1NC―KPOO MM v Millard North

SB―Round 2
OFF
 1NC―OFF
T―In the Area

“Substantial security cooperation” means all the activities in an area

UN 82 [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Article 1. Page 26.
www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf]

1. For the purposes of this Convention:

(1) "Area" means the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;

(2) "Authority" means the International Seabed Authority;

(3) "activities in the Area " means all activities of exploration for, and exploitation of, the resources
of the Area;
(4) "pollution of the marine environment" means the introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into the
marine environment, including estuaries, which results or is likely to result in such deleterious effects as harm to living resources and marine
life, hazards to human health, hindrance to marine activities, including fishing and other legitimate uses of the sea, impairment of quality for
use of sea water and reduction of amenities;

(5) (a) "dumping" means:

(i) any deliberate disposal of wastes or other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea;

(ii) any deliberate disposal of vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea;

(b) "dumping" does not include:

(i) the disposal of wastes or other matter incidental to, or derived from the normal operations of vessels, aircraft, platforms or other
man-made structures at sea and their equipment, other than wastes or other matter transported by or to vessels, aircraft, platforms or other
man-made structures at sea, operating for the purpose of disposal of such matter or derived from the treatment of such wastes or other matter
on such vessels, aircraft, platforms or structures;

(ii) placement of matter for a purpose other than the mere disposal thereof, provided that such placement is not contrary to the aims of
this Convention.

Violation―they don’t affect all of biotechnology, just CRISPR

Vote neg―allowing the aff to cooperate over miniscule parts of each of the three
topic areas exponentially multiplies the number of topical affs and makes quality neg
ground impossible because the aff is indistinct from the status quo
 1NC―OFF
K―Cap

Capitalism has become unsustainable. The desire to go faster found in capitalist acts
of hyper-expressivity like the 1AC has exacerbated the over-proliferation of
information has made joy unattainable. Now is the time for revolution―COVID
introduced an unrecoverable slowness into the system. However, failure to develop
subjectivity within the revolution ensures failure for new systems of governance; thus
reject the aff.
Berardi, F. B. (2021) [The Third Unconscious. [edition missing]. Verso. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/2994750/the-third-unconscious-pdf (Accessed: 3 May 2022).]KPOO-CJK

The Explosion of the Unconscious

Following neoliberal globalisation and the digital invasion of the info-sphere, the social Unconscious
exploded. If neurosis prevailed in Freudian discourse, the emergence of semiocapitalism mobilised nervous energies
and forced hyperexpressivity. Within the neurotic cycle of bourgeois society, desire was removed
(repressed, sublimated and so on) in order to make room for the phantasmatic and an internalised potency of
reality. Then, in the psychotic cycle of semiocapitalism, what was removed was reality itself, in the name of unbounded potency of desire.
But the potency of desire in not boundless, as it is submitted to the limits of the organism, to the limits of culture, of the economy and so on.
The proliferation of lines of deter-ritorialisation accelerates stimulus beyond the breaking point: singular
breathing becomes frantic, orgasmic joy becomes unattainable and panic overwhelms consciousness
and body. In a book published in 2010, L’uomo senza inconscio, Massimo Recalcati speaks of ‘man without unconscious’: in the post-
modern age of hyper-expression our innermost dimensions have been pulled out by the acceleration of nervous stimuli and thrown into the
chaotic open sprawl of the media imaginary. What should we do in such a situation? Recalcati answers: let’s restore the authority of the father,
the potency of reason, the law of the state. But this answer is weak. The
authority of the father, the potency of reason and
the law of the state have crumbled because their rhythm was too slow in comparison with the mental
pandemonium. The info-nervous acceleration (deregulation plus globalisation plus digital network) provoked the
explosion of the unconscious and the surfacing of the unconscious at the surface of social life . In his time,
Freud wanted to spread psychoanalysis like a plague within well-ordered repressive bourgeois society :
he wanted to expose the abyss of the unconscious to a community that engaged in the repression of the drives of unchecked desire. But
info-nervous acceleration has eventually propelled and scattered all the psychic material that once
upon a time was concealed. Psychotic hyperexpression has taken the place of neurotic compression . For
a long time it was clear that the world economy was entering a long-lasting stagnation. But capitalism
started pushing society to run faster and faster, for the sake of the absolute dogma of growth, as the
conceptual paradigm of capitalism is based upon expansion . The report Limits to Growth pointed out the
impossibility of unlimited growth in the year 1972. Recently Lawrence Summers, among other economists, speaks of secular
stagnation. Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine a political way out from the stagnating economy of late
capitalism, as the modern mind had been shaped by the expectations of growth, of expansion, of more
things to consume. Nobody knew the way out from the stagnating and devastating labyrinth of
capitalism. Now something has happened, pushing us out from the labyrinth. But where are we? What is
life out of the labyrinth? We don’t know. Since the viral invasion and the ensuing lockdown, the scene has abruptly
changed: the virus has paved the way to a subject-less revolution, a purely implosive revolution based
on passivity and surrender. ‘Just do nothing.’ All of a sudden this slogan takes a subversive sound: down with excitement, down
with the useless anxiety that worsens the quality of life. Literally: Nothing can be done anymore. So let’s do nothing. This is
different from what happened in 2008, when the financial system was rescued by the intervention of
the central banks and by the privatisation and destruction of social infrastructures as a way to rescue
the bank system. This time, central banks and other financial institutions have no tools for relaunching the system. So the global
economy will not recover from the effects of this semio-psychotic virus, because economic science is unable to deal with
sickness, panic, psychosis and fear. Therefore, capitalist economy seems to be short of solutions. This
time collapse did not come from financial or strictly economic factors: the crisis comes from the collapse
of the body. The social mind has unconsciously opted to slow down the rhythm, and the general
demobilisation is a symptom of surrender : it is simultaneously an effect and a cause of the slowdown.
Biological functions have entered into passivity mode for reasons that have nothing to do with a
conscious will or a political project. Tired of processing patterns that are more and more complex and of
interpreting neuro-stimula that go faster and faster, humiliated by the impotence in front of the
omnipotent techno-financial automaton, the nervous system has lowered the tension: this is a psycho-deflation. All of a
sudden the dynamics of disaster have changed their rhythm. Now we are dealing with a new problem that economics
cannot solve: the problem of surviving in times of slowdown, and possibly of changing the rhythm of
expectations so to frugally inhabit a slow environment and to turn stagnation into a new balance of
need and satisfaction. Economics is unable to deal with the pandemic, because this time the causes of the slump do not belong in the
domain of the economy. The stock exchange system has become the representation of a vanished reality: the
supply and demand economies are unsettled and will be only marginally revived by money injected by
the central banks. That means that the financial system is losing its grip: in the past, monetary fluctuations determined the amount of
wealth that everyone could have access to. Now they no longer determine everything. What society needs, now, seems to be
beyond the reach of money. The suspension of the omnipotence of money may be the keystone to get
out of the capitalist form and definitively break the relation between social activity, money and access
to resources. A different conception of wealth seems to emerge from this disruption: wealth is not the amount of monetary equivalent I
have, but the quality of life I can experience. The economy is entering a recession, but this time the supply-support policies are not very useful;
nor are the policies of support for demand. If people are afraid to go to work, if people are sick, or die, demand will not increase. If people are
anguished as terror spreads, financial intervention will be no use. The rhythm of daily life has slowed, and people don’t seem eager to go fast
again. Those who think that the machine can be reactivated thanks to the usual financial measures for recovery do not understand what is
going on. They think that the problem is the relation between the financial market and daily business. But the
problem is not the
market; the problem is the soul. This time the slowdown has happened essentially in the biological and
psychological dimension: it is the psycho-sphere that has suddenly come to a halt, and little by little it is
trying to rewrite its internal rhythm . Due to the decision to halt social activity flow and the economy flow, political leaders have
certainly saved millions of lives during the Covid-19 pandemic. But the April 2020 issue of the Economist – titled A Grim Calculus – observed
that this will cost us a much higher number of lives in times to come. We are avoiding the massacre that the virus could
cost us, but what scenarios do we prepare for the next few years, on a global scale, in terms of
unemployment, production breakdown and distribution chains, in terms of debt and bankruptcies,
impoverishment and despair? The Economist editorial is reasonable, coherent, irrefutable, but only within the context of criteria and
priorities that correspond to the economic form we call capitalism. An economic form that makes the allocation of
resources, the distribution of goods dependent on participation in the accumulation of capital. In other
words, it makes the concrete possibility of accessing useful goods dependent on the possession of
abstract monetary securities. Well, this model that has generated enormous resources for the construction of modern society has
turned into a logical and practical trap that we have not found an exit from. But now, the way out has imposed itself
automatically, unfortunately with violence. Not the violence of a political upheaval, but the violence of a virus. It’s not the
conscious decision of forces endowed with human will that have blocked the accumulation cycle, but the insertion of a heterogeneous
corpuscle – like the wasp would be to the orchid – a corpuscle that began to proliferate until the collective organism was unable to understand
and want, unable to produce, unable to continue. This has stopped the reproduction of the cycle and sucked up huge
sums of money that end up being of little or no use at all. We stopped consuming and producing, and for over a year we
stayed home, looking at the blue sky from the window and wondering how all this will turn out. Bad, very bad, says the Economist,
to whom the interruption of the cycle of growth and accumulation appears to be a catastrophic event
that will lead to starvation, misery and violence. I allow myself to disagree with the Economist’s catastrophic tone, because I
intend the word catastrophe differently – as its etymology can also mean a turning, beyond which you can see
another panorama. So we have moved beyond the labyrinth; we have silently made that move that fifty years of loquacious struggles
have failed to carry out. The disruption has finally happened , but it has been a process without subjectivity.
Everything or almost everything stopped, and economic growth is not in sight. What is needed now is what has been lacking
so far: a motionless subjectivity, the ability to passively change the course of social life, the ability to
subtract social life from the accumulation principle, and to start a process aimed towards usefulness
rather than growth, frugal equality rather than competition and inequality . Will we be capable? I don’t know, and
above all I don’t even know who that ‘we’ will be. Who will be capable of what? No longer politics or the art of governance. Politics is
incapable of any government, and above all it is incapable of any understanding. The poor politicians
seem to be haunted, staggering, anxious. The new game is the rhizomatic proliferation of ungovernable corpuscles. In this new
game what is important is knowledge – not will. Therefore, no longer politics, but knowledge. Yes, but what kind of
knowledge? Not the Economist’s knowledge, unable to leave the hall of mirrors of abstraction and valorisation, but knowledge of
concrete usefulness, knowledge of the body, knowledge of the virus, knowledge of chemistry, physics,
neurology and electronics: knowledge that does not translate into profit, but into usefulness and pleasure. Do we need F-
35 fighter aircrafts? No, we don’t. They are useless. Those workers who now make a living producing weapons should be
paid for doing nothing, which would be much more useful than doing what they are obliged to do at the present. Do you know how many
intensive-care units one could make out of a single F-35? Two hundred. What
if we decide to make people work only for the
time necessary to produce what is useful? What if we give everyone an income regardless of their
(otherwise useless) working time? What if we stop paying the debt, all the debts, every kind of debt, as the
very word debt is now meaningless? What if we screw up international bonds that force us to pay huge
sums of money to afford wars? I have been thinking and writing these kinds of things for many years, but once upon a time these
arguments were rantings of an extremist. No longer. These kinds of rantings will soon look like the only possible
realism: there is no alternative. I’m not hinting that the revolution of usefulness upon abstraction will
happen soon and certainly. Not at all. I say: This is necessary for the sake of humankind’s survival. But if no
subjectivity emerges, this revolution will not happen. In an article titled ‘Why the Global Debt of Poor Nations Must Be
Canceled’, published in the New York Times on 30 April 2020, prime minister of Ethiopia Abiy Ahmed explains with absolute clarity that fair and
reciprocal treatment of others is necessary in a world of interdependence and interconnection (Ethiopia cannot both pay back debts and save
lives during the pandemic). Onlysuch a thing as a pandemic makes the thread that binds everyone visible. The
evolutionary plan of the new (antimarket) rationality is that it now becomes ‘convenient’ (in a classic
utilitarian sense) to collaborate and review the rules of the game . Among them, debt tyranny is the first to fall. When I can’t
pay my debt to you anymore, my downfall is your downfall. The infection has made this clear. This concept is difficult for the German
Protestant mind to accept since it views debt as a sin requiring atonement. But the depth of the economic breakdown will possibly oblige this
prejudice to come to terms with the reality of necessary insolvency. If we are not able to radically change the general form in which human
activity takes place, if we are not able to get out of the model of debt, wages and valorisation, I would say that extinction is around the corner.
A third way between communism and extinction I do not see.
 1NC―OFF
CP―Reduce Commitments

Text: The United States federal government should substantially limit its alliance
commitments and defense pact with North Atlantic Treaty Organization member
states.

US-led NATO makes EU influence impossible―only the counterplan rebalances the

alliance.
Hugo Klijn 11, 2011, [Senior research fellow at the Security and Conflict Programme of the Institute for
International Relations 'Clingendael' in The Hague, https://cess.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Final-
Draft-Volten-no.-26.pdf, chapter 15, accessed 10-24-2022//MoRvl―BMNT]

Of course, it makes sense for countries to ally themselves with the world’s foremost power, and only for that reason NATO will continue to exist
for some time to come. But increasingly, the de facto EU-US-NATO triangle is becoming untenable . On the one hand,
sustaining US-led NATO as Europe’s primary security forum at the end of the day runs counter to EU
ambitions in the field of foreign and security policy . On the other hand it ties Europe to a more global US
security agenda that, deep down, it does not subscribe to and that it is certainly not willing to
shoulder financially . Finally, as long as Europe remains a function of US security policy, this will put a
curb on its ability to forge comprehensive partnerships with third parties .
Revamping the Transatlantic Relationship

The transatlantic relationship, North America’s partnership with Europe, is still the world’s most vital economic, strategic and political bond,
and will remain so for the foreseeable future. The
question is, however, whether NATO should remain its ultimate
embodiment, or whether this relationship should be remodelled and based on a broad and new
strategic EU-US partnership , including provisions on security and defence such as a mutual assistance clause.
Such a recalibrated partnership would leave room for differences in approach and be more informal in nature, while
not necessarily always involving all 27 EU members, but still important when crises erupt. We have seen examples of this kind of
cooperation on Iran , with the EU3 teaming up with the US, and the Middle East, where the EU sits next to the USA, the
UN and Russia in the Quartet: both cases that do not allow for direct NATO involvement.
Good Old NATO

Critics will maintain that we cannot do without NATO’s unique capabilities , in terms of joint planning and
interoperability. No other organization but NATO can conduct an operation like ISAF, the argument runs. But in many respects ISAF is a
revealing operation. What we really see in Afghanistan is an able and willing coalition that runs the demanding southern and eastern regional
commands, and a host of other countries doing something else in the more benign provinces. Out of ISAF’s 46 contributors, non-NATO
member Australia seamlessly joins combat operations in the South, while NATO member Germany is carrying out its
national stabilization operation in the north, steered by the Bundestag rather than by NATO. None of these countries would be able to sustain
their operations without US enablers. So it is rather the US, and not necessarily NATO , which is pivotal within ISAF.
Trading NATO for the EU-USA does not mean doing away with the acquis atlantique, but it would
mean doing away with a top-heavy alliance that served its purpose well but increasingly stirs unease in Europe ,
while becoming less relevant to Washington – even if the newest US National Security Strategy routinely speaks of NATO as the pre-eminent
security alliance in the world today. NATO,
or Europe, is nowhere as central in US security thinking as many
Europeans like to believe. When 9/11 occurred, invoking the alliance’s Article 5 only came as an afterthought. Paradoxically, this
trend may be reinforced under a less traditionally inclined president Obama, no matter how enthusiastically his inauguration was celebrated in
Europe. Moreover, building a new relationship with the USA which is more balanced than it is now would likely
stimulate Europe to further boost its post-Second World War integration process .
Third Parties

Last but not least, anew transatlantic partnership more firmly based on both participants’ autonomy would
enable the EU, but also the USA, to review their relations with third parties . Take, for example, Russia. Among other
reasons, the EU-Russia relationship, important because of the density of trade, investment and energy links but
marred by endless negotiations on a new strategic agreement, is held back because of Moscow’s frustration that it cannot discuss
security with the EU, which tends to refer to NATO instead. As long as Europe labels NATO as its primary security

organization , Moscow is likely to regard the EU’s neighbourhood policies as affiliated with the
alliance’s enlargement agenda , given the expressed synergies between these two ‘EuroAtlantic organizations’. More broadly
speaking, the outside world will look at Europe as a more serious interlocutor as it depends less on US
security guarantees . Sticking to the Russia example, the US, lacking the economic dimension in its relationship with Moscow, is
perfectly capable of concluding deals on strategic issues, such as the recent START agreement on nuclear arsenals. But many, not all, of the
bilateral irritants concern Europe and are NATO related. It is probably no coincidence that Russian compliance with START has been made
dependent on missile defence developments in Europe.

