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

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

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

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

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

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

AD: 7/8/09) JC (RTTNews) .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." . http://www. Administration Officials Support Military Commission Reforms. At the hearing.jsp?seq=998572&category=. expressed confidence that the administration could work with Congress to ensure that "military commissions can emerge from this effort as a fully legitimate forum. 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. General Counsel for the Department of Defense. Speaking before the United States Senate Armed Services Committee. Jeh Johnson." Johnson highlighted provisions from the new legislation that suggested rule changes that have also been supported by the Obama administration. These provisions include a ban on the in-court use of statements obtained by cruel interrogation methods. 7/7/09. Propose Additional Areas Of Focus.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 9 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Readiness Up – Effectiveness Obama increasing military effectiveness now RTTNews 7/7 (Realtime Financial News.com/Forex/News/ShowStory. inhuman or degrading treatment. Internet-based business wire service and news aggregator. 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.forextv.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Europe just as feckless. The Iranian government has hardened its stance on nuclear materials. AD: 7/8/09) JC Before the Iranian election. The strength behind Obama's smile. 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. soft power ineffective Crook 7/6 (Clive. http://www.au/bs. The administration spoke respectfully to Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad. senior editor of The Atlantic Monthly. And see what happened. 7/6/09. and his unwarranted apologies for supposed US sins.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 16 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Soft Power Low U. What a surprise: the world is not smiling back.com.nsf/Article/Thestrength-behind-Obamas-smile-pd20090706-TP2JE?OpenDocument&src=sph. which Mr Obama visits this week. they believed. bullies and bribes its near-abroad with as little finesse as usual. Now the picture is more complicated. . 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. and stamped on its own people when they challenged a rigged election. Those critics see Iran as one more proof they were right. Russia. This would make all the difference. Mr Obama’s friendly outreach to other states – be they hostile. say the critics. a columnist for National Journal and a commentator for the Financial Times. They attacked Mr Obama’s naive overtures to dictators. persisted with its support for Iraqi insurgents. North Korea just as deranged.businessspectator. China is about as implacable. The new president’s conservative and neoconservative critics rolled their eyes.S. So much for soft power. seeking not to humiliate but to reach an accommodation. unco-operative or even supposedly friendly – has been no more productive. US opinion on Barack Obama’s foreign policy divided on predictably partisan lines.

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

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

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

” The GSA.S. But there is another shift that has taken place. the GSA would work to eliminate threats to the stability of the international system as a whole. 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 philosophical basis of the GSA was the belief that a threat to one state posed a threat to the entire system. nations had focused only on specific threats to their own national security. As President Obama said. There is a familiar litany of excuses as to why this consensus has dissipated.aspx?id=21600. believe that the six-party talks on North Korea have failed. The fact that Gates left Asia to tour U. 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. of an Iranian or North Korean nuclear weapon detonating on their territories. in the past. The feeling seems to be that either there is no threat to the global system. there is going to be no decisive multilateral action taken—on Iran. say. or the threat is containable. .nationalinterest. is dead.S. 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. Saudi Arabia. is taking unilateral actions now Gvosdev 6/12 (Nikolas. In the months after 9/11. One of Gates’ party was quoted in the New York Times as saying. economic irresponsibility” has inflicted hardship on other countries by dragging down the world’s economy. Iran and India an offer they can’t refuse: Either join us or we leave. 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. No other country. And yet. however.S. Most countries. It is time for America to make China. No speech is going to change that reality. for instance. Few capitals are losing sleep over the prospect. Naval War College. A shared community of interests would bind the key powers of the world together.” This commitment. And the United States is in no position to unilaterally assume upon itself the functions of the GSA. beginning with the Iraq War. If. http://www. therefore. The lesson of 9/11 was that a successful strike against one state would have negative ramifications for every state. 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. 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. in both economic and security terms.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 20 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Multilateralism Down The U. Most see whatever capabilities Pyongyang and Tehran are acquiring as meant to deter Washington—not to threaten the rest of the world. The blame that many in the rest of the world ascribe to the United States for the current global economic crisis—that “U. North Korea. at least as envisioned by Etzioni in the months after the 9/11 attacks. The End of Multilateralism.S. is a professor of national-security studies at the U. a senior editor at The National Interest.org/Article. there was little agreement about the next steps that should be taken. in the New York Times: It is now clear that the United States alone cannot stabilize the situation in Pakistan or Afghanistan.” because there was a growing awareness that these states “pose a danger to others. of Business Executives for National Security. 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. And foreign governments are not inclined to take much more decisive measures to ensure the deproliferation of either regime. The American penchant for “unilateralism” and desire to pursue action unhindered by the need to build consensus with other states. 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. seems prepared to do the “heavy lifting” needed to exert significant pressure on either Tehran or Pyongyang. But until the world experiences another 9/11-style shock to the system. “There’s no prescription yet on what to do. trade or a whole host of other issues. 6/12/09. when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates met with his counterparts at the Shangri-La Dialogue this past week. it is a regional problem that demands regional solutions. And it is to see many of the world’s major threats as problems for the United States alone. climate change.

