You are on page 1of 79

NHSI 2008 SENIORS

[FILE NAME] 1

SUBSIDIES DA
Subsidies DA....................................................................................................................................................1
1NC – Generic version.....................................................................................................................................3
1NC Generic.....................................................................................................................................................4
Uniqueness – Ethanol Specific.........................................................................................................................5
Impact Internals – 1NC Extension....................................................................................................................7
Impact Internals – More Evidence....................................................................................................................8
Links...............................................................................................................................................................10
Impacts – 1NC Extension...............................................................................................................................11
Impacts – Global Economy Module...............................................................................................................12
Impacts – Food Crisis Module........................................................................................................................14
Impacts – Laundry List...................................................................................................................................16
Impacts – Subsidies Turns Environment........................................................................................................18
Impacts – Protectionism Turns Environment.................................................................................................20
Impacts – Ethanol Subsidies Bad...................................................................................................................22
Impacts – Ethanol Subsidies Bad...................................................................................................................23
1NC- Europe version......................................................................................................................................24
1NC Europe version.......................................................................................................................................25
1NC Europe version.......................................................................................................................................25
1NC Europe Version.......................................................................................................................................27
US/European Relations - Middle East............................................................................................................28
U.S. /European relations- middle east............................................................................................................29
US/European Relations - Middle East............................................................................................................30
U.S./European Relations- Middle East ..........................................................................................................31
US/European Relations - Middle East............................................................................................................32
US/European Relations - Middle East............................................................................................................33
US/European Relations - Middle East............................................................................................................34
US/European Relations - Middle East............................................................................................................35
US/European Relations - Economy................................................................................................................36
US/European Relations - Economy................................................................................................................37
US/European Relations - Trade......................................................................................................................38
US/European Relations - Trade......................................................................................................................39
US/European Relations - Terrorism...............................................................................................................40
US/European Relations - Terrorism...............................................................................................................41
US/European Relations - Terrorism...............................................................................................................42
US/European Relations - Environment..........................................................................................................43
US/European Relations - Leadership..............................................................................................................44
US/European Relations - Leadership..............................................................................................................45
US/European Relations - Leadership..............................................................................................................46
US/European Relations - Multilateralism.......................................................................................................47
Protectionism Bad...........................................................................................................................................48
Protectionism Bad...........................................................................................................................................49
Protectionism BAd..........................................................................................................................................50
Protectionism bad...........................................................................................................................................51
Protectionism bad...........................................................................................................................................52
Protectionism BAd..........................................................................................................................................53
Protectionism bad...........................................................................................................................................54
Protectionism bad...........................................................................................................................................55
Protectionism bad...........................................................................................................................................56
Protectionism bad...........................................................................................................................................57
Protectionism bad...........................................................................................................................................58
Environmental protectionism bad...................................................................................................................59
Free Trade Good.............................................................................................................................................60
Free trade good...............................................................................................................................................61
Free trade good...............................................................................................................................................62

Northwestern University Debate Society
National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 2

Free Trade good..............................................................................................................................................63
Uniquness: Protectionism now.......................................................................................................................64
Uniquness: protectionism now.......................................................................................................................65
Uniqueness—subsidies low............................................................................................................................66
Energy subsidies bad......................................................................................................................................67
*Aff Answers*................................................................................................................................................68
Subsidies Non-Unique....................................................................................................................................69
Subsidies non-unique......................................................................................................................................70
Subsidies Non-Unique....................................................................................................................................71
Protectionism Non-Unique.............................................................................................................................72
AT: – Protectionism........................................................................................................................................73
AT:– Economy................................................................................................................................................75
AT: – Food Crisis .........................................................................................................................................77
AT: – Food Crisis...........................................................................................................................................78
AT: “Protectionism Turns Case”....................................................................................................................79

Northwestern University Debate Society
National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 3

1NC – GENERIC VERSION

A. Uniqueness – The House has failed to extend subsidies that expire at the end of this year due to
failed support – subsidies are getting cut now

International Herald Tribune 6/2/08
[Alternative energy on edge in U.S., lexis]

Anxiety is setting in among companies specializing in solar and wind power, and the investors that are
backing them, as U.S. lawmakers delay the extension of tax credits deemed critical for
the burgeoning renewable energy industry.After several failed attempts by Congress to
prolong alternative energy subsidies that are set to expire at the end of this
year, companies are bracing for the worst by cutting jobs and trying to increase their
sales in Europe, where generous government incentives are more certain. ''It certainly is affecting
business,'' said Mike Splinter, chief executive of Applied Materials, a maker of solar equipment. ''It's a
major issue for the solar industry,'' Splinter said. ''We've seen hundreds of cities and many states start to
adopt their own rules, and we can't pass even the simplest, smallest of incentives.''
The alternative energy industry still relies heavily on subsidies to make prices of
renewable power competitive with electricity generated from coal and natural gas. Several attempts
to extend the tax credits have failed in recent months as lawmakers argue
over how to pay for them.

