You are on page 1of 27

CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 1

SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

CHINA-BASHING DISADVANTAGE INDEX


Thesis: The thesis of this disadvantage is that a substantial increase in the
use of alternative energy in the United States will disadvantage the United
States’ economic competitiveness compared to nations like China, resulting
in protectionism and a trade war. Currently, the United States leads the world
in economic competitiveness, in large measure due to cheap, sustainable
energy. However, forcing the United States to move toward renewable
energy while developed nations like China can rely on cheaper fossil fuel
energy will adversely affect US economic competitiveness. This would cause
Congress to enact trade penalties against such nations, risking a trade war. A
specific risk is that Congress will pass legislation punishing China to properly
value its currency, which risks a trade war with China.

CHINA-BASHING DISADVANTAGE INDEX.............................................................................................1


CHINA BASHING DA SHELL (p. 1 of 2)......................................................................................................2
CHINA BASHING DA SHELL (p. 2 of 2)......................................................................................................3
Uniqueness: Economic Competitiveness Strong Now....................................................................................4
Link Magnifiers: Even Small Actions can threaten US competitiveness........................................................5
Links: Alternative Energy ...............................................................................................................................6
LINKS: Environmental Regulations...............................................................................................................7
LINKS: Environmental Regulations...............................................................................................................8
Links: Cap & Trade Undermines US competitiveness....................................................................................9
Links: CAFÉ Standards.................................................................................................................................10
Links: Kyoto Ratification...............................................................................................................................11
Links: Carbon Tax.........................................................................................................................................12
Links: Gas Tax...............................................................................................................................................13
LINKS: JOB LOSSES CAUSE PROTECTIONISM....................................................................................14
Links: Renewable Portfolio Standard............................................................................................................16
Internal Links: Threats to Competitiveness Spur Protectionism...................................................................17
Internal Links: Protectionism Snowballs.......................................................................................................18
Internal Links: Protectionism Snowballs.......................................................................................................19
Internal Links: Decreased Competitiveness Risks China Bashing................................................................20
Impacts: Protectionism Against China Risks a Trade War ..........................................................................21
Impacts: Trade Wars Risk Real Wars............................................................................................................22
Impacts: Protectionism Causes War..............................................................................................................24
Impacts: Leadership.......................................................................................................................................25
*****Affirmative Answers*****...................................................................................................................26
Affirmative Answers.......................................................................................................................................27
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 2
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

CHINA BASHING DA SHELL (p. 1 of 2)


A) UNIQUENESS:

THE UNITED STATES LEADS THE WORLD IN ECONOMIC


COMPETITIVENESS IN THE PRESENT SYSTEM.
Education Week, 2008 (staff writer, April 23, 2008. Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10,
2008).
America's economy has enjoyed a quarter-century of mostly steady economic
growth, and the country continues to rank No. 1 among 131 nations on the
economic-competitiveness index set by the World Economic Forum.

B) LINK: Unilateral actions to decrease greenhouse gas


emissions will undermine US economic competitiveness vis-à-
vis China.
Joseph Nye, 2008 (dean of the Kennedy School of government at Harvard,
Federal News Service, April 24, 2008. Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008).
Eighth on our list, the next administration and Congress must make addressing climate change and energy insecurity more
we feel that we're going to need to develop a set of
than just a political catchphrase. There
rules and costs associated with carbon dioxide emissions which could have
disruptive implications for trade, energy security and competitiveness and
economic growth unless they are carefully worked out. This is going to take work with
Congress to place an economic value of greenhouse gas emissions via a mechanism that sends out clear, long-term price
International collaboration is going to be crucial here. One area
signals for industry.
where China has passed the United States as a superpower is in the production of
greenhouse gases. This year, they produced more, not per capita but totally, than
we do. You cannot think of how to solve this by traditional means. Obviously,
we're not going to bomb Chinese coal-burning plants, and if we put sanctions on
we're going to destroy the trade system.

C) IMPACTS:

1) Weakening US economic competitiveness risks trade


retaliation in Congress.
Xiong Qu, 2008 (staff writer, April 30, 2008. Online. Internet. Accessed May 9,
2008 at http://www.cctv.com/english/20080430/104202.shtml)
The US should focus on enhancing its overall economic competitiveness instead
of seeking protectionism to combat its economic slowdown. That's according to
the latest 2008 White Paper released by the American Chamber of Commerce in
China, or AmCham China.
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 3
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

CHINA BASHING DA SHELL (p. 2 of 2)


2) Strong US competiveness is critical to stave off the move in
Congress to pressure China over its currency.
Xiong Qu, 2008 (staff writer, April 30, 2008. Online. Internet. Accessed May 9,
2008 at http://www.cctv.com/english/20080430/104202.shtml)
AmCham released the White Paper in Beijing, saying the US should focus on
enhancing its overall economic competitiveness. It said the US should not press
for the yuan's appreciation to reduce its trade deficit with China, since the value of the
yuan is not the fundamental cause of the deficit. Harley Seyedin, Chairman of AmCham China said "RMB's going up
Many American companies are
certainly reduce the exports, but that not really impact so much."
looking to expand in China, thanks to its lucrative and opening markets. The
White Paper also said the two countries should work to have more instances of
defending and preserving the openness of the trade relationship than instances of
dispute. The paper said an open US and an open China will lead to sustained benefits for the companies and citizens of
both countries.