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. there is no prospect of a counterbalancing coalition emerging anytime soon to challenge it. The bottom line is that the United States today has the necessary legitimacy to shepherd reform of the international system. Given its naval primacy and global trading interests. France instituted modern concepts of state borders to meet its needs as Europe's preeminent land power in the eighteenth century.devex.Brooks as associate professor of government. Some of the apparent damage to U. 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. these states accomplished such feats partly through the unsubtle use of power: bribes. Wohlforth as Daniel Webster professor of government and chair of the Department of Government. indirectly affecting the development of new rules by defining the problems they were developed to address. and the United Kingdom-were able to revise the international institutions of their day without the special circumstances Ikenberry and Kagan cite. Less obvious but often more important. Key underlying conditions remain particularly favorable for sustaining and even enhancing U. legitimacy might merely be the result of the Bush administration's approach to diplomacy and international institutions. In the end. Invariably.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 21 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Credibility Up Conditions ripe for U. and colonialism to suit its interests as a developing maritime empire in the nineteenth century.S. and the United Kingdom fostered rules on piracy. Dartmouth College . 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. legitimacy in the years ahead. too. As Wilhelm Grewe documents in his magisterial The Epochs of International Law. .S. coercion. 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. neutral shipping. But there are reasons for optimism. and the allure of lucrative longterm cooperation. 4/24/09. 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. France. as well as the unrivaled wherewithal to produce public goods that reinforce the benefits of its global role. AD: 7/9/09) JC Of course. leading states have had the power to set the international agenda. http://www. credibility now Brooks and Wohlforth 4/24 (Stephen and William. through the naked use of force.S. No other state has any claim to leadership commensurate with Washington's. 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 largely because of the power position the United States still occupies. Reshaping the World Order.com/articles/reshaping-the-world-order. Moreover. history provides abundant evidence that past leading states-such as Spain. in 1833. Spain fashioned both normative and positive laws to legitimize its conquest of indigenous Americans in the early seventeenth century.

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

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

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

in terms of backing up the civilian government. That was a given and in the ensuing years. it built and built. One of the concerns. http://www.000 soldiers [to stabilize the country].6 soldiers per thousand residents. 7/7/09. it would have required between 400. which is still through a military lens and has already been designated as a failure.html. So it was inadequate from the very beginning. What we're dealing with is the follow-up.com/articles/US-Policies-Empower-Taliba-by-Christian-Avard-090706-465.opednews. That was the combined force of the United States and NATO and like Elizabeth said.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 25 Trade-Off DA Uniqueness – Afghanistan Hurts Heg Afghanistan killing US heg now Avard 7/7 (Christian. When the Iraq War started. that even though General Stanley McChrystal is making statements that Afghan civilians are his top priority. staff reporter. Fitzgerald: The original force structure was 1. the actual ability to change the way in which we approach the region. . there are other issues which have been contentious and very difficult for the United States to really incorporate in a meaningful way. 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.000 and 450.000 troops would been needed to stabilize the country. What's going on in Helmond is the Obama Administration is trying to establish some credibility for the first time. there was absolutely no question [in everyone's mind] that the Taliban was going to return to Kabul. The United States doesn't have any credibility. That's one of the experiences we had in 2002. One of the reasons it's a concern is because it's simply isn't enough to change the military position. US Policies Empower Taliban: Experts. Something like 400. militarily or civilly.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and control over global economic markets.chicagotribune.S. Economic strength key to U.S. 3/8/09.0. is crucial to the foreign policy aims that it can achieve. the superiority of American production methods and the relative strength of the U.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 39 Trade-Off DA K2 Heg – Poverty Economic superiority key to hegemony Pape 3/8 (Robert A. http://www. heg Fouskas 5 (Vassilis K.S. Lecturer in International Relations at the University of Stirling. economy. AD: 7/9/09) JC From Rome to the United States today. the rise and fall of great nations have been driven primarily by economic strength. a state's power depends on the size and quality of its military forces and other power assets.S. 24) Since the United States emerged as the dominant global superpower at the end of World War II. however. 2005. And so the size of the economy relative to potential rivals ultimately determines the limits of power in international politics. U. p. America has maintained a vast array of overseas commitments. military superiority over all its rivals. Realities and Obama's diplomacy.S. dollar acting as the reserve currency .com/news/nationworld/chi-perspec0308diplomacymar08.4785661. . but American leaders in recent years chose to pursue far more ambitious goals than merely maintaining the status quo. but also in Europe. the Western hemisphere. Asia and the oil-rich Persian Gulf.S. with the U.story. hegemony has rested on three unchallengeable pillars: overwhelming U. The power position of the U. professor of political science at the University of Chicago. power is a result of economic strength—the prerequisite for building and modernizing military forces. At any given moment. The New AMERICAN IMPERIALISM: BUSH’S WAR ON TERROR AND BLOOD FOR OIL. Maintaining these commitments requires enormous resources. Since the Cold War. Over time. seeking to ensure peace and stability not just in its own neighborhood.

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

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

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. 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. politics) in order to understand the interaction between . AD: 7/10/09) JC The “new primacy of cognitive over normative considerations”. postmodernity. Yet for all their promise these law-making bodies had little initial effect on the form and content of domestic law. 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. sociology. largely because the underlying interventionist philosophy of welfare states is at odds with the volatility and unpredictability of international influence. Edgeworth 3 (Brendan.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 42 Trade-Off DA Not K2 Heg – Social Services Social services don’t increase international influence Edgeworth 3 (Brendan. Accordingly. deontological style of legal interpretation more concerned to look to the formal meanings of terms (Nonet and Selznick. More evi. modernity. 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. modernity. It is reflected in the case of judicial reasoning. 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. law and other social domains. Senior Lecturer. Law. pg 92. Law. that is. for instance. 83). 1978: 78. .and interdependence of. Senior Lecturer. pg 92. as long as welfare states jealously guarded their sovereignty. 2003. postmodernity. This development also appears in the growing need for legislators and law reform agencies to make use of other knowledges (economics.

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

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

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

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

Summer 19 99. "The Stability of a Unipolar World. and France entailed any costly commitments or serious risks of confrontation with Washington. Assistant Professor of International Relations in the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. this bargaining will resemble real-politik in form but not content. But until the distribution of power changes substantially. unilateralism is often the very road to multilateralism. it is the leadership of the United States—indeed. . International Security. Such policies generate a paper trail suggesting strong dissatisfaction with the US. US unipolarity encourages states to help the US solve global issues rather than start them Wohlforth 99 (William. Germany. its willingness to act unilaterally if necessary—that galvanized the Gulf War coalition into existence.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 47 Trade-Off DA K2 Multilateralism – Unilateralism Unilateralism inevitably leads to multilateralism Krauthammer 4 (Charles. 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.. For many states.led world order and a legacy of actual behavior that amounts to bandwagoning. As we learned from the Gulf War. These states are seeking the best bargains for themselves given the distribution of power. That process necessitates a degree of politicking that may remind people faintly of the power politics of bygone eras. "Democratic Realism: An American Foreign Policy for a Unipolar World" – American Enterprise Institute) Moreover. Winner of the Bradley Prize for Promotion of Liberal Democracy. 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.") Neither the Beijing-Moscow "strategic partnership" nor the "European troika" of Russia.

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

known as BRIC. AD: 7/8/09) JC MOSCOW (AFP) — Brazil. Associated Free Press. Russia. 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. analysts say. http://www. .google. they are years away from being a counterbalance to established global institutions. 6/13/09.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ie-Cbti6FYBb4IznPXZ0qCVDCN5w. Emerging big four economies flaunt power at summit.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. But while they will express determination to act together during the current economic crisis and beyond.

http://www. Haas 8 (Richard. foreign policy are pervasive.. it surely has. but this has tended to lead more to denunciations (and an absence of cooperation) than outright resistance.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.org/20080501faessay87304/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity. Doubts about the wisdom and legitimacy of U. May/June. which has not stimulated such a response. This is not to say that the United States under the leadership of George W.S. .foreignaffairs. But it has not. Bush has not alienated other nations. for the most part.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. acted in a manner that has led other states to conclude that the United States constitutes a threat to their vital national interests. CFR pres.

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

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

“America’s Grand Design in Asia”) Accelerating the rise of friendly. official. The Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.” 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. Yet. 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. 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. thereby helping to preserve a pluralistic Asian security order.S. the United States values its key Asian partners for their growing strength. Relative U. “It is very useful to remind China. such as India. 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. who are setting standards we agree with. . dominance. 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. Vietnam. but we also want to bind their interests to ours. in 1993. U. Japan. the implications for the United States of trends in Asia are inescapable.S.” 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. 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. “It’s not possible to pretend that [China] is just another player. their very independence also means that they are wary of U. although U. Indonesia. policy seeks to build and bind together friendly centers of power in Asia to help maintain a regional balance that preserves U. The Washington Quarterly. not subordinate or contain them in Cold War– type alliance structures in which the United States institutionalizes its own dominance. The United States is not pursuing this design to contain China but to shape its geopolitical options as a country at a “strategic crossroads.” Former Japanese prime minister Junichiro Koizumi controversially maintained that building Japanese strength within the U. policy rekindles traditional wariness in India.” says former National Security Council official Michael Green. As former Indian foreign secretary Shyam Saran notes. leaders welcome these countries’ determination to protect their autonomy as China rises. independent Asian powers.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. Korea.” says one U. “This is the biggest player in the history of man. it is more about encouraging or shaping China’s view of the international system in a constructive way. Lee Kuan Yew. “If there is a greater focus today on India in the [United States].S. and Vietnam about perceived U. The United States is trying to build strength in its Asian partners. enhance their autonomy. and countervail growing Chinese influence. India. Nonetheless.S. alliance would actually improve Tokyo’s relations with Beijing. “that there are other emerging powerful countries. … The size of China’s displacement of the world balance is such that the world must find a new balance” within a few decades. it is not because India is weak but because India is strong.” said Singapore’s former prime minister. Nonetheless.S. interests and values as China rises. Ironically. power will wane as China and India rise. This is very different from containment.S. The Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.S. hegemonic designs. and ASEAN—that makes it naturally resistant to Chinese domination. The Washington Quarterly. Indonesia. “We want to encourage the rise of friendly.S.