EU-based multilateral fora solves their impacts by deescalating conflicts and focus on
prevention―independently, solves warming and prolif that causes extinction
EEAS 18, 2018, [European Union External Action. “A Global Strategy for the European Union”
https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/49323/global-strategy-european-
union_uz, accessed 10-24-2022//MoRvl―BMNT]

The European project which has brought unprecedented peace , prosperity and democracy is being questioned. To the
East, the European security order has been violated, while terrorism and violence plague North Africa and the Middle East, as well as Europe
itself. Yet these are also times of extraordinary opportunity . Global Growth, mobility, and technological progress –
alongside our deepening partnerships- enable us to thrive , and allow ever more people to escape poverty and live longer and freer
lives.

The EU Global Strategy sets out the EU's core interests and principles for engaging in the wider world and gives the Union a
collective sense of direction. Its ambition is to make Europe stronger : an even more united and
influential actor on the world stage that keeps citizens safe, preserves our interests, and upholds our values. To confront new challenges
and keep us safe we need a response that combines internal and external policies. The EU Global Strategy helps makes our Union more
effective in confronting energy security, migration, climate change, violent extremism, and hybrid

warfare . Because none of our countries can tackle these challenges alone , we are taking steps to solve them
together . We will navigate this difficult, more connected contested and complex world guided by our shared interests and principles. We
will stand united in building a stronger Europe.

From Vision to Action - Strategic Priorities of the EU Global Strategy

The EU Global Strategy seeks to turn vision into common action. In October 2016 EU Foreign ministers decided on the most important strategic
priorities for implementing the EU Global Strategy (Council Conclusions in October 2016). These priorities are security and
defence, building state and societal resilience, taking an integrated approach to conflicts and crises, strenghtening cooperative
regional orders and a rules-based global governance .
Security and Defence

To implement the EU Global Strategy, decisive steps are being taken on Security and Defence. In November 2016, EU Foreign and Defence ministers decided on a new level of ambition and key steps to upgrade cooperation to
ensure the Security of our Union in line with the Global Strategy (Council conclusions). These Conclusions were based on former HRVP Federica Mogherini's Implementation Plan on Security and Defence. This aims to improve the
protection of the EU and its citizens, help governments jointly build military capacity, and develop better response to crises. Further actions to step up EU Security include the European Defence Action Plan, which proposes
financial help for Member States for more efficient joint procurement and capability development, and steps to put into effect the EU-NATO Joint Declaration.

Building State and Societal Resilience

Building resilience at home and abroad means creating a more responsive union. The EU will strengthen the resilience of states and societies by supporting good governance, accountable institutions, and working closely with civil
society.

The High Representative and the European Commission launched a Joint Communication on Resilience that aims to further enhance common action on building resilience on the ground.

Our support will target in particular the EU's surrounding regions in the East and the South, spanning from Central Asia to Central Africa.

Integrated Approach to Conflicts and Crisis

The EU also supports an integrated approach to conflicts and crises, which means being fully engaged in all stages of a conflict, from early action and prevention, wherever possible to staying on the ground long enough for peace to
take root. A particular emphasis is placed on early warning and risk assessment.

Cooperative Regional Orders

Guided by the values on which it is founded, the

EU is committed to a rules-based multilateral international order .
The Union regards the respect for and promotion of international law - including the principles of the UN Charter –
to be crucial for preserving peace , human rights, sustainable development and lasting access to the global
commons . Multilateral organisations – in particular the United Nations – sit at the heart of this framework of international
norms. They are providers of global governance as well as fora for the peaceful resolution of disputes and
tackling global challenges . To strengthen rather than just preserve the rules-based multilateral system, the European Union is
jointly
committed to reform, transform, and further expand the existing system. The European Union leads by example with the
implementation of new and reinvigoration of existing multilateral projects like the Paris Agreement, the Sustainable

Development Goals, as well as the global effort on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament . We will
seek to widen the reach of international norms and institutions . Not only is the EU committed to living up to its
obligations under such regimes, rather it will strongly support expanding their membership, universalisation, full implementation, and
enforcement.
 1NC―OFF
CP―OSCE

Text: Text: The United States federal government should substantially

increase its security cooperation with the Organization for Security
and Co-operation in Europe in the area of biotechnology through
developing and regulating CRISPR.

Only the CP solves―it taps the same stakeholders, but as part of an inclusive security
architecture includes adversaries―and broadly revitalizes the OSCE
*OSCE = Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe*

Anna Nadibaidze 22, 1-2022 [PhD fellow at the University of Southern Denmark’s Centre for War
Studies, “Commitment to Control Weaponised Artificial Intelligence: A Step Forward for the OSCE and
European Security,” Geneva Centre for Security Policy, Issue 22, https://dam.gcsp.ch/files/doc/ssa-2022-
issue22, accessed 8-3-2022//BMNT]

Strengthening human control: the role of the OSCE

Reaching a common position on weaponised AI regulation is challenging . The current global and
European political atmosphere is one of distrust , particularly between two major European security
players: Russia and the U nited S tates. In June 2021 both President Joe Biden and President Vladimir Putin said that the bilateral
relationship “has deteriorated to its lowest point in recent years”.34 There is also distrust of technologies such as the
Internet, AI, 5G, and robotics, not least because they can be weaponised and used for threatening activities such
as cyber attacks. This environment makes it difficult to attain a common understanding and commit to
agreed principles on the use of weaponised AI. Nevertheless, the OSCE possesses some key advantages
that could make it the platform for taking a step forward in the global debate .

Just like the CCW, the OSCE operates by consensus , which requires it to seek a compromise among participating
States on whatever issue is being discussed. However, the organisation has been historically known for its
ambition to form an inclusive security community and to build practices that “suggest a new model
of international security” that is “ comprehensive ”, “ indivisible ”, and “ cooperative ”.35 The OSCE’s
predecessor , the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, was a symbol of détente between the United
States and the Soviet Union, and a place for two rivals to find compromise on security issues,
demonstrating the possibility of coexistence on the European continent.36 The OSCE has not only been
able to survive, but also to adapt to the rising security challenges of the new world order. Its broad
membership and comprehensive approach to security make it a key – if not the most – legitimate
institution for European security .37 At a time when some experts debate whether Russian-US relations
have entered a new cold war, the OSCE’s inclusive approach is needed to show that tensions can be
dealt with in a forum rather than on the battlefield .

Other international institutions have demonstrated their ambitions to create some form of AI regulation. In April
2021 the European Commission presented its legal framework proposal, which could lay down a path towards defining a regional approach to
governing weaponised AI.38 The North Atlantic Treaty Organization ( NATO ) has also set out its principles for the
responsible use of AI in the area of defence .39 The key difference is that these institutions have
favoured exclusive membership in terms of which prospective countries need to fulfil specific
conditions to join. However, the OSCE has relatively broad accession rules because it was initially
based on the concept of geopolitical diversity .40 Settling the differences and misunderstandings
between different actors, especially Russia and the U nited S tates, is a key step in achieving a security agreement
such as a commitment to human control over weaponised AI. In recent years the Russian discourse
has expressed disappointment that Western countries have made NATO the main European security
organisation.41 By engaging with Russia on the issue of weaponised AI within the OSCE framework, the
U nited S tates would contribute to easing the tensions between it and Russia, while also diminishing the chances of
misunderstanding and misinterpretation . The OSCE’s inclusive membership is thus a valuable
advantage in terms of building trust and mitigating the security implications of modern
technologies.42
What should be the way forward? In the 2019 Luxembourg Declaration on Advancing Sustainable Development to Promote Security, the OSCE
Parliamentary Assembly urged “participating States to support international negotiations to ban lethal autonomous weapons with a view to
establishing international, legally binding rules”.43 A legally binding treaty banning the development of weaponised
AI would be challenging , given that, unlike nuclear weapons or blinding lasers, AI is not a specific type of weapon
and can also be applied for civilian use.44 Some participating States hold the position that a ban will affect the development of
useful civilian technology. Within the framework of the CCW, Russia has argued that banning LAWS too hastily could
“hinder technological progress”,45 while the UK government believes that “a legally binding instrument which hampers the
legitimate development and use of such technologies would be counterproductive”.46

As a realistic starting point, the OSCE’s confidence- and securitybuilding measures ( CSBMs ) could provide a
framework to exchange information and observations on the use of weaponised AI, in order to
facilitate communication and dialogue .47 The OSCE already has CSBMs for information communication technologies, which,
like weaponised AI, create “an area with much room for speculation, doubt, and ambiguity” and “increase the potential for tensions between
States”.48 There is also the potential to go further than exchanging information informally within the CSBMs framework.

Based on the recommendations of the International Panel on the Regulation of Autonomous Weapons, the next step should be to
“focus on the obligation to maintain human control over the use of force”, which would “apply to all
conventional weapons”.49 Taking this path will avoid the debate on defining LAWS, which has been
hindering the progress of the CCW discussions. In 2019 the GGE on LAWS adopted a set of guiding principles that are broad, have no
legally binding force and do not clarify the concept of human control, only stating that “human responsibility for decisions on the use of
weapons systems must be retained since accountability cannot be transferred to machines”.50 While
OSCE member States accept
in principle the importance of human control, they have until now not been able to agree on a
common definition of this concept. The commitment to human control should be enshrined in a normative
framework such as a political declaration or a manual of best practices . Any such document would
already be a step forward . It could be part of the Vienna Document or the result of a new OSCE working group.
Importantly, an OSCE political declaration or guide on human control and weaponised AI would not undermine or
negate the efforts at the CCW but would build on them. Shifting the discussion towards the current
impacts of weaponised AI rather than the potential future impact of “killer robots” would help to
mitigate the risks inherent in these technologies. It would demonstrate that finding consensus , especially
in an atmosphere of political distrust , is possible . While debates at the CCW continue, the operational
trend towards further autonomy in the armed forces of OSCE participating States is a reality . Practices
related to the use of weaponised AI have the potential to shape warfare norms . Yet this trajectory is not
inevitable , and with the right approach, a political declaration containing a common definition of
human control would be a realistic achievement .

A political declaration should therefore contain a commitment to retaining human control over AI-driven weapons systems. This
would be
a crucial step towards addressing regional security threats and creating an international framework on
weaponised AI. The history and membership of the OSCE make it the most appropriate organisation to build trust and take a key step
forward on weaponised AI when global discussion at the UN is stalling and operational trends continue to increase the use of autonomous
weapons systems.

Conclusion

Current practices related to the use of weaponised AI are already impacting European stability and
security . Operational trends that reflect a reduction in the level of human control over weapons with increasingly autonomous features
pose significant legal, ethical and security risks. Moreover, the lack of definition of LAWS and agreement on an
appropriate level of human control among states creates uncertainty and potential
misinterpretation . However, the trajectory of AI is not permanently set to be an “arms race”. Finding
a common agreement is a challenging , but not impossible task. The OSCE is a promising platform to
build on the stalled discussions at the CCW, because it has a history of acting as a bridge between various
perspectives of European security. It is an inclusive organisation that brings together the key developers of
weaponised AI and players in European security. By debating this issue at the OSCE and agreeing on a political declaration
containing a commitment to human control, participating States will address some of the risks of autonomous
weapons systems and demonstrate the relevance of the OSCE in tackling the impact of modern
technologies and their use in conventional weapons.

That’s the only path to a sustainable European détente―failure causes escalating

conflict in numerous hotspots
Olesya Vartanyan* & David Lanz** 22, 3-11-2022 [*Crisis Group's Senior Analyst for the South
Caucasus region; **Crisis Group’s Representative for Dialogue Promotion, trained mediator with fifteen
years’ experience supporting international mediation processes and leading dialogue efforts, “Preserving
the OSCE at a time of war,” ReliefWeb, https://reliefweb.int/report/world/preserving-osce-time-war,
accessed 8-3-2022//BMNT}

*edited for language*

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine risks incapacitating one of the only remaining multilateral spaces for cooperation between
Russia and the West, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe ( OSCE ). Participating states must work to prevent this
outcome and preserve the OSCE’s critical role in containing conflicts.

Russia’s 24 February invasion of Ukraine has sent shock waves through the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), a body
that has been instrumental in containing conflicts that erupted after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Russia’s actions in Ukraine are a glaring
violation of the OSCE’s commitment to respecting sovereignty, territorial integrity and human rights, memorialised in its founding principles.
They have poisoned the atmosphere at the organisation ’s seat in Vienna – which hosts the 57 participating states ,
including Ukraine and Russia as well as all European Union ( EU ) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization ( NATO )
members – and compromised its ability to take decisions on matters big and small.

But for all the challenges it faces, the OSCE remains an essential forum. It is one of the only remaining
multilateral spaces outside the UN for dialogue between Russia and the West ; in the words of an OSCE official,
the organisation has been “sort of an airbag that opens any time we face echoes of tensions ” between Russia
and the West. The OSCE is one of the few international organisations with the potential to play an
important role in implementing any ceasefire arrangement that the conflict parties might reach in Ukraine,
where prior to the war’s current phase it led a sizeable monitoring mission. It also helps manage the risk of escalation in
conflicts from Moldova to Georgia to Central Asia .

Governments should do all they can to prevent the OSCE’s incapacitation. Russia must refrain from holding the
OSCE hostage and letting core operations collapse. Western states, in turn, should resist pushing for Russia’s suspension from the OSCE.
Suspension would likely lead Russia to withdraw, as it did on 15 March from the Council of Europe.

The OSCE in Ukraine

With roots that date back to the 1970s, the OSCE assumed its current institutional form in 1994 as a forum for peace, stability and democracy issues. It runs fifteen
field operations that perform a range of tasks, from monitoring conflict situations and violence prevention to promoting governance reform.

Even before recent events, Ukraine was an important theatre for the OSCE. In 2014, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the onset of a Russia-backed
separatist insurgency in eastern Ukraine, the OSCE mounted a far-reaching response. It deployed a monitoring mission – one of the largest field operations in its
history – that served as eyes and ears on the ground and helped to reduce violence along the line of separation between government-controlled Ukraine and the
separatist entities in Donetsk and Luhansk. When Russia’s invasion began on 24 February, that mission still had close to 500 international monitors on the ground
and continued its reporting as evacuation commenced. The mission has now essentially paused activities, although some Ukrainian staff remain present to carry out
limited office functions in some locations.

Aside from monitoring, the OSCE acted as a mediator bringing together Russia, Ukraine and the de facto entities in eastern Ukraine within the so-called Trilateral
Contact Group. The negotiations failed to settle the conflict in line with the 2014 and 2015 Minsk Agreements, which brought the war’s first phase of major fighting
to a halt. But they did broker truces, for example in July 2020, which led to a marked reduction in hostilities. The talks also helped improve the situation of the
civilian population in the areas affected by the conflict in eastern Ukraine, for example by enabling civilians to cross the line of separation.

The framework for these mediation efforts no longer exists. Russia’s recognition of the de facto separatist entities, and its 24 February invasion, have rendered
meaningless the Minsk Agreements, which foresaw the reintegration of Donetsk and Luhansk with Ukraine. The OSCE still has a special representative for Ukraine,
Mikko Kinnunen, who was the main mediator within the Trilateral Contact Group, but his role is unclear at this point.

Since the start of the war, Poland, which chairs the organisation in 2022, has suspended all regular business, holding meetings only of two political bodies – the
Permanent Council and the Forum for Security Cooperation – which were entirely dedicated to Ukraine. These meetings featured strongly worded condemnations
of Russia and coordinated walkouts. Along similar lines, in the annual address of the OSCE Chair-in-Office at the UN Security Council on 14 March, Polish Foreign
Minister Zbigniew Rau likened Russia’s actions in Ukraine to “state terrorism”.

Beyond symbolic acts, the OSCE has only a handful of available tools for responding to the war in Ukraine, given the polarisation among its participating states and
its convention of operating by consensus. On 3 March, it mandated a fact-finding expert group to collect information about violations of human rights and
international humanitarian law committed during the war. But this enquiry will be limited, as the group has to submit its report within a few weeks. Another
tangible and important step it might take would be to preserve the OSCE’s monitoring mission in Ukraine, whose mandate expires at the end of the month.
Participating states will shortly commence negotiations, but it is questionable they will extend the mission’s mandate as doing so would require Russia and Ukraine
to agree. Absent consensus, they can and should at least agree to “hibernating” it, rather than shutting it down completely. Hibernation would mean preserving the
mission as a legal entity and maintaining core administrative functions, even as its operations remain paused. In the event of a ceasefire, hibernation would allow
for rapid reactivation, saving precious time. Another, though less likely, possibility is that a reactivated OSCE monitoring mission could serve as a stopgap until the
deployment of a more robust UN or hybrid UN-OSCE peacekeeping mission.
When it comes to diplomatic engagement, the OSCE is unlikely to serve as the main mediator aiming to broker a settlement between Russia and Ukraine, given that
Poland – which has an especially tense relationship with Moscow – now holds the chair. But the OSCE special representative for Ukraine could use his good offices
to address specific issues, for example facilitating agreements on humanitarian access.

Beyond Ukraine

In countries beyond Ukraine , the OSCE continues to play a crucial conflict management role . A prime
example is Georgia , whose two breakaway regions – Abkhazia and South Ossetia – Russia has recognised as independent states. Since
the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia, the OSCE has acted as one of three international mediators, along with
the EU and the UN. Together, the trio are responsible for organising the Geneva International
Discussions, a negotiating format that brings together Georgia , the de facto entities, Russia and the
U nited S tates. The talks in Geneva have kept communication channels open and helped address incidents
that otherwise could have escalate d.
In South Ossetia, the OSCE’s role has been particularly important. Much less visible than the EU, which runs a 200-person monitoring mission on
the territory controlled by the Georgian government, the OSCE is considered an acceptable interlocutor by Russia and the allied de facto
leadership in South Ossetia. The OSCE has therefore been able to broker deals, for example on water supply and access to farm land, which
have reduced the risk of violence and improved the lives of people on both sides of the line of separation.

The Ukraine war risks reopening wounds from 2008 and could upend the OSCE’s diplomatic efforts . Both
breakaway regions have demonstrated strong support for Russia’s actions in Ukraine, while Georgia, although not joining sanctions against
Russia, has still sent in an application for EU membership and voted to condemn Russia’s aggression within international institutions. These
developments could have an impact on prospects for future cooperation and even on negotiation formats that have helped keep these conflict
zones stable for over a decade. A worrying sign is that the UN, EU and OSCE co-chairs decided to cancel the forthcoming round of the Geneva
talks scheduled at the end of March, following postponement of their pre-talks visit to the region and to Russia. The
absence of
regular talks undermines the OSCE’s ability to act as a mediator just when its role as a go-between
may be most needed to maintain communication between the conflict parties and help address
incidents that could spark violence .

In Moldova , the OSCE plays an important role, too, acting as a mediator between the Moldovan
government and de facto authorities in separatist Transdniestria . Its work has helped contain the
conflict , stabilising the situation in a country that is vulnerable to being inflamed by tensions between Russia and the West. Likewise, the
OSCE runs field operations in the Western Balkans and in Central Asia that perform local conflict management functions and aim to promote
governance reforms, though the results in each place vary.

The Need to Preserve the OSCE

The deepening rift between Russia and the West threatens the OSCE’s very functioning. As noted, the
organisation requires
consensus to take decisions, which in effect bestows veto power on all participating states. The war in Ukraine risks not
only paralysing * shutting down the OSCE but also unravelling its core operations . For example, absent
agreement among participating states, the OSCE’s field operations, which work to advance stability and governance reforms across the region,
will collapse as they require annual mandate extensions. It is both possible and essential to avoid this scenario .

Russia bears the primary responsibility. It must refrain from holding the OSCE hostage and letting core operations fall apart. Western states
also need to do their part. Their diplomats in Vienna need to find ways of engaging Russia and seeking pragmatic
cooperation , even if it is difficult to do so in the face of an escalating war that rides roughshod over
OSCE principles . They should refrain from pushing Russia out of the organisation via the “consensus minus
one” rule, which states invoked in the early 1990s to temporarily exclude the former Yugoslavia on the grounds of massive human rights
violations. Using this rule to suspend Russia from the OSCE would be both ineffective and dangerous – ineffective because even if Russia were
excluded, its close ally Belarus could still block decisions, and dangerous because it would probably lead to Russia’s withdrawal, as it did in the
Council of Europe. Russia’s exclusion would likely spell the end of the organisation’s ability to mediate in its
neighbourhood , jeopardising its conflict management role in Bosnia, Moldova, Georgia, Nagorno-
Karabakh and various Central Asian states . These are precisely the areas that may now experience
increased tensions , as parties come under political pressure from Moscow and the West to take sides.

Moreover, over the long term in Ukraine, the OSCE could come to play an important role if Moscow
and Kyiv come to a compromise on a ceasefire or settlement. The existing monitoring mission could be repurposed to help
oversee a ceasefire agreement, shedding light on violations and facilitating dialogue between the parties. It could also be deployed to monitor
specific agreements, for example ones reached to ensure the safety of nuclear power plants in Ukraine. The OSCE High Commissioner on
National Minorities could help find creative compromises related to the place of the Russian language in Ukraine, long a controversial issue, and
OSCE election observers could be deployed in the event of post-war elections in Ukraine. However
far off such issues may seem
in the face of an escalating war, they will be among the issues the parties will have to grapple with
when the fighting stops.

All of these are reasons not to burn the bridge between Russia and the West that the OSCE
represents, even as it faces the most serious threat since its creation . Participating states should work
to ensure the OSCE’s continued functioning , preserving its precious remaining space for pragmatic
cooperation on international security matters in Europe. They must also try to shield the OSCE’s work beyond Ukraine
– in places like Moldova, Georgia and Bosnia, where it helps to keep communication channels open, promote dialogue and resolve incidents
that could spark violence. These efforts have helped lower tensions for years, and they are all the more valuable now that the
fallout of the war in Ukraine creates fresh escalation risks .
 1NC―OFF
CP―Uqness

Text: The United States federal government should cease all increases in security
cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization until the convening of the
118th congress of the United States
 1NC―OFF
DA―PTX

Obviously, McCarthy can’t win now–but there’s a chance for a moderate choice.
Anthony Zurcher 1/5/23, Kevin McCarthy makes new concessions to rebels as third day of voting
looms, BBC News, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64170729, accessed 1-5-2023, //
Roberds

Democrats and Republicans in the Ohio state House of Representatives joined together on Tuesday to reject a more
conservative speaker and elect a moderate compromise candidate. Could such a thing happen in the
US House of Representatives, as well? There's been plenty of such speculation, as Mr McCarthy's predicament became
clearer in recent days. Some of that has been fanned by his supporters as a warning for conservative hard-liners to fall in line, but some of it is
real. Don Bacon, a centrist Republican from Nebraska, has previously expressed an openness to working with Democrats to elect a
compromise speaker if Mr McCarthy fails. Fred Upton, a former Republican congressman from Michigan with

moderate credentials, has expressed an openness to presenting himself as a coalition pick (there is no
requirement that a speaker has to be a current member of Congress). And there's been some talk of sweeteners for Democrats, like rule
changes that would allow them to introduce legislation or more committee power. All of this would require a sizeable number of Democrats to
go along with the plan, which in today's sharply divided partisan environment seems unlikely in the extreme. And any Republican who works
with Democrats will instantly be persona non grata among most conservatives. Given
that the House is already in uncharted
territory by modern standards, however, no options are too far-fetched at this point.

BUT cooperation with NATO serves as a spring-board to coalesce the GOP around
contentious issues―the 1AC will get framed as the first step in ensuring US influence
abroad against China and Russia
Lisa Mascaro 22, 8-4-2022, [On NATO, McConnell nudges GOP away from Trump-era approach,
Dispatch, https://cdispatch.com/news/2022-08-04/on-nato-mcconnell-nudges-gop-away-from-trump-
era-approach/, accessed 12-1-2022//MoRvl―BMNT]

WASHINGTON — At a dinner with the president of Finland shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, Senate Republican leader Mitch
McConnell assured his host that the U.S. Senate would swiftly ratify NATO membership if the north
European country chose to apply to the military alliance.

It was a bold assumption for the Republican leader to make in the aftermath of the Trump era, when
Donald Trump roused a neo-isolationist streak in the GOP, railing against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and threatening at times to
upend the decades-old alliance. But
over several courses of fresh fish and schnapps, McConnell, long a
proponent of NATO’s expansion as a bulwark against Russian aggression, sought to leave the
impression that the U.S. would most certainly welcome the new NATO members with open arms.
Late Wednesday, the Senate did exactly that , as most Republicans joined Democrats in ratifying the
accession of Finland and Sweden to the alliance, an overwhelming 95-1 vote . Other NATO countries also must
approve the new members.

“What a big day,” McConnell said during an interview with The Associated Press in his office ahead of the vote.

McConnell said he had just finished a phone call with the Finnish president, Sauli Niinisto, whom he now considers something of a friend.
The two were “just talking about what we’ve sort of been through since we had dinner together,” he said, noting “ this new and
strengthened NATO and the way it’s pulled together sort of the , shall I say, the democratic world.”
The Republican is not the leader of the Senate’s majority, but its minority, yet he has played a pivotal role in joining forces with President Joe
Biden and the Democrats to nudge GOP senators off the Trump-era foreign policy approach and ensure NATO ratification.

It’s a milestone for McConnell, who has championed the NATO alliance almost since he joined the
Senate more than 35 years ago. That position put him at odds with Trump during his tenure in the White House. At the time,
McConnell and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously invited NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg to deliver a speech to Congress on its
70th anniversary in direct response to Trump’s criticisms of NATO.

“That’s the role Sen. McConnell is trying to play,” said Eric Edelman, a former U.S. ambassador to Finland and Turkey.
“It’s an ongoing struggle,” Edelman said. “The whole fight over Ukraine has become a little bit of a microcosm, a microcosmic case, of the larger
fight in the party over its future stand on foreign policy. And, you see, unfortunately, a lot of people who don’t see this as an important stake
for the United States.”

Speedy action in the typically slow moving Senate was no guarantee, particularly as Republicans are still sorting out their policies and politics
after Trump’s presidency. The former president had awakened in the party, and many American voters, a newfound skepticism of the overseas
alliance that lingers in the GOP at a time when Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has drawn the U.S. and its European allies
closer together.

McConnell counseled his GOP senators ahead of the vote with the same arguments he makes
Privately,
in public — including the idea that part of being a leader is explaining complex choices to constituents, even if Americans may say they don’t
like spending money or focusing attention abroad.

“The one thing I was concerned about, particularly at that point, was this sort of growing isolationist sentiment in the party, to some extent,
given voice by President Trump,” McConnell said in his office, steps off the Senate floor.

He had reason to be worried: Just a few months earlier McConnell believed as many as 25 GOP senators, half his caucus, would oppose $40
billion in military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine as it battled Russia. In the end, 11 voted against the Ukraine aid package, which Trump
criticized.

Ahead of the NATO vote, McConnell said he sought to convey to senators that the U.S. leadership role in the world
“is not just important militarily , but commercially , as well, all of which is good for this country. This
is not a charity we’re involved in here. This is for the benefit of America.”

He added: “ The world is better served if somebody stands up to dictatorships like

we have in Russia and China .”
In the end, only one Republican, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, a potential 2024 presidential hopeful, voted
against ratifying the NATO expansion, saying the U.S.’s attention would be better focused on China.

Even longtime non-interventionist Sen. Rand Paul , R-Ky., did not oppose the vote, choosing instead to
abstain. Paul said in a floor speech that after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, “the world changed.”
McConnell shrugged off Paul’s vote, saying he and his fellow Kentuckian often have different foreign policy views. As for Hawley, the GOP
leader said he “couldn’t disagree more” but didn’t try to change his colleague’s vote.
In the months after that March dinner with the Finnish president, McConnell led a delegation to visit Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy
in Kyiv. The senators then stopped in Sweden and Finland in a show of support for the alliance.

At a news conference in Stockholm, McConnell vowed that the Senate, which he did not control, would vote to ratify NATO membership by
summer.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., another potential presidential hopeful who joined the March dinner, said of the GOP leader: “Sen. McConnell has been
a strong proponent all summer long of not waiting around to get this done.”

That assurance guarantees Never Kevins vote for McCarthy

Ursula Perano and Matt Fuller 23, 1-5-2023, Kevin McCarthy Offers Holdouts a Deal. Will It Move
Them?, Daily Beast, https://www.thedailybeast.com/kevin-mccarthy-offers-holdouts-a-deal-will-it-
move-them, accessed 1-5-2023, // Roberds

A source involved in the negotiations told The Daily Beast that McCarthy’s latest offer could move some votes, but more
than 10 of the holdouts appeared committed to never voting for McCarthy . The source added that the offer also
might end up moving hardly anyone. The source said part of the problem for knowing definitively how many votes
would move is that McCarthy’s offer was incomplete in the minds of his detractors . A lot would
depend upon the additional assurances and clarifications members could get before they voted . Some
lawmakers, clearly, will only be satisfied when McCarthy is defeated. That includes Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and Lauren Boebert (R-CO). If three
more are in that camp, short of making a deal with Democrats, there’s nothing McCarthy can do—even if the remaining 97 percent of the
House GOP is on board with him. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), who nominated McCarthy ahead of a vote on Wednesday, acknowledged the
brutal math in a CNN interview on Thursday morning. “The tough part is, I think, the number that will never vote for Kevin McCarthy is more
than four,” he said. After six failed votes over two days, the House is scheduled to head to its seventh ballot on Thursday at noon. It
could
be a make or break moment for McCarthy. If he can show at least some progress toward getting the
holdouts, he would likely at least buy himself more time to continue negotiating, and likely move to
hold another vote to keep the House adjourned . If no one moves toward McCarthy after this latest
offer, his already narrow pathway might taper into a brick wall.

McCarthy win scraps all US climate change efforts and rapidly exacerbates the pace of
warming
Maxine Joselow 22, 10-18-2022, [*Analysis and research conducted by Vanessa Montalbano, a
researcher for The Climate 202, American University, BA in Journalism and Sociology ; American
University, MA in Journalism and Public Affairs, Investigative Specialty, Washington Post,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/18/kevin-mccarthy-weighs-future-special-
committee-climate-change/, accessed 12-1-2022//MoRvl―BMNT]

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) created a special committee to examine climate change in 2019, the
panel's days seemed numbered.

If Republicans regained control of the House , many observers assumed , they would immediately scrap
the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, since the GOP has historically opposed ambitious measures to tackle global
warming.
But House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who hopes to become speaker if Republicans pick up enough seats in
the midterms, has not yet decided whether to keep the committee, according to three people familiar with the matter
who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private discussions.

Some Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Garret Graves (La.), who would become chair of the committee, have privately urged McCarthy to
keep the panel, according to one of the individuals.

If the panel does exist in the new Congress , it would likely look dramatically different and focus on
policies scientists warn would exacerbate not ease the climate crisis . The committee would probably
focus, in part, on boosting America's oil and gas production, despite the scientific consensus that the
world needs to rapidly phase out fossil fuels to avert a climate catastrophe.
And the panel would probably have a different name, such as the Select Committee on Energy Security and Independence, that does not
contain the word “climate,” the people familiar with the matter said.

The fact that McCarthy might be open to keeping the committee , even with less of a climate focus, signals that
GOP leadership recognizes the value of carving out a Republican agenda on environmental
issues , said George David Banks, who served as a White House climate adviser under former president Donald Trump.

“ It's in the GOP's interest to maintain some form of the committee to help educate the American
public on the advantages of the Republican approach on climate, energy and economic security
policy ,” Banks said.
Marty Hall, the former Republican staff director for the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, noted that it's still early for GOP leadership to
be deciding the committee's fate.

“It's a little premature because the speaker is the one who picks select committees,” Hall said. “You really don't want to have that conversation
until after the election.”

A spokesperson for McCarthy declined to comment, while a spokesperson for Graves did not respond to a request for comment.

Warming is existential and acts as a threat multiplier

Nathan Alexander Sears 21, PhD Candidate in Political Science at The University of Toronto, Former
Professor of International Relations at the Universidad de Las Américas, Trudeau Fellow in Peace,
Conflict and Justice at the Munk School of Global Affairs, March/April 2021, “Great Powers, Polarity, and
Existential Threats to Humanity: An Analysis of the Distribution of the Forces of Total Destruction in
International Security”, Conference Paper: International Studies Association, 2021 Annual Conference,
https://tinyurl.com/bfbfspzx

Climate change could be come an existential threat to humanity if the planet ’s climate reaches a
“Hothouse Earth” state (Ripple et al. 2020). What are the dangers? There are two mechanisms of climate change that
threaten humankind. The direct threat is extreme heat . While human societies possesses some
capacity for adaptation and resilience to climate change, the physiological response of humans to heat stress
imposes physical limits —with a hard limit at roughly 35°C wet-bulb temperature (Sherwood et al. 2010). A rise in global average temperatures by 3–
4°C would increase the risk of heat stress, while 7°C could render some regions uninhabitable, and 11– 12° C would leave much of the planet
too hot for human habitation (Sherwood et al. 2010). The indirect effects of climate change could include, inter
alia, rising sea levels affecting coastal regions (e.g., Miami and Shanghai), or even swallowing entire countries (e.g., Bangladesh and the Maldives);
extreme and unpredictable weather and natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes and forest fires); environmental pressures on
water and food scarcity (e.g., droughts from less-dispersed rainfall, and lower wheat-yields at higher temperatures); the possible inception of
new bacteria and viruses ; and, of course, large-scale human migration (World Bank 2012; Wallace-Well 2019; Richards, Lupton
& Allywood 2001). While it is difficult to determine the existential implications of extreme environmental conditions, there are historic precedents

for the collapse of human societies under environmental pressures (Diamond 2005). Earth’s “big five” mass
extinction events have been link ed to dramatic shifts in Earth’s climate (Ward 2008; Payne & Clapham 2012; Kolbert
2014; Brannen 2017), and a Hothouse Earth climate would represent terra incognita for humanity .

Thus, the assumption here is that a Hothouse Earth climate could pose an existential threat to the habitability of
the planet for humanity (Steffen et al. 2018., 5). At what point could climate change cross the threshold of an existential threat to humankind? The
complexity of Earth’s natural systems makes it extremely difficult to give a precise figure (Rockstrom et al. 2009; ). However, much of the concern about

climate change is over the danger of crossing “tipping points,” whereby positive feedback loops in Earth’s climate

system could lead to potentially irreversible and self-reinforcing “runaway” climate change. For example, the
melting of Arctic “permafrost” could produce additional warming, as glacial retreat reduces the refractory effect of the ice
and releases huge quantities of methane currently trapped beneath it. A recent study suggests that a “planetary threshold ” could exist at
global average temperature of 2° C above preindustrial levels (Steffen et al. 2018; also IPCC 2018). Therefore, the analysis here takes the 2°C rise in
global average temperatures as representing the lower-boundary of an existential threat to humanity, with higher
temperatures increasing the risk of runaway climate change leading to a Hothouse Earth .

The Paris Agreement on Climate Change set

the goal of limiting the increase in global average temperatures to “well below” 2°C
and to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C. If the Paris Agreement goals
are met, then nations would likely keep climate
change below the threshold of an existential threat to humanity. According to Climate Action Tracker (2020), however,
current policies of states are expected to produce global average temperatures of 2.9°C above preindustrial levels by 2100 (range between +2.1 and +3.9°C), while if
states succeed in meeting their pledges and targets, global average temperatures are still projected to increase by 2.6°C (range between +2.1 and +3.3°C). Thus,
while the Paris Agreements sets a goal 6 that would reduce the existential risk of climate change, the actual policies of states could easily cross the threshold that
would constitute an existential threat to humanity (CAT 2020).
CASE
 1NC―Disease
1. No disease impact
Halstead 19 John Halstead, doctorate in political philosophy. [Cause Area Report: Existential Risk,
Founders Pledge, https://founderspledge.com/research/Cause%20Area%20Report%20-%20Existential
%20Risk.pdf]

However, there are some reasons to think that naturally occurring pathogens are unlikely to cause human extinction.
Firstly, Homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years and the Homo genus for around six million years without
being exterminated by an infectious disease, which is evidence that the base rate of extinction-risk
natural pathogens is low .82 Indeed, past disease outbreaks have not come close to rendering humans
extinct. Although bodies were piled high in the streets across Europe during the Black Death,83 human extinction was never a serious
possibility, and some economists even argue that it was a boon for the European economy.84 Secondly, infectious
disease has only contributed to the extinction of a small minority of animal species .85 The only
confirmed case of a mammalian species extinction being caused by an infectious disease is a type of rat native
only to Christmas Island . Having said that, the context may be importantly different for modern day humans, so it is unclear whether
the risk is increasing or decreasing. On the one hand, due to globalisation, the world is more interconnected making it easier for pathogens to
spread. On the other hand, interconnectedness could also increase immunity by increasing exposure to lower
virulence strains between subpopulations .87 Moreover, advancements in medicine and sanitation limit
the potential damage an outbreak might do

2. Society adapts
Longrich ’20 [Nicholas R. Longrich is a Senior Lecturer in Evolutionary Biology and Paleontology,
University of Bath, “Will humans go extinct? For all the existential threats, we’ll likely be here for a very
long time,” 5-5-20, https://theconversation.com/will-humans-go-extinct-for-all-the-existential-threats-
well-likely-be-here-for-a-very-long-time-135327]
So we’re vulnerable, but there are reasons to think humans are resistant to extinction, maybe uniquely so. We’re a deeply
strange species – widespread, abundant, supremely adoptable – which all suggest we’ll stick around for a while .
Everywhere and abundant First, we’re everywhere. Geographically widespread organisms fare better during
catastrophes such as an asteroid impact, and between mass extinction events. Large geographic range means a species doesn’t
put all its eggs in one basket. If one habitat is destroyed, it can survive in another . Polar bears and pandas, with small
ranges, are endangered. Brown bears and red foxes, with huge ranges, aren’t. Humans have the largest geographic range of any
mammal, inhabiting all continents, remote oceanic islands, in habitats as diverse as deserts, tundra, and
rainforest. And we’re not just everywhere, we’re abundant. With 7.8 billion people, we’re among the most common animals on Earth.
Human biomass exceeds that of all wild mammals. Even assuming a pandemic or nuclear war could eliminate 99% of the
population, millions would survive to rebuild . We’re also generalists. Species that survived the dinosaur-killing asteroid rarely
relied on a single food source. They were omnivorous mammals, or predators such as alligators and snapping turtles that eat anything. Humans
eat thousands of animal and plant species. Depending on what’s available, we’re herbivores, piscivores, carnivores, omnivores. But most
importantly, we adapt unlike any other species, through learned behaviours — culture - not DNA. We’re animals, we’re mammals, but we’re
such weird, special mammals. We’re different. Rather than taking generations to change our genes, humans use intelligence, culture and tools
to adapt our behaviour in years or even minutes. Whales took millions of years to evolve flippers, pointy teeth, sonar. In millenia, humans
invented fishhooks, boats and fish-finders. Cultural evolution outpaces even
viral evolution. Viral genes evolve in days. It
takes a second to ask someone to wash their hands. Cultural evolution isn’t only faster than genetic evolution, it’s different. In
humans, natural selection created an animal capable of intelligent design, one that doesn’t blindly adapt to the environment, but consciously
reshapes it to its needs. Horses evolved grinding molars and complex guts to eat plants. People domesticated plants, then cleared forests for
crops. Cheetahs evolved speed to pursue their prey. We bred cows and sheep that don’t run. We’re so uniquely adaptable, we might
even survive a mass extinction event. Given a decade of warning before an asteroid strike, humans could probably stockpile enough
food to survive years of cold and darkness, saving much or most of the population. Longer-term disruptions, like ice ages, might cause
widespread conflicts and population crashes, but civilisations could probably survive. But this adaptibility sometimes makes us our own worst
enemies, too clever for our own good. Changing the world sometimes means changing it for the worse, creating new dangers: nuclear weapons,
pollution, overpopulation, climate change, pandemics. So we’ve mitigated these risks with nuclear treaties, pollution controls, family planning,
cheap solar power, vaccines. We’ve escaped every trap we set for ourselves. So far. Interconnected world Our global civilisation also
invented ways to support each other. People in one part of the world can provide food , money, education,and
vaccines to vulnerable people elsewhere. But interconnectivity and interdependence also create vulnerabilities. International trade,
travel and communications link people around the world. So financial gambles on Wall Street destroy European economies, violence in one
country inspires murderous extremism on the other side of the globe, a virus from a cave in China spreads to threaten the lives and livelihoods
of billions. This suggests a limited optimism. Homo sapiens have already survived over 250,000 years of ice ages, eruptions, pandemics, and
world wars. We could easily survive another 250,000 years or, longer.

3. mRNA solves ― Covid spurred a vaccine revolution

Lurie, 21 – Strategic Adviser to the CEO of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations
[Nicole Lurie, served as Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during the
Obama administration; Jakob P. Cramer, Head of Clinical Development at the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations; and Richard J.
Hatchett, CEO of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, “The Vaccine Revolution: How mRNA Can Stop the
Next Pandemic Before It Starts ,” Foreign Affairs, May/June 2021, accessed 6-23-21]

A new era in vaccinology has arrived. The year 2020 will be remembered not only for the pandemic but also for the fact that it
witnessed the culmination of nearly a decade’s worth of technological breakthroughs in a mere 12 months. The world will emerge
from the pandemic with a new arsenal of vaccine tech nologies at its disposal, with mRNA at the
forefront. These successes in dark times provide much-needed grounds for optimism that in the future,
societies will be able to respond much more rapidly, effectively, and equitably to emerging pandemic
threats.

4. ABR is fake.
Yang 18 Hsu Li Yang, Public Health Professor at the National University of Singapore. [Dealing with the
evolving threat of antimicrobial resistance, 11-18-2018,
https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/dealing-evolving-threat-antimicrobial-resistance]

The threat of a “doomsday scenario” of a post-antibiotic era – where common infections or minor injuries can result in death –
has been raised by many experts and organisations, including the WHO. This is an exaggerated worst
case future projection designed to generate headlines and increase awareness (and support) of the
issue via fear – a tactic that has similarly been adopted for many causes. The reality is that we will never end up in
such an apocalyptic future
 1NC―Readiness
1. Allies say no
Cooper ’21 — Clarke; nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council, a former assistant secretary
at the Department of State, and a US Army combat veteran. September 3, 2021; “American security
cooperation needs an ‘integrity check’”; Atlantic Council; https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-
atlanticist/american-security-cooperation-needs-an-integrity-check/; //ty CYang

Yet successful security cooperation — which includes arms transfers, training, security assistance, treaties, or agreements — is
built around two key principles : trust and integrity of commitment, both of which are at risk today
thanks to the haphazard US withdrawal from Afghanistan.
In the US military, the term “integrity check” refers to a concern about an individual’s or unit’s capability or trustworthiness. Following the
debacle in Kabul, the United States and its global security cooperation posture is in dire need of one.

Just look at the anger expressed by stalwart NATO allies such as the U nited K ingdom, which in the aftermath of
9/11 unquestionably joined in to invoke the Washington Treaty’s A rticle 5 for collective self-defense (the first
time the Alliance ever did so). That NATO launched its first operations outside the Euro-Atlantic area and began a far-reaching transformation
of capabilities signaled its trust in the United States’ reliability when it came to security cooperation.

Now, treaty allies and partner nations are reassessing their bilateral security relationships with the U nited
S tates. It’s not just the NATO states caught off-guard by the haphazard departure from Afghanistan that will
think twice before embarking upon future military campaigns with the U nited S tates. Resolute defense
partners in the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific — including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan — likely also need
overt reassurance, such as a clear national-security strategy and declared recommitments.

Additionally, these partners are increasingly feeling the need to proactively raise their own defense capabilities by boosting their budgets or
coordinating with allies to ensure regional security along with the United States.

Besides stress-testing the integrity of American security cooperation, the Afghanistan withdrawal also highlights the necessity of staying the
course on long-term investment in mutually beneficial security partnerships with countries with which the United States has shared interests —
or shared threats. Well before the fall of Afghanistan, foreign partners were already questioning the reliability of the United States at a time
when the debate in Washington about our global posture was becoming increasingly politicized.

The case for partnering with the United States needs to be clearly articulated through the presence, performance, and processes of American
security cooperation. The quality of US aerospace and defense equipment, the commitment to build capabilities, and the reassurance that
comes from partnering with the US military must include further transparency, accountability, and predictability of policies.

If not, American allies and partners will be hesitant to collaborate with us on future shared security
requirements — or simply seek cooperation elsewhere.

2. Specifically, Turkey and Hungary spoil and set a precedent for other NATO
members.
Basu ’22 — Zachary; national security reporter at Axios. "Strongmen spoilers in Turkey and Hungary
threaten Western unity"; Axios; https://www.axios.com/2022/05/18/turkey- NATO-finland-sweden-
hungary-russia; //CYang
Why it matters: Critics have accused Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of employing a " hostage-taking " tactic also
practiced by Hungary, which for weeks has been singlehandedly blocking the European Union from imposing an
embargo on Russian oil.

The outsized influence of single-member states in the EU and NATO has drawn increased scrutiny in recent years,
especially as both Hungary and Turkey have drifted toward authoritarianism and strengthened their ties with Russia.

Their resistance to two critical Western priorities risks undermining the united front that leaders like President Biden have
touted as key to effectively responding to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Driving the news: U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who has said he is "very confident" all NATO allies will ultimately approve Sweden and
Finland's applications, will meet on Wednesday with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu.

Çavuşoğlu said Sunday that in exchange for Turkey lifting its opposition, Sweden and Finland must end their alleged support for Kurdish groups
that Turkey views as terrorists and a top national security threat.

Turkey is also expected to use its leverage to seek bilateral concessions from the U.S., including speeding up the potential sale of F-16 fighter
jets.

Between the liens: Özgür Ünlühisarcıklı, director of the German Marshall Fund's office in Ankara, told Axios that Erdoğan "saw an opportunity
to extract some benefits both for Turkey and for his own political standing" ahead of a crucial election next year.

Erdoğan believes he's "more or less free to do whatever he wants ," Ünlühisarcıklı said.

He argued it's hard to stand up to Erdogan on this issue, given the high stakes of Sweden and Finland's NATO
applications, and the unique role Turkey is playing in Ukraine as both a mediator in peace talks and supplier of highly effective
drones.

Critics, meanwhile, say the stunt could set a precedent for other NATO leaders to essentially seek bribes in
moments of crisis — with some going as far as to call Turkey a "Trojan horse" within the Western alliance.

Zoom out: That label has long been used to describe Hungary's role as a spoiler within the EU.

Hungary's far-right prime minister Viktor Orbán is viewed as the most pro-Russian leader in the EU, and for weeks has
used his veto to prevent the bloc from banning imports of Russian oil.

In the meantime, Orbán has used his leverage to pressure the EU to send Hungary a financial compensation package
— effectively neutralizing Brussels' landmark decision this year to withhold pandemic recovery funds from
Hungary over its democratic backsliding.

3. No Baltics invasion.
Bandow 16 (Doug Bandow – senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil
liberties, JD from Stanford University, Robert A. Taft Fellow at the American Conservative Defense
Alliance. He is a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan; “Russia Won’t Attack the Baltic
States”; https://www.cato.org/blog/russia-wont-attack-baltic-states; accessed 7/18/18)

Yet the surging fear over Russian adventurism is misplaced. Vladimir Putin’s behavior is bad, but poses
little threat to America, “old” Europe, or even most of Russia’s neighbors. He has taken Moscow back
to the Russian Empire, not the Soviet Union. His government demands respect for its status, protection
of Russia’s borders, and consideration of its interests. Mikhail Saakashvili’s Georgia was actively anti-
Russian, pursued close ties with America, and sought membership in NATO—all certain to antagonize
Moscow. Ukraine always mattered more to Moscow than Georgia or the Baltics for historical and
cultural reasons, as well as the naval base of Sebastopol. Putin acted only after Europe pushed a trade
agreement to reorient Ukraine away from Russia and both Brussels and Washington backed a street
revolution against the elected president who leaned toward Russia. Even then, Putin sought to weaken,
not conquer, Ukraine. His brutal response was murderous and unjustified, but militarily on par with
U.S. interventions. Putin continues to demonstrate no interest in ruling those likely to resist Russia’s
tender mercies. Seizing the Baltic states likely would generate substantial popular resistance .
Moreover, as weak nations currently containing no foreign troops, the Baltics pose no potential threat
to Russia. Finally, the Baltic ethnic Russian populations, though significant, demonstrate little
sentiment for joining Mother Russia. They prefer cultural connection to political affiliation, creating a
poor target for the sort of destabilizing tactics deployed against Ukraine. So what would Russia gain
from attacking the Baltics? A recalcitrant, majority non-ethnic Russian population. A possible
temporary nationalist surge at home. A likely short-lived victory over the West. As I argue in National
Interest: “The costs would be far greater. Grabbing the Baltics likely would spur population exodus
and trigger economic collapse . Launching a war without the convincing pretext present in the cases of
Georgia and Ukraine might leave the Russian public angry over the retaliation certain to come.”
Worse, Moscow certainly would rupture economic and political relations with the U.S. and Europe and
probably start a losing conventional war with NATO. Even more frightening would be the prospect of a
nuclear conflict. The U.S. should stop making defense promises which serve the interests of other
nations rather than America. The Europeans should prepare their own defense.

4. The CBW scenario―this is just a CRISPR impact―that’s inevitable globally and

China isn’t key to it

5. AND fearmongering―they’re restricting CRISPR and have regulated new

biotech
Song 21 – Lingqiao Song, Academic Associate at the Centre of Genomics and Policy, “After He Jianku:
China's biotechnology regulation reforms,” Medical Law International, 2/16/21,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0968533221993504
Although the worldwide bioethics community had achieved a consensus to postpone clinical germline gene editing on scientific, social and
ethical grounds, the Chinese professor He Jiankui ignored all ethical norms including his own.1 He claims that ‘gene surgery is only
permissible when the risks of the procedure are outweighed by a serious medical need’.2 However, He created two genetically altered babies,
neglecting the ‘off-target’ risks of the CRISPR-Cas 9 mechanism 3 that may impair the function of normal genes.4 His
announcement
created an uproar in the Chinese scientific and bioethical expert community. One hundred and
twenty-two Chinese scientists, some from renowned institutions such as Stanford University, MIT and the German Cancer
Research Centre, fiercely condemned He’s behaviour.5 Concerned that his endeavour might hamper Chinese biomedical research and damage
the reputation of other Chinese scientists, they urged authorities to adopt relevant regulations and undertake an
inquiry of He’s actions.6
In an official statement, the Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST) and the National Health Committee (NHC) stressed that genetically
modifying a human embryo for reproductive purposes is explicitly prohibited in China. They said that He had severely violated ethical morality,
scientific integrity and relevant regulations.7 Xu Nanping, the Vice Minister of the MoST, states that according to Article 6 of the Ethical Guiding
Principles for Research on the Human Embryonic Stem Cells Research (2003)(人胚胎干细胞研究伦理指导原则), China prohibits human
cloning, research on human embryos 14 days after fertilisation and genetic manipulation of human gametes, zygotes and embryos for
reproductive purposes.8 However, the MoST and the NHC did not release the investigation report for He’s case, which prompted criticism from
Chinese bioethicists regarding the inadequacy and transparency of investigation.9

On 30 December 2019, He
and his accomplices were convicted by the Nanshan District Court of ‘illegal
medical practice’ for gene editing human embryos for reproductive purposes and for carrying out illegal reproductive medical activity.10
He was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment and a fine of 3 million RMB (around US$450,000).11

Beyond the criminal sanctions, the NHC gave He, Qin Jinzhou and Zhang Renli a life ban on conducting assisted reproductive technology-related
services.12 The MoST prohibited them from applying for any administrative permit relating to research with human genetic resources and from
applying for all research funds under their purview.13 The China Association for Science and Technology also revoked He’s award for the 15th
‘Chinese Youth Science and Technology Prize’.14 No civil punishment was imposed because the babies’ parents did not file a civil litigation
against He.

He’s case also underscored systemic problems of ethics and governance in Chinese private hospitals. In recent years, the Putian Medical Group,
which runs 80% of private hospitals in China, has developed an infamous reputation for false advertisements and an excessively commercial
ethos.15,16 It was therefore unsurprising to learn that a Putian hospital, Shezhen Harmonicare, seemed to be implicated in the ethics approval
for He’s gene editing project. Although the Harmonicare hospital denied responsibility, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry attested that it had
approved the ethics application related to He’s research.17

He’s case is not the only one that has caught the attention of the international community in recent years. The integrity of some Chinese
scientists has also been generally criticised for recurring issues involving plagiarism in scientific publications.18 These scandals have
substantially and unfairly overshadowed Chinese scientists’ contribution to biomedical research.

In response to He Jiankui’s case and broader bioethical issues , the Chinese government introduced a
series of regulatory reforms that are discussed in the following sections: the first section discusses laws approved by the
National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee; the second section touches on department regulations; the third
section introduces the conceptual plan of constituting a National Medical Ethics Committee and the fourth section explores questions of legal
liability raised by He Jiankui’s case going beyond the court’s decision. Our article anticipates the possible next steps in the reform programme.
We conclude with some important considerations for these reforms to succeed in the fifth section.
GENERIC 2NC―DIGITAL
K―Cap
Theory: A2 “Perf Con”—2NC
Theory: A2” Vague Alts”―2NC
CP―Reduce Commitments
A2: “Condo”
T―Area―Short
2NC―O/V
A2―WM
A2: “PTV”
A2: “C/I―Only Our Aff”
 A2―CI: General

1―Policy in an area must be understood to affect the entire area

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals 99 - FRIENDS OF IRONBRIDGE PARK v. BABBITT, 7/22/99,
http://cehdclass.gmu.edu/jkozlows/lwcfva.htm
FIP argues that the NPS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in deciding that its approval was not necessary for construction of the golf facility
because such construction would constitute a change in use that would "significantly contravene the original plans for the area." 36 C.F.R. §
59.3(d). FIP contends that "area" in the context of the regulation refers only to the portion of the project site
on which the proposed change will occur , i.e., the 150 acres on which the golf facility is proposed to be built. FIP notes
that the regulations specifically require federal agency approval prior to converting an area from a
passive to an active use, e.g., from a nature trail to a swimming pool, see id., and argues that is exactly what the County proposes to
do here.

The Secretary, on the other hand, contends that "area" in the context of the regulation refers to the entire
project area , rather than only to the 150 acres on which the golf facility is proposed to be built. We must defer to an agency's construction
of its own regulations unless it is "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation." Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997) (internal
quotation marks omitted). The regulations provide support for that interpretation, as the
word "area" is used in § 59.1 to refer to
the land depicted in the project boundary map. See 36 C.F.R. § 59.1. Here, the land depicted in the boundary map
was the entire 400-acre Ironbridge Park . Accordingly, the Secretary's interpretation is neither plainly erroneous
nor inconsistent with the regulation, and it therefore is controlling . See Auer, 519 U.S. at 461.

A―‘Substantial’―NATO defines substantial security cooperation as spanning all parts

of the military and all levels of strategy
NATO 22 – the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, February 2022, “The Substantial NATO-Georgia
Package,” https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/2/pdf/Air-Maritime-Domains-
georgia.pdf /jpb

The Substantial NATO-Georgia Package (SNGP) aims to strengthen Georgia’s ability to defend itself
and advance its preparations for NATO membership. The package is composed of 16 defence and
related security capacity building initiatives. It involves support for all military services and branches ,
advice and liaison at all levels (strategic, operational, tactical), capacity-building and training
activities, and multinational exercises. As of early 2022, all NATO members and two partner countries
have provided support to the implementation of the package in the form of expertise and resources.

B―‘The’ means entire area.

John Maloney 18, PhD, ELS (a post-bac editing degree), works in prototyping, technical editing, and
entropy interpretation. he has over ten years of experience as a professional editor, and has published
papers in nature, responding to a question from Mike Philip, 8/21/18, “with 'the' or not: 'in areas of' VS
'in the areas of' ,” https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/176890/with-the-or-not-in-areas-of-vs-in-
the-areas-of

This will require new frameworks for global cooperation in areas of investment , research and
technology .

This will require new frameworks for global cooperation in the areas of investment , research and
technology .
definite-article

shareimprove this question

asked Aug 21 '18 at 7:59

Mike Philip

342214

add a comment

2 Answers

active oldest votes

(First, "this" is vague; even with context, the reader may not know whether "this" refers to a specific noun in an earlier sentence or a condition
described in an earlier sentence, paragraph, or section.)

The sentences have slightly different meanings . Since "areas of investment, research and technology"
doesn't include the definite article "the", it could be interpreted to mean various facets within the
fields of investment, research, and technology . Perhaps it refers to investment into emerging markets, corporate research,
and military technology, for example. This meaning could be emphasized by adding a few clarifying words:

This [expansion/objective/modification] will require new frameworks for global cooperation in [ certain] areas
[within the fields] of investment, research and technology.

In contrast, the definite article "the" in "the areas of investment, research and technology" simply
refers exactly to those stated general fields , all of which will require new frameworks for global cooperation.

C―‘In’ means ‘throughout’

Words and Phrases 8 (Permanent Edition, vol. 20a, p. 207)
Colo. 1887. In the Act of 1861 providing that justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction “in” their respective counties to hear and determine all complaints, the

word “in” should be construed to mean “throughout” such counties. Reynolds v. Larkin, 14, p. 114, 117, 10 Colo. 126.

D―‘Of’ means whole

CJS 78 (Corpus Juris Secundum, 67, p. 200)
Of: The word "of" is a preposition. It is a word of different meanings, and susceptible of numerous different connotations. It may be used in its possessive
sense to denote possession or ownership. It may also be used as a word of identification and relation, rather than as a word of proprietorship or possession. "Of"

may denote source, origin, existence, descent, or location, or it may denote that from which something issues, proceeds, or is derived. The term may indicate
the aggregate or whole of which the limited word or words denote a part, or of which a part is referred to, thought of, affected, etc.

E―“Biotechnology,” in the context of the topic, refers to changing ever form exclusive
of biological system is used in military applications
Nicklin 1 Dr. Steve Nicklin, Senior Fellow at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Ministry
of Defence, UK, PhD Immunology, University of Bristol, “Medical Issues: The Future Impact of
Biotechnology on Human Factors,” NATO Research and Technology Organization Meeting Proceedings
77, paper presented at the NATO RTO Human Factors and Medicine Panel Specialists’ Meeting, held in
Paris, France, June 11-13, 2001, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA403342.pdf /GoGreen!
Biotechnology within the military context can be defined as the “the exploitation and manipulation of
biological systems to benefit overall military capability ”. Recent years have witnessed a massive advance in scientific
knowledge and capability mainly through the advent of molecular biology and genetic engineering techniques. These techniques have already
led to considerable military benefits in the form of new countermeasures to chemical and biological warfare agents, novel sensors for the
detection of explosives and equipment for bioremediation and environmental clean-up. In the future it is envisaged that advances in
biotechnology will continue to provide advances particularly in the field of autonomous sensing systems and new and unique products and
materials.
A2: “Aff Ground”
A2: “Reasonability”
CP―OSCE
INB Overview―Short
S: 2NC―S: O/V
 A2: “Perm do Both”
2―ADVERSARY ACCEPTANCE―it reaffirms the primacy of NATO in norm-setting which
is incompatible with visions of security architecture that Russia can accept―guts
solvency for both the aff and the counterplan
Mark Neymark 22, Марк Афроимович Неймарк, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of the
Department of Political Science and Political Philosophy of the Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Russia, “Красные линии стратегической безопасности России: от метафоры к
критической альтернативе,” or, “The Red Lines of Russia's Strategic Security: from metaphor to critical
alternative,” Научно-Аналитический Журнал Обозреватель, no. 1 (384), 2022, translated by Yandex,
doi:10.48137/2074-2975_2022_01_5

Для нормализации отношений с альянсом российское руководство настаивает на возвращении к ситуации, документально зафиксированной в «Основополагающем Акте Россия – НАТО», подписанном в 1997 г. обеими сторонами «на основе твёрдого обязательства, принятого на высшем политическом уровне».

В документе говорилось, что Россия и НАТО будут содействовать укреплению ОБСЕ, включая дальнейшее развитие её роли в качестве основного инструмента превентивной дипломатии, предотвращения конфликтов, урегулирования кризисов, постконфликтного восстановления и регионального сотрудничества в области безопасности, а также укрепления её
оперативных возможностей по осуществлению этих задач. «ОБСЕ в качестве единственной общеевропейской организации безопасности играет ключевую роль в поддержании европейского мира и стабильности».

Развитие событий в последующие годы показало, что в действительности НАТО в огромной степени действовала по принципу от противного, утверждая, будто именно она – единственный гарант мира в Европе.

Одно из ключевых положений Акта гласит: государства – члены НАТО подтверждают, что не имеют намерений, планов или причин для развёртывания ядерного оружия на территории новых членов и не имеют необходимости изменять любой из аспектов построения ядерных сил НАТО или ядерную политику НАТО, а также не предвидят необходимости делать
это в будущем. «Это включает тот факт, что НАТО приняла решение о том, что не имеет намерений, планов или причин создавать места хранения ядерного оружия на территории этих стран ни путём строительства новых объектов хранения ядерного оружия, ни путём приспособления старых объектов хранения ядерного оружия». При этом в НАТО как-то бы стро
«забыли» о своих юридически зафиксированных обязательствах «предотвращать какие-либо дестабилизирующие наращивания сил в различных регионах Европы и в Европе в целом».

В документе было зафиксировано принципиально важное положение о том, что он «не затрагивает и не может рассматриваться как затрагивающий главную ответственность Совета Безопасности ООН за поддержание международного мира и безопасности».

Два года спустя жестокими бомбардировками Югославии НАТО прямо нарушила свои обязательства, действуя в обход СБ ООН. Причём в нарушение такого принципа Акта, который предписывает «предотвращение конфликтов и урегулирование споров мирными средствами в соответствии с принципами ООН и ОБСЕ».

Предельно вольно интерпретируется в НАТО её обязательство осуществлять свою коллективную оборону через обеспечение совместимости, интеграции и потенциала усиления, «а не путём дополнительного постоянного размещения существенных боевых сил». На практике «постоянное размещение» попросту подменяется размещением на ротационной
основе, а размытое понятие «существенные силы» не несёт на себе какую-либо ограничительную нагрузку.

Американскому руководству надо было бы ещё четверть века назад прислушаться к дальновидному предупреждению авторитетного дипломата и аналитика Дж. Кеннана, известного своим вкладом в разработку концепции сдерживания нашей страны, который обладал уникальными знаниями о её возможностях и потенциале: «Расширение НАТО станет
роковой ошибкой американской политики во всей эпохе после холодной войны. Такое решение с высокой долей вероятности приведёт к разжиганию националистических, антизападных и милитаристских тенденций в российском общественном мнении. Оно будет иметь негативные последствия для развития российской демократии, вернёт атмосферу
холодной войны в отношения Востока и Запада, а также направит внешнюю политику России в направлениях, которые абсолютно будут нам не по нраву» [6].

[TRANSLATION]

To normalize relations with the alliance , the Russia n leadership insists on returning to the situation
documented in the " NATO-Russia Founding Act ", signed in 1997 by both sides "on the basis of a firm commitment made at
the highest political level."

The document stated that Russia and NATO will contribute to the strengthening of the OSCE , including
developing its role as the main instrument of preventive diplomacy, conflict prevention, crisis
further
management, post-conflict reconstruction and regional security cooperation, as well as strengthening
its operational capabilities to carry out these tasks. a key role in maintaining European peace and stability."

The development of events in the following years showed that in reality , NATO largely acted on the principle of the
opposite , claiming that it was the only guarantor of peace in Europe.
One of the key provisions of the Act states: NATO member States confirm that they have no intentions, plans or reasons for deploying nuclear
weapons on the territory of new members and do not need to change any aspect of the construction of NATO's nuclear forces or NATO's
nuclear policy, nor do they foresee the need to do so in the future. "This includes the fact that NATO has decided that it has no intentions, plans
or reasons to establish nuclear weapons storage sites on the territory of these countries, either by building new nuclear weapons storage
facilities or by adapting old nuclear weapons storage facilities." At the same time, NATO would somehow "forget" about its legally fixed
obligations "to prevent any destabilizing buildup of forces in various regions of Europe and in Europe as a whole."

The document contained a fundamentally important provision that it "does not affect and cannot be considered as affecting the primary
responsibility of the UN Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security."

Two years later, with the brutal bombing of Yugoslavia, NATO directly violated its obligations, bypassing the UN Security Council. And in
violation of the principle of the Act, which prescribes "conflict prevention and settlement of disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the
principles of the UN and OSCE".
NATO's commitment to implementing its collective defense through interoperability, integration, and reinforcement capabilities is interpreted
very loosely, "rather than through additional permanent deployment of substantial combat forces." In practice, " permanent deployment "is
simply replaced by rotational deployment, and the vague concept of" significant forces " does not carry any restrictive load.

A quarter of a century ago, the American leadership should have heeded the far-sighted warning of the authoritative diplomat and analyst J. R.
R. Tolkien. Kennan, known for his contribution to the development of the concept of deterrence of our country, who had unique knowledge of
its capabilities and potential: "The expansion of NATO will be a fatal mistake of American policy in the entire post-Cold
War era. Such a decision is highly likely to incite nationalist , anti-Western, and militaristic tendencies in Russian
public opinion. It will have negative consequences for the development of Russian democracy, return the cold war
atmosphere to relations between East and West, and direct Russia's foreign policy in directions that we will
absolutely not like " [6].

AND causes extinction―NATO posturing explodes separatism

Kimon Valaskakis 14, Former Canadian Ambassador to the OECD, “Separatism Everywhere: The New
Global Epidemic,” Huffington Post, 03/19/14,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kimon-valaskakis/separatism-everywhere-the_b_4977800.html

Like modern marriages, half of which end in divorce, there is a new and ominous global threat: the break-up of
previously stable political entities through separatism .

Crimea wants to leave Ukraine. Scotland has scheduled a n independence referendum from Britain in September 2014
and Britain is considering one to possibly leave Europe in 2015. Catalonia's referendum to secede from Spain is
in November 2014, and Quebec may possibly organize its own in the next couple of years. Wallonie, Corsica, North
Italy, Bretagne etc. may one day follow suit. There is even talk of splitting California in two!

Why are these centrifugal forces emerging now? There seems to be four leading reasons.

The first is a knee jerk reaction against excessive and unregulated globalization which leaves the ordinary citizen lost
and with no identity. He therefore seeks a new sense of belongingness in a small, newly independent country, favoring localism over globalism.

The second is the fact that most so called 'nation' states are actually multinational and diverse . The ethnic
minorities which feel oppressed in such states, are tempted to seek a divorce, set up their own nation, where they are will then be the
majority -- and perhaps, in the process, exact revenge on their former tormentors, now in the minority.

The thirdis the worldwide failure of national governments , who seem to be chronically unable to deliver on their
electoral promises. One response is to 'throw the rascals out', which explains why governments of the left, right and center are regularly
kicked out of office at the next election. In the U.S., an irate electorate consistently punishes the governing parry at the mid-terms regardless of
its ideology.

An alternative response to ineffective governance is to seek independence, whenever there is a geographical concentration of like minded
opponents to a central regime. This was what the U.S. Civil War was all about and is what many contemporary ethnic struggles are leading
towards.

Fourth and finally, there is simple self interest. Rich provinces , in a country, whose constitution obliges them to help poorer
ones, (like Canada) may want to end these subsidies and keep all the money to themselves. Under this logic it should be Alberta rather
than Quebec considering secession.

When all is said and done, is all this good or bad news ?
At first blush, by invoking the principle of self-determination, the virtues of decentralization and more responsible local government, we might
be tempted to welcome these centrifugal forces.

But upon reflection and careful analysis we should instead fear them because they will exacerbate the present mismanagement
of our planet .
The separatists often believe that they can repeal globalization by a simple declaration of sovereignty, the adoption of a new flag and national
anthem and by being awarded a seat in the United Nations.

This, unfortunately is a delusion.

Globalization is fueled by international capital, labor and technology movements, the internet, global finance and powerful worldwide networks
-- some visible, others covert. Multinational corporations are going to remain global, and so are mafias, narco-cartels, organized crime, jihadists
etc.

If all the separatist movements in the world were to succeed, we could move from a present world of under 200 countries to one of over 1,000
-- all with an equal seat at the UN. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to decide on anything in a 1,000 strong UN general assembly?
Think, also, of the balance of power: 1,000 fragmented small countries, plus their subnational governments,
competing for the favors of a dozen huge unregulated global conglomerates . It would be an embarrassment of
riches for the footloose conglomerates. It would also be Eldorado for organized crime , jihadists , tax evaders and

assorted criminals vaulting from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

The sociologist, Daniel Bell once remarked,in the 1970s, that the nation state had become too big for the small problems and too small for the
big ones. His words were prophetic but they cut both ways. National governments can no longer cope with pandemics ,
global warming , international terrorism , unregulated global finance -- unless they act in unison in
intergovernmental organizations. But, by the same token, Lilliputian micro states, emerging from the global
separatist wave, would be even be less capable to deal with these problems. Global governance would
then be completely controlled by the remaining, still international, private networks. A scary scenario to
be sure.
Does that mean we must stay put and freeze present borders in perpetuity. No, obviously not. Re-arrangements and restructuring are
necessary. But the more sustainable answer may be in new forms of federalism rather than in the pure multiplication of sovereignties.

In today's interdependent world, sovereignty is an illusion except if you are a superpower. The problems are too big while the means available
to the new so-called 'sovereign' government are too small.

The 'balkanization' of Eastern and Southern Europe after the First World War, led to the Second World War.

The balkanization of the world through wide-spread separatism could increase the probability of a third
one . Not an inspiring scenario.
 A2: “Perm do the CP”
2―AND “With NATO”―NATO is the military alliance―to be considered a NATO
activity, NATO itself must be the initiating or joint initiating authority. NATO 22, 2022,
[About NATO, U.S. Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
https://nato.usmission.gov/about-nato/, accessed 9-8-2022//BMNT]

Formed in 1949 with the signing of the Washington Treaty, NATO is a security alliance of 30 countries from North America and
Europe. NATO’s fundamental goal is to safeguard the Allies’ freedom and security by political and military means. NATO remains the principal
security instrument of the transatlantic community and expression of its common democratic values. It is the practical means through which
the security of North America and Europe are permanently tied together. NATO enlargement has furthered the U.S. goal of a Europe whole,
free, and at peace.

Article 5 of the Washington Treaty — that an attack against one Ally is an attack against all — is at the
core of the Alliance, a promise of collective defense. Article 4 of the treaty ensures consultations among Allies on security matters of
common interest, which have expanded from a narrowly defined Soviet threat to the critical mission in Afghanistan, as well as peacekeeping in
Kosovo and new threats to security such as cyber attacks, and global threats such as terrorism and piracy that affect the Alliance and its global
network of partners.

In addition to its traditional role in the territorial defense of Allied nations, NATO leads the UN-mandated International Security Assistance
Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan and has ongoing missions in the Balkans and the Mediterranean; it also conducts extensive training exercises and
offers security support to partners around the globe, including the European Union in particular but also the United Nations and the African
Union.

MEMBER STATES

The NATO Alliance consists of 30 member states from North America and Europe. Article Five of the treaty states that if an armed attack occurs
against one of the member states, it should be considered an attack against all members, and other members shall assist the attacked member,
with armed forces if necessary.

List of Member States

Over the past two decades, the Alliance has developed a network of structured partnerships with countries from the Euro-Atlantic area, the
Mediterranean and the Gulf region, as well as individual relationships with other partners across the globe. NATO pursues dialogue and
practical cooperation with many partner countries and engages actively with other international actors and organisations on a wide range of
political and security-related issues.

List of NATO Partners

STRUCTURE

NATO is comprised of two main parts, the political and military components . NATO Headquarters is where
representatives from all the member states come together to make decisions on a consensus basis. It also
offers a venue for dialogue and cooperation between partner countries and NATO member countries, enabling them
to work together in their efforts to bring about peace and stability.The key elements of NATO’s military organisation
are the Military Committee, composed of the Chiefs of Defence of NATO member countries, its executive body, the International Military Staff,
and the military Command Structure (distinct from the Force Structure), which is composed of Allied Command Operations and Allied
Command Transformation, headed respectively by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and the Supreme Allied Commander,
Transformation (SACT).

NATO Organization Structure List

EXERCISES

The primary role of Alliance military forces is to protect peace and to guarantee the territorial integrity, political independence and security of
the member states. Alliance forces must be able to deter and defend effectively. The Alliance remains subject to a wide variety of military and
non-military risks that are multi-directional and often difficult to predict.
List of current NATO Exercises

The term NATO Military Exercise includes all exercises for which NATO is the initiating or the
joint initiating authority . Associated with NATO Military Exercises are building blocks, such as: seminars, study periods
and workshops.
A2: “Gunther”
 A2: “Laundry List of Problems”
2―Has only failed because of lack of US support, which the CP resolves
Ryszard Zięba 18, full Professor at the Faculty of Political Science and International Studies, University
of Warsaw, “The Marginalization of the OSCE,” The Euro-Atlantic Security System in the 21st Century:
From Cooperation to Crisis, edited by Ryszard Zięba, Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 213–
224 Springer Link, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-79105-0_8
The Declining Importance of the OSCE

The course of discussion conducted in the years 1995–1999 on the subject of the future model of security for Europe corresponded to the
divisions existing within the OSCE. They reflected the divergent interests of the participating states. In this debate, the Western and
Central European countries were on the side of the proponents of a multi-level ‘architecture’ for the
European security system, in which the OSCE would receive the broadest role but would not be based on obligations of a
legal nature. It would have a structure promoting democratic values and adopting so-called soft security
guarantees . They saw the main guarantees of security as laying in NATO , which had expanded to the
east in 1999, and to a lesser degree, the European Security and Defense Policy, which had been proclaimed at the time by the European
Union. There was a return to the realist paradigm, which was made easier by the misunderstandings

with Russia on account of its criticism of NATO’s interventions in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (the ‘Kosovo
War’). In the West and in the new NATO member countries of Central Europe, the conviction grew that ‘ hard’ guarantees of
security should be pursued and the engagement of the USA in the question of European security should be
deepened . This conviction was made the stronger by the replacements and supplementation of weaponry by NATO ’s new
member states, and by the growing interoperativeness of their armies due to their involvement in US and NATO military adventures (in
Afghanistan and Iraq, and Afghanistan respectively). Furthermore, politicians in the new, Central European members of NATO considered that
they should behave as the US wished, while activeness within the OSCE would not bring benefits, particularly as Russia supported the
organization. Feeling their own strength, NATO and EU countries did not appreciate the need to make use of the OSCE’s unique and peace-
building instruments. They also did not sufficiently appreciate that the OSCE is the broadest and most democratic forum in the Euro-Atlantic
area. The reason for the OSCE’s weakening can be seen in the doubling of its functions by the Council of Europe, the EU, and to a lesser degree,
the Community of Democracies founded in Warsaw in 2000.

In the first decade of the 21st century, the West attempted to use the OSCE to promote democracy in the eastern part of Europe. The USA and
the EU, including Poland, tried to involve the organization in supporting the so-called color revolutions. In Poland, the policy of exporting
democracy in this manner was conducted especially actively by the nationalist right in the years 2005–2007 by PiS governments and by the
president, Lech Kaczyński. Attempts were made to use the Warsaw Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights to this end, but the
OSCE as a whole did not allow for such a policy of promoting democracy. Thus for the Western countries the OSCE turned out to be practically
useless. In an exposé by the Polish minister of foreign affairs, Stefan Meller, in the Sejm on February 15, 2006 the OSCE was not even
mentioned individually by name.

On the other hand, when the new head of Polish diplomacy, Anna Fotyga, appeared in the Sejm in the following year, she recognized the OSCE
and ODHIR as the basic plane for Poland’s regional activities. She claimed that Poland supports the ODIHR in its activities, appreciating above all
the role and importance the ODIHR in the regional dimension. She stated:

Poland supports the ODIHR in its actions, appreciating above all the role and importance of the ODIHR for the democratic processes
taking place in the world. Poles have participated in many election observation missions and we know how important such measures
are. We want the ODIHR to be able to maintain its independent role and its current framework of action. We are afraid that political
factors could limit what to this time has constituted the ODIHR’s great value that is, being guided above all by democratic principles.
Poland supports the ODIHR. The Polish authorities attach great significance to the human dimension of their security policy, to
supporting democratic processes and values and respecting human rights.Footnote11

In Poland’s National Security Strategy of 2007 it is stated that “Poland shall continue to be involved in the work of the Organization for Security
and Co-operation in Europe”,Footnote12 as in the Council of Europe, the OECD, and other multilateral institutions.

After the Istanbul summit in November 1999, the OSCE was marginalized by the policies of the Western and Central European countries. Its
organs functioned but the next summit took place only in December 2010 in Kazakhstan (in Astana). The choice of location for these summits
proved the departure from democratic standards as neither the Turks nor the Kazakhs respect human rights in their domestic legislation and
policies.

Russia contributed to a certain revival of the OSCE when it announced, in June 2008, the ‘Medvedev Plan’ for rebuilding the architecture of
European security and concluding European Security Treaty (EST).Footnote13 However, the suspension in December 2007 of the
implementation of the CFE Treaty by Russia, followed in August 2008 by the Georgian War and Russia’s recognition of Abkhazia and Southern
Ossetia in response to the recognition of the independence of Kosovo by western countries were all factors which complicated relations
between the West and Russia. Later, in an attempt to reduce tensions between the two sides, a dialogue was conducted within the framework
of the ‘Corfu Process’ at the OSCE headquarters in Vienna,Footnote14 inaugurated at an informal meeting of ministers of foreign affairs on the
Greek island of Corfu on June 27–28, 2009. The majority of the OSCE member countries viewed the Russian initiative unfavorably. According to
Angela Stent:

The Western response ranged from lukewarm to hostile. From the U.S. point of view there was no need for another legally binding
Euro-Atlantic super-treaty. The OSCE had already taken care of that. Several clauses in the proposed Medvedev treaty particularly
worried NATO because they implied that NATO’s commitment to collective defense should be superseded by an all-European
commitment to collective defense.Footnote15

In these circumstances it was agreed to forward the Russian proposal to the OSCE. However, it should be noted that, already then, while Russia
supported the OSCE as a multilateral mechanism, it didn’t accord much importance to this organization. According to Elena Kropatcheva:

[I]f in the early 1990s Russia used the OSCE in high profile politics, today Russia tends to use the OSCE more in ‘low politics’. The ‘low
politics’ issues have become more important for regional European security and stability. This is why, the OSCE format remains
important for Russia on the issues of transnational threats rather than as a forum for discussing its EST initiative. The OSCE is still
used to promote Russia’s role as a great power, and, if it were reformed, Russia could use the Organization more in this
sense.Footnote16

As part of the ‘Corfu Process’ dialogue, it was agreed that the OSCE should be strengthened in regard to preventing and resolving crises by,
among other things, the necessary modification of its existing mechanisms (and where necessary the formation of new ones) and maintenance
of the Organization’s role as a consultation forum in matters of Euro-Atlantic security.

Attempts to Revive the OSCE

The ‘Corfu Process’ did not lead to any significant progress, however, and the leaders of the OSCE member states who came together in Astana
on December 1–2, 2010 after an 11-year hiatus stated only that “[t]he time has now come to act, and we must define concrete and tangible
goals in addressing […] challenges. We are determined to work together to fully realize the vision of a comprehensive, co-operative and
indivisible security community throughout our shared OSCE area”.Footnote17 This was a proposal for talks aimed at creating a ‘security
community’ within the OSCE area, based on an idea proposed over half a century earlier by Karl Deutsch.Footnote18

This meeting gave rise to considerable expectations, particularly in the countries of Central Asia, including Kazakhstan, which was chairing the
Organization. Seventy-three official delegations of member countries and OSCE partners took part in the summit, as did representatives of the
leading international and regional organizations: the secretary general of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon; the head of the European Council, Herman van
Rompuy; the heads of the Islamic Conference Organization, CIS, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the Eurasian Economic Community,
the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and other organizations. However, many member states—including Poland and the USA—were not
represented in Astana by their heads of states but rather by their ministers of foreign affairs.

The representatives gathered at the summit indicated that on the East-West axis it was a question of cooperation between the EU and NATO on
one hand and the Eurasian Economic Community and the Collective Security Treaty Organization on the other. In this manner the transatlantic
integration constructed in the previous century could be, in a natural manner, supplemented by trans-Eurasian integration. In Astana, a difficult
stage in the history of the OSCE was concluded and many speakers called for its revival in new conditions, in the ‘spirit of Helsinki’. The
president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, proposed to work out a comprehensive Treaty on Security in Eurasia. The participants stressed
in their speeches that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms should be the foundation for lasting security in the Euro-Atlantic and
Eurasian areas. In connection with this, Kazakhstan proposed that religious tolerance should be made one of the OSCE’s dimensions, and also
offered a range of initiatives to increase the number of OSCE baskets and institutions, for instance, to place economic and financial security in
the ‘second basket’ of the OSCE, to create an OSCE Ecology Forum, and to open an OSCE Security Institute in Astana.Footnote19

Subsequently, France, Germany, Russia, and Poland joined the Initiative for the Development of a Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian Security
Community—IDEAS, in connection with the idea of community security adopted in the OSCE Astana Summit Declaration. In December 2011, at
a session in Vilnius, the OSCE Ministerial Council supported the joint project presented by the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Poland,
and Russia. In the following year, expert institutions from these four countriesFootnote20 organized a series of four seminars (in Berlin,
Warsaw, Paris, and Moscow) on the subject “Towards a Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian Security Community”. The result was the joint document
Towards a Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian Security Community: From Vision to Reality. It was presented by four institutes at an informal meeting of
the ambassadors of the OSCE member countries on October 23, 2012 in Vienna.
This report, which was addressed to all the countries belonging to the OSCE, contains the following proposals for common activities to lead to
the creation of a security community from Vancouver to Vladivostok:

reinforcing the arms control system and confidence-building measures;

common responsibility for resolving conflicts within the OSCE area;

cooperation to increase the stability and security of Central Asia and Afghanistan;

measures taken to reconcile countries and societies;

closer cooperation to address transnational threats and challenges;

joint action on behalf of sustained economic development;

reinforcing the effectiveness of the OSCE’s ‘human dimension’;

dialogue with Muslim communities within the OSCE;

creating a network of academic institutions supporting the OSCE’s activities.

The document, drawn-up by analysts from four countries, provides a new look at the challenges involved in strengthening Euro-Atlantic and
Eurasian security. It favors connecting the entire area of the OSCE into one whole. This is the opinion not of governments but uniquely of
experts. However, the report was not heeded. The Western countries were unwilling to strengthen the OSCE and in autumn of 2013, after the
outbreak of the crisis in Ukraine, relations with Russia significantly worsened and dialogue on the subject of building a security community was
suspended.

The US has a very critical approach to the OSCE and places the entire responsibility for the crisis in the
organization on Russia , for violating the organization’s principles. The US opposes the structural changes proposed by Moscow,
as well as the idea of giving the OSCE a legal personality and multi-year budget.Footnote21 The American position is supported by
the majority of NATO and EU members. This means that the West has abandoned the idea of a comprehensive

and integrated approach to security that combines hard and soft aspects and is built by political
dialogue with the equal participation of all 57 member countries of the OSCE .

The Western countries deliberately ceased to treat the OSCE as a necessary institution for closer
cooperation and greater security in the Euro-Atlantic area. Such a political choice is a departure from the path taken in
the recent past, even in the first years after the Cold War. It also signifies
the relinquishment of a comprehensive
approach to shaping international security, with consideration for so-called soft aspects of security. But
this choice cannot be seen as a reasonable one given the continual appearance of new challenges and
security threats of a non-traditional and non-military nature . If we look at the Ukraine crisis, it has to be
stated that the OSCE is the sole organization that is acting toward its resolution . With some
reservations, the OSCE is accepted by both sides to the conflict and has participated in working out and

supervising the Minsk peace agreements (of September 5, 2014 and February 12, 2015).Footnote22 Even
the US has shown some interest in the role the OSCE has played in the Ukraine crisis.Footnote23
In spite of the generally limited interest shown by Western countries in reviving the OSCE and strengthening its role as a security institution, on
the initiative of the 2014 Swiss OSCE Chairmanship in close co-operation with Serbia and Germany at the OSCE Ministerial Council 2014 in Basel
on December 4 was launched the Panel of Eminent Persons on European Security as a Common Project. It was composed of 15 eminent
personalities with long-standing practical expertise in European security in all its dimensions from all OSCE regions, and mandated to provide
advice on how to reconsolidate peace and security in the OSCE area on the grounds of the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris. This body
prepared the basis for an inclusive and constructive security dialogue across the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian regions, reflecting on how to re-
build trust among OSCE participating states, and examining perceived threats in the OSCE area and potential common solutions. The Panel has
produced two reports: an Interim Report on lessons learned for the OSCE from its engagement in Ukraine (June 2015), and a Final Report on
the broader issues of security in Europe and the OSCE area at large (November 2015).
The Final report consists in presentation of different views of the West, Russia and states in between, evaluates the current crisis in European
security and its dangers, and formulates recommendations to set in motion a robust political and diplomatic process to overcome the present
crisis. It recommends how to avoid military accidents or incidents (inter alia to reactivate of the NATO-Russia Council), and a new start for
Ukraine by complete the implementation of the Minsk agreements. The Report appealed for organizing the next Summit Meeting of the OSCE
and to undertake by next Chairmanships, starting with Germany in 2016, to continue the consultations on reinvigorating security in the OSCE
area.Footnote24

The OSCE Ministerial Council, meeting on December 8–9, 2016 in Hamburg, agreed to continue supporting the work of the OSCE and to use the
Organization as a platform for dialogue and to continue addressing migration-related issues where the OSCE has expertise, with the aim of
developing effective measures and common approaches to this challenge. It also decided to increase its efforts to prevent and combat
terrorism. These decisions have more political than practical significance, but they are important because Europe, and particularly the EU, is
unable to deal with either the migration crisis begun in 2014 or with terrorism. Ministers also initiated a Structured Dialogue on the current and
future challenges and risks to security in the OSCE area. The subsequent OCSE Ministerial Council in Vienna on December 7–8, 2017
concentrated on filling key posts within the organs of the organization, on the continuation of the Structured Dialogue, but failed to make any
significant decisions strengthening the OCSE.

Real conditions in the Euro-Atlantic area should definitely incline countries to favor broad solutions
based on international dialogue , and the OSCE is the broadest existing international security
institution , bringing together at one table 57 countries from the entire area between Vancouver and
Vladivostok. It is worth remembering that the OSCE is one of the oldest organizations promoting
democratic norms and values , and that this is important in the current situation where other
organizations of Euro-Atlantic security are weakening . The OSCE could thus turn out to be useful as a
modern ‘embedded security organization’ .Footnote25 Taking all the above into consideration, it is worthwhile to paraphrase
an idea from the book of a well-known American political scientist, Charles Kupchan, who claims that we should all, in the Euro-
Atlantic area, learn how to make friends of our enemies and build a lasting peace .Footnote26 The OSCE
still has the opportunity to create such a community of security.
Case
ADV 1―Disease
1NC 1
 1NC 1

AND Every empiric AND basic theories of evolution disprove any risk
Bryan Walsh 20, Future Correspondent for Axios, Editor of the Science and Technology Publication
OneZero, Former Senior and International Editor at Time Magazine, BA from Princeton University, End
Times: A Brief Guide to the End of the World, Orion Publishing Group, Limited Edition, p. 183-185

Yet despite epidemic after epidemic , despite mass killers like smallpox and the 1918 flu , at no point has
disease threatened humans with extinction . Even the Black Death , likely the most concentrated epidemic of all
time, now appears as little more than a minor downturn in what has otherwise been a bull market for
long-term human population growth. That’s true for animals as well. The International Union for Conservation of Nature reports
that of the 833 plant and animal extinctions that have been documented since 1500, less than 4 percent can be

attribute d to infectious disease. Those species that were eradicated by disease tended to be small in number
and geographically isolated —very much unlike human beings, who are both numerous and have
spread to every corner of the world.38

With the exception of HIV—which can now be managed as a chronic condition with antiviral drugs—every
major epidemic mentioned
above took place before the dawn of modern medicine , before the development of antibiotics and widespread

vaccines . Smallpox was even fully eradicated from the wild in 198039—the only known samples of the virus are kept at highly secure
government facilities in Atlanta and Koltsovo, Russia.40 Plague is now so rare that when it breaks out in countries like Madagascar, it makes
global news—yet fewer than 600 deaths from the disease were reported between 2010 and 2015. Studies have shown that most of the
fatalities from the 1918 flu were actually due to secondary bacterial infections that today could be controlled by antibiotics,41 which were
introduced less than a century ago. Influenza pandemics remain the great fear of infectious disease experts, but the most recent one in 2009
killed only about 284,000 people worldwide.42 That was fewer than the number of people who die from seasonal flu in an ordinary year.43

Modern science has defanged most infectious diseases, at least outside the developing world—and great progress has
been made there in recent years—but basic evolution also plays a role in limit ing the catastrophic potential of
natural disease. Every pathogen faces a trade-off . In general, the more rapidly it kills, the harder it is
to spread widely, because an extremely virulent disease would run out of victims and hit an
epidemiological dead end. Pathogens that are highly transmissible , like influenza, rarely kill , even
absent the countermeasures of modern medicine. The 1918 flu had a fatality rate of about 2.5 percent.44 That’s
tremendously high by the standards of the flu, but it still meant that more than 97 out of every 100 patients survived. Even a virus like HIV—
which kills slowly and shows no symptoms for years, permitting the infected plenty of time to spread the disease—is hindered because
transmission requires direct contact with blood or with bodily fluids. The self-replication that makes infectious disease such an effective
weapon also prevents it from becoming a true existential threat. What viruses and bacteria want—if packets of genes and single-celled
organisms can be said to want anything—is to survive and to replicate. They can’t do that if they kill all humans.
1NC 2
 1NC 3

2―Intervening actors solve it

Berger 14 Alexander, Program Officer, US Policy, GiveWell Foundation, MA in Policy, Organization and
Leadership Studies from Stanford, not the Alex Berger who debated for Dartmouth, 7/4/14, “Potential
Global Catastrophic Risk Focus Areas,”
http://www.goodventures.org/research-and-ideas/blog/potential-global-catastrophic-risk-focus-areas

Antibiotic resistance.
Microbes are currently evolving to be resistant to antibiotics faster than new antibiotics
are being developed, posing a growing public health threat. However, antibiotic resistance is unlikely to represent a
threat to civilization, since humanity survived without antibiotics until ~1940, including during the
period when most gains against infectious diseases were made. We also expect other actors to work
to address antibiotic resistance as it continues to become a more pressing public health issue. (More at our
writeup.)
1NR
2NC―UQness CP
2NC―O/V
A2: “Perm do both”
 A2: “Perm do the counterplan

1―“Increase” means to become larger or greater in quantity

Encarta 6 – Encarta Online Dictionary. 2006. ("Increase"
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861620741)

in·crease [ in krss ]
transitive and intransitive verb  (past and past participle in·creased, present participle in·creas·ing, 3rd person present singular
in·creas·es)Definition: make or become larger or greater: to become, or make something become, larger in number,
quantity, or degree
noun  (plural in·creas·es)
A2: “Delay CP Theory”
2NC—PTX
 2NC―O/V
That turns every impact.
Torres 16 – author, Affiliate Scholar @ Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, founder of the
X-Risks Institute, published articles for Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Salon, Journal of Future Studies,
and the Journal of Evolution and Technology

Phil, 7/22. “Op-ed: Climate Change Is the Most Urgent Existential Risk."
http://futureoflife.org/2016/07/22/climate-change-is-the-most-urgent-existential-risk/

For example, according to the I ntergovernmental P anel on C limate C hange, the effects of climate change will be
“severe,” “pervasive,” and “ irreversible .” Or, as a 2016 study published in Nature and authored by over
twenty scientists puts it, the consequences of climate change “will extend longer than the entire history
of human civilization thus far.” Furthermore, a recent article in Science Advances confirms that humanity has already escorted
the biosphere into the sixth mass extinction event in life’s 3.8 billion year history on Earth. Yet another study suggests that we could be

approaching a sudden, irreversible, catastrophic collapse of the global ecosystem . If this were to occur, it
could result in “widespread social unrest, economic instability and loss of human life .” Given the potential

for environmental degradation to elevate the likelihood of nuclear war s , nuclear terrorism, engineered
pandemics , a superintelligence takeover , and perhaps even an impact winter, it ought to take precedence over
all other risk concerns — at least in the near-term. Let’s make sure we get our priorities straight.
 McCarthy U/
McCarthy will only win now if he can keep the GOP together – empirically they’ve
been able to change the speakership.
Tim Dickinson 22, 12-3-2022, 'They Can Totally Undo Him': A Freedom Caucus Founder Dishes on
Kevin McCarthy, Rolling Stone, https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/freedom-caucus-
kevin-mccarthy-donald-trump-1234640974/, accessed 12-4-2022, // Roberds

ON THE SURFACE, Kevin McCarthy looks like a shoe-in to become the next Speaker of the House. He won an
internal vote of the conference 188-31, over right-winger Andy Biggs of Arizona, to retain the party’s top leadership post. If Republicans
just stick together during a House floor vote in January, and McCarthy will get the gavel. But that’s a big if. In the red-ripple
election of 2022, Republicans regained control of Congress by just a handful of seats — meaning that the same internal GOP divisions that
bedeviled the reign of former Republican Speaker John Boeher could soon come back into play. They could even deny McCarthy
his long-coveted speakership. The Freedom Caucus is a small group of 30-odd hardline right wingers inside the Republican House
conference. Wielding legislative power in Washington requires being able to pass routine, party-line votes. But the Freedom Caucus is infamous
for withholding its support on such pro-forma measures, and grinding GOP governance to a halt. Biggs is now bragging that as many as 20 of
colleagues will join him in opposing McCarthy’s speakership; if that bears out the floor vote, the Freedom Caucus could upend the cart before
the business of the Republican-led 118th Congress even begins. There’s no obvious fallback candidate to unify the conference. And the
scramble to restore basic order inside the GOP would portend two years of chaos and disfunction in Washington — that’s likely to threaten the
U.S. economy and the daily functioning of government services on which we all depend. Formally established in 2015, and long
quarterbacked by Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the Freedom Caucus’ brinksmanship helped turn the late Obama era into a cascading series of self-
inflicted crises, including a government shutdown and the near-default on the full-faith-and-credit of the U.S. government over a refusal to
increase the debt ceiling. In addition to sparking financial turmoil, the Freedom Caucus
succeeded in forcing the Big-Business
friendly Boehner to surrender the Speakers’ gavel — installing Paul Ryan in his place.
A2: “X Thumps”
 2NC―Link Wall: Generic
McCarthy especially will do WHAT-EVER he can to both take credit for and catalyze the
1AC into a win in the speaker election―which means you should always assume any
risk of unification inside the GOP gets catalyzed into back-door deals, horse-trading,
and campaign compromising promises to secure McCarthy gets that gavel.
Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert 22, 10-23-2022, [, Kevin McCarthy, who Liz Cheney called the 'leader of
the pro-Putin wing' of the GOP, has developed a reputation for desperate power grabs: 'He's willing to
sacrifice everything for his own political gain', Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/kevin-
mccarthy-has-developed-a-reputation-for-desperate-power-grabs-2022-10, accessed
12-1-2022//MoRvl―BMNT]

"[ A]t every moment since, frankly, the aftermath of the election in 2020, when Minority Leader
McCarthy has had the opportunity to do the right thing or do something that serves his own political
purpose, he always chooses to serve his own political purpose ," Cheney said during the "Meet the Press" appearance.
"And, you know, that extends to what we've seen just in the last few days with these comments about aid to Ukraine, the idea that somehow
the party is now no longer going to support the Ukrainian people."

Cheney said she doesn't see McCarthy as "fit for office" and his lack of support for the Ukrainian people is "dangerous," adding: "He knows
better."

This is not the first time such criticism has been levied at McCarthy. His Democratic challenger, Marisa Wood, told Insider
he'd " sell his mother's soul" to protect his career , and even his most enthusiastic Bakersfield,
California, constituents  have said he makes politically motivated calculations , however
unpopular , to stay in office . 
"He chose his own political career over what is good for democracy ," Wood told Insider, referring to McCarthy's
public support of Donald Trump after the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. "Over those brave Capitol Police officers, who fought to defend
democracy. That's what people are seeing, that's what people are finally seeing. Kevin McCarthy will sell his mother's soul in order to protect
his own political career and to do whatever the former president tells him to do. And that's not OK."

Even within his own party, members have criticized McCarthy's flimsy resolve, with ABC News
reporting that Rep. Adam Kinzinger said the House minority leader demonstrated "an utter lack of
leadership" in the aftermath of the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

Despite his public support of the former president, McCarthy drew ire from more staunch MAGA
Republicans as well after private condemnations of Trump's actions on January 6 came to light. In
leaked audio, McCarthy was heard calling Trump's behavior "unacceptable," saying, "I've had it with
this guy," before he later publicly met with Trump and  signed an amicus brief urging the Supreme
Court to overturn election results in key states . Matt Gaetz called McCarthy a "weak man" for his criticisms of the former
president, while Fox News host Tucker Carlson accused him of being "a puppet of the Democratic Party," ABC News reported.

Representatives for McCarthy did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.
It will be a directive all influential GOP members ride―ALL of the top players will want
to spin the plan in their favor to put their convictions into practice
William Inboden November 9, 2022, The Fight for the Future of Republican Foreign Policy, Foreign
Affairs, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/fight-future-republican-foreign-policy, accessed
11-29-2022, // Roberds

Neo-isolationism still seems to face a hard ceiling in the GOP. Consider the July 2022 U.S. Senate vote expressing
support for Sweden and Finland joining NATO. For all of Trump’s imprecations against allies in general and NATO in particular, only one

shows the broad and deep Republican commitment to the

Republican senator, Joshua Hawley of Missouri, voted no. That
alliance. And almost all the likely GOP candidate s for president—aside from Trump—seem to sit comfortably in the
conservative internationalist camp: current Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Tim Scott of South Carolina; Governors Ron
DeSantis of Florida and Glenn Youngkin of Virginia; former Vice President Mike Pence ; former Kansas Representative and
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , and former Governors Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Chris Christie of New Jersey. Of
course, if Trump is the GOP nominee, the party’s foreign policy will take a different and unpredictable path. More than any political
figure, the factor most likely to keep Republican internationalism alive is China . Today’s threat from the
Chinese Communist Party recalls how events such as World War II, the rise of the Soviet menace, and the 9/11 attacks resolved earlier GOP
foreign policy debates. A recent poll indicates that 89 percent of Republicans view China unfavorably, and significant majorities
see China as
an “ enemy ” of the United States. There is nary a GOP congressional candidate running on a
platform of accommodating China; even Hawley advocates a hard line toward Beijing. And hawkishness on China is hardly
exclusive to the GOP. It is one of the very few areas of bipartisan agreement in U.S. politics, as strong majorities of voters favor a forceful policy
toward China and more robust support for Taiwan. Putting such convictions into practice leads unavoidably to an
assertive foreign policy . Abandoning Asian allies, sidelining human rights, and reducing defense
budgets are not viable options in countering the Chinese Communist Party (CCP ). China also poses a
policy dilemma for the national conservative movement, since its avatars, such as Orban, have
embraced Beijing, as has Putin. It is hard to credibly oppose China while supporting Orban and Putin.

A―EVERYONE supports an increase to security cooperation with NATO

Shaheen 22 [Jeanne Shaheen is a U.S. Senator representing New Hampshire, "Manchin Calls For
Immediate Action To End Putin's Ability To Use Energy As A Weapon", Joe Manchin Press Release,
https://www.manchin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/manchin-calls-for-immediate-action-to-
end-putins-ability-to-use-energy-as-a-weapon] GBS-HW

(Washington, DC) – U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations
Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation and co-chair of the Senate NATO
Observer Group, introduced a resolution with SFRC Ranking Member Jim Risch (R-ID) and Chairman
Bob Menendez (D-NJ), as well as Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Republican Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-KY) and U.S. Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI), Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Chris Coons (D-DE)
last Thursday in support of Finland and Sweden’s accession to NATO .
“As the Ukrainian people fight for their lives and freedom, Finland and Sweden’s commitment to join the transatlantic alliance at this pivotal
time matters not just for Ukraine, but for Europe, global stability and the future of liberal democracies around the world. As co-chair of the
Senate NATO Observer Group, I’m proud of the continued bipartisan efforts in Congress to ensure that Senate
support for NATO remains strong , especially amid Putin’s unprovoked, bloody invasion of Ukraine, ”
said Senator Shaheen. “This
new bipartisan resolution builds on that progress and I look forward to working
with my Senate colleagues to ratify Sweden and Finland’s accession into NATO as soon as possible,
and I encourage other NATO allies to do the same .”

GOP loves supporting biotechnical innovation―they get to spin it as “American

Investment”―DMIA proves
Mike Levin, 3-17-2022, U.S senator, writing a press release "Reps. Mike Levin and John Joyce
Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Foster Innovation in Drug Manufacturing," No Publication,
https://mikelevin.house.gov/media/press-releases/reps-mike-levin-and-john-joyce-introduce-bipartisan-
bill-to-foster-innovation-in-drug-manufacturing//DG

U.S. Representatives Mike Levin (D-CA) and John Joyce (R-PA) introduced the bipartisan  Drug
Manufacturing Innovation Act  to foster innovation in drug manufacturing by building on the Food and Drug
Administration’s (FDA) Emerging Technology Program (ETP). The program plays a critical role in supporting drug manufacturers’
efforts to develop new technologies and navigate the regulatory process, which can ultimately help address supply
chain challenges and lower prices for consumers. The Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce is
holding a hearing on the legislation and other related bills today. The bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to build on
the ETP by facilitating stronger public-private partnerships in pharmaceutical manufacturing, conducting
research and testing on
innovative manufacturing technologies, supporting education and training for regulatory staff, advancing regulatory science
related to development and review, and awarding grants or contracts to advance research and development or adoption of
innovative approaches. The bill authorizes $20 million per year from FY2023-2027 to carry out this effort. “As families face high drug
costs and shortages of the medications they need, it’s critical that we invest in new manufacturing technologies that
can help address supply chain challenges and bring down prices,” said Rep. Levin. “I’m proud to introduce the Drug
Manufacturing Innovation Act with Rep. Joyce to ensure HHS is fostering the next generation of manufacturing technologies and improving the
regulatory process so these innovations can come to fruition. Today’s Energy and Commerce hearing on our bipartisan bill is a
positive step , and I’m hopeful we can advance the bill soon.”
 A2: MPX Defense―T/L
2―Best science goes neg―that’s Torres and…
Kareiva 18, Ph.D. in ecology and applied mathematics from Cornell University, director of the Institute
of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA, Pritzker Distinguished Professor in Environment &
Sustainability at UCLA, et al. (Peter, “Existential risk due to ecosystem collapse: Nature strikes back,”
Futures, 102)

In summary, six of the nine proposed planetary boundaries (phosphorous, nitrogen, biodiversity, land use, atmospheric aerosol loading, and chemical pollution) are unlikely to be associated with existential risks. They all correspond

climate change, global freshwater cycle, and

to a degraded environment, but in our assessment do not represent existential risks. However, the three remaining boundaries (

ocean acidification) do pose existential risks . This is because of intrinsic positive feedback loops , substantial lag
times between system change and experiencing the consequences of that change, and the fact these different boundaries interact with one

another in ways that yield surprises . In addition, climate, freshwater, and ocean acidification are all directly
connected to the provision of food and water , and shortages of food and water can create conflict and social
unrest. Climate change has a long history of disrupting civilizations and sometimes precipitating the collapse of cultures or mass emigrations (McMichael, 2017). For example, the 12th century drought in the North American
Southwest is held responsible for the collapse of the Anasazi pueblo culture. More recently, the infamous potato famine of 1846–1849 and the large migration of Irish to the U.S. can be traced to a combination of factors, one of
which was climate. Specifically, 1846 was an unusually warm and moist year in Ireland, providing the climatic conditions favorable to the fungus that caused the potato blight. As is so often the case, poor government had a role as

Climate change intersects with

well—as the British government forbade the import of grains from outside Britain (imports that could have helped to redress the ravaged potato yields).

freshwater resources because it is expected to exacerbate drought and water scarcity , as well as flooding. Climate
change can even impair water quality because it is associated with heavy rains that overwhelm sewage treatment facilities, or because it results in higher concentrations of pollutants in groundwater as a result of enhanced

evaporation and reduced groundwater recharge. Ample clean water is not a luxury—it is essential for human survival. Consequently, cities, regions and nations that lack
clean freshwater are vulnerable to social disruption and disease. Finally, ocean acidification is linked to climate change because it is driven by CO2 emissions just as global warming is. With close to 20% of the world’s protein
coming from oceans (FAO, 2016), the potential for severe impacts due to acidification is obvious. Less obvious, but perhaps more insidious, is the interaction between climate change and the loss of oyster and coral reefs due to

Climate change also increases storm frequency and severity.

acidification. Acidification is known to interfere with oyster reef building and coral reefs.

Coral reefs and oyster reefs provide protection from storm surge because they reduce wave energy
(Spalding et al., 2014). If these reefs are lost due to acidification at the same time as storms become more severe

and sea level rises, coastal communities will be exposed to unprecedented storm surge —and may be
ravaged by recurrent storms. A key feature of the risk associated with climate change is that mean annual temperature and mean annual rainfall are not the variables of interest. Rather it is
extreme episodic events that place nations and entire regions of the world at risk. These extreme events are by definition “rare” (once every hundred years), and changes in their likelihood are challenging to detect because of their

rarity, but are exactly the manifestations of climate change that we must get better at anticipating (Diffenbaugh et al., 2017). Society will have a hard time responding to
short er intervals between rare extreme events because in the lifespan of an individual human, a person might experience as few as two or three extreme events. How
likely is it that you would notice a change in the interval between events that are separated by decades, especially given that the interval is not regular but varies stochastically? A concrete example of this dilemma can be found in
the past and expected future changes in storm-related flooding of New York City. The highly disruptive flooding of New York City associated with Hurricane Sandy represented a flood height that occurred once every 500 years in

the 18th century, and that occurs now once every 25 years, but is expected to occur once every 5 years by 2050 (Garner et al., 2017). This change
in frequency of extreme floods has profound implications for the measures New York City should take to protect its infrastructure and its population, yet because of the stochastic nature of such events, this shift in flood frequency

is an elevated risk that will go unnoticed by most people. 4. The combination of positive feedback loops and societal inertia is fertile ground for global environmental catastrophes Humans are
remarkably ingenious, and have adapted to crises throughout their history. Our doom has been repeatedly predicted, only to be averted
by innovation (Ridley, 2011). However, the many stories of human ingenuity successfully addressing existential risks such

as global famine or extreme air pollution represent environmental challenges that are largely linear, have immediate

consequences, and operate without positive feedbacks. For example, the fact that food is in short supply does not increase the rate at which humans consume
food—thereby increasing the shortage. Similarly, massive air pollution episodes such as the London fog of 1952 that killed 12,000 people did not make future air pollution events more likely. In fact it was just the opposite—the
London fog sent such a clear message that Britain quickly enacted pollution control measures (Stradling, 2016). Food shortages, air pollution, water pollution, etc. send immediate signals to society of harm, which then trigger a
negative feedback of society seeking to reduce the harm. In contrast, today’s great environmental crisis of climate change may cause some harm but there are generally long time delays between rising CO2 concentrations and
damage to humans. The consequence of these delays are an absence of urgency; thus although 70% of Americans believe global warming is happening, only 40% think it will harm them

(http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/). Secondly, unlike past environmental challenges, the Earth’s climate

system is rife with positive feedback loops . In particular, as CO2 increases and the climate warms, that
very warming can cause more CO2 release which further increases global warming, and then more
CO2, and so on. Table 2 summarizes the best documented positive feedback loops for the Earth’s climate system. These feedbacks can be neatly categorized into carbon cycle, biogeochemical, biogeophysical,
cloud, ice-albedo, and water vapor feedbacks. As important as it is to understand these feedbacks individually, it is even more essential to study the interactive nature of these feedbacks. Modeling studies show that when
interactions among feedback loops are included, uncertainty increases dramatically and there is a heightened potential for perturbations to be magnified (e.g., Cox, Betts, Jones, Spall, & Totterdell, 2000; Hajima, Tachiiri, Ito, &
Kawamiya, 2014; Knutti & Rugenstein, 2015; Rosenfeld, Sherwood, Wood, & Donner, 2014). This produces a wide range of future scenarios. Positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle involves the enhancement of future carbon
contributions to the atmosphere due to some initial increase in atmospheric CO2. This happens because as CO2 accumulates, it reduces the efficiency in which oceans and terrestrial ecosystems sequester carbon, which in return
feeds back to exacerbate climate change (Friedlingstein et al., 2001). Warming can also increase the rate at which organic matter decays and carbon is released into the atmosphere, thereby causing more warming (Melillo et al.,
2017). Increases in food shortages and lack of water is also of major concern when biogeophysical feedback mechanisms perpetuate drought conditions. The underlying mechanism here is that losses in vegetation increases the
surface albedo, which suppresses rainfall, and thus enhances future vegetation loss and more suppression of rainfall—thereby initiating or prolonging a drought (Chamey, Stone, & Quirk, 1975). To top it off, overgrazing depletes

The
the soil, leading to augmented vegetation loss (Anderies, Janssen, & Walker, 2002). Climate change often also increases the risk of forest fires, as a result of higher temperatures and persistent drought conditions.

expectation is that forest fires will become more frequent and severe with climate warming and
drought (Scholze, Knorr, Arnell, & Prentice, 2006), a trend for which we have already seen evidence (Allen et al., 2010). Tragically, the increased severity and risk of Southern California wildfires recently predicted by
climate scientists (Jin et al., 2015), was realized in December 2017, with the largest fire in the history of California (the “Thomas fire” that burned 282,000 acres, https://www.vox.com/2017/12/27/16822180/thomas-fire-california-

This catastrophic fire embodies the sorts of positive feedbacks and interacting factors that
largest-wildfire).

could catch humanity off-guard and produce a true apocalyptic event . Record-breaking rains produced an extraordinary flush of new
vegetation, that then dried out as record heat waves and dry conditions took hold, coupled with stronger than normal winds, and ignition. Of course the record-fire released CO2 into the atmosphere, thereby contributing to future
warming. Out of all types of feedbacks, water vapor and the ice-albedo feedbacks are the most clearly understood mechanisms. Losses in reflective snow and ice cover drive up surface temperatures, leading to even more melting
of snow and ice cover—this is known as the ice-albedo feedback (Curry, Schramm, & Ebert, 1995). As snow and ice continue to melt at a more rapid pace, millions of people may be displaced by flooding risks as a consequence of
sea level rise near coastal communities (Biermann & Boas, 2010; Myers, 2002; Nicholls et al., 2011). The water vapor feedback operates when warmer atmospheric conditions strengthen the saturation vapor pressure, which
creates a warming effect given water vapor’s strong greenhouse gas properties (Manabe & Wetherald, 1967). Global warming tends to increase cloud formation because warmer temperatures lead to more evaporation of water
into the atmosphere, and warmer temperature also allows the atmosphere to hold more water. The key question is whether this increase in clouds associated with global warming will result in a positive feedback loop (more
warming) or a negative feedback loop (less warming). For decades, scientists have sought to answer this question and understand the net role clouds play in future climate projections (Schneider et al., 2017). Clouds are complex
because they both have a cooling (reflecting incoming solar radiation) and warming (absorbing incoming solar radiation) effect (Lashof, DeAngelo, Saleska, & Harte, 1997). The type of cloud, altitude, and optical properties combine
to determine how these countervailing effects balance out. Although still under debate, it appears that in most circumstances the cloud feedback is likely positive (Boucher et al., 2013). For example, models and observations show
that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations reduces the low-level cloud fraction in the Northeast Pacific at decadal time scales. This then has a positive feedback effect and enhances climate warming since less solar radiation is

The key lesson from the long list of potentially positive feedbacks and
reflected by the atmosphere (Clement, Burgman, & Norris, 2009).

their interactions is that runaway climate change , and runaway perturbations have to be taken as a
serious possibility. Table 2 is just a snapshot of the type of feedbacks that have been identified (see Supplementary material for a more thorough explanation of positive feedback loops). However, this
list is not exhaustive and the possibility of undiscovered positive feedbacks portends even greater
existential risks. The many environmental crises humankind has previously averted (famine, ozone depletion, London fog, water pollution, etc.) were averted because of political will based on solid scientific
understanding. We cannot count on complete scientific understanding when it comes to positive feedback loops and climate change.