You are on page 1of 5

GT 1

Ciborowski COFTA Politics

Index
Index................................................................................................................................................................................1
COFTA 1NC....................................................................................................................................................................2
Russia Impact Scenario...................................................................................................................................................4
GT 2
Ciborowski COFTA Politics

COFTA 1NC
Columbian Free Trade will pass now but Bush’s political capital is key
Wall Street Journal 2008
(3/10/08, “The Chavez Democrats”, Wall street editorial) [Ciborowski]

Mr. Rangel is right about the politics. No matter what U.S. strategic interests may be in
Colombia, this is an election year in America. And Democrats don’t want to upset their
union and anti-trade allies. The problem is that the time available to pass anything this
year is growing short. The closer the election gets, the more leverage protectionists have
to run out the clock on the Bush Presidency. The deal has the support of a bipartisan
majority in the Senate, and probably also in the House. Sooner or later the White
House will have to force the issue. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both
competing for union support.

Insert Plan kills Pol Cap

Colombia FTA is key to American ability to promote democracy everywhere


Burns 2004
(Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs, 10/23//07, "Promoting Peace and Prosperity in Colombia"
http://www.tradeagreements.gov/TradeAgreementNews/Speeches/PROD01_004389.html)

I have spoken about the direct economic benefits that would flow both to Colombia and the
United States under the Free Trade Agreement. However, this agreement is about more
than dollars or pesos, it is about achieving the vision I spoke of earlier of a more secure,
prosperous and just hemisphere. Just as Colombia appears poised to put decades of
conflict behind it, the fate of the FTA stands as a vote of confidence in Colombia's
future. Our entry into this long-term partnership with Colombia will reinforce
Colombia's commitment to pro-market policies. It will bolster the country's
democratic institutions by ensuring transparency and respect for workers rights,
promoting strong labor and environmental standards, and giving us an important mechanism
to monitor compliance so we can work with Colombia to ensure continued progress in these important areas.
Most importantly, approving the Free Trade Agreement demonstrates America's enduring
commitment to Latin America. On the other hand, rejecting this agreement -- just as
Colombia shows signs of emerging from its nightmare past -- would undercut its
successes and send precisely the wrong signal to the region. Turning our back on our
most loyal ally on the continent would cause countries around the world to question
our commitment to the region, and our willingness to go the distance with our friends.
The FTA's defeat would be a huge victory for those -- like Hugo Chavez -- who
promote an authoritarian, populist, highly personalized model of government,
drawing upon the failed economic policies of decades past.
GT 3
Ciborowski COFTA Politics

Democracy promotion is crucial to avert extinction


Diamond, 95 – (Larry, Hoover Institution @ Stanford University, December 1995, “Promoting
Democracy in the 1990s.” http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm)

This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the
former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of
illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made
common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic
ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very
source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of
these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated
by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality,
accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. The experience of this century offers
important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do
not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize
themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their
own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies
do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to
use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring
trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more
environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the
destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal
obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely
because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of
law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of
international security and prosperity can be built.
GT 4
Ciborowski COFTA Politics

Russia Impact Scenario


Russian democracy prevents adventurism
Diamond, 95 – senior fellow @ Hoover, prof. poli sci and sociology @ Stanford [Larry,
“Promoting Democracy in the 1990’s: Actors and Instruments, Issues and Imperatives,” Dec.,
http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/di.htm]
A HOSTILE, EXPANSIONIST RUSSIA Chief among the threats to the security of Europe, the United States, and
Japan would be the reversion of Russia--with its still very substantial nuclear, scientific, and military prowess--to a
hostile posture toward the West. Today, the Russian state (insofar as it continues to exist) appears perched
on the precipice of capture by ultranationalist, anti-Semitic, neo-imperialist forces seeking
a new era of pogroms, conquest, and "greatness." These forces feed on the weakness of
democratic institutions, the divisions among democratic forces, and the generally dismal economic and
political state of the country under civilian, constitutional rule. Numerous observers speak of "Weimar Russia." As
in Germany in the 1920s, the only alternative to a triumph of fascism (or some related "ism" deeply
hostile to freedom and to the West) is the development of an effective democratic order. Now, as then,
this project must struggle against great historical and political odds, and it seems feasible only with
international economic aid and support for democratic forces and institutions.

Russian expansionism causes global nuclear conflicts


Cohen, 96 (Ariel, Heritage Foundation, “The New "Great Game": Oil Politics in the Caucasus
and Central Asia”, 1/25, http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/BG1065.cfm)

Much is at stake in Eurasia for the U.S. and its allies. Attempts
to restore its empire will doom Russia's
transition to a democracy and free-market economy. The ongoing war in Chechnya alone has cost
Russia $6 billion to date (equal to Russia's IMF and World Bank loans for 1995). Moreover, it has extracted a
tremendous price from Russian society. The wars which would be required to restore the Russian
empire would prove much more costly not just for Russia and the region, but for peace,
world stability, and security. As the former Soviet arsenals are spread throughout the NIS,
these conflicts may escalate to include the use of weapons of mass destruction. Scenarios
including unauthorized missile launches are especially threatening. Moreover, if successful, a
reconstituted Russian empire would become a major destabilizing influence both in
Eurasia and throughout the world. It would endanger not only Russia's neighbors, but also the U.S. and its
allies in Europe and the Middle East. And, of course, a neo-imperialist Russia could imperil the oil
reserves of the Persian Gulf.15 Domination of the Caucasus would bring Russia closer to the Balkans, the
Mediterranean Sea, and the Middle East. Russian imperialists, such as radical nationalist Vladimir
Zhirinovsky, have resurrected the old dream of obtaining a warm port on the Indian Ocean. If
Russia succeeds in establishing its domination in the south, the threat to Ukraine, Turkey,
Iran, and Afganistan will increase. The independence of pro-Western Georgia and Azerbaijan already has
been undermined by pressures from the Russian armed forces and covert actions by the intelligence and security
services, in addition to which Russian hegemony would make Western political and economic efforts to stave off
Islamic militancy more difficult.
GT 5
Ciborowski COFTA Politics

Failure to pass Colmbian free trade allows chavez to deck hegemony


Snyder 2008
(Timothy M., International Analyst Network, "No One Needs to Worry": Chavez versus American Primacy," 1-7-
2008, www.analyst-network.com /article.php?art_id=1556) [Ciborowski]

While Venezuela can threaten the United States directly, its ability to threaten the United States indirectly is the most
troublesome. Hugo Chávez has been employing a combination of tactics ranging from bilateral barter arrangements
to creating international institutions parallel to those created by the U.S., all in an effort to supplant U.S. dominant
influence in the region with his own. Further, he has been expanding agreements with countries such as China, Iran
and Russia to encourage expansion of their investments and thus strategic interests in the region.
Chávez’s efforts to spread his influence throughout the region, and his budding relationships with some of
Washington’s largest competitor and adversarial states comprise a concerted effort to limit U.S influence in a region
it has dominated since Monroe. If ultimately successful, the marginalization of the United States in South America
certainly signals the decline of U.S. primacy. Since coming to power, Chávez has been working hard to increase his
influence in the region, gains in which come largely at the expense of American influence. From using barter
systems instead of dollar-based trade, to complicating U.S. antinarcotics efforts in the region, Chávez is steadily
countering U.S. activities in the region in both economic and security realms. This generally compromises U.S.
interests and limits U.S. leverage in South America. Further, a shift of traditional allies and clients away from the
U.S. towards another regional power, especially in a region so close to home, appears to herald the decline of U.S.
primacy.