or the system will become bipolar. They can also be more competitive. in which a few major powers work together on setting the rules of the game and disciplining those who violate them. Nor do concentrations of power revolve around two positions. two world wars. and many smaller conflicts.an international system dominated by one power. revolving around a balance of power.a nonpolar international system is characterized by numerous centers with meaningful power.org/20080501faessay87304/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity.html?mode=print. Hegemony Collapse of U. Then. bipolarity gave way to unipolarity -. President Council on Foreign Relations. But today power is diffuse. But after almost 50 years. hegemony leads to apolarity Haass 8 (Richard N. and the onset of nonpolarity raises a number of important questions. 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 -.S. . Foreign Affairs . http://www. when the balance breaks down.which involves several distinct poles or concentrations of power -. no power dominates. In a multipolar system. June 2008.foreignaffairs.. This represents a tectonic shift from the The twentieth century started out distinctly multipolar.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 54 Trade-Off DA No Alternative to U. with the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union. or conflictual. 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. in this case the United States.S. or the system will become unipolar. even assuming the form of a concert of powers. Multipolar systems can be cooperative. a bipolar system emerged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ples. The most negative power is coercion. Although it would have been best to move ahead with broad support using soft power.S. Germany. vol. whether shar. p. America's neglect of soft power is undermining its ability to persuade and influence others. but the use of 'carrot and stick' alone cannot achieve these objectives. and expert.AD: 7/10/09) JC Although worthwhile. describe the five bases of power: reward. legitimate. 2. The United States and other advanced democracies will win only if moderate Muslims win. coercive. and the ability to attract the moderates is critical to victory. referent. There are places where the US cannot go in search of terrorist leaders. which had been eroding for many years prior to the administration. In their classic article. Referent power is based on identification and attraction. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. We need to adopt policies that appeal to moderates and to use public diplomacy more effectively to explain our common interests. of course. But it is important to note that France. Nye 4 (Joseph S. Success against them depends on close civilian cooperation. which decreases attraction. or tracing global fi." Raven and French (1959). 257) Look again at Afghanistan. and Russia had their own self-interest in mind when they opposed the war against Iraq. Monash U Global Terrorism Research Unit Honorary Research Associate. “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy”. Moreover. forces in Afghanistan wrapped up less than a quarter of al Qaeda. 119. Shuja 8 (Sharif.ing intelligence. In relation to the rest of the world. "The Bases of Social Power. The authors point out that referent power has the broadest range of power. and the achievement of a variety of other objectives including efforts to promote democracy overseas. 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..S. The United States cannot bomb al Qaeda cells in Hamburg. 19) It is argued that both hard and soft power are important in US foreign policy and in the fight against terrorism. 2005. It needs broad cooperation for intelligence gathering and the restriction of ter. essential. the strategy assessment of the US's use of soft power is not a new or novel idea. Soft power is critical to solve terrorism. but the inherent attractiveness of U. p. 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.com/read/5012336040?title=Soft%20Power%3A%20The%20Means%20to%20Success %20in%20World%20Politics. Harvard IR prof. http://www. The management and psychology literature has long touted the benefits of using referent power (soft power) over coercive power (hard power). no. many European countries have long shared feelings that their cultures are far superior to that of the US. . We need a better strategy for wielding our soft power. Precision bombing and Special Forces defeated the Taliban government. Cristo 5 (Danna A. America's partners cooperate partly out of self-interest. a transnational network with cells in sixty countries. or Detroit. Pace U. coordinating police work across borders. there are some and individuals that are attracted to the US and its culture and others that are not. 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. pohcies can and does influence the degree of co. “Why America Can Not Ignore Soft Power”. the US could not use what they did not have. Equally important. Soft power is key to solve terrorism. This is especially true of Islamic fundamentalists who believe that the US's secular culture is evil and corrupt.rorist finances. The suppression of terrorism. and thus referent power.hard power is insufficient. We will have to learn better how to combine hard and soft power if we wish to meet the new challenges.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 66 Trade-Off DA Soft Power Solves Terrorism Soft power is key to solve terrorism . 3/22. but U. The hard power of military and economic strength is.nancial flows.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.operation. require the willing assistance of other nations and peo. Kuala Lumpur. and yields the greatest influence in relation to the other bases along as this strong attraction exists.

vol. “the Soviets desperately wanted the CSCE. there are times when cooperation. meeting the challenge posed by trans. can make it easier for governments to use such instruments to handle difficult tasks like peacekeeping. Harvard IR prof. during the cold war. “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy”. Soft power solves terrorism and democracy promotion. p. Nye 8 (Joseph S. they got it. 7. including enhancement of the public image of multilateral institutions like NATO or the UN. 257) According to the National Security Strategy. Harvard IR prof. the greatest threats the American people face are transnational terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Yet. . no. In 1975. Similarly. 2. American public diplomacy in Czechoslovakia was reinforced by the association of the United States with international conventions that fostered human rights. p. 119. promoting democracy. For example. 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. 257). efforts to promote democracy in Iraq and elsewhere will require the help of others. http://ann. or countering terrorism. 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. 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.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 67 Trade-Off DA Soft Power Solves Democracy Soft power is key to democracy. and particularly their combination.sagepub... and it laid the foundations for the end of their empire” (as quoted in Thomas 2003. Nye 4 (Joseph S. despite initial American resistance.com/cgi/content/abstract/616/1/94) In addition. As former CIA director Robert Gates concluded.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.

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

When their commander asked the U. headquarters in New York what he was supposed to do. the Serbs start killing the captives. is cantoned in its quarters just a mile away. http://www." I am reminded of one particular scene. . some 8. the answer was chilling: Observe and report. 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. New York Post 3 (12/8. the most praised fruit of soft power.000 men and boys are forced into a makeshift camp held by the Serbs. It is 1995 Srebrenica. a contingent of Dutch blue berets.) 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. Well. protection force. On the fifth day. a Bosnian city under U. It takes them five days to kill everyone. The Dutch blue berets were there on a soft-power mission. the so-called Geneva Accord can only have similar effect. led to years of intensified conflict in which more Palestinians and Israelis have died than in the whole of the preceding 50 years. The ethnic Serb army arrives in the mainly Muslim town and begins to round up all Muslim males aged above 12.com/article/750) The Oslo Accords. (As discussed yesterday.N.benadorassociates. doing nothing. All that time the U. 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.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 72 Trade-Off DA Soft Power Causes Prolif/Genocide Soft power allows proliferation and is complicit with genocide. In four days.N.N. protection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

revolutionary period? The stakes are too high to wait and find out.amazon. the Palestine Liberation Organization. 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. rootless fanatics are not difficult to imagine. neighboring states or transformed domestic strife into regional war. Regional War and ‘Shiastan’”. Iraqi instablity spills over and causes terrorism. There is little question that. It wasn’t an insignificant attribute. Terrorists frequently find a home in states in civil war. Second. The National Interest 7 (“Keeping the Lid On”. http://newsweek. Saudi Arabia. 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. Saddam’s pragmatic view of religion was perhaps the man’s only virtue. and the Tamil Tigers were all born of civil wars. or biological weapons where and when they wish. Israel and Syria would stretch out their own claws soon enough. who and how many they are willing to kill. around the corner. unleashing retaliatory action which in turn can lead to conflagrations perhaps on a world scale. . In other similar cases of all-out civil war the resulting spillover has fostered terrorism. http://www. terrorism in the future may threaten the very foundations of modern civilizations. In addition to the destruction of countless lives. April 30. created refugee flows that can destabilize the entire neighborhood. especially given the aggressive expansionist theocracy next door. But is this even possible? Can this be achieved without a violent. The technological skills are not that complex and the resources needed not too rare for terrorists to employ nuclear.'' First terroristsbe they Islamic extremists in the Middle East. Lexisnexis. civil wars just as often breed new terrorist groups-Hizballah. To combat such terrorist activities. America (and the world) should make sure that Iraq remains a diverse multicultural federation rather than become three isolated and weak enclaves. 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. states may come to rely more and more on dictatorial and authoritarian measures. The consequences of such weapons in the hands of ruthless. there have been only two possible outcomes in Iraq: the bad and the worse. 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. the country will become a far bloodier and more lawless battleground than it is now. Outright Shia domination of Iraq should never be allowed. panic can grip any targeted society. 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. Once that happens. The consequences of an enormous “Shiastan” right in the heart of the Middle East could prove to be disastrous. 99 (Book Review on “The New Terrorism: Fanatiscism and the Arms of Mass Destruction”.washingtonpost. Terrorism risks extinction Kirkus Reviews.com/postglobal/leon_krauze/2007/04/keep_foot_on_or_chaos_and_shia. Given the recent history of both the Middle East and Islam. In short. However. the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat of Algeria. once the American forces leave. So the bad but not the worst is a state more like India than the former Yugoslavia. literally.html. Regional conflict would be. secularity is a precious asset. as Al-Qaeda did in Afghanistan. In fact.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. chemical. these unhinged collectivities now have ready access to weapons of mass destruction.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. 2007) For a while now. There are no longer any moral limitations on what terrorists are willing to do. radicalized the populations of surrounding states and even sparked civil wars in other. ultranationalists in the US. Such a conflict is unlikely to contain itself.

promote human rights. Professor of International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. power still matters.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 81 Trade-Off DA Heg Good – Laundry List Heg is necessary to prevent WMD prolif. Iss. Vol. "Peace must be built upon power. They understand. "American Primacy: Its Prospects and Pitfalls. as do most Americans. 55. The United States would accomplish far less if it were weaker. or pursue any other positive political goal should recognize that the nation's ability to do so rests primarily upon its power. pg. anyone who thinks that the United States should try to discourage the spread of weapons of mass destruction. and other such novel features. . and it would discover that other states were setting the agenda of world politics if its own power were to decline. Proquest) Thus. that being number one is a luxury they should try very hard to keep. 9 (20 pages) Spring 2002. and primacy is still preferable. rapid communications. an increasingly vocal chorus of nongovernmental organizations. Walt 2 (Stephen. as well as upon good will and good deeds." Naval War College Review. and promote democracy. promote human rights. Even in a world with nuclear weapons. advance the cause of democracy."17 The bottom line is clear. 2. extensive economic ties. 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. As Harry Truman put it over fifty years ago.

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

of Political Science.S. Nor can deterrence be equated with violence and volatility. Thus. U. 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. U. aimed at developing a deterrent force as well as a force capable of engaging in military operations at sea. University of Aarhus. p. a structure of deterrence appears to be in the making. Strait Times 95 (staff. In substitution of the permanent base arrangements during the Cold War. he said. 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. However. Asst Prof. permitting the United States to be seen to be engaged in Southeast Asia as a flexible regional balancer. interests. and interoperability.S. exercises. 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. China is a power of second rank compared with the United States. 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. proquest) In his speech. the U. In this scenario. 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 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. 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. 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. “Deterrence and Cooperation in the South China Sea”. and China on the other. and the Philippines.S. Thailand. The Pacific Fleet begins to patrol the South China Sea. the financial crisis of the late 1990s delayed some of these efforts. and Taiwan. In the first -the worst possible scenario -Asian countries would go to war against each other. reefs and seabed minerals. it is not prepared to play an active part in the Spratly dispute unless freedom of navigation through Southeast Asian waters is threatened. A structure of deterrence does not operate on the basis of cooperation between opposing powers. On the contrary. South Korea. forward military presence in the pacific deters China and leads to stabilization allowing a political solution to be brokered. This geostrategic picture suggests that co-operation on managing the regional balance of power is not on the cards. However. lexis) The South China Sea constitutes a first line of defence for the littoral states of Southeast Asia. since 1999. Thus. Instead. the military agreements facilitate training. As a consequence. Dr Mahathir also painted three scenarios for Asia. he said. However. Aug 1. policy towards China.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 83 Trade-Off DA Heg Good – South China Sea First. Therefore. the United States would offer to help and would be welcomed by Asean. conflict in the SCS culminated into a global nuclear war. In general. in particular with the United States. the opponent will refrain from attack. Denmark. The Administration of George W. 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. . and as such. Although the United States looks at China's Spratly policy as an indication of its possible bid for regional hegemony. network of military co-operation agreements are Singapore. Washington prefers that the regional states settle their disputes without its involvement as long as these do not pose a threat to U. [4] In line with this hardening of U. making the Southeast Asian states more reliant on bilateral defence arrangements. Contemporary Southeast Asia. policy on the Spratlys may be characterized as guarded non-involvement. Second. the NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. “Choose Your Own Style of Democracy”. The main countries in the U. troops have resumed joint exercises with the Philippines from 2000.S. On the contrary. they cannot afford to ignore the worst-case scenario of conflict involving China. Technological constraints are likely to force Bush to moderate his position on such defence plans. Bush describes China as a strategic competitor. Odgaard 1 (Liselotte. May 21.S. Bush has voiced strong support for a theatre missile defence (TMD) system covering Japan. the United States has maintained its strategy of forward deployment. Thus. 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. China declares war on the US and a fullscale war breaks out with both sides resorting to nuclear weapons. The majority of the Southeast Asian states have embarked on a modernization of their naval capabilities.S. At the same time. Clashes occur between the Chinese navy and the US Navy. is no immediate threat to the latter.

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

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

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

It involves managing the central security regimes in Europe and Asia. The whole system can thus be run at comparatively low costs to both the sole pole and the other major powers. As long as that is the expectation.") To appreciate the sources of conflict that unipolarity avoids. In reality. Because those concentrations of power were not unipolar. International Security. . we should not exaggerate the costs.security and prestige competition-that confronted the great powers of the past. The clearer the underlying distribution of power is. security and competition Wohlforth 99 (William. Each is controversial. Because the current concentration of power in the United States is unprecedentedly clear and comprehensive. 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. Unipolarity can be made to seem expensive and dangerous if it is equated with a global empire demanding U.41 Partly as a result.") Third. by design. Assistant Professor of International Relations in the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown.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.") 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. 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. and it reduces the salience and stakes of balance-ofpower politics among the major states. The war unfolded in a system in which two states shared leadership and three states were plausibly capable of bidding for hegemony. both periods witnessed security competition and hegemonic rivalry. 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. Unipolarity solves the roots of the worlds issues. avoids conflict Wohlforth 99 (William. the less likely it is that states will need to test it in arms races or crises.S. It does not solve all the world's problems. Rather. Assistant Professor of International Relations in the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. and the system can be maintained at little extra cost. The Crimean War is a case in point. Maintaining unipolarity does not require limitless commitments. International Security. As a result. "The Stability of a Unipolar World. "The Stability of a Unipolar World.35 For the purposes of this analysis. "The Stability of a Unipolar World. Summer 19 99. International Security. however. Russia.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 87 Trade-Off DA Unipolarity Good – War Unipolarity prevents power balancing wars Wohlforth 99 (William. Summer 19 99. states will likely refrain from trying. and maintaining the expectation on the part of other states that any geopolitical challenge to the United States is futile. No such uncertainty-and hence no such conflict-is remotely possible in a unipolar system. states are likely to share the expectation that counterbalancing would be a costly and probably doomed venture. involvement in all issues everywhere. unipolarity is a distribution of capabilities among the world's great powers. Unipolarity. it minimizes two major problems. This argument is based on two well-known realist theories: hegemonic theory and balance-of-power theory. the key point is that both theories predict that a unipolar system will be peaceful. Summer 19 99. 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. Assistant Professor of International Relations in the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. and the relationship between the two is complex. or Britain.

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

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

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

presence in the area. caspian region likely to remain critical for foreseeable future. the two flashpoints at the moment are Georgia's and Russia's own never ending -. jan 12. this area of the country was closer to home so to speak. this kind of attitude and policy can easily result in chronic internal tensions within the Caspian states as well as in the Gulf. Moscow has always attempted to keep a tight hand on the reigns of power here. has no intention of limiting or even leveling its presence in the region and will no doubt be reacting to this inevitability. the Caspian states are also oriented more toward the promises of natural riches than toward institutionalized reform. http://www.deported hundreds of thousands of Chechens to Kazakhstan because he believed they were Nazi sympathizers. In dealing with the state-building problems. influence most irks Moscow. though in no worse conditions.bulentaras. Chechnya a mere three years after the breakup of the Soviet Union and launched a decade-long war just because a tiny. At this point. rather than on socio-political reform and institution-building. The reliance on the prospective fruits of natural resources. Professor Political Science Faith University Istanbul. further confirming the fateful alignment of these two regions in strategic thinking. U. Joseph Stalin -.globalpolicy. being nearer to Moscow and St. Neighboring Azerbaijan is the point of departure for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline -. a fact evidenced by the artificial boundaries separating them. initiative cannot resolve mature internal instabilities easily. 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. Azerbaijan also borders Iran. mountainous republic on the border of Georgia wanted its independence. during the Second World War. Furthermore. Their state-building experiences were driven largely by their oil-centered socio-economic structure. Most of the countries in the Middle East acquired their statehood following the colonial period. which has the possibility of becoming a flashpoint in the coming year because of questions concerning Tehran's nuclear weapons program. Beginning in the west.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. and one in which Western interests are heavily invested.com/files/caspian. Within the Soviet realm. As much as Moscow is truly offended by U. are prepared for these growing internal instabilities. Boris Yeltsin commenced the bombing of Grozny. new energy projects in the entirety of Asia.S. which is the prime security manager in the region. but as the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the bloody conflicts in the Balkans—especially in Bosnia—indicate. The Caucasus are perhaps the region in which unbridled U.one of the most prominent. US Influence cannot prevent conflict over the Caspian Sea Aras 2K (BÜLENT. .pdf) The patterns of development pursued by the Caspian states seem to follow an analogous line. the Caspian’s wealth in natural resources may turn into a self-destructive possession.18 In this sense. neither these indigenous countries nor the United States. 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. In handling inter-state clashes in these regions the United States proved itself well. Petersburg and more culturally similar than many of the frontier territories to the far east.S. www. Moscow must understand that the U.S.at least so far -. Washington wants to be there."war on terrorism" in Chechnya and other neighboring republics.org/security/natres/oil/2004/0112caspian.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. recalls the historical experiences of the Middle Eastern countries. power and interest news. Similar processes might be experienced in the Caspian region. Given the diminishing returns of a volatile oil market and the declining oil prices predicted for the following decades. which would anger the Russians even more.S.himself a Georgian -. Because of this.

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

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

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

the tieing of the hands of the present administration by a series of neoliberal policies that deny fiscal authority to the government. radicalized the populations of surrounding states and even sparked civil wars in other. civil wars just as often breed new terrorist groups-Hizballah. the Palestine Liberation Organization. This. The technological skills are not that complex and the resources needed not too rare for terrorists to employ nuclear.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 95 Trade-Off DA Heg Bad – Iraq Instability US hegemony causes Iraqi Instability Selden 4 (Mark. 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. Terrorism risks extinction Kirkus Reviews.'' First terroristsbe they Islamic extremists in the Middle East. including the systematic withdrawal of US forces and elimination of US bases. 2004 (“Discusson of ‘Notes From Ground Zero’: Power equity and Postwar Construction in Two Eras”. panic can grip any targeted society. who and how many they are willing to kill. rootless fanatics are not difficult to imagine. we should not of course expect peace and development to reign any time soon. together with the dismantling of much of the previous Iraq administrative structure.000 US troops supplemented by allied troops and US mercenaries. In other similar cases of all-out civil war the resulting spillover has fostered terrorism. 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. http://www.amazon. 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. Whatever the changes. these unhinged collectivities now have ready access to weapons of mass destruction. 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. an electronic journal and archive on Japan and the Asia-Pacific. It seems certain that if that multinational presence is predominantly military. Such a conflict is unlikely to contain itself. The National Interest 7 (“Keeping the Lid On”. There are no longer any moral limitations on what terrorists are willing to do. Second. and the transfer of many of the most lucrative sectors of the Iraq economy to American firms. Terrorists frequently find a home in states in civil war. To combat such terrorist activities.org/fora/security/SeldonDiscussion. chemical. http://www. 99 (Book Review on “The New Terrorism: Fanatiscism and the Arms of Mass Destruction”. and the farflung base structure designed to support US primacy in the region. and the Tamil Tigers were all born of civil wars. Lexisnexis. In short. coordinator of Japan Focus. has created a situation that ties the hands of any Iraq administration. states may come to rely more and more on dictatorial and authoritarian measures. ultranationalists in the US. Policies that sharply reduced US domination of Iraq. or biological weapons where and when they wish.nautilus. created refugee flows that can destabilize the entire neighborhood. terrorism in the future may threaten the very foundations of modern civilizations . the needs of the Iraqi people and society are unlikely to be met. unleashing retaliatory action which in turn can lead to conflagrations perhaps on a world scale. might create more hopeful conditions for relief. Iraqi instablity spills over and causes terrorism. The consequences of such weapons in the hands of ruthless.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.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. the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat of Algeria. In addition to the destruction of countless lives. June 30. coupled with a stronger international presence. including the United Nations and European nations. both governments and NGOs. 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. 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. as Al-Qaeda did in Afghanistan. neighboring states or transformed domestic strife into regional war.

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

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

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.net/publications/articles/2007/beyond_american_hegemony_5381) Given this premise. Yet. and President Ronald Reagan. . So proliferation undermines American regional hegemony in two ways.and to date the only -. denounced Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak. along with Britain’s Margaret Thatcher. 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. http://www." Moreover. The success of the United States in using superior conventional force to defeat Serbia and Iraq (twice) may have accelerated the efforts of India. Presidents Truman. Beyond American Hegemony. Kennedy and Johnson all ruled out preventive wars against the Soviet Union and China to cripple or destroy their nuclear programs. it was perfectly consistent with the radical neoconservative variant of U. "The lesson is that you should not go to war with the United States unless you have nuclear weapons. With this in mind. New America Foundation. First. it discourages intimidated neighbors of the nuclear state from allowing American bases and military build-ups on its soil. 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. Bush to wage the first -. As an Indian admiral observed after the Gulf War. Although it turned out to be a disaster. Second. military to adopt costly and awkward strategies in wartime.newamerica. WMD are defensive weapons that offer poor states a possible defensive shield against the sword of unexcelled U. it forces the U. Eisenhower. by 2002.S.preventive war in American history against Iraq. a bipartisan majority in the Congress authorized President George W. North Korea and Iran to obtain nuclear deterrents. Pakistan. the obsession with the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) makes perfect sense. global hegemony strategy.S.S. conventional military superiority.

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

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

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

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

com/02spring/layne. bin Laden’s brand of terrorism—the most dramatic illustration of U.S. First. the shah of Iran.S. Kuwait.”15 (Betts was referring to the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.navy.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. although U. presciently observed several years ago.pdf) U. Because of its interest in oil. 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. March 2005 (“Wahabism/Hegemony and Agenic Man/Heroic Masculinity”.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2009 Lab 103 Trade-Off DA Heg Bad – Terrorism US hegemony causes backlash and terrorism Layne 2 (Christopher.S. role in the Gulf has rendered it vulnerable to a hegemonic backlash on several levels. 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.mil/si/2005/Mar/segellMar05. Moreover.S.S. Research Fellow with the Center on Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute. as well as from more traditional geopolitical grievances. In a real sense. Betts. the cultural dimension to U. 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. The cause was perceived to have been fueled by Wahabi fundamentalist sentiments. where jihad or holy war. default position. an acknowledged expert on strategy. allies are.nps. http://www. http://www.[6] .) US hegemony provoked the social context for radical Muslims to embrace fundamentalism vented in terrorism. which brings a third factor into play. In this vein. some important states in the region (including Iran and Iraq) aligned against the United States because they resented its intrusion into regional affairs. as Richard K. both their loyalty and utility as U.S.[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. Because they are concerned about inflaming public opinion (the much talked about “street”). Finally.” between Islamic fundamentalism and U. that it does so makes the United States a lightning rod for those within these countries who are politically disaffected.2. Issue 4. For all of these reasons. Director of the Institute of Security Policy. and the Gulf emirates—whose domestic political legitimacy is contested. became a compensatory. hegemony is manifested primarily in its overwhelming economic and military muscle. vulnerability to the kind of “asymmetric warfare” of which some defense experts have warned—is the counterhegemonic balancing of the very weak. 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. the United States is supporting regimes—Saudi Arabia. Strategic Insights. Indeed. The choice of America as the target is indicative of its hegemonic role expressing military asymmetry—small players can harm the powerful easily. these regimes are not blind to the domestic challenges to their grip on power. pp 233-248. Whatever strategic considerations dictate that Washington prop up these regimes. preeminence is also important. Segell 5 (Glen M. predominance in the region. in the Gulf and the Middle East. Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society. The Al-Quaeda terrorist network found this tolerable given the historical Islamic suicide wars of AfIt..S. liberal ideology.ccc.twq. the United States is viewed as just the latest extraregional power whose imperial aspirations weigh on the region. which inescapably has overtones of a “clash of civilizations. to put it charitably. Spring 2002 (“The Washington Quarterly 25. suspect. The terrorism of Osama bin Laden results in part from this cultural chasm. and conservative Arab regimes and the source of a cultural assault on Islam.3. The events of September 11 have brought into sharp focus the enormous cultural clash. Second. “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.

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful