacy that is more focused. the only reliable rule of history is its cycles of imperial rise and decline. The US will no longer have the luxury of a “You’re either with us or against us” foreign policy. there is a marketplace of models of success for the second world to emulate. in any event. rather than concentrated. expert on geopolitics and global governance. creative and collective will prevent a non-polar world from becoming more disorderly and—dangerous. Russia may be more inclined towards re-creating a bipolar world. rather all three will constantly struggle to gain influence on their own and balance one another. Western imperialism united the globe. what will take its place? Some predict a return to the bipolarity that characterised international relations during the cold war. . a choice that leads it to seek economic integration and avoid conflict. religious movements. This is unlikely. It is non-polarity. As the historian Arnold Toynbee observed half a century ago. Khanna 8 (Parag. Those who welcome America’s comeuppance and unipolarity’s replacement by non-polarity should hold their applause. Neither China nor the E. EU. Still others predict the emergence of a modern multipolar world. Europe.newamerica. http://www. Europe will promote its supranational integration model as a path to resolving Mideast disputes and organizing Africa. and attempting to sustain it only breeds backlash.S. more important.cfr.net/publications/articles/2008/waving_goodbye_hegemony_6604. China’s military strength does not approximate that of the US. January 27) The self-deluding universalism of the American imperium -.newamerica. its focus will remain on economic growth. Today’s world is increasingly one of distributed. will replace the U.html) All of this raises a critical question: if unipolarity is gone. while China will push a Beijing consensus based on respect for sovereignty and mutual economic benefit. President of Council on Foreign Relations. as the world's sole leader.U. But neither will anyone else. Threats will multiply. "Waving Goodbye to Hegemony". Just as there is a geopolitical marketplace. because the answer is unfolding before our eyes.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 105 Trade-Off DA AT: Power Vacuum The idea that the world will suddenly collapse without American hegemony is delusional— US hegemony can only go down. one in which China. The successor to unipolarity is neither bipolarity or multipolarity. but it did not assure that the West would dominate forever -. "Waving Goodbye to Hegemony". Despite the "mirage of immortality" that afflicts global empires. drug cartels and non-governmental organisations. 4/16. Vacuum after US falls will be filled by multipolarity Haass 8 (Richard N. including regional powers. There are literally dozens of meaningful power centres. and as Toynbee also pithily noted. and US will balance each other in the event of declined US supremacy Khanna 8 (Parag. America must make itself irresistible to stay in the game. Director of the Global Governance Initiative and Senior Research Fellow in the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. http://www.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful