This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Agenda Politics Scenarios Index
Agenda Politics Scenarios Index............................................................................................................................................................1 Law of the Sea DA—Uniqueness—Will Pass.......................................................................................................................................3 Law of the Sea DA—Uniqueness—Bush Pushing................................................................................................................................4 Law of the Sea DA—Internals—Political Capital Key.........................................................................................................................5 Law of the Sea Good—Potential 1NC Impact.......................................................................................................................................6 Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—2NC Resource Wars Module...........................................................................................................7 Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—2NC PSI Module.............................................................................................................................8 Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—2NC War on Terrorism Module......................................................................................................9 Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—2NC US Leadership Module.........................................................................................................10 Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—2NC Judicial Review Module.......................................................................................................11 Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—2NC Rule of Law Impact Module.................................................................................................12 Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—2NC Natural Gas Impact Module..................................................................................................13 Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—2NC Natural Gas Impact Module..................................................................................................14 Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—2NC Iran Miscalculation Module..................................................................................................15 Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—2NC Oceans Module.....................................................................................................................16 Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—Key to US Economy......................................................................................................................17 Law of the Sea DA—A2 LOST Bad Impact Turns.............................................................................................................................18 Law of the Sea DA—A2 LOST Bad Impact Turns.............................................................................................................................19 Law of the Sea DA—A2 LOST Bad Impact Turns.............................................................................................................................20 Law of the Sea DA—A2 LOST Bad Impact Turns.............................................................................................................................21 Law of the Sea DA Answers—Won’t Pass This Year.........................................................................................................................22 Law of the Sea DA Answers—Won’t Pass..........................................................................................................................................23 Law of the Sea DA Answers—A2 Arctic Claims................................................................................................................................24 Law of the Sea DA Answers—LOST Terrorism............................................................................................................................25 Law of the Sea DA Answers—LOST Destroys US Sovereignty Turns..............................................................................................26 Law of the Sea DA Answers—Kills US Economy/Hegemony...........................................................................................................27 Law of the Sea DA Answers—Kills US Hegemony/Military Superiority..........................................................................................28 Law of the Sea DA Answers—LOST → Proliferation Turn...............................................................................................................29 PSI Good—Solves Proliferation..........................................................................................................................................................30 Law of the Sea DA Answers—Military Power/Counterterrorism Turn..............................................................................................31 Law of the Sea DA Answers—Space Privatization Turn....................................................................................................................32 US-Colombia FTA DA—1NC Shell...................................................................................................................................................33 US-Colombia FTA DA—1NC Shell...................................................................................................................................................34 US-Colombia FTA DA—2NC Must Read—Will Pass + Capital Key...............................................................................................35 US-Colombia FTA DA—Internals—Capital Key...............................................................................................................................36 US-Colombia FTA DA—Internals—Republican Support Key...........................................................................................................37 US-Colombia FTA DA—Internals—2NC Bipartisanship Scenario....................................................................................................38 US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—2NC Democratization Scenario.................................................................................................39 US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—2NC Food Security Module.......................................................................................................40 US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—2NC Drug Trafficking Module..................................................................................................41 US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—2NC Manufacturing Industry Module.......................................................................................42 US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—2NC Civil War Module..............................................................................................................43 US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—2NC War on Terrorism Module.................................................................................................44 US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—Laundry List/Moral Obligation..................................................................................................45 US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—Key to US + Colombia Econ/Deters Chavez.............................................................................46 US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—Key to US Economy/War on Terror..........................................................................................47 US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—Key to Soft Power......................................................................................................................48 US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—Mead ‘92....................................................................................................................................49 US-Colombia FTA DA—A2 Democracy/Rule of Law Impact Turn..................................................................................................50 US-Colombia FTA DA—Uniqueness—Will Pass..............................................................................................................................51 US-Colombia FTA DA—Uniqueness—Will Pass..............................................................................................................................52 US-Colombia FTA DA—Uniqueness—Bush Pushing.......................................................................................................................53 US-Colombia FTA Answers—Won’t Pass..........................................................................................................................................54 Bush Good—Links—Energy Policy....................................................................................................................................................55 Bush Good—Links—Energy Policy....................................................................................................................................................56 Bush Good—Links—Energy Policy....................................................................................................................................................57 1
Bush Good—Links—Election-Year Politics → Democrats Oppose Bush Energy Policies...............................................................58 Bush Good—Links—Reducing Fossil Fuel Consumption..................................................................................................................59 Bush Good—Links—Reducing Fossil Fuel Consumption..................................................................................................................60 Bush Good—Links—Climate Policies................................................................................................................................................61 Bush Good—Links—Alternative Energy/Renewables........................................................................................................................62 Bush Good—Links—Strong Public Support for Renewables.............................................................................................................63 Bush Good—Links—RPS ..................................................................................................................................................................64 Bush Good—Links—Energy Lobbies Oppose ↓ Fossil Fuel Consumption........................................................................................65 Bush Good—Links—Organized Labor Supports Fossil Fuels............................................................................................................66 Bush Good—Links—Reducing Oil Dependence................................................................................................................................67 Bush Good—Links—Energy Regulations...........................................................................................................................................68 Bush Good—Links—Oil Industry Hates Ethanol ...............................................................................................................................69 Bush Good—Links—Nuclear Power...................................................................................................................................................70 Bush Good—Links—Public Opposes Nuclear Power.........................................................................................................................71 Bush Good—Links—Public Opposes Nuclear Power.........................................................................................................................72 Bush Good—A2 No Spillover.............................................................................................................................................................73 Bush Good—A2 Pro-Environment Republicans Support Plan...........................................................................................................74 Bush Bad—Links—Environmental Lobby = Powerful.......................................................................................................................75 Asian Economy Impact—Key to Global Economy.............................................................................................................................76
Law of the Sea DA—Uniqueness—Will Pass
LOST is likely to pass thanks to Bush’s push, but it will be tough BarentsObserver.com 5/29/08 ("USA positive to ratification of UNCLOS," http://www.barentsobserver.com/usa-positiveto-ratification-of-unclos.4486935-16174.html) According to Norwegian Newspaper Stavanger Aftenblad, USA is about to change their views on this issue. The American delegation, lead by the US vice foreign minister, John D. Negroponte, has given clear indications that they want to start negotiations which can end up with a ratification of the agreement. According to Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Gahr Støre the initiative comes from President George W. Bush himself. The other nations were uncertain of how USA would handle this issue, but it now seems that the Americans have the same opinion as the other costal states of the arctic. But an approval of UNCLOS would have to be decided in Congress, which is a time consuming and far from easy process. The American presidential election is this autumn and the negotiations will probably continue with the next administration in the
Senate support for LOST is "surging" due to rising energy concerns Lockwood 6/7/08 (Robert, retired council of the US Senate Judiciary Committee, "Putting Whitehouse into Hard Reality,"
Let it be said that you read it first in The Journal: Whoever occupies the White House will be looking very seriously at the only short-term remedy: the reserves confirmed by the U.S. Geological Survey in the Arctic (including the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve) that is driving the Senate's surging
interest in ratifying the long-languishing Law of the Sea Treaty, which legitimizes the U.S. claims to the Arctic's seabed reserves.
Law of the Sea DA—Uniqueness—Bush Pushing
Bush pushing for LOST ratification Canadian Press 5/28/08 ("Control of North Pole will be decided in orderly way: Arctic countries,"
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5h2pX9lRsD73kpE8t_Iff1LCl-wwQ) Under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Arctic countries have 10 years after ratification to prove their claims under the largely uncharted polar ice pack. All countries with claims to the Arctic have ratified the treaty, with the exception of the United States. President George W. Bush has been pushing the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty.
Bush continues to push for LOST ratification Groves 6/16/08 (Stephen, Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the
Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation, "LOST in the Arctic: The U.S. Need Not Ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty to Get a Seat at the Table," http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalLaw/wm1957.cfm)
The AOC was conceived in response to controversial actions undertaken by the Russian Federation. In August 2007, one of Russia's deep-water submersibles planted a flag on the sea floor beneath the North Pole. Several U.S. politicians and media outlets seized on the Russian stunt as an opportunity to push for Senate ratification of the contentious United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOST). They adopted the mantra that the United States, if it fails to ratify LOST, "will not have a seat at the table" to resolve territorial claims such as those in dispute in the Arctic. For example: * Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), at a September 27, 2007, Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing regarding LOST, lamented that "Russia is already making excessive claims in the Arctic. Until we become a party to the Convention, we will be in a weakened position to protect our national interests in these discussions." * Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, at that same hearing, echoed Senator Lugar's sentiment: "Setting aside its recent flag planting...Russia's continuing data collection in the Arctic reflects its commitment to maximizing its sovereign rights under the Convention over energy resources in that region. Currently, as a non-party, the United States is not in a position to maximize its sovereign rights in the Arctic or elsewhere. We do not have access to the [U.N.] Commission [on the Limits of the Continental Shelf]'s procedures for according international recognition and legal certainty to our extended shelf." * In October 2007, The New York Times, after dismissing opponents of LOST as "cranky right-wingers," editorialized that "[t]he steady retreat of the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean...has touched off a scramble among nations to determine who owns what on the ocean floor. Unless the United States ratifies the treaty, it will not have a seat at the table when it comes time to sort out competing claims." * A March 2008 New York Times editorial repeated the "seat at the table" theme: "[President Bush] must keep the pressure on Congress to approve, finally, the Law of the Sea. Without that approval, the United States will have no voice when decisions are made about rights of passage, exploring the ocean floor and fishing." * An August 2007 editorial in The Christian Science Monitor opined that the United States "may not have a good seat at the table to decide [the Arctic's] future" because it is not a party to LOST. Senator Lugar, Ambassador Negroponte, and The New York Times are merely repeating an argument previously asserted by the White House. For example, in May 2007, President Bush issued a statement on "advancing U.S. interests in the world's oceans" that declared: "I urge the Senate to act favorably on U.S. accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea during this session of Congress.... [I]t will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted."
Bush is pushing hard for LOST ratification 3news, 5/28/08 (“Denmark, Norway hope Arctic claimants obey UN rules,”
http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/Story/tabid/209/articleID/57492/cat/41/Default.aspx Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark are all party to the Law of the Sea treaty, but the United States isn't, for the time being at least. John Bellinger, legal adviser to the US Secretary of State, says the other nations are taking full advantage of this. "That's what we see the other countries doing, essentially trying to stake out their rights to the oil and gas on their continental shelf," he commented. "President Bush has been pushing very hard to have the Senate approve the Law of the Sea treaty, in part because it would open up vast oil and gas resources for the US at a time that oil prices are at record high levels."
Law of the Sea DA—Internals—Political Capital Key
Political capital key to LOST passage New York Times 3/9/08 ("Oceans at Risk," http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/opinion/09sun2.html)
Last year, President Bush, who is weak on many environmental issues, created one of the largest protected marine reserves in the world — 138,000 square miles of largely unspoiled reefs and shoals near Hawaii. He should replicate that achievement elsewhere in American waters and persuade other leaders to do the same. And he must keep the pressure on Congress to approve, finally, the Law of the Sea. Without that approval, the United States will have no voice when decisions are made about rights of passage, exploring the ocean floor and fishing. The United States should have that voice, and the rest of the world needs to hear it.
Capital key to securing Law of the Sea ratification CQ Politics 1/4/08 ("Return of Dodd, Biden Could Provide Push to Legislation," http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?
parm1=5&docID=news-000002651763) In November, the panel approved the Law of the Sea Treaty, a 1982 agreement that the Bush administration and the military, along with most Democrats, supports. Strong opposition from some GOP conservatives, however, means that taking it to the floor would require a significant effort.
Bush supports LOST—political capital is key to passage Kraus, 07 – Vice President for government relations of Citizens for Global Solutions, Foreign Policy in Focus: a Think Tank
without Walls, “Time to Ratify the Law of the Sea”, 6/6/07
Although the current Bush administration supports the convention, only in 2004 under Richard Lugar’s (R-IN) chairmanship did the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approve the Law of the Sea Convention. However, the White House was only willing to spend minimal political capital, and Senate leadership bowed to the pressure of a small group of far-right senators and never brought the treaty to the floor for a full vote.
Finally, on May 15, 2007, President Bush publicly urged the Senate to “to act favorably on U.S. accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea during this session of Congress.” He said that joining “will serve
the national security interests of the United States, including the maritime mobility of our armed forces worldwide. It will secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain. Accession will promote U.S. interests in the environmental health of the oceans. And
His support, along with that of the Pentagon and State Department, as well as the Navy and Coast Guard, has created the political space to secure the support of 75 to 85 senators.
it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted."
Law of the Sea Good—Potential 1NC Impact
LOST ratification is key to US naval mobility, readiness, and effectiveness and resolving international maritime disputes—solves global armed conflict Sandalow 04 (David, scholar in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution, "Law of the Sea Convention:
Should the U.S. Join?," http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb137.htm) U.S. military operations depend on naval mobility. By codifying navigational and overflight freedoms long asserted by the United States, the Convention improves access rights in the oceans for our armed forces, reducing operational burdens and helping avert conflict. Historically, the U.S. Navy was required to contend with widely varying and excessive claims by coastal nations concerning access to the oceans. In
the 1940s, for example, Chile asserted the right to control access by all vessels within two hundred miles of its coast. Later, Indonesia asserted a similar right with regard to all waters between its many islands. These claims and many others are effectively resolved by the Convention, which recognizes navigational and overflight freedoms within 200mile exclusive economic zones and through key international straits and archipelagoes. The Convention also recognizes rights of passage through territorial seas, without notice and regardless of means of propulsion, as well as navigational and overflight freedoms on the high seas.
The results include less need for military assets to maintain maritime access rights and reduced risk of conflict. However, the failure of the United States to join the Law of the Sea Convention puts these gains at risk.
First, there is a risk that important provisions could be weakened by amendment, beginning in November 2004, when the treaty is open for amendment for the first time. Currently, for example, the Convention prohibits coastal states from denying transit rights to a vessel based upon its means of propulsion. Some states, however, may propose to amend this provision to allow exclusion of nuclear-powered vessels. Under the Convention, no amendment may be adopted unless the parties agree by consensus (or, if every effort to reach consensus failed, more than two-thirds of the parties present agree both on certain procedural matters and on the proposed amendment). As a party, the United States would have a much greater ability to defeat amendments that are not in the U.S. interest, by blocking consensus or voting against such amendments. Second, by staying outside the Convention, the United States increases the risk of backsliding by nations that have put aside excessive maritime claims from years past. Pressures from coastal states to expand their maritime jurisdiction will not disappear in the years ahead— indeed such pressures will likely grow. Incremental unraveling of many gains under the Convention is more likely if the world's leading maritime power remains a non-party. For these reasons and others, General Richard B. Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently called ratification of the treaty by the United States "a top national security priority.'' Admiral Vern Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, reiterated the Navy's longstanding support for U.S. ratification, explaining that "by joining the Convention, we further ensure the freedom to get to the fight, twenty-four hours a day and
seven days a week, without a permission slip.''
Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—2NC Resource Wars Module
Failure to ratify UNCLOS locks the US out of negotiations regarding resource development—this ensures global conflict over resources in the Arctic Eachus 9/10/07 (Ron, former legislator and a former chairman of the Oregon Public Utility Commission, Statesman Journal,
lexis) The hypothetical Northwest Passage via the Arctic Ocean is becoming a reality as a result of global warming. But the U.S. is at a disadvantage because of its reluctance to join other countries in the one international agreement that can help sort out the ensuing stampede for resources and concurrent need for environmental and cultural protection. It is ironic. Burning fossil fuels triggers accelerated melting of the Arctic ice. The receding ice makes new oil and gas deposits more accessible. The cycle of excessive consumption perpetuates itself and fosters a new "cold war" as Russia, the U.S, Canada and other countries lay claim to the fuel- and mineral-rich sea bed.
And here's another irony: Even President Bush, who has utter disregard for treaties to reduce carbon emissions, recognizes that ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty is necessary. In 1982, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea adopted rules under which each country is entitled to a 200-nautical-mile economic zone with rights over natural resources. Countries can claim jurisdiction beyond that if they can show that their continental shelf extends further.
All Arctic border countries except the U.S. have signed the treaty, putting us on the sidelines when boundaries are negotiated and disputes resolved. We're powerful enough to bully our way around, but we don't have much standing without the treaty.
Since 1982, the Arctic sea ice has decreased by nearly 20 percent. And some geologists estimate that nearly 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil lies under the now-more-accessible Arctic Ocean.
Canada asserts the passages through its Arctic archipelago are part of its internal waters. Russia claims that the undersea ridge from the North Pole to Eurasia is a geological extension of its continental shelf. Denmark replies that the end of the same ridge was once part of Greenland, which belongs to them.
Russia even sent a mini-sub to the bottom of the ocean floor to stake a symbolic claim with a flag encased in titanium. The vision may be laughable. But Russia takes this seriously. Oil revenues sustained Cold War Russia. The resurgent Russia of today uses oil and gas as a tool for influence over its former Soviet Block states. "The Arctic is ours and we should manifest our presence," the leader of the expedition declared. Forgive the obvious analogy, but the recent spurt of activity is merely the tip of a larger iceberg to be revealed in the future when international tensions can escalate into incidents and accidents. Posturing can easily lead to confrontation. Arctic climate change can lead to greater storms. Oil spills there are harder to clean up. Lost in the territorial fray is the basic question of whether exploitation and extraction of natural resources ultimately will be how we define the Arctic. As harsh as it is, this is a fragile and sensitive part of the Earth. Is the Arctic to become another example of trampling on the environment, disrespect for native cultures, and extinction of native species? Environmental organizations have been supportive of the Law of the Sea Treaty as a way to control access and development. So whether one thinks we should protect the Arctic environment from exploitation or whether one thinks we can't afford to let other countries control the resources,
ratifying the treaty gives the U.S. a justifiable seat at the negotiating table. When the Senate considers the treaty this fall, members should ratify it. Leaving the fate of the Arctic up to a colonialismlike free-for-all of territorial claims will only feed an unfettered appetite for consumption and conflict.
This global grapple for oil risks global extinction Lopez 06 (Bernardo, BusinessWorld, 6/27, lexis)
In other words, it is all the fault of the Americans that the Middle East is the emerging nuclear powder keg. Israel practices brinkmanship because it knows the US is behind it. It can invade Lebanon and bomb Beirut at will, confident that the superpower is supportive. If we, as a world community, are headed for
Armageddon, we have only the lone superpower to blame, which is obsessed with controlling the rapidly dwindling supply of oil. The grapple for oil can easily catalyze World War III.
Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—2NC PSI Module
Failure to ratify UNCLOS undermines international support for the Proliferation Security Initiative King 8/22/07 (Neil, Staff, Wall Street Journal, "U.S. Resistance to Sea Treaty Thaws,"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118772758771704410.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) Administration officials also argue that Washington's failure to sign on to the treaty has, in fact, undercut the Proliferation Security Initiative, a U.S. effort to enlist international help to cut off shipments of nuclear and missile technology to countries such as
Iran or North Korea.
Two countries that have declined to join PSI, Malaysia and Indonesia, recently cited Washington's spurning of the Law of the Sea Treaty as their main reason.
The impact is nuclear war Ash 02 (Timothy Garten, historian, political writer + columnist, The Guardian, 9/19, lexis)
weapons inspections. Again, this is a really good idea for the world. Take this thought and chew on it: you will probably see a nuclear war in your lifetime. As nuclear weapons proliferate, and become easier to make and carry, the chances increase that some terrorist or dictator will use them. It is difficult to prevent. It will probably happen. But one way to reduce the chances is to have an international norm of rigorous, intrusive inspections. The Carnegie Endowment in Washington has proposed that such
And then there are these "coercive inspections" should be backed by a multinational UN military force trained specially for the purpose. Of course they will never be let loose on weapons sites in America, Britain, Russia or China, but these stable states are, in fact, less likely to use their nuclear weapons.
Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—2NC War on Terrorism Module
Ratification of UNCLOS is vital in prosecuting and winning the war on terrorism Mullen 07 (Adm. Mike, Chairman @ Joint Chiefs of Staff, "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea," 7/31,
http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News) Since 1983, the United States Navy has conducted its activities in accordance with President Reagan's Statement on United States Oceans Policy, operating consistent with the Convention's provisions on navigational freedoms. If the United States becomes a party to the Law of the Sea Convention, we would continue to operate as we have since 1983, and would be recognized for our leadership role in law of the sea matters. Joining the Law of the Sea Convention will have no adverse effect on the President's Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) or on United States intelligence gathering activities. Rather, joining the Convention is another important step in prosecuting and ultimately prevailing in the Global War on Terrorism.
Winning the war on terrorism is key to global survival Jerusalem Post 5/12/04 (lexis)
submission only serves to encourage terrorists and their leaders and boost their motivation, while survival would depend on nations taking all necessary steps to reduce the risks, including international intelligence cooperation. "Dealing with terrorism requires a broad range of responses, starting with clear and coherent policies. It is necessary to have quality intelligence, as
In the first case, he maintained that well as law enforcement, the military, and the means to counter technological and cyber-terrorism," said Alexander. "We also need an educational response because the children of today will be the terrorists of tomorrow. Unless we can defuse the extremist ideological and theological elements and their propaganda, the measures won't work. "We have to deal with the root causes and try to improve economic and social conditions - a sort of global Marshall plan - but first it is necessary to deal with the terror leadership. "To this end some innocent civilians might be harmed but, make no mistake, this is war and to fight it nations have to pool their resources. No nation can deal with the problem unilaterally. "In the past, terrorism was regarded as a tactical rather than a strategic threat but it has become a permanent fixture and a challenge to the strategic interests of nations. "In fact," said Alexander, "it
represents the most threatening challenge to civilization in the 21st century. The question of survival will depend to a great extent on how civilized society tackles this threat."
--Alexander = director of the Inter-Universities Center for Terrorism Studies
Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—2NC US Leadership Module
Failure to ratify UNCLOS undermines US global leadership by signaling US isolationism Eagleburger and Moore 07 (Lawrence and John, fmr Secretary of State + director of the Center for Oceans Law & Policy
at the University of Virginia, "Opportunity On The Oceans--America Wins With the Law of the Sea Treaty," 7/30, Wash Post, http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News)
Not surprisingly, the Navy; the Coast Guard; and our fishing, shipping, undersea cable, mining, and oil and gas industries all support ratification, as do environmentalists. The congressionally established Ocean Policy Commission voted unanimously for U.S. accession to the convention as its first official act. There are also important foreign policy reasons to adhere, as Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England wrote in an op-ed in June. In sharp contrast to the Kyoto treaty, the United States led the world in negotiating the Law of the Sea Convention and achieved a historic negotiating success -- a success that probably could not be replicated today. Moreover, when President Ronald Reagan subsequently determined that Part XI of the convention, on seabed mining, required major revision, the world expressly met his conditions before the convention went into effect. Today the convention is in force for 154 nations, including all the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council but the United States. Failure to adhere diminishes the voice of the United States in protecting our interests worldwide; it excludes America from the new functional organizations created by the convention, such as the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf; and it sends a signal of American
Why then has the convention, which was successfully renegotiated in 1994, not yet received a vote in the Senate? Sadly, ideologically driven opponents have purveyed a web of distortions. They assert that the convention would give our sovereignty away, but the reality would be enhanced protection of our ships on the seas and the greatest expansion of resource jurisdiction in U.S. history, greater in area than that of the Louisiana Purchase and the acquisition of Alaska combined. They assert that the International Seabed Authority, which after a quarter-century of operation has 35 employees and a budget of less than $12 million, is both a U.N. agency (it's not) and a stalking horse for world government. The agency also has no power to tax Americans. Opponents assert that Ronald Reagan deep-sixed the convention, when instead he set requirements for renegotiation of Part XI, which were successfully achieved, and he directed that we follow the remainder of the convention, which has been U.S. oceans policy now through four presidencies. They assert that the convention harms President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), when the Joint Chiefs of Staff state flatly that the convention "strengthens the
coalition" and "supports" PSI.
Foreign policy issues deserve debate, but not shameful distortions.
The Senate must not cede its role to uninformed voices, especially when our president and national security leaders are on record as to what is in our country's interest and when the rest of the world has specifically accommodated America's request for renegotiation. If the Senate misses this opportunity, our allies and adversaries alike will note that U.S. foreign policy has been diminished by an ideological extreme. The Senate should follow the
president's leadership on this important issue.
Khalilzad, 1995 (Zalmay, Consultant @ RAND, Washington Quarterly, Spring, lexis)
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world
in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—2NC Judicial Review Module
US ratification of UNCLOS is key to US and foreign judicial review Maritime Law Association 07 ("The Maritime Law Association's Letter to Sen. Biden," 7/5,
Uniformity of the law of the sea is essential to the recognition of the rights of states, their ships, and their citizens, and crucial to economic prosperity.
Accession to the Law of the Sea Convention will further establish that the world's territorial seas and high seas are not lawless, but are instead subject, respectively, to carefully crafted bodies of domestic laws and to a regime of international laws that ensure right of law-abiding individuals and nations to enjoy the many benefits of the world's waters. The Courts of the United States, as well as courts of foreign states and the tribunal created under the Law of the Sea Convention, will benefit greatly from the accession of the United States to this Convention as an emblem of world accord on the principles that govern the peaceful use of the high seas.
This prevents global nuclear war Kellman 89 (Barry, Professor, DePaul University College of Law, December, 1989 Duke L.J. 1597, lexis)
In this era of thermonuclear weapons, America must uphold its historical commitment to be a nation of law. Our strength grows from the resolve to subject military force to constitutional authority. Especially in these times when weapons proliferation can lead to nuclear winter, when weapons production can cause cancer, when soldiers die unnecessarily in the name of readiness: those who control military force must be held accountable under law. As the Supreme Court recognized a generation ago,
the Founders envisioned the army as a necessary institution, but one dangerous to liberty if not confined within its essential bounds. Their fears were rooted in history. They knew that ancient republics had been overthrown by their military leaders. .... . . . We cannot close our eyes to the fact that today the peoples of many nations are ruled by the military. We should not break faith with this Nation's tradition of keeping military power subservient to civilian authority, a tradition which we believe is firmly embodied in the Constitution. 1 Our fears may be rooted in more recent history. During the decade of history's largest peacetime military expansion (1979-1989), more than 17,000 service personnel were killed in training accidents. 2 In the same period, virtually every facility in the nuclear bomb complex has been revealed [*1598] to be contaminated with radioactive and poisonous materials; the clean-up costs are projected to exceed $ 100 billion. 3 Headlines of fatal B-1B bomber crashes, 4 the downing of an Iranian passenger plane, 5 the Navy's frequent accidents 6 including the fatal crash of a fighter plane into a Georgia apartment complex, 7 remind Americans that a tragic price is paid to support the military establishment. Other commentaries may distinguish between the specific losses that might have been preventable and those which were the random consequence of what is undeniably a dangerous military program. This Article can only repeat the questions of the parents of those who have died: "Is the military accountable to anyone? Why is it allowed to keep making the same mistakes? How many more lives must be lost to senseless accidents?" 8 This Article describes a judicial concession of the law's domain, ironically impelled by concerns for "national security." In three recent controversies involving weapons testing, the judiciary has disallowed tort accountability for serious and unwarranted injuries. In United States v. Stanley, 9 the Supreme Court ruled that an Army sergeant, unknowingly drugged with LSD by the Central Intelligence Agency, could not pursue a claim for deprivation of his constitutional rights. In Allen v. United States, 10 civilian victims of atmospheric atomic testing were denied a right of tort recovery against the government officials who managed and performed the tests. Finally, in Boyle v. United Technologies, 11 the Supreme Court ruled that private weapons manufacturers enjoy immunity from product liability actions alleging design defects. A critical analysis of these decisions reveals that the judiciary, notably the Rehnquist Court, has abdicated its responsibility to review civil matters involving the military security establishment. 12 [*1599] Standing at the vanguard of "national security" law, 13 these three decisions elevate the task of preparing for war to a level beyond legal [*1600] accountability. They suggest that determinations of both the ends and the means of national security are inherently above the law and hence unreviewable regardless of the legal rights transgressed by these determinations. This conclusion signals a dangerous abdication of judicial responsibility. The very underpinnings of constitutional governance are threatened by those who contend that the rule of law weakens the execution of military policy. Their argument -that because our adversaries are not restricted by our Constitution, we should become more like our adversaries to secure ourselves -- cannot be sustained if our tradition of adherence to the rule of law is to be maintained. To the contrary, the judiciary must be willing to demand adherence to legal principles by assessing responsibility for weapons decisions. This Article posits that judicial abdication in this field is not compelled and certainly is not desirable. The legal system can provide a useful check against dangerous military action, more so than these three opinions would suggest.
The judiciary must rigorously scrutinize military decisions if our 18th century dream of a nation founded in musket smoke is to remain recognizable in a millennium ushered in under the mushroom cloud of thermonuclear holocaust.
Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—2NC Rule of Law Impact Module
--Failure to ratify LOST signals US isolationism and undermines the global commitment to the rule of law
Williams 12/10/07 (Ian, Columnist for MaximsNews Network, "ANARCHY ON THE HIGH SEAS," http://www.maximsnews.com/107mnundecember10ianwilliamsallatseainwashington.htm) The Law of the Sea should be an important cause for internationally minded liberals and Democrats, representing as it does a global commitment to the health of the oceans and the rule of law. But their silence is stunning. A quick internet search shows that most of the
clucking comes from loony right-wing Chicken Littles who think the sky is falling down. There is a certain ironic satisfaction that the White House is now under fire from the ideologically hardcore foundations that have so far been barraging its liberal enemies. At this year's hearings on the treaty at the Senate foreign relations committee, the groups that spoke against ratification, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the Centre for Security Policy (CSP), depicted the treaty as an undercover version the Kyoto protocol - reminiscent of earlier far-fetched accusations of an undersea land grab by the United Nations. But money talks as the know-nothings cluck. Last year, Exxon - Big Oil's last-ditch opponent of the UN Convention on the International Law of the Sea -dropped its financial support for CEI. The lobby now left in the field against ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty reveals the wacko money tail that has been wagging the Republican dog, and, more often than not, converting many Democratic politicians into fawning puppies. The process was described in an email that Mike Scanlon, the lobbyist who once worked for Tom DeLay, sent to his Indian tribal clients. It was released by the Senate Indian affairs committee when it was investigating disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff: Our mission is to get specifically selected groups of individuals to the polls to speak out AGAINST something. To that end, your money is best spent finding them and communicating with them on using the modes that they are most likely to respond to. Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them. The wackos get their information form [sic] the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet, and telephone trees. The wackos are now in the spotlight. But the sane wing of American politics does indeed seem to be letting the ratification of the Law of the Sea slip past them, even though it presents a unique opportunity to break the conservative hold on multilateralism. If the Senate cannot
ratify this treaty when the White House, the Pentagon and former Republican chair of the Senate foreign relations committee are onside with a Democratic majority, then Americans had best resign themselves to being all at sea in a world of international anarchy.
--Global commitment to the rule of law is vital in preventing global nuclear conflict
Rhyne 1958 (Charles, fmr president @ American Bar Association, "Law Day Speech for Voice of America," 5/1, http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/rhyne58.html) The tremendous yearning of all peoples for peace can only be answered by the use of law to replace weapons in resolving international disputes . We in our country sincerely believe that mankind's best hope for preventing the tragic consequences of nuclear-satellite-missile warfare is to persuade the nations of the entire world to submit all disputes to tribunals of justice for all adjudication under the rule of law. We lawyers of America would like to join lawyers from every nation in the world in fashioning an international code of
law so appealing that sentiment will compel its general acceptance. Man's relation to man is the most neglected field of study, exploration and development in the world community. It is also the most critical. The most important basic fact of our generation is that the rapid advance of knowledge in science and technology has forced increased international relationships in a shrunken and indivisible world. Men must either live together in peace or in modern war we will surely die together. History teaches that the rule of law has
enabled mankind to live together peacefully within nations and it is clear that this same rule of law offers our best hope as a mechanism to achieve and maintain peace between nations.
--card has been gender-edited
Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—2NC Natural Gas Impact Module
--US non-ratification of UNCLOS ensures higher natural gas prices and less natural gas supply Inside F.E.R.C. 12/17/07 (lexis)
Capt. Charles Michel, chief of maritime and international law for the Coast Guard, told reporters that if the US were to ratify the Law of the Sea convention, it would be able to overcome Canadian objections to having LNG tankers move through the Head Harbour Passage en route to Maine facilities. "This is a slam dunk," Michel asserted. "We would win. There's absolutely no question about it."
However, because the US has not ratified the treaty, "the only thing that we've got working in our tool kit right now is soft diplomacy, which hasn't worked," Michel said, even though that diplomatic effort has been taking place at the highest levels. "My understanding is, President Bush has personally communicated with [Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper], who blew off President Bush and said no, because he's playing to his local political constituency," Michel said. He also referred to the possibility of "the use of force against Canada" to achieve access to the contested waterway, but he stressed that it is "highly unlikely we're going to do that." Michel noted that Canada has already ratified the treaty and urged the Senate to do the same to allow the US access to the treaty's
dispute-resolution provisions. "Right now US citizens are likely going to end up paying more for their natural gas and probably have less of it because of our inability to become a party to the Law of the Sea convention," Michel said. "I don't know how much closer to home that can hit."
--High natural gas prices devastate the chemical industry taking down the whole economy
Raj Gupta, Chair and CEO, Rohm and Haas Company, 3/19/2003 (Federal News Service) p. lexis Because the business of chemistry produces the building block materials that the rest of our modem economy relies upon , we are somewhat of a "canary in the coalmine." As we go, so goes the rest of the nation. In particular, the US chemical industry's economic survival depends on having access to an abundant and affordable supply of natural gas.
Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—2NC Natural Gas Impact Module
--The chemical industry is critical to manage threats that risk extinction
Rudy M. Baum, Editor-in-Chief, Chemical & Engineering News, 12/6/1999 ("Putting the New Millennium in Perspective" – Millennium Special Report, Volume 77, Number 49) http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/cenear/991206/7749spintro2.html
The pace of change in today's world is truly incomprehensible. Science is advancing on all fronts , particularly chemistry and biology working together as they never have before to understand life in general and human beings in particular at a breathtaking pace. Technology ranging from computers and the Internet to medical devices to genetic engineering to nanotechnology is transforming our world and our existence in it. It is, in fact, a fool's mission to predict where science and technology will take us in the coming decade, let alone the coming century. We can say with finality only this: We don't know. We do know, however, that we face enormous challenges, we 6 billion humans who now inhabit Earth. In its 1998 revision of world population estimates and projections, the United Nations anticipates a world population in 2050 of 7.3 billion to 10.7 billion, with a "medium-fertility projection," considered the most likely, indicating a world population of 8.9 billion people in 2050. According to the UN, fertility now stands at 2.7 births per woman, down from 5 births per woman in the early 1950s. And fertility rates are declining in all regions of the world. That's good news. But people are living a lot longer. That is certainly good news for the individuals who are living longer, but it also poses challenges for health care and social services the world over. The 1998 UN report estimates for the first time the number of octogenarians, nonagenarians, and centenarians living today and projected for 2050. The numbers are startling. In 1998, 66 million people were aged 80 or older, about one of every 100 persons. That number is expected to increase sixfold by 2050 to reach 370 million people, or one in every 24 persons. By 2050, more than 2.2 million people will be 100 years old or older! Here is the fundamental challenge we face: The world's growing and aging
population must be fed and clothed and housed and transported in ways that do not perpetuate the environmental devastation
wrought by the first waves of industrialization of the 19th and 20th centuries. As we increase our output of goods and services, as we increase our consumption of energy, as we meet the imperative of raising the standard of living for the poorest among us, we must learn to carry out our economic activities sustainably. There are optimists out there, C&EN readers among them, who believe that the history of civilization is a long string of technological triumphs of humans over the limits of nature. In this view, the idea of a "carrying capacity" for Earth—a limit to the number of humans Earth's resources can support— is a fiction because technological advances will continuously obviate previously perceived limits. This view has historical merit. Dire predictions made in the 1960s about the exhaustion of resources ranging from petroleum to chromium to fresh water by the end of the 1980s or 1990s have proven utterly wrong. While I do not count myself as one of the technological pessimists who see technology as a mixed blessing at best and an unmitigated evil at worst, I do not count myself among the technological optimists either. There are environmental challenges of transcendent complexity that I fear may overcome us and our Earth before technological progress can come to our rescue. Global climate change, the accelerating destruction of terrestrial and oceanic habitats, the catastrophic loss of species across the plant and animal kingdoms—these are problems that are not obviously amenable to straightforward technological solutions. But I know this, too: Science and technology have brought us to where we are, and only science and technology, coupled with innovative social and economic thinking, can take us to where we need to be in the coming millennium. Chemists, chemistry, and the chemical industry—what we at C&EN call the chemical enterprise—will play central roles in addressing these challenges . The first section of this Special Report is a series called "Millennial Musings" in which a wide variety of representatives from the chemical enterprise share their thoughts about the future of our science and industry. The five essays that follow explore the contributions the chemical enterprise is making right now to ensure that we will successfully meet the challenges of the 21st century. The essays do not attempt to predict the future. Taken as a whole, they do not pretend to be a comprehensive examination of the efforts of our science and our industry to tackle the challenges I've outlined above. Rather, they paint, in broad brush strokes, a portrait of scientists, engineers, and business managers struggling to make a vital contribution to humanity's future. The first essay, by Senior Editor Marc S. Reisch, is a case study of the chemical industry's ongoing transformation to sustainable production. Although it is not well known to the general public, the chemical industry is at the forefront of
corporate efforts to reduce waste from production streams to zero.
Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—2NC Iran Miscalculation Module
--US failure to ratify the Law of the Sea encourages aggressive Iranian actions that spark miscalculation Richardson 1/24/08 (Michael, energy and security specialist at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, The Straits Times,
But Asian governments should also urge the US Congress to vote as soon as possible in support of the Bush administration's proposal to ratify the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. America's failure to join most of the rest of the world in this treaty governing activities in the
world's oceans and shipping lanes gives countries like Iran a pretext to challenge US warships as they pass into and out of the Gulf through a chokepoint that is critical to Asia.
--US-Iran miscalculation escalates to World War 3 Steinberg 07 (Jeffrey, The People’s Voice, http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgibin/blogs/voices.php/2007/10/04/cheney_s_ouster_may_be_last_chance_to_st) On Sept. 25, retired CIA officer Philip Giraldi penned a frightening piece for antiwar.com, which took up the potential consequences of a U.S. military confrontation with Iran. Under the provocative title "What World War III May Look Like," Giraldi spelled out an unfortunately realistic scenario for an escalation of military conflict between the United States and Iran, triggered by a low-level skirmish between U.S. and Iranian soldiers along the Iraq border. Under Giraldi's scenario, a fullscale war erupts between the United States and Iran, which soon spreads to Iraq, where Shi'ite insurgents engage in large-scale asymmetric combat with American soldiers, who finally have to shoot their way out of the country, at tremendous loss of life. Ultimately, the conflict spreads to the Eastern Mediterranean, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent; it sparks a war between India and Pakistan, a violent coup in Afghanistan, a war between Israel and Syria/Lebanon, rioting throughout the Muslim nations of the Asia Pacific region, and, ultimately, U.S. use of nuclear weapons, which draws both Russia and China to the brink of intervention. As Giraldi concludes, "World War III has begun."
Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—2NC Oceans Module
Senate ratification is key to the protection of the oceans KRAUS 6 – 6 – 07 VP for government relations of Citizens for Global Solutions
[Don, “Time to Ratify the Law of the Sea,” http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4286]
During the Nixon administration negotiations began to create a common set of rules for how nations use our oceans. Now, almost 40 years later, the
United States is on the verge of joining the 155 nations that have ratified the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (LOS). This treaty defines maritime zones, protects the
environment, preserves freedom of navigation, and establishes clear guidelines for businesses that depend on the sea for resources. Until the United States ratifies the treaty its rights at sea
An incredibly diverse group of organizations and trade associations—including environmental, oil industry, peace, and come together to put this important piece of old business back on the agenda. The reasons these odd bedfellows back the treaty are as varied as their missions. But together they elicited support from the White House and Senate leadership and have opened a small window of opportunity for LOS ratification. The timing is critical. According to the bipartisan Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, oceans and coasts are severely threatened. In its 2006 report card on U.S. ocean policy, the commission gave the U.S. a D- in “International Leadership” (up from an F in 2005). The commission cited accession to the LOS convention as the key step the United States must take to improve its score. A February letter from major environmental organizations to Senate leaders urged quick ratification and cited the convention’s “basic obligation for all states to … protect and preserve the marine environment and conserve marine living species” as a reason for their support. Ratification is not a sure thing even though the Bush administration has urged support. If the Senate doesn’t act on ratification before the summer recess, it may miss this golden opportunity to address the increasing fragility of the oceans.
will lack international recognition. veterans groups—have
Ocean destruction will ensure planetary extinction Craig 03 (Robin Kundis- Associate Professor at Indiana University School of Law, “Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness
Protection”, McGeorge Law Review, Winter, lexis)
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food
, "ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." 858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an
production. 856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. 857 More generally ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." 859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. 860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. 861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." 862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know
much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us. 5
Law of the Sea Good—Impacts—Key to US Economy
LOST promotes US commercial interests that are vital to the US economy Sandalow 04 (David, scholar in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution, "Law of the Sea Convention:
Should the U.S. Join?," http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb137.htm) The U.S. economy depends on the oceans. Goods worth more than $700 billion are shipped through U.S. ports each year. More than a third of oil and gas produced around the world each year comes from offshore wells. (For U.S. oil and gas production, the figure is roughly 25 percent.) U.S. fisheries had landings in excess of $3 billion in 2002. Submarine cables are essential to global communications and therefore much of global commerce. The Law of the Sea Convention helps promote U.S. commercial interests in several important respects. First, the navigational freedoms recognized under the Convention provide a stable environment for global commerce. Clear rules with widespread acceptance facilitate international trade and reduce risks to the many industries that depend upon marine transport. Second, the U.S. oil and gas industry benefits from the Convention's rules concerning offshore resources. Under the Convention, coastal nations have exclusive authority over all resources within two hundred miles of shore. In addition, coastal nations have authority over the ocean floor beyond this 200-mile zone, to the edge of the continental shelf. This latter provision is especially beneficial for the United States, which has the largest continental shelf in the world. Vast areas of the ocean floor off Alaska, Maine, and other states are brought under U.S. jurisdiction as a result of this provision. With expected advances in deep water drilling technologies, these areas hold vast potential for oil and gas production.
UNCLOS strengthens international commerce and trade that form the basis of the US economy Wagner and Lofrumento 99 (Brett and Philip, Research Assistants @ Maritime Studies Program @ CSIS, Wash Quarterly,
Summer, lexis) First, the treaty, known formally as the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), promotes free access to the high seas by codifying broad navigational rights into international law. This has been a major objective in American foreign policy since the United States declared its independence. The first generation of Americans knew then, as successive generations have known since, that the nation's economy depends on commerce, which in turn depends on navigational freedom. Today, more than 95 percent of U.S. trade by tonnage moves by sea, and nearly a quarter of the nation's gross national product results from exports. The treaty guarantees the right of navigation, overflight, and ocean-bound shipping in perpetuity. The treaty further promotes free trade and access to markets by granting all nations the right to lay telecommunications cables both on the high seas and in the two-hundred-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of any coastal nation. These rights are considered essential to the information- and technology-based U.S. economy, especially because American companies currently control 70 percent of the world's rapidly expanding telecommunication capacity.
Law of the Sea DA—A2 LOST Bad Impact Turns
LOST is key to protecting the global economy, the environment, and national security Kraus, 07 - Don Kraus, vice president for government relations of Citizens for Global Solutions, Foreign Policy in Focus,
“Time to Ratify the Law of the Sea”, 6/6/07, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4286 The Law of the Sea has been described as the most comprehensive and progressive protection for the oceans of any modern international accord. It essentially protects the economic, environmental, and national security concerns of coastal states, as well as establishing international cooperative mechanisms for resolving disputes on these issues. The convention also safeguards imperiled marine habitats by strengthening state sovereignty over the enforcement of environmental regulations up to 200 miles offshore
(called the Exclusive Economic Zone—EEZ). These internationally accepted regulations empower states to stop harmful pollution and ocean dumping caused by previously unregulated ships. The convention also contains special measures to save endangered whales, salmon, and other marine mammals. It helps the fisheries of coastal states by allowing them to set limits within their EEZ. It also protects valuable migratory fish stocks such as tuna and billfish on the high seas, beyond the 200-mile limit. In addition to protection of the marine environment, the LOS promotes the maintenance of international peace and
security by replacing a plethora of conflicting claims among coastal states with a 12-mile territorial limit and the aforementioned 200-mile EEZ. These regulations set a definitive limit on the oceanic area over which a nation may claim jurisdiction. However, the convention also protects the freedom of navigation on the high seas as well as the right of innocent passage, including nonwartime activities of military ships.
LOST does not threaten US sovereignty, security, intelligence gathering, military operations, or the Proliferation Security Initiative Lugar, 04 – Richard G. Lugar, US senator, “The Law of the Sea Convention: the Case for Senate Action”, in an address at the
Brookings Institution, http://www.brookings.edu/speeches/2004/0504energy_lugar.aspx, 5/4/04 For example, critics have contended that the Law of the Sea will give the United Nations control over oceans when the Convention provides no decision-making role for the U.N. They have said that the Convention contains production limits on seabed minerals, and mandatory technology transfers, both of which were eliminated in the 1994 renegotiation of the treaty. They have suggested that U.S. intelligence gathering will be hindered even though the Bush Administration and the U.S. military (which conducts all the intelligence operations in question) say that the Convention will have no effect on intelligence activities. They assert that the President's Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) which aims to impede shipments of weapons of mass destruction and related materials, will be hindered by the Convention, even though the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Chief of Naval Operations say unequivocally that U.S. ratification of Law of the Sea would help the PSI. In fact, most of the articles and statements opposing the Convention have avoided mentioning the military's longstanding and vocal support for Law of the Sea. This is because to oppose the Convention on national security grounds requires one to say that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Chief of Naval Operations, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and, indeed, the President of the United States are wrong about the security benefits of the Treaty.
Law of the Sea DA—A2 LOST Bad Impact Turns
Their impacts are empirically denied: the US has already been significantly affected by LOST, and loss of sovereignty has not yet occurred Lugar, 04 – Richard G. Lugar, US senator, “The Law of the Sea Convention: the Case for Senate Action”, in an address at the
Brookings Institution, http://www.brookings.edu/speeches/2004/0504energy_lugar.aspx, 5/4/04 Consequently, the United States cannot insulate itself from the Convention merely by declining to ratify. There are 145 parties to the Convention, including every major industrialized country. The Convention is the accepted standard in international maritime law. Americans who use the ocean and interact with other nations on the ocean, including the Navy, shipping interests, and fisherman, have told me that they
already have to contend with provisions of the Law of the Sea on a daily basis. They want the United States to participate in the structures of Law of the Sea to defend their interests and to make sure that other nations respect our rights and claims. We also should remember that the United States already has been abiding by the Law of the Sea Convention since President Reagan's 1983 Statement of Oceans Policy. In addition, the United States is a party to the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, a predecessor to the Law of the Sea Convention. Many of the provisions of the 1958 Convention are less advantageous to the United States than comparable provisions in the Law of the Sea Convention. Given that the United States has
been abiding by all but one provision of the Treaty for the last 21 years and that we are already a party to a less advantageous international agreement on ocean law, dire predictions about the hazards to our sovereignty of joining the Law of the Sea Convention ring particularly hollow.
LOST protects our national security, commercial interests, and the ocean environment Sandalow, 04 – David B. Sandalow, Senior Fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, “Ocean Treaty Good for US”,
The Washington Times, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2004/0516energy_sandalow.aspx, 5/16/04 The case for U.S. ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty is straightforward: (1) the treaty protects our national security. By improving access and transit rights for our ships, aircraft and submarines, the Law of the Sea treaty facilitates timely movement of U.S. forces throughout the world. Adm. Clark and all living former chiefs of naval operations have endorsed the treaty. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote last month the treaty "remains a top national security priority." (2) The treaty protects our commercial interests. Provisions on coastal state control of the continental shelf, for example, help provide the certainty crucial to capital-intensive deepwater projects. The American Petroleum Institute, the International Association of Drilling Contractors and the National Ocean Industries Association have all called for treaty approval. (3) The treaty protects the ocean environment. Provisions addressing marine pollution and fisheries help promote conservation of scarce marine resources. The World Wildlife Fund, National Environmental Trust and
Oceans Conservancy, among others, support the agreement.
Law of the Sea DA—A2 LOST Bad Impact Turns
LOST benefits our military, businesses, and environment by setting international legal standards and protecting US claims to vital resources Paul and Kraus, 07 – Scott Paul, Deputy Director of Government Relations, and Don Kraus, Executive Vice President,
Citizens for Global Solutions, “The United States and the Law of the Sea: Time to Join”, 10/29/07, http://www.globalsolutions.org/in_the_beltway/united_states_and_law_sea_time_join The U.S. military, which relies heavily on its ability to navigate on and fly freely over the sea, has been a strong advocate of LOS. In the absence of treaty law, the U.S. is forced to rely on customary law that can change as States’ practices change. Also under this customary law, countries often make unreasonable and irresponsible claims on marine territory to stop the U.S. military from defending U.S. interests. The U.S. has tried to talk around these claims, but without a legal framework to support us we risk compromising our intelligence and military operations at sea. Joining LOS will help us protect our military’s ability to freely navigate the oceans. Oceans cover over 70 percent of the Earth. In the U.S., we have laws to keep marine resources available for future generations. LOS sets a global standard so that all countries are legally bound to protect the marine environment, protect fish stocks, and prevent pollution with as much care as the U.S. does. Joining LOS would send a message to the world that we care about the global environment. Each country
has exclusive rights to manage the resources in areas near its coast. Under the terms of LOS, which maps out the boundaries of these areas, the American zone is larger than that of any country in the world. The size of this zone is 3.36 million square miles – bigger than the lower 48 states combined. In addition, under LOS, coastal states can exercise sovereign rights over natural resources within the extended continental shelf area beyond this territory. In addition, joining LOS
would give U.S. companies an opportunity to apply for licenses with the International Seabed Authority, which manages claims to resources in the deep seabed, an area over which no one country has sovereign rights. Under LOS, the five Arctic states — Norway, Denmark,
Russia, Canada and the U.S. — can claim mineral and oil extraction rights in the Arctic seabed in areas that extend beyond their respective continental shelves.
Joining LOS would protect the claims of U.S. firms to mineral resources and give us an opportunity to provide better management for the sensitive Arctic environment adjacent to U.S. boundaries.
LOST is good for US national security, economic interests, and hegemony – it increases US credibility as a leader in international ocean policy Baker and Shultz, 07 – Former Secretaries of State James A. Baker III and George P. Shultz, “Why the Law of the Sea is a
Good Deal”, Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119076821159739452.html, 9/26/07 The Convention of the Law of the Sea is back. It will be the subject of Senate hearings this week. If the U.S. finally becomes party to this treaty, it will be a boon for our national security and our economic interests. U.S. accession will codify our maritime rights and give us new tools to advance national interests. Our participation would increase our ability to wage the war on terror. The convention assures maximum maritime naval and air mobility, which is essential for our military forces to operate effectively. It provides the stability and framework for our forces, weapons and materials to be deployed without hindrance -- ensuring our ability to navigate past critical choke points throughout the world. Some say it's good enough to protect our navigational interests through customary law. If that approach fails,
then we can employ the threat of force or the use of it. However, because customary law is vague, it does not provide a strong foundation for critical national security rights. Meanwhile, the use of force can be risky and costly. Joining the convention would put our vital rights on a firmer legal basis,
gaining legal certainty and legitimacy as we operate in the world's largest international zone. This is why the U.S. military has been a strong advocate of joining the Law of the Sea Convention. This point was reinforced in a recent letter sent by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, calling on the Senate to support U.S. accession because "[i]t furthers our National Security Strategy, strengthens the coalition, and supports the President's Proliferation Security Initiative." The convention also provides substantial economic benefits to the United States. It accords coastal states the right to declare an Exclusive Economic Zone -- an area where they have exclusive rights to explore and exploit, and the responsibility to conserve and manage, living and non-living resources extending 200 nautical miles seaward from their shoreline. Our nation's EEZ is larger than that of any country in the world -- covering an area greater than the landmass of the lower 48 states. This zone can be extended
beyond 200 nautical miles if certain geological criteria are met. This has potentially significant economic benefits to the U.S. where its continental shelves may be as broad as 600 miles, such as off Alaska, an area containing vast natural resources. Further, as the world's pre-eminent maritime power with one of the longest coastlines, the U.S. has more to gain and to lose than any other country in terms of how the convention's terms are interpreted and
applied. Accession would increase our influence by allowing us to nominate experts for the technical bodies that apply the convention's terms, address proposals to amend the convention from within (rather than from the sidelines), and increase our credibility as a leader in international ocean policy. The continuing delay of U.S. accession to the convention compromises our nation's authority to exercise its sovereign interests, jeopardizes its national and economic security, and limits its leadership role in international ocean policy.
Law of the Sea DA—A2 LOST Bad Impact Turns
LOST is key to hegemony, the economy, national security, and the environment Negroponte and England, 07 – John D. Negroponte, Deputy Secretary of State, and Gordon England, Deputy Secretary of
Defense, “US Officials Cite Benefits of Joining Law of the Sea Convention”, 6/13/07 http://www.america.gov/st/washfileenglish/2007/June/20070613113224eaifas0.4741785.html
From the earliest days of its history, the United States has relied on the bounty and opportunity of the seas for sustenance, for economic development, for defense and for communication and interaction with the rest of the world. Today, as the world's strongest maritime power and a leader of global maritime commerce, the United States has a compelling national interest in a stable international legal regime for the oceans. The time has come to take action to protect and
advance the nation's national security, economic and environmental interests in the maritime domain -- through accession to the Convention on the Law of the Sea. The convention entered into force in 1994 and now has more than 150 parties. It supports and strengthens navigational rights essential to global mobility and it clarifies and confirms important oceans freedoms. U.S. accession to the convention would put the maritime security and economic rights the nation enjoys on the firmest legal footing. Accession makes sense from a national security perspective. This is a critical time for America and our friends and allies -- faced with a wider and more complex array of global and transnational security challenges than ever before. Effectively meeting those challenges requires unimpeded maritime mobility -- the ability of our forces to respond anytime, anywhere, if so required. The convention recognizes and supports the rights of transit and innocent passage -- it confirms that there is no need to ask each country along the way for a permission slip. That
freedom is already widely accepted in practice, but the convention provides a welcome legal certainty -- a certainty and confidence that the nation owes to our brave men and women in uniform, as they deploy around the world to protect and defend freedom and liberty. Accession also has great value from an
economic perspective. In the first place, the freedom of navigation the convention helps ensure is as critical to global economic development as it is to security considerations. The United States would also receive direct economic benefit from the rights the convention provides to coastal nations to regulate and protect their offshore marine areas. Specifically, the convention recognizes the
sovereign rights of coastal nations over natural resources like oil, gas and minerals, in "exclusive economic zones" out to 200 nautical miles, and in rigorously defined continental shelf regions. The United States stands to gain considerably, since its Arctic shelf could potentially extend out to 600 nautical miles. As a corollary, the convention recognizes coastal states' rights to extend over their respective maritime zones specific environmental protections -- like regulating fishing stocks and ocean pollution. Assigning and supporting responsibility in this way could markedly improve prospects for the protection of the global environment. Accession makes sense from the perspective of U.S. leadership on the world stage. Joining the convention would
give the nation a seat at the table, a voice in the debates, to help shape the future development of oceans law, policy and practice. Accession would also give the United States better opportunities to keep a close watch on other nations' efforts to exercise their rights under the law of the sea and to counter excessive claims if necessary. Finally, accession would powerfully and publicly reiterate the nation's commitment to the rule of law as the basis for policy and action. It would make U.S. leadership more credible and compelling, in important multi-national efforts like the Proliferation Security Initiative -- designed to counter proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other dangerous materials. And it would strengthen the general argument in favor of more robust international partnership in all domains -- partnerships essential to meeting today's global and transnational security challenges. For
all of these reasons, President Bush has urged the Senate to act favorably on U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention, during this session of Congress. It is simply the right thing to do, to support America's national interests, and to lay an effective foundation for the use and protection of the world's oceans for generations to come.
Law of the Sea DA Answers—Won’t Pass This Year
Election-year politics means LOST won’t pass this year Kommersant 6/18/08 ("In the Close Arctic Circle,"
http://www.kommersant.com/p897645/r_527/Ilulissat_conference_on_carving_up_the_Arctic_Ocean/) It’s also relevant that the USA hasn’t ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea, so the existing rules don’t work in the U.S. case. “Actually Congress can pass any sort of a home bill that would claim the entire Arctic the U.S. territory. No international agreements bind the government,” Mikhail Kazantsev stressed. American officials have pledged to ratify the convention as quickly as possible for a long time. Last year President George Bush said that he’ll persuade Congress to do it by the end of the year. But John Negroponte complained that this pre-election year Congress won’t be able to thrash out the Convention on the Law of the Sea. This position also gives the USA much scope for maneuver.
Law of the Sea DA Answers—Won’t Pass
Won’t pass—Vitter opposition Gerard Shields; Advocate Washington Bureau, June 10, 2008, “Vitter turns up volume in his criticism of U.N.” The Advocate,
lexis Vitter has used his United Nations opposition to raise campaign funds. Earlier this year, he sent letters that seemed to be created to look like official Senate stationery to supporters asking them to donate up to $2,000 to help him urgently defeat the law of the sea treaty (LOST), which is how Republicans refer to the proposed pact. The treaty has yet to reach the Senate floor. "That's why in addition to helping me stop LOST from being ratified by the U.S. Senate in the coming weeks, if not days, I'm asking you to send a gift of $2,000, $1,000, $500, $250, $100, $50, $35 or even $20 today to help me spread the word to conservatives across America on the dangers LOST poses to our national security," Vitter wrote in a fundraising letter. Vitter sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and is the ranking Republican on the subcommittee on international operations and organizations, democracy and human rights, which holds jurisdiction over United Nations issues. Vitter plans to schedule a meeting with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. And he is also calling for a hearing on the Human Rights Council to address his concerns. When asked about his reference to the sea treaty as LOST, Vitter said: "It's just too good to pass up."
Bush is trying to pass Law of the Sea Treaty; however, it has stalled and won’t pass now Wright, 08 – Associated Content, “The Law of the Sea: Why the Push for US Senate Ratification has Stalled”,
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/779629/the_law_of_the_sea_why_the_push_for.html?cat=62, 5/22/08 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a 1982 pact establishing guidelines for ocean security and regulation, is presently up for debate in the United States Senate. But so far, a concerted push from President Bush and military officials has not been enough to secure the necessary votes for ratification. Despite a growing list of treaty advocates, which includes powerful shipping and environmental lobbies as well as influential military leaders, a core group of conservative senators are intent on holding up ratification.
Law of the Sea won’t pass—Republican opposition Human Events Online, May 16, 2008, “Capital Briefs: May 19-23,” lexis
BATTLING LAW OF SEA: Although the White House repeatedly voices support for Senate ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, conservatives in the Senate are still vigorously collecting enough signatures from opponents on a letter to put a two-thirds vote to ratify the measure out of the question. Sen. David Vitter (R.-La.), one of the leading Senate foes of LOST, told HUMAN EVENTS last week that "we've collected 26 signatures [of senators] and need eight more" to thwart possible ratification. Vitter also told us that, while he has not spoken to the President about the treaty and the reservations of conservatives about its impact on U.S. sovereignty, "I have talked to other administration officials--in the Navy, and at the State Department. And I tell them all the same thing--that if it's pursued, this issue of the treaty will divide Republicans in Congress as much as immigration did two years ago."
More ev conservative opposition trumps all other lobbies Nicholas Kralev, The Washington Times diplomatic correspondent and former writer for the Financial Times, May 13, 2008,
“U.S. pursues Arctic claim; Spending millions on research, but has not OK'd Law of Sea treaty,” Washington Times, lexis The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea has long divided U.S. conservatives. About 155 nations have ratified the pact, and the treaty enjoys strong support from the U.S. military, as well as leading business, legal and environmental lobbies. But intense opposition from conservative groups who fear the pact infringes on U.S. sovereignty has defeated a number of ratification drives in the Senate.
Law of the Sea DA Answers—A2 Arctic Claims
US attendance proves that ratification isn’t key to Artic Claims Steven Groves, Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow, The Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, June 16, 2008, “LOST in the
Arctic: The U.S. Need Not Ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty to Get a Seat at the Table,” http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalLaw/wm1957.cfm Senator Lugar, Ambassador Negroponte, and The New York Times are merely repeating an argument previously asserted by the White House. For example, in May 2007, President Bush issued a statement on "advancing U.S. interests in the world's oceans" that declared: "I urge the Senate to act favorably on U.S. accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea during this session of Congress.... [I]t will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted." However, the United States was still invited to and attended the AOC despite the fact that it is not a party to LOST. Such active participation in the debate over Arctic territorial claims disproves any contentions that the United States' "seat at the table" is contingent upon its ratification of LOST.
Law of the Sea DA Answers—LOST Terrorism
LOST prevents American interdiction efforts—this undermines US counter-terrorism efforts
Wes Vernon, 5/14/07 is a Washington-based writer and veteran broadcast journalist, “The world government Law of the Sea treaty: it's baaaaack!,” http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/070514 The treaty also mandates sharing information that could be used by our enemies to facilitate attacks on our country. And obligatory technology transfers would equip our enemies — real and potential — with useful equipment and know-how. The Law of the Sea Treaty would prohibit any American effort to interdict and board vessels suspected of ties to terrorism or carrying weapons of mass destruction. Communist China has a fixation on getting us on board with LOST, largely for that very reason. At a Senate hearing back in '04, I was approached by Liyu (Laurie) Wang, then first secretary of the Chinese embassy. She said her government was hoping the U.S. would "sign up" so all nations could have a standard for settling disputes. Given that China's People's Liberation Army (PLP) views the United States as "the main enemy," Ms. Wang's stance should make us all feel better — right?
LOST will undermine counterterrorism and anti-proliferation efforts Gaffney, 04 – Frank J. Gaffney Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy and contributing editor to NRO, “Don’t Get
LOST”, http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200403181156.asp, 3/18/04 LOST, however, will also interfere with America's sovereign exercise of freedom of the seas in ways that will have an adverse effect on national security, especially in the post-9/11 world. Incredibly, it will preclude, for example, the president's important new Proliferation Security Initiative. PSI is a multinational arrangement whereby ships on the high seas that are suspected of engaging in the transfer of WMD-related equipment can be intercepted, searched, and, where appropriate, seized. Its value was demonstrated in the recent interception of nuclear equipment headed to Libya. Similarly, LOST will define intelligence collection in and submerged transit of territorial waters to be incompatible with the treaty's requirements that foreign powers conduct themselves in such seas only with "peaceful intent." The last thing we need is for some U.N. court — or U.S. lawyers in its thrall — to make it more difficult for us to conduct sensitive counterterrorism operations in the world's littorals.
Law of the Sea DA Answers—LOST Destroys US Sovereignty Turns
LOST threatens US sovereignty and security Inhofe, 07 – James Inhofe, US senator, Senate Floor Remarks, 10/4/07, http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
Mr. President, last Thursday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the Law of the Sea Treaty, and will hold another this Thursday. As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I held a hearing in March 2004 on the treaty, and we were able to have some open discussion and debate. As the Senate again begins to consider this treaty, it will be important for my colleagues to understand the real dangers it poses to American sovereignty and security. Proponents of the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST, will tell you the treaty will be a great asset to the military by allowing our Navy the freedom of movement to and from any point on and under the ocean, unencumbered by the need to send requests to foreign governments for permission to enter territorial waters or to pass through straights. While LOST does maintain that this is true, it is subject to several caveats. Under the terms of the treaty, our naval warships must pass by the coast and not engage in any type of exercise, ground all aircraft, and negate the use of any defensive devices. The issue of passage not only applies to ships but also to aircraft both commercial and military.
LOST regulates the activities of aircraft over territorial waters and over straights. This is particularly disturbing because a treaty that is intended to govern the sea has now reached out to control airspace over the seas. Another issue of concern is the effect of LOST on the President’s Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which is designed to combat the transfer of weapons of mass destruction. Advocates of the treaty assure us that LOST in no way damages the effectiveness of PSI because countries that want to participate in these open ocean inspections, to assure that nuclear weapons are not being traded illegally, voluntarily sign onto the President’s PSI agreement. However, under LOST, boarding a vessel is allowed only if it is suspected of piracy, engaging in slave trade, unauthorized broadcasting, or is not showing or is not willing to reveal its nationality. Taken literally, as most countries will, a U.S. warship would not be allowed to stop a vessel with a shipment of nuclear energy materials if it is flying a state flag on purportedly legitimate business. LOST also creates a governing body known as the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to organize and control activities on the deep ocean floor in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The ISA would regulate 70% of the Earth's surface—placing seabed mining, fishing rights, and oil exploration under control of a global bureaucracy. The ISA has the power to levy a global tax that would be paid directly to the ISA by companies seeking to mine the world's oceans. LOST also creates a new global tax court to settle disputes that arise under the treaty. This is an unprecedented action – the collection of taxes by an international body to fund its own research, as well as to redistribute the world’s wealth to developing nations. Let me further describe how the ISA would regulate development. In order to be granted mining rights by the ISA, the applicant must submit detailed plans and exploration research information along with annual fees in the millions of dollars. Additionally under LOST, should there be disputes among companies, American businesses that conduct deep seabed mining operations could find themselves subject to an international court system that would hold them accountable and liable for any infractions. LOST is a dangerous treaty that we need to reject. This treaty hampers the operations of the Navy and it has the potential to hamper the efforts of PSI. It would allow foreign vessels and warships passage rights into our territorial waters. It creates regulation and taxation by an international body, and it presents a legal danger for American businesses through exposure to the international court system.
LOST threatens US sovereignty and security Eagle Forum, 07 – “UN Law of the Sea Treaty Threatens American Sovereignty”,
This week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be holding its second hearing on the UN Law of the Sea Treaty. The Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST,
created the International Seabed Authority (ISA), giving it total jurisdiction over all the oceans and everything in them, including the ocean floor with "all" its riches ("solid, liquid or gaseous mineral resources"), along with the power to regulate seven-tenths of the world's surface. The treaty remains highly defective, despite claims by both the Clinton and Bush Administrations that all Reagan's concerns have been "fixed." If the Senate were to ratify it, LOST would do the following: Threaten American sovereignty by subjecting our governmental, military, and business operations to mandatory dispute resolution, to be decided by bodies that have a reputation for being Anti-American. These "disputes" will be decided in the International Tribunal for the
Law of the Sea.
Compromise American security by requiring the transfer of sensitive, militarily useful technologies to other nations and international organizations hostile to American interests.
Impose U.S. compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, the UN environmentalism treaty. Establish an international tax, which would take money out of the American business revenue stream for the ISA's use and could be easily transferred to socialist, anti-American nations, which constitute the majority of the nations who have already ratified LOST. Grant the U.S. only one vote, despite the fact that the vast majority of funding will come from American taxpayers.
Law of the Sea DA Answers—Kills US Economy/Hegemony
LOST causes economic collapse and loss of hegemony Douglas Stone, 2/28/08, Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy, “Law of the Sea Treaty: Tunnel Vision on the Oceans,” Human Events,
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25235 And on what basis do the Joint Chiefs assure us that the Treaty will serve “our most important” economic objectives. While the Pentagon has its own means to perform economic analysis, the breadth and depth of such a sweeping economic forecast demands a degree of skepticism. This is characteristic of the Chiefs’ seeming failure to appreciate the implications of the Treaty as a whole: even if there are advantages to the military, we would have to accept the
other provisions that are disadvantageous to our economy and our sovereignty, and in that way undermine our national security. LOST fosters the idea, per se, of international organizations with increasing transnational jurisdiction. Its bureaucracy will be nourished by royalties on mineral extraction and provide a model for similar agencies to assume authority and impose taxes -- and to inexorably devour American institutions and autonomy.
Law of the Sea DA Answers—Kills US Hegemony/Military Superiority
LOST collapses U.S. hegemony Baker Spring, Stephen Groves, and Brett D. Schaefer, 9/25/07, F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy at The Heritage
Foundation, Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and Brett D. Schaefer is the Jay Kingham fellow in International Regulatory Affairs at The Heritage Foundation, “The Top Five Reasons Why Conservatives Should Oppose the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea,” Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm1638.cfm Reason #1: The Treaty Will Undermine U.S. Sovereignty. President Reagan rejected the Law of the Sea Convention in 1982 and cited several major deficiencies, none of which have been remedied. Reagan was concerned that the U.S., though a major naval power, would have little influence at the International Seabed Authority that the convention created. Although the Authority is supposed to make decisions by consensus, nothing prevents the rest of the "international community" from consistently voting against the United States, as regularly occurs in similar U.N. bodies, such as the General Assembly. In addition, President Reagan was troubled by the fact that the International Seabed Authority has the power to amend the convention without U.S. consent. That concern has also not been remedied in the intervening years. Another issue is that the convention requires states to transfer information and perhaps technology to mandatory dispute resolution tribunals. Under the convention, parties to a dispute are required to provide a resolution tribunal with "all relevant documents, facilities and
information." This amounts to a blanket invitation for unscrupulous foreign competitors to bring the U.S. and American companies before a tribunal for the sole purpose of obtaining sensitive data and technologies that would otherwise be unavailable to them. The
safeguards against such practices that President Reagan demanded have never come to pass.
LOST undermines U.S. military and intelligence operations Baker Spring, Stephen Groves, and Brett D. Schaefer, 9/25/07, F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy at The Heritage
Foundation, Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and Brett D. Schaefer is the Jay Kingham fellow in International Regulatory Affairs at The Heritage Foundation, “The Top Five Reasons Why Conservatives Should Oppose the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea,” Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm1638.cfm Reason #4: American Participation Will Undermine U.S. Military and Intelligence Operations.
Under the convention, the United States assumes a number of obligations at odds with its military practices and national security interests, including a commitment not to collect intelligence. The U.S. would sign away its ability to collect intelligence vital for American security within the "territorial waters" of any other country (Article 19). Furthermore, U.S. submarines would be required to travel on
the surface and show their flags while sailing within territorial waters (Article 20). This would apply, for example, to U.S. submarines maneuvering in Iranian or North Korean territorial waters; they would be required to sail on the surface with their flags waving.
Law of the Sea DA Answers—LOST → Proliferation Turn
LOST would cause WMD proliferation Weyrich, 04 - Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, “Law of the Sea Treaty Threatens
Sovereignty”, http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/weyrich/041123, 11/23/04 Article 110 fails to permit suspicion of harboring terrorists or the shipping of WMD as justification for boarding a ship on the high seas. Warships can "interfere" with a foreign ship if there is reasonable ground for suspecting that the ship is engaged in piracy, the slave trade, or, conditionally,
unauthorized broadcasting. Warships may also verify foreign ship's flag.
What makes Article 110 so troubling is that, thanks to President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative, our Navy now has the authority to interdict ships thought to be engaged in terrorism or the furthering the proliferation of WMD. Our participation in LOST would render the PSI invalid. It should be noted that PSI is not just a unilateral initiative but one that, according to the White House Fact
Sheet issued on September 4, 2003: "...seeks to involve in some capacity all states that have a stake in nonproliferation and the ability and willingness to take steps to stop the flow of such items at sea, in the air, or on land. The PSI also seeks cooperation from any state whose vessels, flags, ports, territorial waters, airspace, or land might
be used for proliferation purposes by states and non-state actors of proliferation concern. The increasingly aggressive efforts by proliferators to stand outside or to circumvent existing nonproliferation norms, and to profit from such trade, requires new and stronger actions by the international community."
Other nations which had agreed to participate in the PSI by the time the White House had announced our own country's participation include: Australia, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, and Spain.
LOST would invalidate the Proliferation Security Initiative, disrupt US military activities, and threaten US security Bandow, 04 -Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, in an address before the United States Senate Committee on
Armed Services, Washington D.C., “The Law of the Sea Treaty: Inconsistent With American Interests”, 4/8/04 Another concern is the impact of LOST on the President's Proliferation Security Initiative. Although treaty advocates suggest that the LOST would provide an additional forum through which to advance the PSI, it seems more likely that adherence to LOST would constrain Washington's ability to intercept weapons shipments which are problematic, even if legal under international law, including the treaty. After all, any anti-proliferation policy treats nations differently based upon a subjective assessment of the stability and intention of a particular regime. The LOST makes no such distinctions. At best, the treaty is ambiguous regarding the seizure of WMD shipments. Adopting such ambiguity probably does not strengthen Washington's position. Further, treaty advocates contend that whatever the faults of LOST, only participation in the treaty can prevent future damaging interpretations, amendments, and tribunal decisions. However, there is no guarantee that interpretations under the LOST would not impinge upon U.S. military activities. In his Senate testimony last fall, State Department legal
adviser William H. Taft IV noted the importance of conditioning acceptance "upon the understanding that each Party has the exclusive right to determine which of its activities are 'military activities' and that such determination is not subject to review." Whether other members will respect that claim is not so certain. Adm.
Michael G. Mullen, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, acknowledges the possibility that a LOST tribunal could assert jurisdiction and rule adversely, impacting "operational planning and activities, and our security."
PSI Good—Solves Proliferation
PSI key to control proliferation
Sharon Squassoni, 6/7/05, Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/48624.pdf In the December 2002 National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Proliferation, the Bush Administration highlighted a more activist approach to countering proliferation. While noting that traditional nonproliferation measures such as diplomacy, arms control, threat reduction assistance, and export controls should be enhanced, the strategy placed increasing emphasis on countering proliferation once it has occurred and managing the consequences of WMD use. In particular, interdiction of WMD-related goods gained more prominence. U.S. policy sought to “enhance the capabilities of our military, intelligence, technical, and law enforcement communities to prevent the movement of WMD materials, technology, and expertise to hostile states and terrorist organizations.” President Bush unveiled the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) in Krakow, Poland, on May 31, 2003. Deemed “foremost among President Bush’s efforts to stop WMD proliferation,” PSI appears to be a new channel for interdiction cooperation outside of treaties and multilateral export control regimes.2 It may informally expand the number of cooperating countries without expanding membership in export control groups (Nuclear Suppliers’ Group, Australia Group, and the Missile Technology Control Regime).
Law of the Sea DA Answers—Military Power/Counterterrorism Turn
LOST would collapse US military power and undermine the war on terrorism VERNON 10 – 15 – 7 Washington-based writer and veteran broadcast journalist
[Wes, “No excuses: now you know "what Reagan would do" on LOST,” http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/071015] "Fixed"? No way Clark and Meese say if anything, adopting the treaty would be even more contrary to American interests than it was when Malone said that the 1994 Clinton administration "fix" not only failed to address seabed mining provisions, but "the collectivist ideologies of a now repudiated system of global central planning still embedded in the treaty" prompt a "new and potentially serious concern." Their Meese-Clark article notes the treaty leaves the U.S. vulnerable to such factors as "increasingly brazen hostility" of the UN and other international entities to American interests; the UN's ambition to impose international taxes; the world environmentalist drive to force the U.S. to adopt jobs-killing policies rejected by our elected officials; a worldwide "jurisprudence" that would "trump" American constitutional rights; and enabling adversaries of the U.S. military to impede American military and intelligence operations — in other words, tie our hands so we could not protect ourselves from attack. Just what we need when threatened by bloodthirsty terrorists who want to kill Americans — any Americans.
That insures a global nuclear exchange Khalilzad 1995 (Zalmay, Washington Quarterly, Spring, lexis)
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
Winning the war on terrorism is key to global survival Jerusalem Post 5/12/04 (lexis)
submission only serves to encourage terrorists and their leaders and boost their motivation, while survival would depend on nations taking all necessary steps to reduce the risks, including international intelligence cooperation. "Dealing with terrorism requires a broad range of responses, starting with clear and coherent policies. It is necessary to have quality intelligence, as
In the first case, he maintained that well as law enforcement, the military, and the means to counter technological and cyber-terrorism," said Alexander. "We also need an educational response because the children of today will be the terrorists of tomorrow. Unless we can defuse the extremist ideological and theological elements and their propaganda, the measures won't work. "We have to deal with the root causes and try to improve economic and social conditions - a sort of global Marshall plan - but first it is necessary to deal with the terror leadership. "To this end some innocent civilians might be harmed but, make no mistake, this is war and to fight it nations have to pool their resources. No nation can deal with the problem unilaterally. "In the past, terrorism was regarded as a tactical rather than a strategic threat but it has become a permanent fixture and a challenge to the strategic interests of nations. "In fact," said Alexander, "it
represents the most threatening challenge to civilization in the 21st century. The question of survival will depend to a great extent on how civilized society tackles this threat."
--Alexander = director of the Inter-Universities Center for Terrorism Studies
Law of the Sea DA Answers—Space Privatization Turn
LOST creates regulatory disincentives to space privatization Bandow 9-25-7 (Doug, Bastiat Scholar in Free Enterprise at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "The Law of the Sea Treaty:
Impeding American Entrepreneurship and Investment,” http://cei.org/pdf/6151.pdf) Moreover, the LOST could set a bad regulatory precedent for the commercial development of space. The U.N.’s Moon Treaty, which is technically in force, mimics the LOST’s common heritage rhetoric, but establishes no institutional regulatory framework. Subjecting private space exploration and development to a LOST-like system would discourage private ventures. With the only economically viable private space operations limited to launching satellites, the impact of an intergalactic LOST might seem slight. Nevertheless, serious entrepreneurs are entering the industry.15 Making a profit while exploring space is a daunting enough prospect. Attempting to do so when subject to an aggressive regulatory agency likely would be impossible. Mankind would lose not only new technologies, but the very possibility of reaching the heavens. Many of LOST’s costs are obvious, and reason enough to reject the treaty. But the agreement’s potentially greatest costs are unknown today. By punishing entrepreneurship directed at transforming the great frontiers of the oceans and space, LOST threatens potentially enormous losses well into the future. The exact impact of the regulatory regime might be unpredictable, since the treaty’s exact operation is not certain. But the magnitude of the loss would be enormous.
Privatizing space is key to survival Tumlinson 03 (Richard- President of Space Frontier Foundation, “Future of NASA,” FDCH Congressional Testimony, Oct 29,
Our first possible choice, and the one lots of folks sometimes seem to believe is inevitable, is the worst. It's what might happen if we keep on rolling along and do nothing about conserving our natural resources or accessing new. The characterization we see in popular culture and films such as the Matrix, the Terminator series, and other dark dystopian images. It is an apocalyptic vision, the result of a time when all the world's cultures rush to create consumer societies such as those in Europe, Japan and the USA. Eventually our excesses exceed our limits and we end up with a polluted and stripped world whose
environment collapses, bringing down whole societies, leading to war, famine, the end of global culture, and the dawn of a new dark age. Our second choice is to attempt to sustain the human race on this one world through rationing of resources - at the cost of personal freedom - as we
anesthetize ourselves with virtual realities and sensory distortions. . . Under the heavy hand of global Big Brother, our lives, actions, and even our very thoughts will be monitored and controlled. Imagination and innovation will be seen as threats to order and safety. Risk will be avoided at all cost. Perhaps we will
eventually become so physically and intellectually passive that we finally load ourselves into banks of virtual electronic realities and pass the eons in a bliss of pretend adventures and paradises uncounted, until some global catastrophe such as an asteroid strike sends us into oblivion. Or there's the third choice, opening the High Frontier of space and breaking out into the galaxy. Celebrating the spirit of exploration and individuality, we begin to truly explore and open the space around us to human settlement. Turning debates between free enterprise technologists and protectors of the Earth on their heads, we unleash the power of human imagination to create ways to harvest the resources of space, not only saving this precious planet, but also blazing a path to the stars. This is a tomorrow where life is exciting,
new possibilities open up each day, and humanity spreads outwards, as the harbinger of life to worlds now dead. This future is characterized by new ideas and cultures spreading every where, the entire human race engaged in spreading life to the stars and a future that is ever expanding and hopeful. Opening the space frontier will also change what it means to be an American. The effect of the space frontier on America will be profound. Our pioneering past will at last have a direct link to our future. Our heritage will be connected with our tomorrow in a visible and exciting way. The paths blazed by Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett and Lewis and Clark will continue onward and upward across the stars. The spirit of family will be resurrected as the frontier ethics of hard work and familial support are reinforced through the simple need to survive and prosper in a hostile environment. Our relationship to the rest of the world will change, as we throw open the doors to a better tomorrow for all, and as we always do, offer to hold those doors open for all and everyone to follow. Opening the frontier will change what it means to be a human being. We will become a multi-planet species, assuring our survival, and that of the life forms for which we are responsible. And a child living in such times will know why they are alive, and be able to see an unending and ever opening panorama of possibility stretching out before them
US-Colombia FTA DA—1NC Shell
The US-Colombia FTA prospects for passage are increasing, thanks in large part to Bush administration lobbying efforts
Investor's Business Daily 6/11/08 (lexis)
Congress: Is the outlook improving on passing Colombia free trade? Apparently, yes. Monday, its trade minister noted a "good atmosphere" in Congress. If so, Democrats may finally be considering their own interests. In a release on Colombia's presidential Web site, Trade Minister Luis Guillermo Plata said U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson advised him that efforts to persuade congressional Democrats to hold a vote on the long-stalled pact were starting to look up. Such a vote could be held as soon as the interim between November's election and the inauguration of the next president. Paulson has been working the Hill almost weekly selling the virtues of free trade, and it might finally be bearing fruit.
Spokeswoman Brooke McLaughlin said "he conveyed (to Plata) how hard he was working to make progress in Congress." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly, noted Pelosi has a solid working relationship with Paulson, and both were trying to strike a deal. But any vote still hinges on a package for trade adjustment assistance, unemployment insurance and aid to states that both sides could agree on, he said. While we're not fans of more government spending, it's a lot better than the false moralizing we've heard in the past from some Democratic quarters about Colombia not being virtuous enough for us to let it slash tariffs on goods we sell there -- something that unambiguously helps U.S. companies. As November's elections beckon, practical concerns may be coming to the fore. A vote held after the election but before the next leader comes into office wouldn't affect a President John McCain much. But it would spare a President Barack Obama from having to keep an ill-thought campaign vow to isolate Colombia. It also would give him a stronger hand in the region to negotiate with tyrants, including Venezuela's strongman, Hugo Chavez, as he's said he'd do. But Pelosi ought to consider moving even faster than that. McCain thinks Colombia is a big campaign issue, and is heading there in July for a showy tour to call for free trade. He'll be able to show the country's improved security and economic progress. There'll be crowds from barrios who'll loudly cheer McCain as a champion of the poor. Pelosi might consider how that will play with the hotly contested U.S. Latino vote if the trade pact stalls. She should consider the U.S. economy, too.
Plata called Canada's passage of its own Colombia free trade pact -- concluded last Saturday -- "a factor" that was getting Democrats' attention. As we noted last week, Canadians will eat our lunch with their own tariff-free goods, while American companies sit on the sidelines
paying $1 billion a year in levies and lose business.
B. Political capital is key Time 11/28/07 ("See Colombia. Ratify Free Trade," http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1688557,00.html)
Gutierrez says he wants the Colombia FTA to at least be given a chance for a vote. "We can get the votes for Colombia," he said. But by his own admission it will take "a lot of hard work and a lot of convincing." And it will probably take a few more visits to that hilltop library, too.
Even though at this point there do not appear to be enough legislators backing passage,
C. Insert specific link
US-Colombia FTA DA—1NC Shell
D. US-Colombia FTA passage is key to preventing the spread of failed states throughout South America Blunt 9/25/07 (Roy, House Republican Whip, "We need Colombia more than it needs us,"
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3E820BA6-3048-5C12-00BEE44C7D34B7B3) But while opening this major new market to U.S.-manufactured goods, agriculture and services without a tariff would seem to be a “no-brainer,” the long-term strategic imperative of establishing an economic partnership with Colombia far outweighs any economic benefits that may accrue.
In fact, I believe the geopolitical impact of a free trade agreement with Colombia is more important for our citizens than it is for theirs. Consider the context.
South America has come to be defined over the years by fluid politics and uneven economic performance — a perfect breeding ground for radical ideologies to gain a foothold in the political process, and a perfect landscape for autocrats like Hugo Chavez to influence his neighbors and spread his message of antipathy for the United States. Not surprisingly, nearly every South American country has shifted away from the United States over the past decade — with the noteworthy exception of Colombia. We have an opportunity to reverse this dangerous trend and establish a stable foundation on which a policy of mutual respect and regional cooperation can be built.
For his part, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe is determined to meet our country more than halfway in this endeavor, committing his nation down a path of institutional reform and renewing his focus on fighting corruption and drug trafficking — a program that threatens his political career and puts his life in constant peril. Unfortunately, neither Uribe’s commitment to reform nor the obvious strategic benefit of a stable Colombia has made much of an impression on the current Congress in Washington. The majority in the House remains unconvinced by Uribe’s dramatic success in building new institutions of finance and security across his country. This has thrust the nation into a political purgatory on Capitol Hill — with many insisting that no reform it initiates is good enough for their ever-changing standards of progress. Remember,
this is a nation with a murder rate that has fallen by nearly half since 2002, with violence targeted at union officials dropping off in some categories
by 90 percent. It is a nation that
has taken the billions of dollars in U.S. security assistance and done something constructive with it, combining foreign resources with competent local leadership to produce real results in the war on drugs — a reliable source of revenue for terrorists. We have a clear opportunity to consolidate these tremendous short-term gains and establish a long-term partner for peace and prosperity in South America.
E. The impact is starvation, disease, genocide, and WMD warlordism around the globe Manwaring 05 - Professor of Military Strategy @ U.S. Army War College.
The Issue of State Failure. - President Chávez also understands that the process leading to [Max G. Manwaring , Retired U.S. Army colonel and an Adjunct Professor of International Politics at Dickinson College, VENEZUELA’S HUGO CHÁVEZ, BOLIVARIAN SOCIALISM, AND ASYMMETRIC WARFARE, October 2005, pg. PUB628.pdf]
state failure is the most dangerous long-term security challenge facing the global community today. The argument in general is that failing and failed state status is the breeding ground for instability, criminality, insurgency, regional conflict, and terrorism. These conditions breed massive humanitarian disasters and major refugee flows. They can host “evil” networks of all kinds, whether they involve criminal business enterprise, narco-trafficking, or some form of ideological crusade such as Bolivarianismo. More specifically, these conditions spawn all kinds of things people in general do not like such as murder, kidnapping, corruption, intimidation, and destruction of infrastructure. These means of coercion and persuasion can spawn further human rights violations, torture, poverty, starvation, disease, the recruitment and use of child soldiers, trafficking in women and body parts, trafficking and proliferation of conventional weapons systems and WMD, genocide, ethnic cleansing, warlordism, and criminal anarchy. At the same time, these actions are usually unconfined and spill over into regional syndromes of poverty, destabilization, and conflict.62
Peru’s Sendero Luminoso calls violent and destructive activities that facilitate the processes of state failure “armed propaganda.” Drug cartels operating throughout the Andean Ridge of South America and elsewhere call these activities “business incentives.” Chávez considers these actions to be steps that must be taken to bring about the political conditions necessary to establish Latin American socialism for the 21st century.63 Thus, in addition to helping to provide wider latitude to further their tactical and operational objectives, state and nonstate actors’ strategic efforts are aimed at progressively lessening a targeted regime’s credibility and capability in terms of its ability and willingness to govern and develop its national territory and society. Chávez’s intent is to focus his primary attack politically and psychologically on selected Latin American governments’ ability and right to govern. In that context, he understands that popular perceptions of corruption, disenfranchisement, poverty, and lack of upward mobility limit the right and the ability of a given regime to conduct the business of the state. Until a given populace generally perceives that its government is dealing with these and other basic issues of political, economic, and social injustice fairly and effectively, instability and the threat of subverting or destroying such a government are real.64
But failing and failed states simply do not go away. Virtually anyone can take advantage of such an unstable situation. The tendency is that the best motivated and best armed organization on the scene will control that instability . As a consequence, failing and failed states become dysfunctional states, rogue states, criminal states, narco-states, or new people’s democracies. In connection with the creation of new people’s democracies, one can rest assured that Chávez and his Bolivarian populist allies will be available to provide money, arms, and leadership at any given opportunity. And, of course, the longer dysfunctional, rogue, criminal, and narco-states and people’s democracies persist, the more they and their associated problems endanger global security, peace, and prosperity.65 34
US-Colombia FTA DA—2NC Must Read—Will Pass + Capital Key
Bush and the business lobby are determined to pass Colombia FTA—the trade pact will pass, but political capital is key Daily Times 1/10/08 ("US business holds out hope for trade deals in 2008," http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?
page=2008%5C01%5C10%5Cstory_10-1-2008_pg5_41) WASHINGTON: US business plans to push hard for approval of free trade deals with Colombia and South Korea this year, even though
leading Democratic presidential candidates oppose the two pacts, lobbyists said on Tuesday.
“I see these trade agreements as getting done in 2008 and it’s our commitment to trying to get them done,” Thomas Donohue, president of the US Chamber of Commerce, said at a news conference to lay out the group’s legislative agenda for the year. But even if the White House can persuade congressional leaders to schedule votes on the agreements, Donohue acknowledged they might just barely squeak through. “A trade agreement that’s passed by one vote is as good as a trade agreement that’s passed by a hundred votes,” Donohue said. The Bush administration hopes to add to its trade record by winning approval of those two agreements as well as one with Panama before President George W. Bush leaves office in January 2009.
With anti-trade sentiment running high in the Democratic Party, presidential candidates Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards have all come out against the pacts. The pact with Panama faces problems because the head of that country’s legislature is wanted in the United States on charges of killing a US soldier in 1992. However, the Bush administration hopes that issue will be resolved when the lawmaker’s term as president of Panama’s National Assembly ends in September. All three agreements were signed before the White House’s “fast-track” trade promotion authority expired in June 2007. That law requires lawmakers to vote within 90 legislative days on any trade agreements that Bush sends to Congress, which has yet to happen with these three pacts. Bush administration officials say they want to work out an agreement with congressional leaders, rather than forcing the trade deals down Congress’ throat. Wishful thinking: Donohue argued whoever is elected president should be grateful to have Congress approve the agreements this year so they don’t have to contend with them early in 2009. “Hopefully, they’ll pass the word that that’s what they’d like Congress to do,” Donohue said. But Thea Lee, policy director for the AFL-CIO labor federation, which opposes the Colombian and South Korean agreements, said that was wishful thinking. “We do not have any indications from any of the Democratic presidential candidates that they are interested in getting the pending FTAs ‘out of the way’ this year,” Lee said. “Quite the contrary. I think they are all committed to addressing the deep problems in our trade policy — and that won’t be a quick fix in an election year,” she added. Lee said she’d also seen no indications that congressional leaders would consent to a vote on the trade deals. But Frank Vargo, vice president for international economic affairs at the National Association of Manufacturers, said he shared
Donohue’s optimism. With hard work, “there is a a good chance Congress will realize we are better off with these deals than without them, and that the cost to the United States of rejecting them is just too high in terms of both economic and strategic impacts,” he said.
US-Colombia FTA DA—Internals—Capital Key
Bush's ability to persuade is key to securing passage of the Colombia FTA Latinnews Daily 2/7/08 (lexis)
Colombia: On 5 February, US Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell issued a report in which he claimed that Colombia has "significantly reduced" the strength of the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (Farc). He also described
Colombia as the US's most loyal ally in Latin America. The assessment pre-empts two key decisions on Colombia yet to be taken by US congress - the vote over the bilateral free-trade agreement and the composition of US aid to Colombia in 2009. If the administration can persuade congress that US
assistance to Colombia is bearing fruit, it is possible that the Democrats, who control congress, will support the free trade agreement. President George W Bush unveiled its budget for 2009 which included $545USm for Colombia - almost exactly the same amount as the $542USm
assigned for 2008.
Capital is key to passing the US-Colombia FTA National Journal's CongressDaily 3/31/06 (lexis)
Portman plans to present Congress with a "full plate" of legislative agenda items over the next 12 months, a strategy that might force the Bush administration to spend considerable political capital on trade while it pursues other critical
Trade Representative foreign and domestic priorities.
Included on Portman's list are potential lightning rods like a Colombia free-trade agreement, approval of permanent normal trade
relations with Russia, the Doha world trade round agreement and reauthorization of presidential trade negotiating authority. Portman wants Congress to approve the latter by the time the current authority runs out in July 2007 in order to provide seamless coverage.
Capital is key to passing Latin America trade deals Aznar 5/31/07 (Jose Maria, Distinguished Scholar at Georgetown University, Heritage Foundation Reports, lexis)
Trade is a wonderful tool for freedom and progress.
I praise the efforts of President Bush's Administration to strengthen the commercial links with Latin America. Free trade with Latin America is a goal worthy of investing political capital. Free trade is hated both by Latin American populists and by a part of the left in the United States and Europe. But we know that free trade is a decent policy. It drives progress
through freedom of choice.
Political capital key to securing Colombia free trade pact passage Orlando Sentinel 9/4/06 (lexis)
Postscript: President Bush's failure to spend more political capital in getting Congress to pass an already-signed free trade agreement with Peru and to extend trade preferences with Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia that expire Jan. 1 could have dire consequences. If Bush doesn't move fast to at least seal the deals with Peru and Colombia, only he will be to blame for an even greater loss of U.S. influence in the
US-Colombia FTA DA—Internals—Republican Support Key
Peru proves—Republican support is key to passing Colombia FTA CongressNow 1/7/08 (lexis)
The Colombia agreement and other stalled trade deals with Panama and South Korea have met with resistance from liberal lawmakers, largely because they believe the agreements lead to job losses within their districts. The only agreement to recently advance from Congress and be enacted is one with Peru. Even in that case, many freshman Democrats from both chambers opposed it because of its potential ill effects on employment. The legislation passed on the strength of Republican support.
Irritating Republicans before the Colombia FTA vote dooms its chances of passage Hitt 1/17/08 (Greg, Staff, Wall St Journal, "Socks Burden Bush's Trade Goals,"
WASHINGTON -- Even as it pushes for passage of a free-trade deal with Colombia, the Bush administration is mulling whether to curb imports from another Latin American trading partner, Honduras. The strategic commodity at issue: socks. That the administration would consider such a move is evidence of President Bush's struggle to sustain momentum for liberalizing trade, even as public doubts are growing about the benefits of integrating the U.S. economy into the global marketplace. Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are courting votes with promises to help American workers confront the challenge posed by cheap goods from low-wage nations. The dispute over Honduran socks shows the nitty-gritty side of trade policy, which often is less about debates over open borders and free investment that take place at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, than it is about narrow disputes over specific products made in locales blessed with influential lawmakers. The decision on Honduran sock imports, which could come this week, is rooted in the fight to win passage of the U.S. trade pact with Central America -- the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or Cafta -- and commitments made to win the support of an Alabama lawmaker who has made a priority of protecting sock makers from foreign competition. David Spooner, a top-ranking Commerce Department official, said the government is studying all "relevant information pertaining to imports of socks from Honduras" and "will make a decision based on the merits." He declined further comment. The issue is sensitive in part because the White House doesn't want to rile lawmakers ahead of the vote on the Colombia free-trade deal. The administration could irritate some key Republican lawmakers if it can't finesse the Honduran sock challenge, which Mr.
Bush hardly needs, given his larger problems with the Democratic-controlled Congress.
US-Colombia FTA DA—Internals—2NC Bipartisanship Scenario
Bipartisanship key to passing Colombia FTA Hakim 10/27/07 (Peter, President @ Inter-American Dialogue, "Ratifying the Colombia-US FTA,"
Last May, the Administration and Congressional Democrats were able to reach accord on the long-standing Democratic demand that labor standards be incorporated into trade treaties. As a result, US unions dropped their opposition to free trade deals with Peru and Panama—which will likely allow the Peruvian pact to be approved within the next weeks. The important point is that, despite fundamental differences, Republicans and Democrats can
sometimes find common ground on trade matters. It should certainly be possible on the Colombia FTA. After all, Colombia is widely acknowledged as one of the US’s closest allies in Latin America—and since 1998, a broad bipartisan coalition has supported a Colombian aid package of some $600 million a year to fight drugs and guerrillas.
US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—2NC Democratization Scenario
--Failure to approve the Colombia FTA undermines democracy throughout Latin America Thomson 12/10/07 (John, international businessman and former diplomat, Wash Times, "Rolling Back Hugo Chavez's
"Revolution," http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=3D5B4AA6-DFE8-4157-96F2-8936F6040657) Mr. Chavez has committed to effect the changes he needs to achieve one-man rule and dictate as long as he wishes; moreover, he remains fully committed to strengthen and extend his Bolivarian Revolution throughout Latin America. With five countries — Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Venezuela — effectively within his orbit, the next targets are Peru and Colombia. Fortunately, Peru has been supported by the recently approved free trade agreement with the United States. Colombia is more gravely threatened for two reasons: proximity to Venezuela and congressional opposition to its own free trade pact. Bowing to opposition by the AFL-CIO, purportedly because of "human rights concerns," Democratic congressional leadership has so far refused to schedule
a vote for the agreement, playing directly into Mr. Chavez' and Colombian leftists' claims that Washington is no friend of Colombia. Almost since coming to power, Mr. Chavez has curried relations with FARC, the murderous Colombian communist guerrilla and narcotics trafficking organization. FARC troops maintain bases in the Venezuelan jungle bordering Colombia and their leaders have safe haven homes in Caracas (FARC "Foreign Minister" Rodrigo Granda carries Venezuelan identification and is a registered voter). Chavez functionaries have developed a plan to give some 2 million permanent resident visas to Colombian illegal immigrants in return for voting their way in 2010, and Venezuelan medical vans, manned by Cuban doctors, offer free care to Colombians across the border. In addition, the would-be Venezuelan president-for-life has close relations with leaders of Colombia's far left Polo Democratico Party, which finished second in last year's presidential elections and in October elected its second successive mayor of the country's capital, Bogota. Mr. Chavez has boasted of spending as much $5 billion — more if necessary — to have his favored candidate win Colombian presidential elections in 2010, and everything suggests that between his FARC and Polo Democratico allies he has a powerful supporting infrastructure. President Alvaro Uribe has waged an all-out war on narcotics and terrorism — even sending specialist army troops to aid in Afghanistan's war on drugs — ranking his government as the United States' closest Latin American ally. Failure to approve the U.S.-Colombian free
trade agreement will hurt democracy gravely, not just in Colombia but throughout the entire region.
--This undermines global democratization Fauriol and Weintraub 95 (Georges and Sidney, director of the CSIS Americas Program + Dean Rusk Professor at the
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at Univ. of Texas, Washington Quarterly, Summer)
Yet this triad of objectives -- economic
liberalization and free trade, democratization, and sustainable development/ alleviation of poverty -- is generally are also themes expounded widely by the United States, but with more vigor in this hemisphere than anywhere else in the developing world. Thus, failure to advance on all three in Latin America will compromise progress elsewhere in the world.
accepted in the hemisphere. The commitment to the latter two varies by country, but all three are taken as valid. All three
--The impact is extinction Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict 95 (October, "Promoting Democracy in the 1990's,"
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. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY 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.
US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—2NC Food Security Module
--US-Colombia FTA strengthens the US agriculture industry via lower duties and increased market access Office of the US Trade Representative 07 ("The Case for the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement,"
http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Fact_Sheets/2007/asset_upload_file782_13309.pdf) America’s two-way trade with Colombia reached $16 billion in 2006, making Colombia our fifth largest trading partner in Latin America and our largest export market for U.S. agriculture products in South America. In 2006, total U.S. goods exports to Colombia reached $6.7 billion. The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement will further open this dynamic and growing economy to American goods and services. It will provide particular benefits to U.S. farmers and ranchers by immediately eliminating Colombia’s duties on high quality beef, cotton, wheat, soybeans, key fruits vegetables and many processed foods upon entry into force of the agreement.
1. Open a significant new export market. 2. Level the playing field for American business, farmers, ranchers and workers. America’s market is already open to imports from Colombia. In 2006, for example, 92 percent of U.S. imports from Colombia entered the United States duty-free under our most-favored nation tariff rates and various preference programs, such as the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) and the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). The U.S.-Colombia trade agreement will give American businesses, farmers, ranchers and workers similar access to this important market. Upon entry into force of the agreement, over 80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods to Colombia will enter duty-free immediately. The Agreement also will provide substantial
new opportunities for U.S. farmers’ and ranchers’ agricultural exports, and resolve sanitary and phytosanitary barriers to agricultural trade with Colombia. In addition, the agreement will remove barriers to U.S. services, provide a secure and predictable legal framework for
investors, and strengthen protection for intellectual property, workers and the environment.
--US agriculture industry is key to global food security Wiebe 00 (Keith, US Dept of Agriculture, "7.1 Sustainable Resource Use and Global Food Security,"
Sustainable resource use refers to a pattern of resource use that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability to meet the needs of the future (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987; Hrubovcak, Vasavada, and Aldy, 1999). Food security is among the most basic of these needs, and
agriculture is one of the most important of the activities by which resources are used to achieve food security (see “Glossary”). U.S. agriculture is central to this relationship. The U.S. currently produces about a third of the world=s coarse grain, half of its soybeans, and accounts for about two thirds of world trade in those commodities (as well as a third of world trade in wheat) -- numbers that are projected to remain steady over the next decade (ERS, 1998). The U.S. has also accounted for about half of world food aid in cereals in recent years (FAO, 1999). The issue of sustainability will be considered in greater depth after a review of concepts and trends in resource use and food security.
--The impact is World War 3 Calvin 98 (William, Theoretical Neurophysiologist – U Washington, Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol 281, No. 1, p. 47-64)
Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands--if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better organized countries would attempt to use their armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This would be a world-wide problem--and could lead to a Third World War.
US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—2NC Drug Trafficking Module
--Colombia FTA is key to US-Colombia ties that are vital in combating drug trafficking Office of the US Trade Representative 07 ("The Case for the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement,"
http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Fact_Sheets/2007/asset_upload_file782_13309.pdf) Colombia has been a steadfast partner in combating narcotics trafficking and countering regional terror groups. The Colombian people support the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement in large numbers. An Invamer-Gallup
5. Anchor longstanding ties with a vital regional ally. Poll published in El Tiempo May 4, found Uribe’s approval rating reached 75 percent. The Colombian Congress voted 55 to 3 in favor of the agreement showing that the Colombian people are confident that stronger ties to the U.S. will make them more secure, stable and prosperous. Approval and implementation of
the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement will be a critical signal of America’s support for the Colombian people, who have chosen to strengthen ties with the United States in the belief that reciprocal market access will contribute to the overall growth and development of their nation.
--Colombia-based drug trafficking kills 52,000 a year Coverdell 00 (Paul, fmr US Senator--Georgia, Augusta Chronicle, 4/12, lexis)
Regional instability not only threatens a large source of U.S. oil (our hemisphere provides about half our total oil imports), it fuels a steady flow of drugs onto our streets. Colombia supplies 80 percent of the cocaine and 60 percent of the heroin consumed in the United States. Narcotics
represent the most immediate and deadly threat we face in the hemisphere, causing 52,000 deaths a year and costing an estimated $ 110 billion annually.
US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—2NC Manufacturing Industry Module
--US-Colombia FTA is key to the global competitiveness of US manufacturing National Association of Manufacturers 07 ("American Manufacturers Support the Colombia Free Trade Agreement,"
http://www.nam.org/hidden/pdf/Level_the_Playing_Field_Colombia.pdf) The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement will level the playing field for American manufacturers. Colombia is a market that presents significant export opportunities for manufacturers. Over the past fifteen years, Colombia’s GDP has expanded by an annual
average of 4.2%. The national security impact of this trade agreement cannot be overstated. Colombia is a crucial friend and ally whose long-term commitment to democracy and openness is key in a region where some nations are hostile to the United States. Swift passage of this agreement will bolster President Uribe’s efforts to continue to improve Colombia’s reforms. Due to the Andean Trade Preferences Act, over 90% of Colombia’s exports to the U.S. enter our market duty free – they face no tariffs. Half of Colombia’s exports to the United States are crucial raw materials that are in high demand in the United States – oil and other energy stocks. U.S. manufactured goods exports to Colombia have been steadily increasing the past few years. In 2006, manufacturers exported $6.7 billion in manufactured goods to Colombia, a 24% increase from 2005. According to the Department of Commerce, 6,763 small and medium companies exported manufactured goods to Colombia in 2005, representing 84% of total U.S. manufacturing exporters.
However, U.S. manufactured goods exports to Colombia face tariffs averaging approximately 15 percent. While Colombia enjoys almost completely open and duty-free access to the United States, our ability to export to their market remains limited. Passage of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement levels the field and provides American manufacturers with preferential treatment over competitors around the world.
--Healthy manufacturing sector is vital to the US economy and US global leadership Vargo 10/1/03 (Franklin, International Economic Affairs National Association of Manufacturers, FDCH, lexis)
I would like to begin my statement with a review of why manufacturing is vital to the U.S. economy. Since manufacturing only represents about 16 percent of the nation's output, who cares? Isn't the United States a post-manufacturing services economy? Who needs manufacturing? The answer in brief is that the United
States economy would collapse without manufacturing, as would our national security and our role in the world. That is because manufacturing is really the foundation of our economy, both in terms of innovation and production and in terms of supporting the rest of the economy. For example, many individuals point out that only about 3 percent of the U.S. workforce is on the farm, but they
manage to feed the nation and export to the rest of the world. But how did this agricultural productivity come to be? It is because of the tractors and combines and satellite systems and fertilizers and advanced seeds, etc. that came from the genius and productivity of the manufacturing sector. Similarly, in services -- can you envision an airline without airplanes? Fast food outlets without griddles and freezers? Insurance companies or banks without computers? Certainly not. The manufacturing industry is truly the innovation industry, without which the rest of the economy could not
prosper. Manufacturing performs over 60 percent of the nation's research and development. Additionally, it also underlies the technological ability of the United States to maintain its national security and its global leadership. Manufacturing makes a disproportionately large contribution to productivity, more than twice the rate of the overall economy, and pays wages that are about 20 percent higher than in other sectors. But its most fundamental importance lies in the fact that a healthy manufacturing sector truly underlies the entire U.S. standard of living -- because it is the principal way by which the United States pays its way in the world. Manufacturing accounts for over 80 percent of all U.S. exports of goods. America's farmers will export somewhat over $50 billion this year, but
America's manufacturers export almost that much every month! Even when services are included, manufacturing accounts for two-thirds of all U.S. exports of goods and services.
--US leadership solves global problems and prevents nuclear war Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay, RAND, Washington Quarterly, Spring)
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S.
leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—2NC Civil War Module
--Failure to approve the Colombia FTA risks the renewal of civil war Negroponte 5/22/07 (John, Deputy Secretary of State, "Helping Colombia is in our national interest,"
In addition to extending Plan Colombia, President Bush has asked Congress to approve a free-trade agreement with Colombia this year. If
passed, an FTA would further investment and growth and help more Colombians climb out of poverty. If Congress does not act, the conflict in Colombia is likely to intensify, undermining years of bilateral effort that are finally paying off. That would be a tragedy, particularly at a critical moment in defining the future U.S. role in the Americas. An FTA with Colombia, as well as Peru
and Panama, will underscore our commitment to help the region's people conquer poverty, achieve social justice and live their lives in peace.
--Further escalation of the Colombian civil war results in regional conflict escalation and a weakening of US leadership Rabasa and Chalk 01 (Angel and Peter, Foreign Policy Analysts @ RAND, Colombian Labyrinth: The Synergy of Drugs
and Insurgency and Its Implications for Regional Stability, www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1339/) Colombia’s crisis has developed into a serious security concern for its neighbors. Panamanians feel helpless to prevent the use of their territory
by Colombian factions. Ecuadoreans are conscious of the vulnerability of their country’s vital oil installations in the Oriente, within striking distance of the Colombian border, and fear that the Colombian drug-production problem could metastasize in Ecuador. All are concerned about refugee flows from Colombia.
A further deterioration of security in Colombia would pose a serious threat to the security and stability of neighboring states and drive a greater regionalization of the conflict. So far the response of most of Colombia’s neighbors, as noted above, is to try to insulate themselves from the consequences of the Colombian conflict. However, efforts to control the borders are unlikely to be successful, given the
remoteness and inaccessibility and the lack of government infrastructure in much of the border area.
The widening of Colombia’s conflict would severely test the viability of the existing regional security architecture and of U.S. leadership in hemispheric security institutions. The states most threatened by the spillover of the conflict would seek U.S. assistance and leadership.
Others could try to work out an accommodation with the guerrillas. The United States would be confronted by the choice of leading a coalition-building effort to stabilize the regional environment, letting events take their course, or deferring to initiatives led by other parties (for instance, Brazil) and accepting a commensurate loss of regional influence.
US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—2NC War on Terrorism Module
--Failure to approve the Colombia FTA undermines the war on terrorism Asnar 07 (Jose Maria, fmr Spanish Prime Minister, "The Case for the Colombia FTA,"
http://www.hacer.org/current/US429.php) Colombia faces immense difficulties and if it, and Western liberal democracies, are to triumph over terrorism, we need to pull together. This means strengthening both security and economic development. If, on the other hand, the West turns its back, it will send a devastating message not only to Colombians but to the wider world.
Colombia has been a democracy for many years now. There is no doubt that, like any human endeavor, it is imperfect. But Colombians have long demonstrated their desire to preserve the freedom it provides and to improve on it. This hasn't been easy, because the narcoterrorists have used unspeakable brutality against civilians in the hope of destroying their dream. In the past, groups like the FARC enjoyed a spurious international legitimacy, based on a false perception that they were fighters for social justice. Those days are over. As a friend of Colombia, I was honored in my capacity as president of the Spanish government for me to ensure that FARC was included on the European Union's list of terrorist organizations in 2002. If there was ever any doubt regarding the FARC's true intentions, this dissipated entirely in 2002 when then-President Andrés Pastrana, with democratic support, was forced to abandon his good-faith effort toward establishing a dialogue with the terrorist organization. By refusing to come to the table, the FARC showed its complete lack of scruples, and that it is only motivated by an overwhelming thirst for power and a desire to continue its crime-based activities. Since then Mr. Uribe has been elected twice -- once in 2002 and again in 2006 -- precisely because he promised that, under the rule of law and democracy, he would employ all of the weapons available to the state to defeat terrorism. This is also the wish of those who took to the streets of Colombia just last week. Mr. Uribe also has another anti-democratic challenge coming from Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and his hemispheric project to spread what he calls "21st century socialism." Mr. Chávez's ideology despises Western values and wherever it has taken root, freedom has begun to recede. It is a threat to the entire region and it is no coincidence that its proponents are allies of the FARC, which regards Colombian democracy as a foe that must be defeated. Colombia needs its friends, not least because these enemies of freedom are powerful and well-equipped. Cocaine consumption in rich countries is the main source of financing for the FARC, a fact that makes support for Mr. Uribe's efforts both an ethical obligation for Western democracies and also in their own interests. Plan Colombia, an initiative to combat narcotrafficking begun during the administration of President Clinton with support from Europe, recognizes this obligation. President Bush continues to support the plan. Colombia also has to strive to reduce peasant dependency on growing coca crops by fostering economic development. Integrating Colombia into the world economy will boost economic growth and serve to consolidate democratic capitalism. This is why it is unbearably cynical for U.S. politicians to cite the failings of the Colombian democracy as an excuse to kill the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
The U.S. would commit a grave strategic error, one that would have dire consequences, should it reject the FTA with Colombia. As a former head of government, I am perplexed as to how blocking the FTA from Washington could possibly make sense. Is it worth lashing out at the Colombian people, damaging U.S. security interests and handing a victory to the FARC simply to punish Mr. Bush? What about the consequences that are bound to accumulate when the U.S. abandons its best South American friend? Does the U.S. wish to push Colombia toward the path of 21st
century socialism led by Mr. Chávez?
If Western values are to prevail in Latin America against terror and anti-democratic authoritarianism, Europe and the U.S. must adopt a clear strategy of supporting democratic capitalism. This includes policies that strengthen security and encourage trade openness and commercial integration. Closing the door on Colombia, either on the security front or on trade, will strike at the very heart of the cause for freedom in Latin America. The moment has come to demonstrate that the friends of freedom, Colombia's friends,
are both strong and wise.
--Winning the war on terrorism is key to human survival Jerusalem Post 5/12/04 (lexis)
submission only serves to encourage terrorists and their leaders and boost their motivation, while survival would depend on nations taking all necessary steps to reduce the risks, including international intelligence cooperation. "Dealing with terrorism requires a broad range of responses, starting with clear and coherent policies. It is necessary to have quality intelligence, as well as law
In the first case, he maintained that enforcement, the military, and the means to counter technological and cyber-terrorism," said Alexander. "We also need an educational response because the children of today will be the terrorists of tomorrow. Unless we can defuse the extremist ideological and theological elements and their propaganda, the measures won't work. "We have to deal with the root causes and try to improve economic and social conditions - a sort of global Marshall plan - but first it is necessary to deal with the terror leadership. "To this end some innocent civilians might be harmed but, make no mistake, this is war and to fight it nations have to pool their resources. No nation can deal with the problem unilaterally. "In the past, terrorism was regarded as a tactical rather than a strategic threat but it has become a permanent fixture and a challenge to the strategic interests of nations. "In fact," said Alexander, "it represents the most threatening challenge to
civilization in the 21st century. The question of survival will depend to a great extent on how civilized society tackles this threat."
--Alexander = director of the Inter-Universities Center for Terrorism Studies
US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—Laundry List/Moral Obligation
US-Colombia FTA is key to US national security, Colombian economic and political stability, Latin American stability, and the protection of human and democratic rights—we have a strategic and moral obligation to secure passage McCaffrey 11/20/07 (Barry, adjunct prof of international affairs @ West Point, Wash Post, lexis)
The proposed free-trade agreement with Colombia has stalled in Congress.
The success and stability of Colombia and the Pan-American region depend on our ability to recognize the importance of this agreement to the United States, to Colombia's economy, to human rights progress and to enhanced U.S. national security.
This fall I spent several days in Colombia, meeting with President Ãlvaro Uribe and other high-ranking officials in the government and military. I visited refugee camps, economic development zones and counter-drug operations. The Colombia I recently visited is drastically different from the place I visited seven years ago when I served as the U.S. national drug czar. Colombia's transformation from a failing state in 2000 to a progressive democracy today is a U.S. foreign policy triumph. In less than a decade, Colombia's national leaders have made significant achievements reducing violence and the number of illegal groups, as well as improving the country's human rights situation. The murder rate is at its lowest in 20 years, and kidnappings have decreased by 80 percent. Among the illegal armed groups that have plagued Colombia, 45,000 fighters have been demobilized. The three principal narco-guerrilla groups (AUC, FARC, ELN) have lost nearly all of their political credibility and have suffered more than 13,000 desertions. In addition, the economy has grown robustly, unemployment has declined significantly, and foreign investment has increased dramatically. Colombia's human rights record also continues to improve. The level of violence against union members and the number of politically motivated homicides are still unacceptable, but the rates of such incidents are down significantly. The illegal production of cocaine and heroin remains a major challenge for Colombia. However, more than 525 drug traffickers have been extradited during the Uribe administration -- by far the most extraditions ever from any country to the United States. The effectiveness of the counter-drug campaign is clear: 66 percent of Colombia's opium production has been eliminated. Ãlvaro Uribe is an extremely popular leader. This Harvard- and Oxford-educated lawyer has accomplished near political miracles in successfully negotiating with criminal groups. Acts of terrorism have decreased 63 percent during his tenure. All of Colombia's major roads are open for civilian travel for the first time in the country's modern history. Uribe has also left his mark on the legal system. He has moved jurisdiction for human rights abuses from military to civil courts and appointed the first civilian (and woman) to head the military justice system.
Colombia has made great strides in recent years, but, as with any entity undergoing tremendous change, the roots of political and economic progress are still shallow. Significant disruption could compromise the country's future. Approving the free-trade agreement would enable Colombia to continue on its positive course.
Consider three reasons this agreement is necessary: First, Colombia is an independent, free-market,
democratic and long-standing ally of the United States. The value of a relationship with such a strategically located country cannot be underestimated. Aid to Colombia has been supported by a bipartisan congressional majority in the Bush administration and in administrations past. Abandoning Colombia now would jeopardize its security and be a catalyst for human rights regression. Second, failure to pass the agreement would cast Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelan regime as the best alternative model for Latin America. Such a choice would weaken Colombia's thriving democracy. Third, the terms of the agreement would further decrease unemployment by 2 percent -- eliminating potential threats posed by additional fighters who are demobilized. Hunger is an enemy that has produced thousands of illegal drug cultivators, but the agreement would help ensure that they have legal, productive employment.
We are facing an unprecedented opportunity to reinforce a U.S. foreign policy triumph that involves a valued ally. Colombia already possesses duty-free access to U.S. markets, thanks to congressional approval of the Andean Trade Preference Act. The benefits of the proposed free-trade agreement lie in its
mandate for economic openness, the rule of law and transparency -- elements that are critical to Colombia's long-term growth, stability and security. Uribe has worked effectively and at great personal peril to combat violence and poverty while promoting economic development. He has improved the lives of his fellow citizens and the security of our hemisphere. We have a strategic and moral obligation to stand behind his successful leadership of a nation at war -- a nation that is only three flying hours from Miami.
US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—Key to US + Colombia Econ/Deters Chavez
US ratification of the Colombia FTA is key to counterbalancing Chavez and strengthening the US and Colombian economies Rumsfeld 12/2/07 (Donald, fmr Sec of Defense, The mart Way to eat Tyrants Like Chavez,"
With diplomatic, economic and communications institutions designed for a different era, the free world has too few tools to help prevent Venezuela's once vibrant democracy from receding into dictatorship. But such a tragedy is not preordained. In fact, we face a moment when swift decisions by the United States and like-thinking nations could dramatically help, supporting friends and allies with the courage to oppose an aspiring dictator
with regional ambitions. The best place to start is with the prompt passage and signing of the Colombian free trade agreement, which has been languishing in Congress for months. Swift U.S. ratification of the pact would send an unequivocal message to the people of Colombia, the opposition in Venezuela and the wider region that they do not stand alone against Chávez. It would also provide concrete economic opportunities to the people of Colombia, helping to offset the restrictions being imposed by Venezuela -- and it would strengthen the U.S. economy in the bargain.
US-Colombia FTA is key to US and Colombian security and prosperity, strengthens pro-democracy Uribe, and counters Chavez Roberts and Walser 1/7/08 (James and Ray, Research Fellow @ Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America @ Heritage,
"Latin America: A Wish List for 2008," http://www.heritage.org/Research/LatinAmerica/wm1767.cfm) Congress approves the U.S.–Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. Colombia would join Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru, the countries of Central America, and the Dominican Republic as the latest U.S. trade and investment partner in the Western Hemisphere to have its own TPA. This would strengthen Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, a staunch ally of the United States and supporter of market-based democracy. President Uribe has been fighting with great courage and success since 2002 to build a more democratic, stable, and prosperous Colombia. To bolster prosperity and security for both the United States and Latin America (and to counter Hugo Chávez's illusory promises of "21st Century Socialism" and the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas), Congress has the opportunity to assist and engage one of America's closest friends in the Andean region and to strengthen an important economic link. Failure to close the trade deal in 2008 will reflect poorly on the reliability of the U.S.
as a friend and partner in the Americas.
US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—Key to US Economy/War on Terror
Colombia FTA passage is key to the US economy and winning the war on terrorism Roberts 8/17/07 (James, Research Fellow @ Heritage, "The U.S.–Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement: Don’t Let Progress
Fall Victim to D.C. Politics," http://www.heritage.org/Research/LatinAmerica/wm1588.cfm#_ftnref13)
The foot-dragging in Congress is ironic, because the United States would benefit most from ratification of the U.S.–Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement—as it was originally negotiated. Colombia already has considerable access to the U.S. market under the Andean Trade Preference Act and other legislation. The TPA agreement would open Colombia’s market to American services, consumer and industrial products, and
agricultural exports. In addition, the original TPA assured that Colombia would strengthen protection of U.S. intellectual property rights and investments. The TPA agreement is also good for U.S. national security. The 9/11 Commission recommended that U.S. government counterterrorism strategy include economic policies that provide opportunities for people to live in more open societies, thereby improving the lives and futures of their families.
Conclusion As President Uribe tries to reduce poverty and income inequality in his country by opening up to the global economy, next-door neighbor Hugo Chavez is tightening a noose around Colombia. Former Spanish President Jose Maria Aznar, himself no stranger to the tragic consequences of
terrorism, recently noted that by turning its back on Colombia in its hour of need, the United States would send a "devastating message not only to Colombians but to the wider world." The U.S.–Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement serves both U.S. and Latin American interests and will create new economic opportunities for citizens in both countries. It will also strengthen U.S. national security and provide, through economic growth, additional resources for the Colombian government to fight terrorists and cocaine traffickers. Congress should immediately ratify all four trade agreements as originally negotiated and restore full funding to
Plan Colombia. The Bush Administration and the U.S. business community should use the TPA agreements to begin a new era of economic engagement with Latin America.
US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—Key to Soft Power
US-Colombia FTA passage is key to US soft and diplomatic power Blunt 9/25/07 (Roy, House Republican Whip, "We need Colombia more than it needs us,"
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3E820BA6-3048-5C12-00BEE44C7D34B7B3) But in a world where trade is an essential tool of diplomacy — a tool that can be used to secure real economic and geopolitical goals — it’s disappointing that members of Congress who claim to favor the use of soft power to cultivate friendships around the world nonetheless seem unwilling to pursue commerce and investment as a key element of that strategy. Such is the strategy that has come to direct our foreign policy in much of Latin America as of late, with the United States forging formal trade agreements with Mexico, Central America and Chile — and likely agreements with Peru and Panama. To cut out from this policy our friends in Colombia — our closest and most cooperative ally on the continent — would send a terrible message to the region and represent an enormous loss of investment and strategic position in our own hemisphere.
US-Colombia FTA DA—Impacts—Mead ‘92
Economic collapse sparks global nuclear war Mead 92 (Walter Russell, Fellow @ Council on Foreign Relations + Fmr Member of Board of Directors @ New Perspectives
Quarterly, New Perspectives Quarterly, Summer, p. 28) But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates—or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India—these countries with their billons of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30's.
US-Colombia FTA DA—A2 Democracy/Rule of Law Impact Turn
The US-Colombia FTA is key to ensuring the continuation of Uribe’s democratic reforms National Association of Manufacturers 07 ("American Manufacturers Support the Colombia Free Trade Agreement,"
http://www.nam.org/hidden/pdf/Level_the_Playing_Field_Colombia.pdf) The national security impact of this trade agreement cannot be overstated. Colombia is a crucial friend and ally whose long-term commitment to democracy and openness is key in a region where some nations are hostile to the United States. Swift passage of this agreement will bolster President Uribe’s efforts to continue to improve Colombia’s reforms.
US-Colombia FTA approval is key to promoting continued progress regarding the rule of law Latin Business Chronicle 12/20/07 ("CEO Letter to Congress on Colombia FTA,"
Some say Colombia should do more to combat abuses and prosecute perpetrators of violence before Congress moves forward with the U.S.-Colombia TPA.
Improving the rule of law in Colombia is vital, but delaying approval of the U.S.-Colombia TPA is not the answer. Delaying approval will not solve Colombia’s internal problems – which Colombia’s government, under the leadership of President Alvaro Uribe, continues to address with significant success. Delaying approval will undermine the U.S.-Colombia relationship, which has been a significant factor in promoting Colombia’s progress.
Colombia FTA is a vital tool in providing economic alternatives to violence Office of the US Trade Representative 07 ("The Case for the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement,"
3. Strengthen peace, democracy, freedom and reform. In 2000, much of Colombia was controlled by three terrorist groups and ruthless narcotics trafficking cartels. With U.S. assistance and trade preferences under ATPA, the Colombian people are transforming their nation. They have achieved solid
progress in economic growth, social development, and reducing violence and illegal activities. The progress made is real but critical challenges remain. The terrorist and paramilitary groups are weakened but not defeated. Violence continues to threaten all sectors of Colombian society as well as cause displacement and economic hardship. The people of Colombia are addressing these problems aggressively and decisively, but need the continued help of the United States. The U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement is a critical tool to provide licit jobs and economic alternatives to violence. Colombia is a vibrant democracy, with a history of free elections, a free press, and solid opposition political parties.
Since President Uribe took office in 2002, Colombia has increased the size of its security forces and re-established a state presence in every municipality in the country. Uribe’s strong approval ratings -- over 70 percent in recent polls – shows that this sustained commitment to improving Colombia’s record in human rights and workers’ rights is broadly shared in Colombia.
US-Colombia FTA DA—Uniqueness—Will Pass
US-Colombia FTA will likely pass this year—Colombia is optimistic following recent discussions with Congress Palmer 6/10/08 (Doug, Reuters, "Colombia still sees chance US will OK trade deal,"
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN10369661) WASHINGTON, June 10 (Reuters) - Colombia still sees a chance the U.S. Congress will approve a bilateral free trade agreement caught up in an election-year fight between President George W. Bush and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Colombian
officials said on Tuesday. "When I go back and report to Colombia, I'll probably tell them ... the mood seemed optimistic," even though no firms dates were offered for a vote or even a congressional hearing on the trade pact, Colombia Trade Minister Luis Guillermo Plata said.
"I think the agreement could have been killed, you know, a month, two months ago and it wasn't. I think we're still optimistic ... this is alive and very much alive and it could become a reality hopefully in the near future," Plata said.
He spoke with reporters after two days of meetings with senior Bush administration officials and Republican and Democratic staff members of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, which have jurisdiction over trade agreements. Separately, a Colombian newspaper reported on Tuesday that Republican presidential candidate John McCain was planning a trip to Colombia in early July. A spokesman for McCain declined to comment and a spokeswoman for the Colombian embassy said she could not confirm the report. McCain favors approval of the free trade agreement, which would lock in Colombia's current duty-free access to the U.S. market while eliminating barriers to U.S. exports and making other business-friendly reforms. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has argued, like many other Democrats, that Colombia needs to reduce violence and murders of union members before Congress votes on the free trade pact. Plata conceded Colombia has more work to do to stop killings and put murderers in jails. But union member homicides have already declined to 26 in 2007, from 196 in 2002 while the successful prosecution of those cases have risen, he said. "How good is good enough?" Plata said, expressing doubt that an even lower number of union member homicides in 2007 would have persuaded critics to support the pact. In April, Bush ignored Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's advice and submitted the Colombia agreement to Congress under longstanding "fast track" procedures requiring it to be approved or rejected within 90 days. Pelosi responded by pushing through a rule change that allowed her to indefinitely delay action on the pact. Since then, the Bush administration has accused Pelosi of effectively killing an agreement with one of the United States' staunchest allies in Latin America unless she schedules a straight up-or-down vote on the pact. Pelosi has not completely ruled out a vote this year but has said that would only be possible after Congress takes action to help U.S. workers struggling with the impact of the housing crisis and high oil and food prices.
Colombian Ambassador Carolina Barco told reporters she was optimistic negotiations between the White House and Congress on domestic economic concerns could produce the "appropriate" environment for a House vote on the trade pact.
Colombian officials remain hopeful that Congress will pass the Colombian FTA Washington Times 6/13/08 (lexis)
Despite opposition from many Democrats on Capitol Hill, Colombian officials remain hopeful that Congress will approve a free-trade agreement "in the near future," a visiting Colombia official said this week, as the Colombian Embassy opened a lobbying
campaign to win support for the measure.
The embassy on Thursday released testimonials from seven Latin American presidents, the prime minister of Canada and the trade commissioner of the European Union, endorsing the free-trade pact.
Presidents Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, Michelle Bachelet of Chile, Felipe Calderon of Mexico, Alan Garcia of Peru, Elias Antonio Saca of El Salvador, Manuel Zelaya of Honduras and former Guatemalan president Oscar Berger sent letters to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, who is holding up the agreement in the House. European Union Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson wrote to both Mrs. Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, while Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada endorsed the Colombia trade deal in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. Luis Guillermo Plata, Colombia's trade minister, told reporters in Washington that he is using the delay in the House to try to build congressional support for the deal. Democrats who oppose the measure accuse Colombia of failing to protect labor union leaders from violence from right-wing paramilitary groups. Colombian President Alvaro Uribe says his government is aggressively prosecuting the accused killers and reducing attacks on labor leaders.
US-Colombia FTA DA—Uniqueness—Will Pass
Chavez increases the chances of Colombia FTA passage in Congress CongressNow 6/10/08 (lexis)
Colombia possess the greatest chance for passage, Baucus said, especially since Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez asked Colombia's FARC terrorists to lay down their arms. It was recently discovered that Chavez might be funding the FARC to ensure that its Colombian neighbor is in a state of chaos. His change of heart could potentially shift Congressional opposition for the pact. "That will help significantly in Congress - if it's true," Baucus said.
US-Colombia FTA DA—Uniqueness—Bush Pushing
Bush is pushing for Colombia FTA passage News Blaze 6/6/08 ("America Must Defend Freedom, Says Bush,"
http://newsblaze.com/story/20080606121336krzy.nb/topstory.html) In a gently veiled attack at Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, President Bush urged Congress to end a political spectacle and pass the Columbia free trade agreement. Pelosi, supported by several Democrats and Republicans, has waged a strong opposition to the treaty that the
Bush Administration hoped would have taken effect late last year.
"Congress has an opportunity to strengthen these efforts, and I strongly urge them to send a clear and sound message to the people of Colombia and the region that we stand with them by passing the Colombia free trade agreement," said the president.
Bush pushing for Colombia FTA passage Associated Press 5/31/08 ("Bush gives Congress a to-do list," http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j057jBReERcsFFcZRSWe0h1gaXQD910LS7O0) On trade, Bush is pushing lawmakers to approve a free-trade deal with Colombia. Bush has said the House's decision to block a vote on a Colombia free trade agreement was a serious error and urged Congress to reconsider. Democrats have cited the continued violence against organized labor in Colombia and differences with the administration over how to extend a
program that helps U.S. workers displaced by foreign competition. The president argues that the U.S. must show its support for Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, who is working to transform his country from a near-failed state to a stable democracy with a growing economy and has been a partner with the United States in fighting drugs and terrorism.
"Unless this agreement is brought up for a vote, it will die," the president said.
US-Colombia FTA Answers—Won’t Pass
Colombia FTA won't pass—there are no signs the Democrats will change their minds Truth about Trade & Technology 6/11/08 ("Colombia trade deal stalled in Congress,"
http://www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/11866/54/) The Colombian trade minister Luis Plata is in Washington this week. He's lobbying lawmakers for their vote to approve the treaty that the White House signed almost two years ago. Congressional Democrats have shown no signs of changing their minds about that deal, even though analysts say most of the provisions seem to favor the United States.
Bush Good—Links—Energy Policy
Establishment of an energy policy requires capital expenditure—powerful and vested industries favor the political status quo and environmental lobbies can't advance its own agenda Wirth, Gray, and Podesta 03 (Timothy, Boyden, and John, President of the United Nations Foundation and a former U.S.
Senator from Colorado, partner at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering and served as Counsel to former President George H.W. Bush, Fmr Chief of White House Staff, Foreign Affairs, July/August, lexis) Unfortunately, energy policymaking in the United States in recent years has been neither decisive nor strategic. U.S. energy policy is reminiscent of Mark Twain's quip about the weather: everyone talks about it, but no one does anything. This inertia has deep roots. Vested interests -- in the oil, utility, and transportation industries, for example -- have been powerful economic and political players, protecting the status quo and brooking little interference from the outside. Similarly, the environmental lobby has proved itself able to block proposals it opposes but less successful in advancing initiatives it favors. As a consequence, little progress has been made toward breaking the gridlock. America's inability to develop a farsighted, purposeful energy policy is a reflection of the political climate as well. Too often, complex energy issues have been reduced to pithy sound bites. Every decade or so, Washington enacts a "comprehensive" energy policy, but with few exceptions these measures do little but affect energy practices on the margin, and U.S. strategic interests are kicked down the road.
Energy policies are extremely controversial—they always seem to offend everyone and please no one Cohen 04 (Stephanie, Associate Editor @ New Atlantis, New Atlantis, Spring, lexis)
More often than not -- to James Madison’s delight -- big energy bills die a congressional death. No single faction is able to impose its vision of the energy future on the country as a whole, and the effort to please every faction often degenerates into incoherence. It ends up pleasing no one and offending nearly everyone. The Bush energy initiative is so far no exception, and after three years of debate, no comprehensive energy legislation has emerged, despite Republican control of both Congress and the White House.
Energy policy is an extremely partisan and controversial issue Roll Call 9/13/04 (lexis)
In the meantime, Lundquist's first passion will continue to be energy issues. The energy bill he helped create while working at the White House is still stalled in Congress, but Lundquist is sure the country's need to pass a comprehensive energy bill is only going to make his lobbying niche all the more important in the future. "In 2005, hopefully, we can return to a place where energy is less political and more regional,"Lundquist said. "And that's where it should be. It shouldn't be a partisan issue." Passing new energy policies sap political capital The Hill 11/10/04 (lexis) But while pro-energy-production Republicans solidified their hold on Congress and a former oilman was sent back to the White House, lobbyists say winning a long-sought national energy policy is hardly a slam-dunk. Crafting energy legislation is "hard work," said Charlie Drevna, the director of advocacy for the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA). "Large, comprehensive energy bills aren't easily passed."
Bush Good—Links—Energy Policy
Energy policy causes political gridlock—competing interests are always at play MJS 10/19/04 (lexis)
A complicating factor for energy policy is the political stalemate in Washington, where competing interests are always at play. Congress hasn't passed an energy bill since 1992, and the differences dividing the nation are often regional rather than partisan. "Energy really has never been a Democrat-Republican issue, because if you look at it, Congress is split up into groups with regional differences," said Eric Schenker, retired dean at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee School of Business Administration. "What usually happens is you cannot get a consensus, so you get, as we have this time, a stalled policy measure of 1,000 pages."
New energy policies require political capital expenditure Gvosdev 04 (Nikolas, executive editor of The National Interest and a senior fellow at The Nixon Center., "At the Intersection of
Energy and Foreign Policies," National Interest, Winter, http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol2Issue49/Vol2Issue49Energy-Gvosdev.html) Joe Barnes, Amy Jaffe and Edward L. Morse, writing in a related article in this energy supplement, observed that “there is, in short, no easy or perfect fix to our energy dilemmas. Any post-9/11 reassessment of our energy strategy must accept this reality. But it should focus on measures that will allow us to achieve practical progress instead of on risky, expensive alternatives that continue to ignore the demand side of our energy quandary. All that is lacking is the political will—and leadership—necessary to move beyond what could be called, without exaggeration, a policy of denial.” This is the crucial point. To deny that energy considerations will play a much greater role in shaping a country’s perception of its domestic and foreign policy interests is foolhardy. This does not mean that energy becomes the only consideration, but it does suggest that efforts to compartmentalize energy questions will be more difficult to achieve. There will be an energy dimension to U.S. relations with Europe, Russia, China, India and other major powers.
New energy policies will be contentious and will require capital expenditure Energy Compass 11/5/04 (lexis)
To make up for sidelining his overhaul of energy policy in his first term, Bush will likely press the stronger Republican Congress to enact energy policy legislation, and he could see his key proposal of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge being approved. But industry sources caution that it could be difficult to overcome these contentious issues.
Energy policies necessarily create controversy and require aggressive lobbying McFarlane and Lovins 5/18/03 (Robert and Amory, National Security Advisor to President Reagan + CEO of Rocky
Mountain Institute, “We Can Take Politics Out of Energy Policy,” www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/S0303_PoliticsOutOfPolicy.pdf) America did the same thing last year with national energy policy. The House and Senate wrote divergent bills that trainwrecked. This year, they’re doing it again, only worse. Titanic lobbying campaigns, baroque legislative packages, tight votes, and rancorous debate will again exhaust everyone, buy lots of pork, but barely address one of the gravest risks to the nation’s security, health, and prosperity.
Bush Good—Links—Energy Policy
Energy policy is intensely polarizing—production-biased Republicans vs. conservation-biased Democrats Energy Compass 12/24/04 (lexis)
Talk of an energy crisis is nothing new in the US. Republicans, Democrats, energy trade groups and environmentalists regularly sound the alarm when they want to sell their respective agendas. Judging by the steady decline in US energy production and equally steady rise in consumption and imports, they may be right. But the philosophical divide between the Republican and Democratic parties has hitherto killed any realistic legislative solutions. Broadly speaking, Republicans want to increase domestic supply through environmental rollbacks, Democrats to cut demand through conservation and greater use of alternative energy. Conventional wisdom is that a second term for US President George W. Bush and a bigger Republican majority in Congress will increase this polarization. But some suggest that moderate Republicans and Democrats -- a fast-dwindling breed in the US -- could play a crucial role in breaking the deadlock and hauling left- and right-lurching lawmakers back to the center.
Energy legislation requires capital expenditure Foster Natural Gas Report 1/20/05 (lexis)
EEI will "push the 109th Congress to resolve the differences and move forward." Kuhn said the good news is that President George W. Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) all have said they support an energy bill. "If there was ever a place where you need perseverance , it's energy legislation," he added.
New energy policies are politically disastrous before elections Roberts 9/7/04 (Paul, Frequent contributor @ Harper's, LA Times, lexis)
Is it just me, or are the presidential candidates going out of their way not to talk about oil? Given the high price of crude, given the growing vulnerability of the global oil system, and given that many voters believe that Iraq is at least a little bit about oil, you'd expect to see energy policy at the center of the campaign. Yet aside from a few early jabs, there's been no substantive debate about our obsolete energy system, skyrocketing consumption or total
uncertainty as to where we're going to get all the oil we will need 10 years from now. Lefties and conspiracy cranks blame this silence on Big Oil and Coal, whose influence, we're told, is so pervasive that no politician dares even mention the E-word. Although there's some truth in that notion, the main reason is far less complex -- and more discouraging:
Voters simply don't care. For starters, energy crises simply aren't as painful as they used to be. We're not only wealthier than we were during the 1973-to-1974 oil embargo but, as a society, more energy efficient. That means energy's hit on our wallets is smaller. For every dollar of disposable income, Americans spend less than 2.5 cents on gasoline -too little, apparently, to make us change our energy habits. Despite record gas prices in 2004, consumption was up 1% over 2003. Sales of gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks grew by 8.3%. But there's more at play here than pocketbook economics. Even with falling relative costs, most Americans know that our oil-dominated energy system isn't running smoothly. We know that oil and other fossil fuels harm the environment. We know we're importing more oil every year and thus relying more on a global system that, as Iraq demonstrates daily, is wide open to political strife. Above all, we know our energy habits aren't exactly prudent. How many of us were truly shocked by reports that our cars are less fuel-efficient each year, or that, since 1980, the number of miles we drive has more than doubled, even as population grew just 17%? The trouble is, awareness isn't the same as action. Even if we know our energy system is in trouble, we're largely unwilling to change our
ways, mainly because we believe that "smart" energy policy means giving up our lifestyle. When politicians correctly declare that America needs a new energy policy, we picture ourselves driving tiny cars; riding crowded, smelly buses and, generally, living not like Americans but Europeans, or worse. And that's a prospect that doesn't play well in Peoria.
The Bush administration figured this out early. When he unveiled his boss' new national energy policy in 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney openly ridiculed "conservation" while extolling plans to boost oil production and thus sustain the American "way of life." And although President Bush did eventually promise fuel cells and a hydrogen economy, that was mainly to distract us from the far more practical step of raising efficiency in existing cars. By contrast, Sen. John F. Kerry was a bit slower on the uptake. This spring, Kerry tried to nail Bush for his oil industry ties. But White House strategists shrewdly countered by harping on Kerry's support for a gas tax increase 10 years ago. Voters, it turns out, are far more scared of a higher gasoline tax than of political cronyism. Put another way, energy policy rarely wins you votes, but it surely can lose them for you -- a lesson even Kerry seems to have finally grasped. After proposing in June an intriguing new program to boost efficiency -- with heavy incentives for consumers who buy fuel-efficient cars and funding to help Detroit build smarter vehicles -- Kerry has been fairly quiet on the issue of energy, and it's hard to seen him reviving it before November.
Bush Good—Links—Election-Year Politics → Democrats Oppose Bush Energy Policies
Election year politics ensure Democrats backlash against the plan Quincy Herald-Whig 9/1/04 ("LaHood reaches beyond district lines to aid QU," www.whig.com/292569883584935.php)
He said he is frustrated that the federal energy bill will probably be held in limbo by Democrats in the Senate until after the election. He said Democrats don't want to give President Bush a chance to hold a Rose Garden bill signing ceremony, even though they may agree with many of the provisions in the bill.
Bush Good—Links—Reducing Fossil Fuel Consumption
Republicans ideologically oppose governmental efforts to reduce fossil fuel consumption Cohen 04 (Stephanie, Associate Editor @ New Atlantis, New Atlantis, Spring, lexis)
To take the term "conservatism" in its political meaning is to see that conservatives seek to preserve what works; they seek to advance gradually along a path of incremental discovery rather than acting in radical new directions. The Republican idea of energy development is mired in awe at the steady
cadence of industrial achievement; in a philosophy of nature that celebrates man’s powers of development; and in a belief that economic growth depends on expanding opportunities for oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power by improving existing technology and limiting government interference. It is a philosophy founded on what is more than what might be in the future, on current demands and opportunities more than future dreams and future nightmares. The Republican energy strategy is about "active exploration" throughout the hemisphere; it is a policy of muscular development over idle or "romantic" plan-making. It takes a certain pleasure in man’s superiority over the world he inhabits; it assumes or aims to demonstrate that environmental worries are misguided or overstated; and it believes that gradual technological progress will ameliorate the ecological problems that actually exist. The Republican philosophy is premised on the possibility of protecting the environment without destroying existing industry rather
than protecting the environment from existing industry. "I am not an enemy of conservation," Ronald Reagan declared in 1980. "I wouldn’t be called a conservative if I were." But despite Reagan’s assurances and Bush’s recent proposals, Republicans are overwhelmingly viewed as the party of production and Democrats as the party of conservation. Indeed, many Republicans actively identify themselves as enemies of the "conservation movement," in an attempt to portray themselves as the only real defenders of American progress and prosperity. The Republican Party is filled with many "industrial
devotees," primarily from coal, oil, and coastal states, who seek to advance production as the first order of business.
Attempts to regulate fossil fuels are highly unpopular—Republicans have deep ties to the fossil fuel industry AND labor has a strong interest in keeping the fossil fuel industry strong Golden 99 (Dylan, J.D. candidate at UCLA School of Law, 17 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 171, lexis)
Alternative fuels have already begun a dramatic fall in price and economies of scale should prompt an even faster fall in the price of alternative fuels as research and development continues. 78 Representatives from both parties who hail from fossil fuel states have an interest in blocking this legislation. 79 Additionally, while the fossil fuel industry has ties to the Republican party, labor has a strong interest in keeping the industry strong because many members of the Coal Miners Union would lose their jobs following a shift to alternative fuel sources. 80 These concerns are unlikely to override the industry's willingness to sit on the side-lines in order to
receive the substantial subsidy for fossil fuel research and development through DOE. Indeed from the stand-point of international competition these research and development subsidies are a boon to the United States energy industry across the board: DOE's energy R&D investments cover a broad array of resources and technologies to make the production and use of all forms of energy - including solar and renewables, fossil, and nuclear - more efficient and less environmentally damaging. As the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology has noted, Federal R&D support can help develop these technologies that benefit society by cutting emission rates of greenhouse gases, acid rain precursors, and air pollutants. These investments not only lay the foundation for a more sustainable energy future but also open major international markets for manufacturers of advanced U.S. technology. 81
Legislative attempts to reduce fossil fuel consumption evoke a tremendous backlash amongst Republicans and Democrats, from small states and large—empirically proven with the CAA Reilly 89 (William, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Summer, 6 Yale J. on Reg. 351, lexis)
Nevertheless, those efforts were only a faint foreshadowing of the work that we have to do in the 1990s and beyond as we try to solve environmental problems on a global scale. As we face global warming trends, destruction of stratospheric ozone, and depletion of tropical rain forests, the political hurdles are daunting. If we
thought it was difficult to convince Democrats and Republicans, large and small states, and high and low sulfur coal areas of the need to agree on a Clean Air Act in 1970, wait until we try to convince all of the nations of the world that they should cut down on fossil fuel use to stop global warming. Yet that is exactly what we have to do if we are to manage the global environment in the years ahead. And there is no
precedent for this multinational cooperation. We face a huge job in trying to overcome the political, economic, religious, and cultural differences that have separated nations for hundreds of years. Given these problems, we absolutely cannot act unilaterally. We must bring the rest of the world along. To do that, I think we must demonstrate by the effectiveness of our environmental actions here at home that we deserve a leading role in global environmental protection.
Bush Good—Links—Reducing Fossil Fuel Consumption
Reductions in fossil fuel consumption is political suicide Scully 10/1/04 (Malcolm, Editor @ Large, The Chronicle of Higher Education, lexis)
While the group's report -- National Energy Policy -- gave lip service to the concepts of conservation and energy self-sufficiency, he says, a close reading "reveals something radically different." The policy "never envisions any reduction in our use of petroleum," Klare writes. "Instead it proposes steps that would increase consumption while making token efforts to slow, but not halt, our dependence on foreign providers." Given the Bush administration's close ties to the oil-and-gas industry, such an outcome may have been inevitable, Klare says. But even an administration without such links would find it politically risky to move to a radically different energy policy. Like his predecessors, he notes, President Bush "understood that shifting to other sources of energy would entail a change in lifestyle that the American public might not easily accept. ... And so he chose the path of least resistance."
Bush Good—Links—Climate Policies
Republicans oppose any regulation related to the climate issue, especially in an election year—they perceive them as back-door attempts to implement Kyoto Caplan 01 (Christina, J.D. candidate, University of California at Berkeley School of Law, 28 Ecology L.Q. 169)
Given the environmental risks of deregulation, Congress now has a prime opportunity to address the ozone transport problem in the context of electricity restructuring. Legislation can avoid [*211] the lengthy delay and uncertainty associated with rulemaking, regional negotiations, litigation, and other efforts. At the moment, restructuring legislation is a much sounder arena in which to address air pollution problems than environmental legislation, such as CAAA or reauthorization. Legislation to amend or reauthorize the Act was unlikely to be supported in a presidential election year, 226 particularly in light of the hostility that the Republican majority has shown toward action on air pollution issues. 227 The Republicans have been especially opposed to any action on the issue of climate change. 228 Given the direct link between global warming and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel-fired utilities, it is possible that any effort to address utility emissions in an environmental context would be seen as another "back-door" attempt to implement the Kyoto Protocol. 229 Rather than directly open up ozone transport issues to a bitter fight within Congress, the safer route appears to be in restructuring legislation.
Merely bringing up the issue of global warming sets off a firestorm of ideological outrage Business Week 8/30/04 (lexis)
Say ``global warming'' in Washington, and you set off a firestorm of ideological outrage. Conservatives see global warming as a hoax designed to limit growth and expand government. Liberals see an imminent catastrophe that demands drastic action. The truth, as usual, is more complicated. Although we don't know the long-term consequences, we do know the world is warming: The '90s were the warmest decade in centuries. We know that businesses can save money and increase efficiency by cutting energy costs. And we know that an energy policy that lowers fossil-fuel consumption converges with a geopolitical policy of reducing dependence on Middle East oil. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions is no longer just a ``green'' thing. It makes business and foreign policy sense.
Conservatives object to any carbon emission controls Lutter 03 (Randall, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is now chief economist at the Food and Drug
Administration. “ARE THERE ANY COST—EFFECTIVE GREENHOUSE GAS CONTROL POLICIES THAT POLITICIANS MIGHT LIKE?,” May, www.cpc-inc.org/library/files/4_luttermay0.pdf) The United States has to date adopted only voluntary carbon emission controls partly because conservatives object to any carbon emission controls, believing that current technology has made unfettered fossil fuel use essential to economic prosperity. Conservatives fear that emission controls effective at forestalling climate change will be so widespread as to constitute wasteful large-scale central planning of important parts of the economy. Quite a few extant environmental programs throw lots of money at relatively small problems.43 Moreover, for decades, recessions have tended to follow increases in energy prices. Since the threat posed by climate change to Americans is uncertain, distant, and arguably small, how can it justify reductions in the use of the energy sources that are so critical to economic prosperity?
Bush Good—Links—Alternative Energy/Renewables
Attempts to switch towards renewable energy are politically suicidal Odell 04 (Peter, Prof Emeritus of International Energy Studies @ Erasmus Univ., Why Carbon Fuels Will Dominate the 21st
Century’s Global Energy Economy, p. 124) Whichever way is used to secure the production of electricity from renewables - based on the objective of internalising all environmental costs - the end result is unacceptable to most of the general public. So much so, indeed, that the desired objectives of the policy makers become politically unacceptable and so threaten future elected governments. In essence, the potentially offsetting benefits of switching from carbon to renewable energy sources are so far in the future as to be of minimal interests to today's electorates. This effectively inhibits progress towards the use of so-called "sustainable" energy provision, even in the world's richer countries, let alone in the
much larger number of poor countries.
Conservatives and the energy industry oppose ANY attempt to increase US commitment to renewables Canberra Times 8/21/04 (lexis)
In microcosm, the episode embraces most significant facets of the commercial and geopolitical dynamics and tensions in the world's energy markets. These include OPEC's fears that boosting renewable energy would threaten its market share, concerns of developing nations that such a commitment could reduce supplies of cheap hydrocarbon (fossil fuel) energy many depend on, as well as European conservation and technological efforts to develop a post-oil economy. The Bush
administration also had fears of committing to renewables because of the unacceptability of such a move to political conservatives and the US energy industry. Even a small crossover to renewables, which tend to be less profitable than hydrocarbons, would have involved energy companies in daunting costs to readjust infrastructure. Some companies also were major
contributors to President George W. Bush's election campaign and the Third World was seen as a potential market for traditional oil and gas projects and largescale power plants. One energy analyst said succinctly: "This is not an administration that wants to spend foreign-aid dollars on anything other than oil and gas development." How much longer oil and gas development will be profitably possible is anybody's guess, but Harpers contributor Paul Roberts's engrossingly encyclopedic examination of the world energy market probably details every fact, argument, opinion, estimate and statistic brought to bear on current and future energy-supply problems and how they might be at least assuaged.
Conservatives oppose every attempt to strengthen renewable energy Flattau 6/22/04 (Edward, Author + Environmental Columnist, Niemann Reports, lexis)
It is ironic that hard-core conservatives, who routinely promote technology as the path to societal salvation, regard renewable energy with suspicion. Many consider environmentalists' advocacy of renewable energy a challenge to the capitalistic primacy of giant utilities that manage the nation's main power grids. Hence, conservative critics take every opportunity to question the practicality of renewable energy's widespread application. And this political bias is ideologically bolstered by the decentralized infrastructure of renewable energy and need for generous government subsidies to gain competitive parity with conventional energy sources in the marketplace. (That the U.S. government heavily subsidizes the fossil fuel industry is conveniently ignored.) Conservatives dismiss widespread use of such energy alternatives as exotic figments of a science fiction writer's imagination. By contrast, those who champion renewables vehemently argue that without these sources, a sustainable energy future is likely beyond our reach. It is a controversy that makes for good copy, even for general assignment reporters.
Bush Good—Links—Strong Public Support for Renewables
Americans support renewable energy sources M2 Presswire, January 17, 1996, “Sustainable Energy Budget Coalition Americans favor funding federal renewable energy
source R&D programs,” lexis WASHINGTON, D.C. - American voters strongly favor funding federal research and development programs for renewable energy sources and energy-efficiency measures over programs for nuclear power and fossil fuels, according to a new public opinion survey, "America Speaks Out on Energy," released today by a coalition of nearly 40 business, environmental, consumer, governmental, and energy policy organizations. In addition, most voters say they would be more likely to support a candidate for Congress who shares their energy priorities. And more than 70 percent of them recognize global warming or climate change as a threat, while better than three- quarters want to do something about U.S. dependency on foreign oil. The 100-page, 13-question survey was commissioned by the Sustainable Energy Budget Coalition, and conducted in early December 1995 by Research/Strategy/Management, Inc. of Lanham, Maryland, headed by Dr. Vincent Breglio, a noted Republican pollster who has worked for Presidents Reagan and Bush and the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. The survey results have an overall margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent.
Republicans and fossil fuel states oppose federal RPS proposals—they see renewable use as a states rights issue Inside Energy with Federal Lands 4/19/04 (lexis)
A renewable portfolio standard was proposed in a Senate energy bill passed last year. But it was removed by House and Senate Republicans during conference committee negotiations aimed at producing a single energy bill. Opponents of a federal renewable portfolio standard, among which are the Bush administration and representatives of fossil fuel producing states, say that it should be up to states to decide how much renewable energy they want to use.
Bush Good—Links—Energy Lobbies Oppose ↓ Fossil Fuel Consumption
Powerful energy interests will vociferously oppose any attempt to reduce fossil fuel consumption Scharf and Williamson 3/1/04 (Adria and Thad, Dollars and Sense)
One huge political obstacle stands in the way of weaning the U.S. economy from fossil fuels: the all-but-certain opposition of leading energy corporations and other industries with vested interests in the status quo. Corporate interests have aggressively attacked environmentalists (starting with Rachel Carson) and environmental legislation at every turn over the past five decades, their opposition all too often proving deadly to even modest environmental reform proposals. (See "Industry Attacks on Dissent," Dollars & Sense, March/April 2002.)
Any attempt to sever the US from foreign oil consumption will be vociferously opposed by the Bush administration and the military and energy industries Freeman 3/1/04 (Robert, Writer on Economics + Education, "Will The End of Oil Mean The End of America?,"
www.commondreams.org/views04/0301-12.htm) We should harbor no illusions, however, that adopting such a strategy will be easy. The military and energy industries in which the Bush family is so heavily invested will vigorously resist such a policy. And the energy bill now making its way through Congress is nothing so much as a testament to the death grip the energy industry holds on the American people. It provides tens of billions of dollars of subsidies and giveaways to energy companies while actually encouraging more intensive energy use. As the poster boy of these leviathans, President Bush expressed their sentiments best: “We need an energy policy that encourages consumption.” What more need be said?
Massively influential US energy companies vociferously oppose any attempt to move towards a postpetroleum economy Klare 10/21/04 (Michael, professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College and defense correspondent of
The Nation, "Crude Awakening," www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&c=3&s=klare) § America's political leaders, like those of most other countries, are far too committed to the industrial status quo to provide the energetic and visionary leadership needed to commence the global transition to a post-petroleum economy. Moreover, the large US energy companies--which often exercise great influence over the nation's political leaders--are determined to prevent this transition for as long as they possibly can.
Bush Good—Links—Organized Labor Supports Fossil Fuels
Organized labor supports policies that favor fossil fuels Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 8/9/01 (lexis)
The president prevailed in the House with help from a potent business-labor alliance. Energy companies, the automobile industry and labor unions helped build support for the measure on the false premise that it represented a balanced approach and that drilling in the Arctic would result in hundreds of thousands of jobs. By loading the bill with incentives and tax breaks for fossil-fuel companies, particularly coal, the House created a package so unbalanced that it should have tipped over. Measures to increase the ridiculously low fuel-economy standards for SUVs and minivans were defeated when the auto industry said job losses would result.
Bush Good—Links—Reducing Oil Dependence
Efforts to reduce US oil dependence inflict tremendous political pain on the president Levine 11/1/04 (Samantha, US News and World Report, lexis)
The idea of energy independence is as American as apple pie. Presidents and presidential candidates from Ronald Reagan to Al Gore have thundered about the need to curb the country's addiction to foreign sources of oil, especially from the Middle East, to make us more secure through self-reliance. Indeed, recalling the staggering 1973 oil embargo, President Jimmy Carter proclaimed in 1979 that energy conservation is tantamount to patriotism. He vowed that "this nation
will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977--never." But a burgeoning American economy wasn't about to keep that promise. In 1977, the United States imported 8.8 million barrels of oil per day; this year, the total was up to nearly 12.8 million--about 63 percent of total daily consumption. Nearly 20 percent of that foreign oil is from the Middle East. Reducing the dependence would take years and require more than a little political pain. For those reasons, it is "one of the hardest things you can ask a president to do," says John Byrne, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Delaware, "and it's why the problem has festered for so long."
Politicians are reluctant to take steps to reduce oil demand because it alienates the public West 7/23/04 (Robinson, former assistant secretary of the interior, is chairman of PFC Energy, strategic advisers on
international oil and gas, Wash Post, lexis) Virtually every thoughtful policymaker knows that there is a serious problem in energy, but they are afraid to act. The U.S. government can do little to increase oil supply, but steps can be taken to reduce demand. Getting between Americans and their cars is the third rail of American politics. But if the American people refuse to accept some modest discomfort now, they will almost certainly be dealing with higher prices and serious economic disruption later. The obvious solution is for politicians to gather their courage and tackle demand.
Bush Good—Links—Energy Regulations
Republicans are anti-energy regulation The Hill 11/10/04 (lexis)
When it comes to campaign contributions, energy companies are steady producers for Republicans. The oil and gas sector pumped $14.4 million into GOP coffers during the 2004 election cycle. Electric utilities added $8 million. Democrats got money, too, but much less: $9.5 million, or about 25 percent of the $39 million that energy and natural-resources companies gave candidates for the 2004 election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The reason for the disparity is simple: Republicans tend to favor the type of pro-production, anti-regulation policies these companies crave.
Bush Good—Links—Oil Industry Hates Ethanol
Oil industry hates ethanol—they fight against every attempt to promote it Farrell 98 (Brian, Winter, 23 Iowa J. Corp. L. 373, lexis)
Throughout its existence over the past two decades, the nation's ethanol industry has been the subject of widespread and at times controversial legislation at the state, federal, and local levels. 1 Beginning with the Energy Tax Act of 1978, government assistance has helped ethanol remain competitive with fossil fuels. 2 Ethanol was originally promoted as a means to reduce American dependence on foreign petroleum. Although its production was initially expensive, ethanol can now be produced much more efficiently. 3 This increased efficiency, coupled with the end of the energy crisis, has many ethanol opponents calling for an end to subsidies and tax breaks. 4 At the same time, supporters stress the environmental advantage of ethanol as a renewable fuel and its positive effect on farmstate economies. 5 The political and economic struggle surrounding ethanol over the past ten years has left legislators searching for the best alternative. "While states have supported ethanol through subsidies and credits, the petroleum industry has fought to minimize these benefits, claiming that ethanol's environmental benefits are not entirely proven and petroleum is still a viable alternative."
Members of Congress from oil-producing/refining states and the oil industry oppose efforts to promote the use of ethanol Farrell 98 (Brian, Winter, 23 Iowa J. Corp. L. 373, lexis)
Despite general bipartisan political support, opposition to legislation promoting the use of ethanol does exist. Because ethanol reduces the national demand for petroleum, the petroleum industry, in particular, opposes ethanol production, subsidies, and tax [*378] credits. 41 Members of Congress from oil-producing and petroleum-refining states are the most vocal about ending favors to the ethanol industry. 42
Bush Good—Links—Nuclear Power
Nuclear power proposals are controversial—sap Bush's political capital Financial Times 1/26/05 (lexis)
The less monumental items on Mr Bush's agenda are nevertheless controversial, potentially sapping the political capital he earned in the election. These include: immigration reform; an energy bill that will ease the way for building more nuclear power capacity as well as drilling in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; medical liability reform; changes to legal awards for punitive damages; as well as tax cuts and the simplification of the tax code.
Nuclear power revival is controversial CSM 5/18/01 (lexis)
Nuclear It's perhaps the toughest choice: bring down prices in the short term versus long-term systemic change. Bush hews toward longterm relief, a choice that even congressional Republicans have criticized. To that end, Bush does not ignore the controversial idea of reviving nuclear power - even though no one imagines a new plant operating in the US before 2010.
Pro-nuclear policies incite burning controversies over issues such as nuclear waste Greenwire 5/17/01 (lexis)
Wall Street Journal columnist Gerald F. Seib: "That policy is going to call for ramping up nuclear power, meaning the controversy over whether to store nuclear waste at a site under Nevada's Yucca Mountain is about to move from campaign footnote to burning political issue. ... The maneuvering over Nevada in the campaign has ensured that this one will be as tough as any for the Bush team in its national energy policy" ([subscription required], May 16).
Nuclear issues always generate tremendous controversy Power Engineering 4/1/01 (lexis)
Those of us who have been intimately involved with nuclear power for a number of years have learned that the public has trouble separating nuclear energy issues from other nuclear topics. Because of this, any nuclear related controversy seems to stir up otherwise latent nuclear power phobias. Recent publicity over the use of depleted uranium bullets in the Balkans is such an issue.
Bush Good—Links—Public Opposes Nuclear Power
Huge public opposition to the ordering and construction of new nuclear power plants Kriz 6/26/04 (Margaret, National Journal, lexis)
Then there's the question of how the American public would react to the building of a new nuclear power plant. Fertel said that polls paid for by his industry trade group show that roughly half of the public supports new reactors. But public-interest groups predict that opposition would balloon if a company actually ordered a new reactor. Utility-industry executives are uniformly upbeat about nuclear power's future. But many concede that public opposition remains a powerful barrier. "Today, we operate three incredibly well-performing nuclear units," said Xcel's Brunetti. "But there are no provisions in our resource plans or even thoughts of adding additional nuclear generation to our fleet," he said. "Particularly here in Minnesota, we'd have a hard time ever [getting permits for] it. There'd be a lot of opposition."
American public overwhelmingly opposes building new nuclear power plants Rosa and Meyer 01 (Eugene A and Edward R, professor of sociology and Professor of Natural Resource & Environmental
Policy in the Thomas S. Foley Institute for Public Policy and Public Service, Washington State University, The Public Perspective, Nov/Dec, lexis) Then, in the first quarter of 1982, coinciding with the Reagan administration's military buildup (including the deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles in Western Europe) and the public demonstrations it generated, opposition leaped forward by 12%. Unlike after TMI, support never rebounded. In virtually all subsequent surveys the ratio of opposition to support was consistently two to one or larger -- a near-perfect reversal of attitudes at the beginning of the time series. The April 1986 Chornobyl accident in the Ukraine produced an increase in opposition that was remarkably slight, but the disaster further crystallized the decade-long resistance to nuclear power. Four recent polls show how opposition to nuclear power has evolved since Chornobyl. A March 1999 Sustainable Energy Coalition survey of registered voters found 60% opposed to and 26% in favor of building more nuclear power plants. A March 2001 Gallup poll of all adults found less but still majority opposition (51% to 44%). Two 2001 polls by ABC News/Washington Post sustain the conclusion that opposition to the building of nuclear power plants is still the majority position. In the January poll, 60% were either somewhat or strongly opposed while 37% were somewhat or strongly favorable. A June poll revealed some relaxing of opposition but still showed a majority (52%) opposed while 41% were in favor.
American public has deep concerns about nuclear power, especially after 9/11 Rosa and Meyer 01 (Eugene A and Edward R, professor of sociology and Professor of Natural Resource & Environmental
Policy in the Thomas S. Foley Institute for Public Policy and Public Service, Washington State University, The Public Perspective, Nov/Dec, lexis) The American public more generally is still deeply concerned about the nation's failure to find a solution to the problem of nuclear waste, and a sizable minority has lingering concerns over the safety of nuclear plants. Each of these concerns -- the first emerging because of the sizable amount of bomb grade material in stored, high-level waste, and the second because of the potential for malevolent actions by terrorists -- can only have been heightened by the recent terrorist attacks against the United States.
Bush Good—Links—Public Opposes Nuclear Power
Nuclear power is still opposed by a majority of the American public Rosa and Meyer 01 (Eugene A and Edward R, professor of sociology and Professor of Natural Resource & Environmental
Policy in the Thomas S. Foley Institute for Public Policy and Public Service, Washington State University, The Public Perspective, Nov/Dec, lexis) But this awareness and concern about global warming does not translate directly into support for nuclear energy as an alternative to the burning of fossil fuels, the major source of carbon emissions. Putting the two issues together, a September 1998 poll conducted by Research/Strategy/Management for the Sustainable Energy Coalition asked respondents to assess "various ideas [that had] been offered for dealing with the pollution that causes climate change." Surprisingly, 55% of respondents were strongly or somewhat opposed to the use of nuclear power, while 42% favored or strongly favored it. The conclusion by Rhodes that nuclear power has regained public support, which has appeared elsewhere in recent media coverage, appears remarkably premature. There are indications in the available time series that the longstanding mood of strong opposition to nuclear power is softening, but that opposition, it is clear, is far from the melting point where it is replaced by majority support. This conclusion is sustained especially in the case of the local siting of nuclear facilities.
American public opposes nuclear power, regardless of pro-industry spin Financial Times 1/11/01 (lexis)
So why has the public rejected nuclear power? Most people would blame the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island in the US and Chernobyl in Ukraine, coupled with the industry's secretive culture and expense. Mr Johnston adds a controversial reason of his own. When it comes to anything nuclear, many people are either unaware of the facts or determined to ignore them, he complains. The public, he says, is tending "to lump all controversial issues involving science into the same basket of suspicion and doubt". There should, he says, be a campaign to "to lay out facts and dispel myths and fears about nuclear energy".
Bush Good—A2 No Spillover
Controversial debates spill over Business Week 11/15/04 (lexis)
A poisonous court fight could shatter the consensus on key pieces of legislation. Says Michael Franc, chief legislative analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation: ''A lot of political capital will be consumed. And it will displace other issues for an extended period of time.''
Partisanship spills over Business Week 11/22/04 (lexis)
If only it were that simple. With the Religious Right calling in Bush Administration chits and with both parties promising to wage war over judicial nominations, some of the joy is ebbing out of those corner offices. Looming on the horizon is a new round in the culture wars, sparked by protracted and bitter fights over appointment of judges, abortion rights, and gay marriage. Hashing out those conflicts could render Congress a barren battleground, stalling progress on a bottom-line business agenda that has traditionally steered clear of divisive social issues.
Controversial issues spillover—Clinton proves Lizza 1/24/05 (Ryan, New Republic, lexis)
Defeat breeds defeat. In Clinton's case, time brought not only a more organized opposition but also a
crush of events--a bruising budget battle, political scandals, international crises--that sapped his political capital and distracted him from focusing on health care. The lesson for Democrats is obvious: The harder it is for Bush to pass other parts of his agenda, the harder it will be for him to pass his Social Security plan. Conversely, easy Bush victories on his budget, energy bill, tort reform, and judicial nominees will strengthen his hand on Social Security. At one
point in 1994, Clinton believed a swift victory on what seemed like an easy-to-pass crime bill could serve as a springboard to revive health care. But, rather than hold their fire for the health bill, Newt Gingrich and his troops launched an all-out attack on the crime bill that caught the White House completely off guard. Similarly, today some Democrats believe that a fight over a highly polarizing Supreme Court nominee could be the magic bullet that saps the energy from Social Security.
Bush Good—A2 Pro-Environment Republicans Support Plan
Pro-environment Republicans are a dying breed McKibben 3/22/04 (Bill, OnEarth, lexis)
"It seems like these Christian fundamentalist far-right Republicans put business ahead of the environment every time," says Pete McCloskey, who served from the late 1960s until the middle of the Reagan administration as a Republican congressman from California--and who helped organize the first Earth Day, in 1970. "In my day--really, until Newt Gingrich took over--we could always count on a good number of Republicans for environmental issues. The Environmental Study Conference in the House and Senate, which functioned like an environmental caucus, usually had 60 or 65 percent of each chamber enrolled. But those great Republican enviros have largely left or been shunted aside or died--Mark Hatfield, Chuck Percy, Mac Matthias." Even as recently as the first Bush administration, says Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords, the split wasn't so deep. Indeed, the first President Bush pledged to "fight the greenhouse effect with the White House effect." "I was proud to work with his father on the Clean Air Act amendments in 1990," says Jeffords. "Now this President Bush insists on undoing his father's legacy." For Jeffords, of course, it was too much--the environment was one reason he finally left the GOP and began caucusing with the Democrats.
Bush Bad—Links—Environmental Lobby = Powerful
The environmental lobby is the most powerful lobby in Washington Anderson 02 (William, adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, teaches economics at Frostburg State University, "The Oil
Dependency Myth," http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=861&id=73) If Feldstein and other "energy independence" advocates wish to ask us to believe that domestically produced oil will not be held hostage to politics, they are either naive or stupid. The single most powerful lobby in Washington, D.C., is the green lobby, and environmentalists are much more hostile to the energy needs of our economy than are even the most anti-American Middle Easterners. Obtaining crude oil means someone has to drill, and most oil-producing or potential oil-producing lands in this country are the property of the national government, which means that by definition, drilling and exploration in those areas will be determined by the political process.
Asian Economy Impact—Key to Global Economy
Asian economy key to global economy Krueger 05 – First Deputy Managing Director, International Monetary Fund, in an address to the Institute for Global
“My focus today is Asia, and its role in the world economy. This is a continent that has been transformed in the past half century, and
nowhere has that transformation been greater, or more evident, than in Korea. Rapid economic growth in most parts of Asia has had a dramatic impact on living standards. The reduction in poverty has been remarkable.
Today, Asia is a large part of the world economy, and the most dynamic. It has been an engine of growth for the world economy for the past several decades; and, as it has grown in economic size, so its contribution to world economic growth has increased. Emerging market Asia was the most rapidly growing region in 2004. The world needs Asia, and the contribution that Asian economies make to world economic growth: of that, there can be no doubt.”
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.