3) Putting pressure on China to revalue its currency triggers a


trade war.
Heather Stewart, 2008 (staff writer, The Observer. January 6, 2008. Online.
Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008).
China's extraordinary transformation into a major world trading power has so far been achieved with remarkably little
Beijing has already come under severe pressure to revalue its
political friction; but
currency, both from the US and Europe. As a slowdown looms, blaming China is
likely to become increasingly attractive and some analysts fear discomfort at its
success could even explode into a full-blown trade war.

4) A trade war risks a worldwide depression and global conflict.


Jason Goldberg, 2007 (staff writer, University Wire, March 8, 2007. Online.
Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008).
Yet Smith's ideas on international trade were not fully embraced until after World
War II. Many countries, in a panic response to the Great Depression, slapped trade
restrictions in place hoping to sustain their domestic industries. Instead of fixing
things, this prescription sent the world into an economic nose dive and helped
create another world war. If only we had listened to the 19th century French
scholar Frederic Bastiat, who said, "When goods cannot cross borders, armies
will."
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 4
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

Uniqueness: Economic Competitiveness Strong Now


America is economically competitive now, but risks from other
nations loom on the horizon.
Jack Gage, 2008 (staff writer, Forbes, May 8, 2008. Online. Internet. Accessed
May 10, 2008 at http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/2008/05/08/competitive-
countries-economy-ent-competition08-cz_jg_0508countries.html)
America is No. 1. Don't take our word for it--the Global Competitiveness Report,
published every year by the World Economic Forum (WEF), has ranked the U.S.
first for the last five years. But Americans shouldn't get too cocky. Healthy
European economies have been climbing the ranks, with Switzerland moving to
second place in 2008 from fourth in 2007, and Sweden climbing to fourth place
from ninth.

The Bush administration is successfully bolstering US


economic competitiveness in the present system.
Torey Van Oot, 2008 (staff writer, CongressNow, April 24, 2008. Online. Lexis.
Accessed, May 10, 2008).
Beth McCormick, director of the Pentagon's Defense Technology Security Administration, said that Bush's
initiatives, which were announced in January, "ensure proper levels of control for
continued U.S. economic competitiveness and innovation while protecting
national security."

Surveys illustrate the United States leads the world in global


competitiveness.
Brian Milner, 2008 (staff writer, The Globe and Mail, April 22, 2008. Online.
Lexis. Accessed, May 10, 2008).
"None of those leap to mind when I think of weaknesses in Canada, Mr. Porter said. In a survey of global
competitiveness by the World Economic Forum, Canada ranked only 13th in
2006, while the United States stood first and Denmark third.
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 5
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

Link Magnifiers: Even Small Actions can threaten US


competitiveness
Technology gaps between the United States and other countries
means the US must always be vigilant in ensuring its global
competitiveness.
Torey Van Oot, 2008 (staff writer, CongressNow, April 24, 2008. Online. Lexis.
Accessed, May 10, 2008).
Voinovich added, "Technology gaps with foreign nations are rapidly shrinking,
and the U.S. must adjust to this to not only better understand the capabilities of
other nations but to avoid denying private companies the ability to compete on the
open market with their goods, which may be readily available from other
nations."
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 6
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

Links: Alternative Energy


Efforts to restrain greenhouse gas emissions will undermine
competitiveness and cause China-bashing.
Jonathan B. Wiener, 2007 (professor of environmental policy at Duke, June 2007.
University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10,
2008).
Second, even if leakage is actually unlikely, the mere fear of leakage and its adverse effects on competitiveness may be a
Of special concern to national and state legislators is
political obstacle to subglobal action.
the fear that regulating GHG emissions may cause the loss of local jobs and the
relocation of employment away from the regulated voting districts - a form of outsourcing
driven by GHG limitations. The Byrd-Hagel Resolution, passed by a vote of ninety-five to
zero in July 1997, announced the U.S. Senate's insistence on participation by
developing countries in any future climate treaty, on the ground that American
action to restrict GHG emissions could impair the U.S. economy while driving
GHG-intensive activities and jobs abroad. 29 [*1972] The day after the Kyoto Protocol was
signed, the Clinton administration announced that it would not submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification until
Fear of competition
developing countries had agreed to accept emissions limitation responsibilities as well. 30
with China and India and of outsourcing of American jobs has only grown over
the past decade, even as concern about climate change has also grown.

The high price of alternative energy sources will decrease US


economic competitiveness.
Jonathan M. Harris, 2006 (Prof., Global Development And Environment Institute, Tufts U.),
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS: A CONTEMPORARY APPROACH,
06, 293-294.
Some alternative power sources, such as wind and biomass energy, have reached the margin of
competitiveness in the mass market, but in only a few instances have they crossed that margin into
large-scale commercial feasibility. Solar power is competitive for hot water heating, but not yet for
power supply.

Efforts to encourage alternative energy will undermine US


economic competitiveness.
Ben Lieberman, 2007 (economic analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Online. Internet.
Accessed May 10, 2008 at
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1519.cfm)
These policies have been tried before, with dismal results. The 30-plus-year
history of federal attempts to encourage alternative energy sources contains
numerous failures and few, if any, successes. Indeed, many of the recipients of tax
breaks and incentives in the Senate bill have been subsidized for decades (for
example, ethanol has enjoyed preferential treatment since 1978), with the goal
that they would become viable within a few years and then go off the dole and
compete in the marketplace. But this has never happened.
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 7
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

LINKS: Environmental Regulations


Cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions lead to global
protectionism:
MOORE, 98 (Thomas Gale, Climate of fear : Why we shouldn't worry about global
warming; pg. 145)
If they ever agree to cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions, which they would be unlikely
to meet, many poor countries would require large handouts. Environmentalists would
urge governments to punish countries that failed to cut back on energy use by imposing
trade restrictions. Labor and industry would argue that it was unfair for firms facing
much higher energy costs to compete with companies in areas not subject to restrictions;
these firms in exempt states would be benefiting from reductions in fossil fuel prices. As
mentioned above, the United States, Japan, and the European Union, to protect their
energy-using industries, will likely impose import controls. Restrictions on foreign
trade would precipitate a downward spiral in global income that could easily produce
a worldwide depression. The consumers of the country imposing the restrictions would
suffer from higher prices and inferior products. Under this dreary scenario, the result
would be greater world poverty. Everyone would be a loser.

Environmental laws damage competitiveness of domestic


producers:
Phillips, University of Michigan Law School, 96 (17 Mich. J. Int'l L. 827,
Michigan Journal of International Law, Lexis)
Because nearly every environmental law imposes costs on domestic producers, it
consequently damages their competitiveness in comparison to foreign producers that do
not face similar requirements. In large part because of the harm incurred by domestic
producers, many nations are reluctant to approve environmental laws. The CAFE law is a prime
example. It is a law that on balance probably damages the competitiveness of domestic producers. 162 The fleet accounting provision
was added to help limit the damage. A major irony of the conclusion that the CAFE law is incompatible with the GATT is that
domestic interests, which are putatively the beneficiaries of the protection, believe that the law harms them. 163 This proposal, by
calling on panels to examine the law as a whole under Article XX(g), seeks to have panels better appreciate those provisions which do
in fact promote the conservation of exhaustible resources. As Part III of this Note argued, the provisions softening the blow on
domestic companies are integral in the effort to conserve exhaustible resources.
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 8
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

LINKS: Environmental Regulations


A) Environmental regulations lead to trade imbalances against
the US:
Garriga, staff, New Haven June 24, 2004, Lexis
U.S. businesses price their goods higher than businesses in other countries because they
pay an added cost for health benefits, labor rights and environmental protection. Higher
prices have led to a trade imbalance in favor of countries with fewer regulations,
where companies benefit from low labor costs.

B) Rising trade deficits fuel domestic protectionism:


Dobbs, staff, U.S. News & World Report January 26, 2004; Lexis
Amazingly, last week Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan referred to our record-
high trade deficits as "seemingly uneventful." I assume Greenspan has heard of the
boiling frog analogy, in which as the temperature rises to near boiling, all is seemingly
uneventful for the ill-fated frog. But the Fed chairman evidently has no problem
proclaiming the dangers of what he calls "clouds of emerging protectionism,"
apparently referring to a number of calls by members of Congress for this country to
conduct fair trade and balanced trade. Those calls so concerned Greenspan that he said,
"The costs of any new protectionist initiatives . . . could significantly erode the
flexibility of the global economy."
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 9
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

Links: Cap & Trade Undermines US competitiveness


Cap and trade systems undermine US competitiveness.
Reuters, Sun Jan 27, 2008,
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN2742035620080128?pag
eNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0 (online, internet, accessed Jan 27, 2008)
Romney panned McCain's ability to handle the U.S. economy, zeroing in on a proposal by McCain and Sen. Joseph
Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, that would set limits on the emission of greenhouse gasses. The McCain-
Lieberman bill would allow those who exceed limits of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to trade with those
a plan known as cap-and-trade. Romney, a multimillionaire former venture capitalist, said
under the limit,
equates a tax of roughly 50 cents a gallon on gasoline and would drive up
the plan
utility costs by 20 percent. "He wants to talk about anything but that, and I won't let him," Romney said. "It
would depress the economy just at a time when we are trying to stimulate the
economy."
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 10
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

Links: CAFÉ Standards


CAFÉ standards would undermine overall US competitiveness.
Benjamin Sovacool, 2007 (Ph.D., Virginia Polytechnic Institute), ENERGY POLICY, Nov. 07,
5506. 5508. Consumer preferences for larger and more powerful automobiles, a perceived
uncertainty over the cost of future fuel saving technologies, concerns about vehicle safety and
performance, and fear that standards would hurt overall economic competitiveness have created a
general reluctance toward CAFE standards among automobile manufacturers.
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 11
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

Links: Kyoto Ratification


Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol would undermine US economic
competitiveness.
Pamela Chase, 2006 (Prof., Political Science, Manhattan College), GLOBAL
ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS, 4th Ed., 06, 89.

In regard to the climate change regime, industry lobbying in the United States succeeded in reducing the
flexibility of the executive branch in the negotiations. Some of the most powerful trade associations
launched the Global Climate Information Project (GCIP) in 1997. Through a multimillion-dollar print
and television advertising campaign, the GCIP cast doubt upon the desirability of emissions controls in
the Kyoto Protocol, which was entering the final stages of negotiation, by arguing that emissions controls
would raise taxes on gasoline, heating oil, and consumer goods and reduce the competitiveness of
American businesses. An alliance of business and labor succeeded in persuading the
U.S. Senate to vote 95-0 for a resolution stating that the president should not sign a
protocol that requires greenhouse gas reductions without commitments from
developing countries, or that would result in serious harm to the economy of the
United States.

The Kyoto Protocol would harm US competitiveness:


Thomas Derr, 2006 (Prof., Ethics, Smith College), CONSERVING THE
ENVIRONMENT, 06, 90.

Most of the European countries that have ratified Kyoto are falling behind already on targets, despite
having stagnant economies and falling populations. It is highly unlikely they will meet the goals they
have signed on for, and they know it. Neither will Japan, for that matter. The European Union has
committed itself to an eight percent reduction in energy use (from 1990 levels) by 2012, but the European
Environment Agency admits that current trends project only a 4.7 percent reduction. When Kyoto
signers lecture non-signers for not doing enough for the environment, they invite the
charge of hypocrisy. There is also the obvious fact that adherence to the treaty will
hurt the U.S. economy much more than the European, which suggests that old-
fashioned economic competitiveness is in the mix of motives at play here. The
absurdity of the treaty becomes obvious when we recognize that it does not impose
emissions requirements on developing countries, including economic giants such as
China, India, and Brazil. (China will become the world's biggest source of carbon dioxide
emissions in just a few years.
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 12
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

Links: Carbon Tax


Carbon taxes would undermine US energy competitiveness.
Ben Lieberman, 2007 (economic analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Online. Internet.
Accessed May 10, 2008 at
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1519.cfm)
Taxing successful energy sources and subsidizing unsuccessful ones—that is the
essence of Washington’s energy policy during the 1970s and early 1980s, and it
would be repeated by the Senate’s version of the House’s energy bill (H.R. 6).
The bill would raise taxes by an estimated $28 billion over 10 years, mostly from
the oil and natural gas sector, and spend much of this money on tax breaks for
alternative energy sources like ethanol and wind power. If history is any guide,
this approach is likely to backfire, raising prices and reducing energy security.

Carbon taxes would undermine the US economy:


Ben Lieberman, 2007 (economic analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Online. Internet.
Accessed May 10, 2008 at
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1519.cfm)
The Senate's proposed tax increases would likely reduce supplies and increase
prices in the years ahead by discouraging investment in domestic drilling for oil
and natural gas. America's demand for energy is growing along with its economy,
and so it will need more domestic oil and natural gas supplies in the years ahead.
However, raising taxes on energy would move America in the opposite direction,
because it would raise the cost of capital for exploration and production, making
some domestic energy projects less viable.

Tax increases will undermine US competitiveness.


Diana Furchtgott-Roth, 2006 (Analyst, Hudson Institute), KEEPING AMERICA
COMPETITIVE, Nov. 10, 06. Retrieved Mar. 15, 08 from www.hudson.org.
Raising income taxes might be populist, especially among the 50% of earners who pay almost
none, but would be detrimental to competitiveness and economic growth. With nations all over the
world competing to lower taxes, America must stay at the cutting edge in order for entrepreneurs
and foreign investors to flourish. As New York knows only too well, labor and capital are mobile
and need little excuse to go elsewhere.
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 13
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

Links: Gas Tax


Gasoline taxes would undermine US economic competitiveness
compared to other oil producing nations.
Ben Lieberman, 2007 (economic analyst at the Heritage Foundation, August 1, 2007. Online.
Internet. Accessed, May 10, 2008.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1581.cfm)
Unfortunately, the House tax measures would likely reduce supplies and increase
prices in the years ahead by discouraging investment in domestic production of oil
and natural gas. This was clearly the lesson of the disastrous windfall profits tax
of 1980, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, "reduced
domestic oil production from between 3 and 6 percent, and increased oil imports
from between 8 and 16 percent. This made the U.S. more dependent upon
imported oil."[2] The latest tax increases will also have a negative impact on
badly needed domestic production. Tax hikes on domestic energy also undercut
the energy security rationale for the bill. The tax title would improve the
comparative advantage of OPEC and other non-U.S. suppliers, whose imports are
not subject to most of these provisions.
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 14
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

LINKS: JOB LOSSES CAUSE PROTECTIONISM


Job losses risk protectionism culminating in world war:
Foroohar, staff, Newsweek, 8/23/2004; Lexis
None of that money is going to pad the payroll. The past three years have seen the
greatest sustained job loss in the United States since the Great Depression. Or so many say.
Those numbers are being hotly debated in the U.S. presidential campaign. Democrats point to the government payroll survey, which
tracks big companies and shows startlingly anemic job creation in the Bush years, including a meager 32,000 jobs created in July.
Republicans prefer the household survey, which includes the self-employed, and shows relatively strong gains under Bush. Taken
together, however, both surveys support the picture of a Darwinian job market in which a comfy corporate post is increasingly hard to
find. The United States is likely a harbinger of what's to come in Europe, as it widens its own continental market. Already, tens of
thousands of big-company manufacturing jobs have migrated to the 10 new member states since they joined the European Union in
May. Now, small- and medium-size businesses are also expected to take advantage of cheaper labor in countries like Estonia. "Even if
the actual number of job losses aren't high, just the idea that management could move jobs anywhere, at any time, will have an effect
on the Western European work force," says Citigroup European equity economist Richard Reid. The same basic concerns haunt
employers on both sides of the Atlantic. Faced with relentless price pressure from all sides, chief executives can't look at labor costs
the same way, says A. D. (Pete) Correll, the CEO of the timber and paper products manufacturer Georgia Pacific. His main customer is
Wal-Mart, and he counts Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott as a friend, but says, "If I call Lee and say, 'Lee, I've got to raise prices,' he says,
'You raise prices, and I'm taking my business elsewhere'." In that environment, says Correll, the "implicit social contract" between
workers and bosses is changing irrevocably. Experts say the global labor market has not changed this dramatically since the height of
During the 19th century many of the same factors, including
the Industrial Revolution.
technological change, improved communications and transport and falling prices, threw
millions out of jobs. Then as now, there were nationalistic outcries about the loss of
"quality" jobs. Princeton economics historian Harold James says British author E. E. Williams wrote the classic of the genre,
"Made in Germany," which began with a rant against his German-made pencil. By the 1920s, restrictions on
immigration and trade were making the world poorer and less safe. It took two world
wars to bring the global economy back to where it started. And now, some economists
fear, the new competitive threats are inspiring another protectionist backlash.

Unemployment risks protectionism:


Zinsmeister, staff, The American Enterprise, 6/1/2004; Lexis
They wailed loudly about employment losses, a "jobless recovery," "outsourcing"
ordeals, and "the worst economy since Herbert Hoover"--all of this obligingly echoed by
the media. Hearings are being held, TV specials aired, protectionist measures proposed
in Congress.

Job losses feed fears of outsourcing:


Foroohar, staff, Newsweek, 8/23/2004; Lexis
What's crucially new this time around is what's being globalized--that is, the service
sector, which accounts for the bulk of employment in the developed world. The fact that
seemingly any job can be exported abroad is creating an unprecedented level of anxiety
across all social classes. Though the number of Western jobs "outsourced" to India is far
too small to explain the jobless recovery, the trend is only in its infancy. The number of Indian
professionals in the IT sector is expected to triple to more than 2 million over the next five years, and Morgan Stanley's Mumbai
research center predicts that multinationals will match new jobs in Indian subsidiaries with head-count reductions elsewhere. General
Electric's "70-70-70" plan signals the possible extent of these shifts: It plans to outsource 70 percent of its head count, push 70 percent
of that outsourcing offshore and locate 70 percent of its workers in India.
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 15
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 16
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

Links: Renewable Portfolio Standard


A renewable portfolio standard would undermine US
competitiveness.
Ben Lieberman, 2007 (economic analyst at the Heritage Foundation, August 1, 2007. Online.
Internet. Accessed, May 10, 2008.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1581.cfm)
The House seeks a requirement that 20 percent of electricity be generated from so-called renewable sources--chiefly wind
but also solar and others. In effect, the requirement forces utilities that produce America's electricity from natural gas, coal,
Of course, the only reason why a federally
and nuclear power to diversify into these alternatives.
mandated Renewable Portfolio Standard is needed in the first place is that that
these alternatives are far too expensive to compete otherwise. In effect,
Washington is forcing costlier energy options on the public. This is particularly true of
certain states, especially those in the Southeast and parts of the Midwest, where the conditions are not conducive to wind
power. And
since renewables are lavished with substantial tax breaks, a national
mandate will cost Americans both as taxpayers and as ratepayers.
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 17
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

Internal Links: Threats to Competitiveness Spur


Protectionism
Threats to competition inspire protectionism:
Foroohar, staff, Newsweek, 8/23/2004; Lexis
During the 19th century many of the same factors, including technological
change, improved communications and transport and falling prices, threw
millions out of jobs. Then as now, there were nationalistic outcries about the loss
of "quality" jobs. Princeton economics historian Harold James says British author
E. E. Williams wrote the classic of the genre, "Made in Germany," which began
with a rant against his German-made pencil. By the 1920s, restrictions on
immigration and trade were making the world poorer and less safe. It took two
world wars to bring the global economy back to where it started. And now, some
economists fear, the new competitive threats are inspiring another protectionist
backlash.

Big industry can tempt politicians into going protectionist:


American Spectator March 2002 - April 2002; Lexis
Protectionism is always tempting to political leaders left and right, especially when
the special-interest lobby in question comprises both large corporations and labor
unions. Little is more frightening to a politician than to be accused of "doing nothing"
while cheap foreign imports undermine America's industry, bankrupting great companies
and throwing hard-working Americans out of jobs. Nothing gets the juices flowing faster-
especially with a war on-than to have Big Steel wrap itself in the flag and appeal for help.
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 18
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

Internal Links: Protectionism Snowballs


US protectionism threatens the entire world trading system:
Cal Trade Report, 6/17/2008
http://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/front-page-1213666112.html
The review of US trade policy has been held annually for the last nine years. Sun
Zhenyu, China's permanent representative to the WTO, addressed the meeting
saying that “rising domestic trade protectionism could threaten world trade and
the global multilateral trade system.”

Doha Round at a critical juncture now:


Cal Trade Report, 6/17/2008
http://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/front-page-1213666112.html
The “critical” Doha Round of global trade talks are at a “critical juncture,” and
“the protectionist measures of the US Congress sent a very negative signal.”
These measures, he added, “also make WTO members doubt the leadership and
political will of the United States to promote success in the Doha Round
negotiations.

Any weakening of support for free trade risks retaliation by


other nations:
Cassidy, staff, New Yorker, 8/2/2004; Lexis
Some economists privately acknowledge that the arguments about outsourcing are
nuanced, but they fear that any weakening of support for free trade could do untold
damage to the economy. During the Great Depression, Congress introduced the
infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which raised duties on a range of foreign goods.
Other countries retaliated, and the subsequent downturn in international trade
intensified the slump. The economists are right when they say protectionism isn't the
answer to outsourcing.

Protectionism spirals into trade wars:


American Spectator March 2002 - April 2002; Lexis
Neither does "strategic protectionism" make sense as a negotiation strategy, because it is
much more likely to set off trade war with our key economic partners. Mexico,
ironically, which was excluded from the tariff increases, is considering taking advantage
of them by raising its own tariffs on steel. Russia has stopped issuing import licenses for
chicken imports from the U.S. and may impose an outright ban. European
Parlimentarians say they will use "all means at their disposal" to respond, and Japan says
it is considering every option available to counter the U.S. tariff hike on steel.
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 19
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

Internal Links: Protectionism Snowballs


Staying the course on free trade essential to open markets for
1.3 billion people:
News & Observer, 7/28/2004; Lexis
It adds up to a tremendous temptation to back away from free trade. Certainly trade
agreements entered into by this country in good faith need to be honored by all parties.
But to retreat from the spirit of free trade now would be to undermine policies that allow
developing nations to stimulate growth of a stable middle class, as India is doing. Staying
the course is bound to pay dividends in terms of global stability and security. Another
consideration: The trade agreements open a market of 1.3 billion people to American
companies.

Need to continue to support free trade so US can preserve its


pro-free trade image:
EIRAS, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS,
Heritage Foundation Reports, July 23, 2004; lEXIS
To its credit, the Bush Administration has engaged in an aggressive expansion of free
trade with more than 10 nations, and President Bush lifted the steel tariffs in late 2003.
These are steps in the right direction, but the Administration needs to express its support
for freer markets more forcefully and credibly by pushing for elimination of subsidies
and tariff barriers at once so that America can increase its economic freedom and
preserve the image of a pro-freedom government.
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 20
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

Internal Links: Decreased Competitiveness Risks China


Bashing
Congress is willing to enact protectionist legislation against
China’s currency.
Xiong Qu, 2008 (staff writer, April 30, 2008. Online. Internet. Accessed May 9,
2008 at http://www.cctv.com/english/20080430/104202.shtml)
The White Paper noted that China has in effect acquired part of the trade deficit
formerly held by other Asian countries. As a result, imports from China are not
really displacing US goods. The White Paper also said the US Congress should
refrain from enacting legislation that attempts to change the terms of trade with
China through currency appreciation.

A weakening US economy risks undermining efforts to liberalize


trade.
Heather Stewart, 2008 (staff writer, The Observer. January 6, 2008. Online.
Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008).
As the turmoil in the giant American economy spreads from the housing market to jobs and
consumer spending, and politicians cast around for someone to blame, there is a
growing risk that 2008 could become the year when half a century of trade
liberalisation grinds to a halt. Last year was supposed to be crunch-time for the Doha round of international
trade talks, launched in the wake of the 2001 attacks on New York, with the aim of making the world's markets fairer for
2007 was another 12 months of mutual finger-pointing
developing countries. Instead,
between the world's great trading powers, and a deal looks as distant as ever.

Industries will push for China-bashing.


Frank Ching, 2007 (staff writer, South China Morning Post, December 19, 2007.
Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008).
No sooner had the United States and China announced the successful conclusion
of their strategic economic dialogue, last week, than the China Currency Coalition
pronounced the talks a failure and called on the US Congress to "take much-
needed action". The coalition is an alliance of American industry, agriculture and labour groups whose
mission, it says, is "seeking an end to Chinese currency manipulation".

China will be blamed for lost American jobs.


Frank Ching, 2007 (staff writer, South China Morning Post, December 19, 2007.
Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008).
American society is clearly divided on China. There are differences between the
Bush administration and Congress. And between those who benefit from China -
such as US firms that do business with, and consumers who enjoy low-cost imports from, that nation - and those
who blame it for their lost jobs.
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 21
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

Impacts: Protectionism Against China Risks a Trade


War

Congressional protectionism against China triggers a trade war.


Frank Ching, 2007 (staff writer, South China Morning Post, December 19, 2007.
Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008).
But trade issues remain intractable. American attention is focused on the value of the yuan, and Washington is pressuring
China has allowed its currency to rise by
Beijing for a rapid appreciation to make exports more costly.
over 12 per cent since July 2005, but Washington wants a much more dramatic
increase. More than 50 China-related bills have been proposed by US legislators
in recent years. The best-known was put forward by Senators Charles Schumer
and Lindsey Graham, to impose a 27.5 per cent surcharge on all imports from
China to compensate for what they call the deliberate undervaluation of the yuan. If any of these bills
become law, they will trigger a trade war.

Trade is the most likely area of friction between the US and


China.
Frank Ching, 2007 (staff writer, South China Morning Post, December 19, 2007.
Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008).
How American society views US relations with China was highlighted by a recent Zogby International
poll commissioned by the Committee of 100, a non-profit, non-partisan group of Chinese-American
leaders and professionals. The survey showed that trade is regarded as the most likely area of
shared interests - but also as the most likely source of conflict between the two countries.
That view was held by virtually all segments of American society - the general
public, opinion leaders, business leaders and congressional staffers. This
underlines the need for Washington and Beijing to handle trade issues with special
care.
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 22
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

Impacts: Trade Wars Risk Real Wars


Free trade critical to stop a nuclear war:
Copley News Service, December 1, 1999
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed
fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winter
freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the
World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is
that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further
their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In
a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war
for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly
fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades
past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or
paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike
yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the
nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than
strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations
sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and
bombs.As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are
built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive
to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As
exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity
increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters
in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday
wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's not the military-industrial complex
benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a growing
number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and
other companies for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who
work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30
Growing global
percent of our gross domestic product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers.
prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter. Nations of
the world are learning to live and work together, like the singers of
anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about world peace
shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.

Trade wars risk shooting wars.


States News Service, 2008 (staff writer, April 14, 2008. Online. Lexis.
Accessed May 10, 2008).
The prosperity in one country, of course, need not take away from the prosperity
of another. Indeed, economic prosperity spills across borders if governments are
open to it. Frederic Bastiat, a famous 19th Century French economist, said that if
goods do not cross borders, armies will. The more international ties between
economies there are, the more likely it is that the prosperity of one country will
benefit other countries.

Free trade prevents warfare.


Tyler Cowen, 2008 (professor of economics at George Mason University,
Washington Post, January 24, 2008. Online. Lexis. Accessed May 10, 2008).
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 23
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET
Markets embody more knowledge and mobilize more expertise than is held by
any single human being. That's why South Korea is so much richer and happier
than North Korea. Shermer also cites Bastiat's principle: "When goods do not
cross borders, armies will." His corollary is that when goods do cross frontiers,
armies will not, and so we should base our societies on trade.
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 24
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

Impacts: Protectionism Causes War


Free trade ends the nationalism that drives conflicts – a global
body politic ensures peace
Jason Brooks, Department of Journalism at Carleton University, 1999 ed. Independent
Institute “Make Trade, Not War”
http://www.independent.org/tii/students/GarveyEssay99Brooks.html
Different people have different solutions to war; none are as logical as free trade. The war
hawks have
pursued a policy of mutual assured destruction, arguing that bigger weapons make better deterrents. Others
have argued for disarmament. While the causes of war are undoubtedly varied, protectionism
clearly invites conflict. To this, free trade is a remedy. While diplomacy is important,
there can be no better diplomacy than that which exists between common citizens of the
world every day in a thousand spheres of life. The more free trade we have, the more the
invisible hand of the market helps us to, while working for our own advancement, create
a world of peace. The wellbeing of others becomes our own. There is no reason why, in a world of perfect free trade, people worldwide shouldn't get along as
well as the citizens of the happiest, most prosperous democracies. For in a world of free trade it matters little where borders

are drawn. "Make love, not war," was a slogan once bandied about as an answer to war. It was a catchy phrase -- and an
appealing message given the two options. But it wasn't too practical. The real solution to war, if condensed to
the size of a placard, would instead read, "Make trade, not war."

All empirical examples demonstrate that protectionism causes


massive wars
Vincent Miller, founder and President of the International Society for Individual Liberty,
and James Elwood, Vice-President of the International Society for Individual Liberty,
“Free Trade of Protectionism?” 1988, http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/free-trade-
protectionism.html, accessed 1/3/03
History is not lacking in examples of cold trade wars escalating into hot shooting wars:
Europe suffered from almost non-stop wars during the 17th and 18th centuries, when
restrictive trade policy (mercantilism) was the rule; rival governments fought each other
to expand their empires and to exploit captive markets. British tariffs provoked the American colonists to
revolution, and later the Northern-dominated U.S. government imposed restrictions on Southern cotton exports – a major factor
leading to the American Civil War. In the late 19th Century, after a half century of general free trade
(which brought a half-century of peace), short-sighted politicians throughout Europe
again began erecting trade barriers. Hostilities built up until they eventually exploded into
World War I. In 1930, facing only a mild recession, U.S. President Hoover ignored warning pleas in a petition by 1028
prominent economists and signed the notorious Smoot-Hawley Act, which raised some tariffs to
100% levels. Within a year, over 25 other governments had retaliated by passing similar
laws. The result? World trade came to a grinding halt, and the entire world was plunged
into the "Great Depression" for the rest of the decade. The depression in turn led to World
War II. The # 1 Danger To World Peace The world enjoyed its greatest economic growth during the relatively free trade period of 1945-1970, a period that also saw no
major wars. Yet we again see trade barriers being raised around the world by short-sighted politicians. Will the world again end up in a shooting war as a result of these

Can we afford to allow this to happen in the nuclear age? "What


economically deranged policies?

generates war is the economic philosophy of nationalism: embargoes, trade and foreign
exchange controls, monetary devaluation, etc. The philosophy of protectionism is a
philosophy of war."
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 25
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

Impacts: Leadership
A) Trade war risk undermining global trading system:
Bergsten, 04 (Foreign Affairs, March 2004 - April 2004; Lexis)
U.S. policymakers must decisively overcome the domestic backlash against globalization
to create a firm political foundation for a sustainable and constructive foreign economic
policy. But the outlook is worrisome, despite the current economic recovery. Overvalued exchange rates and the massive trade
deficits they create -- characteristics of the current U.S. economy -- have historically caused a retreat from openness. The admirable
efforts of the Bush administration to revive liberalization have mostly run aground: the Doha Round of World Trade Organization
(WTO) negotiations stalled at Cancun in September 2003; the Free Trade Area of the Americas fared similarly poorly at Miami in
November 2003; and bilateral free trade agreements are facing stiff congressional resistance and may have to be shelved. Moreover,
disputes between Europe and the United States could spark a transatlantic trade war, and
a vicious round of China-bashing has erupted over the past year. These developments
have put U.S. trade policy, and hence the global trading system, in deep jeopardy and
could start to reverse the profound benefits of globalization.

B) Rollback of globalization undermines US leadership:


Bergsten, 04 (Foreign Affairs, March 2004 - April 2004; Lexis)
Stopping the advance of globalization would be very dangerous to U.S. foreign policy
because globalization -- more than terrorism or the end of the Cold War -- has been the
dominant force for change in international affairs in the past 50 years. And rightly or
wrongly, it is equated with Americanization in much of the world. Debates over
globalization are often debates over the role of the United States itself. A significant
rollback of globalization, or a halt in its continued advance, would therefore represent a
major defeat for the United States on the world stage. The next administration must
recognize the urgency of the situation and make foreign economic policy a top priority.

C) US leadership is essential to prevent global nuclear


exchange.
Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995
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.
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 26
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

*****Affirmative Answers*****
No impact: China won’t allow protectionism to spiral into a
trade war:
Scott Tong, 6/24/2008
(http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/06/24/china_fingerwagging)
Tong: Well, there's talk of protectionism in Congress, that China isn't proceeding
quickly enough. From China's perspective, the technicians who are trying to
tweak the economy, most people tell me that this push back rhetoric right now at
least is not going to lead into protectionism from the Chinese side, that what
motivates them principally is political stability and if they can go in the right
direction in a way that's politically stable, they're going to keep going in that
direction and for all the rhetoric and finger wagging globally, it's going to be
motivated by domestic concerns first.

No impact: Any US protectionism will be rolled back—steel


tariffs prove:
Seattle Times, 1/5/2004; Lexis
Next, freeing international trade from heavy regulation. Dean says he will not sign trade
agreements unless they include labor and environmental standards. Whose standards?
Ours? Poor countries cannot afford them. There is room for compromise, but recent
debates on trade suggest industries or unions often push for protectionism under the cloak
of fairness. A protectionist trade policy, no matter how it is camouflaged, can't exist for
long in today's global economy. Look at President Bush's failed steel tariff as an example.

Non-unique: Protectionist sentiment is rising in the US now:


Cal Trade Report, 6/17/2008
http://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/front-page-1213666112.html
GENEVA, Switzerland – 06/17/08 – Rising levels of protectionism in the US is cause for
serious concern, according to a recent two-day review of US trade policy conducted last week by the
World Trade Organization (WTO). The global trade body submitting more than 90 detailed technical
questions to the US about its trade policy during the two-day meeting, expressing its dismay “at worrying
signs of a re-emergence of protectionist sentiment” in the US. “The increasingly
restrictive import requirements imposed by the United States for security purposes
new legislation requiring the 100% scanning of containers destined for the US is
an example…as is the lack of reform in the 2008 US Farm Bill raised doubts about the
compliance and professed intent of some aspects of US trade policy with the WTO,” the group said in a statement to the
press.
CHINA BASHING DISADVANTAGE 27
SAMFORD DEBATE INSTITUTE ’08 OPENING PACKET

Affirmative Answers
US protectionist sentiment on the rise now:
Cal Trade Report, 6/17/2008
http://www.caltradereport.com/eWebPages/front-page-1213666112.html
The rise of US domestic trade protectionist sentiment, he said, “has caused
widespread concern.” Such trade protectionism, Sun added,“is demonstrated in
events such as the US Congress failing to extend the president's trade promotion
authority, and the Congress recently passing a new farm bill which provides huge
agricultural subsidies.”

No impact: Neither Obama or McCain will China-bash:


AFP, 6/22/2008 (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjYxYPat679CouKzkuC--
lvK8Mpg)
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Despite their rhetoric, White House aspirants Barack Obama
and John McCain are unlikely to adopt a confrontational approach towards China even as
it flexes its military and economic muscles, experts say.

No impact: US politicians won’t let China bashing get out of


control:
AFP, 6/22/2008 (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjYxYPat679CouKzkuC--
lvK8Mpg)
China has also challenged longstanding US military dominance in Asia, and some experts
say that in five years, the Asian giant with an exploding manufacturing sector may be
able assemble the "building blocks" of a military superpower. President George W. Bush
and his recent predecessors all determined that they had to make the relationship between
the world's most developed nation and biggest developing economy work, the experts
said, and senators Obama and McCain would also very quickly come to that conclusion.
"When you are dealing with an economic superpower of that magnitude one does not
give the impression of a desire for a confrontation unless one is pushed to the wall," said
John Tkacik, a former China expert at the State Department. "And China is simply too
big an economic actor to confront head on if one doesn't have to," he said.