B. Links – Attempts at energy independence through subsidies fosters counterproductive
protectionism

The American 07
[Q&A: Energy independence, http://www.american.com/energy/q-a-energy-independence/]

15. How should we think about energy security going forward?A sensible
policy goal would be not independence, but diversification: a portfolio of
energy technologies and global supplies that minimizes the economic and
political risk of disruptions from any particular region or energy source. A
diversification strategy can recognize that, even if supplies are precarious,
the case for free trade in energy is just as strong as for any other commodity
or economic activity. Energy independence, which could also be described as
energy protectionism or isolationism, is a counterproductive goal. By limiting
ourselves to only what we can make at home, we make ourselves poorer. If a
desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions motivates us to discourage oil
consumption, we should avoid the temptation to provide specific subsidies to
particular alternative approaches.

Northwestern University Debate Society
National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

Section 2 discusses potential rationales for subsidy policies from a law and economics perspective and what types of subsidy policies are or are not desirable in addressing climate change. WTO rules create a serious concern to the extent they constrain subsidies aimed at addressing market failures underlying GHG emissions. A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled and unstable place in which suspicion and ultimately envy will possibly erupt into a major war. The members have struggled over time with a desire to curb protectionist policy and at the same time allow scope for legitimate subsidies. it will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which natural fears will be fanned and inflamed. It argues that subsidies policy can play a positive role. as will be discussed below. or of attempting to shut out markets that are growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for innovative production. Impacts – Protectionism fosters global war and the eruption of nuclear conflict Spicer 96 . I do not say that the converse will necessarily be true. particularly in light of the reluctance of governments to use potentially more effective and efficient tools such as taxes and emissions trading. thispaper examines whether WTO rules promote optimal use of subsidies. The impact of WTO rules on subsidy policies not clearly attributable to addressing market failures is more controversial and raises interesting questions about the interaction between the WTO and domestic political processes C. It may also entail the increased use of subsidies to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases directly such as subsidies for emissions reductions or increased energy efficiency by particular industries. Because of the broad scope and potential for the use of subsidies by both parties and non-parties to the Kyoto Protocol. subsidies for industries and individuals are also emerging as an important tool for governments in the context of climate change. “The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the West.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 4 1NC GENERIC Protectionist policies violate the WTO Andrew Green 2006 (Trade rules and climate change subsidies. stability will be at a premium in the years ahead. More fundamentally. World Trade Review. WTO rules are intended to constrain members’ ability to adopt such protectionist subsidies. These subsidy policies may conflict with international trade rules. It argues that in attempting to hinder protectionist subsidy policies. 121] The choice facing the West today is much the same as that which faced the Soviet bloc after World War II: between meeting head-on the challenge of world trade with the adjustments and the benefits that it will bring. Such a policy would involve the reduction of existing subsidies to industries (such as the coal industry).Economist. there is also a clear risk that such subsidies will be used to favour domestic production at the expense of imports. that in a free trading world there will be an absence of all strife. and that is a good step in the direction of world stability.” p. Section 3 sets out the WTO rules on subsidies (including the now expired limited exception for environmental subsidies) and discusses how they impact on countries’ ability to implement appropriate or inappropriate climate change policies. But to trade is to become interdependent. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . [Michael. However. University of Toronto) However. member of the British Parliament. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has created and enforces a range of rules to regulate members’ subsidy policies. With nuclear weapons at two a penny. The problem about the second approach is not simply that it won't hold: satellite technology alone will ensure that he consumers will begin to demand those goods that the East is able to provide most cheaply. Such a proposition would manifestly be absurd. while there is a potentially positive role for subsidies. which are a significant source of greenhouse gases.

Arizona Republican. Hoyer. including the mandates for blended gasoline. Subsidies tied to food deficit. coupled with higher worldwide living standards and higher demand . Jeff Flake. " Mr.S. said Tuesday that the private sector is already investing in projects to develop rather than a multi-billion dollar infusion of cellulosic ethanol and that loan guarantees Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . Meanwhile. rolling back government rules passed just four months ago that require blending ethanol into gasoline. Kay Bailey Hutchison. They are all saying the same thing: The cost of food and the cost of fuel is just killing their ability to continue to operate.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 5 UNIQUENESS – ETHANOL SPECIFIC Democrats and republicans both support the removal of alternative energy subsidies now – They realize that previous subsidies have caused market distortions. Texas Republican. rather than a full helping of tax breaks or grants. Congress and President Bush seemed to view ethanol as a near-magic solution to the nation's dependence on oil and counted on it to make a dent in greenhouse gas Republicans and Democrats together piled up the incentives and emissions. I've talked to pig producers. The Washington Times 5/1/08 [“Congress' ethanol affair is cooling. while Republicans are looking to go further. that was the theory. is working on her own plan to freeze the ethanol-renewable-fuel-replacement mandate at this year's levels. Flake said. I mean.S. sees loans driving ethanol. Obviously. Maryland Democrat. " " This is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences. they left a dearth in other foods . who introduced a bill this week to end the entire slate of federal supports.” Lexis] A senior Bush administration official said last week that the United States will meet its goal of displacing 30% of gasoline with 60 billion gallons of ethanol by offering private investors loan guarantees. taking her case to the airwaves. Hoyer said Democrats will use the pending farm bill to reduce the subsidy. Only a year ago. House Majority Leader Steny H. reducing subsidies. “U. and tariffs that keep out cheaper foreign ethanol. " I've talked to cattle producers. some stores have said they will the most common phrase when lawmakers talk ration sales of staples such as rice. But as farmers switched crops. Sen. one of the administration's principals on alternative fuels. while even in the U. sometimes there are unforeseen or unintended consequences of actions. but that's precisely what's happened. the tax credits for Congress surely did not ethanol producers. " I think it's going talk show host to get worse. A jump in food prices is the last thing our economy needs right now. " The view was to look to alternatives and try to become more dependent on the Midwest than the Middle East.which. " [ ] Ethanol subsidies are being scaled back replaced by private investment loans Inside Energy 06 [Daniel Whitten. Hutchison told radio Rush Limbaugh yesterday. Now about ethanol is " unintended consequences.. and I'd like to try to do something that might mitigate this and not cause the crisis. " Mr. Food riots have erupted in some nations. told reporters yesterday.has caused food shortages. mandates that pushed farmers into planting corn for ethanol and consumers into buying gasoline blended with it.” Lexis] Members of Congress say they overreached by pushing ethanol on consumers and will move to roll back federal supports for it .the latest sure signal that Congress' appetite for corn-based ethanol has collapsed as food and gas prices have shot up. " intend to raise food prices by incentivizing ethanol. Agriculture Department Under Secretary Thomas Dorr. " Mrs. " said Rep.

NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 6 subsidies will lead the country toward the 2030 goal. That view has been promoted in recent weeks by a host of ethanol advocates who say that by moving to the homegrown fuel. the government can roll back farm subsidies and scale back. if not eliminate. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . incentives for the burgeoning industry.

exports are also eligible for EU subsidies. The EU has set itself a target of using biofuel for 10% of its transport fuel by 2020. EU exchange threats over biodiesel subsidies. Those duties may eventually be made definitive.” Lexis] European biodiesel producers kicked off a new transatlantic trade row yesterday when they asked Brussels to impose punitive duties on U. break World Trade Organization rules. something that will require large amounts of imports. biodiesel exports to the EU. The EBB said it was formally requesting the EU's executive commission to hit U. as a result of these measures.S." Mr.such as the EU's discriminatory biodiesel fuel specification -. It would then have up to nine months to impose duties provisionally if it finds evidence that trade rules were broken." the EBB said in a statement. With demand for plant-based fuels starting to soar as the world seeks ways to fight climate change.S." said Peter Power.S. thus creating a severe injury to the EU biodiesel industry. biodiesel group accused the EU sector of trying to use litigation for protectionist ends and said his group would "aggressively challenge" EU trade obstacles. rivals said they would hit back. The European producers have previously said they would seek to hit U. "Since 2007. the EU Trade Commissioner.S. imports with anti- dumping and anti-subsidy duties. The Financial Post 4/28/08 [“U. "It is hypocritical for the European Biodiesel Board to cry foul while they benefit from a blatant trade barrier." said Manning Feraci. Feraci said in a statement.. subsidies. European board requests punitive duties. subsidies for "B99" biodiesel." Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . which is blended with small amounts of mineral diesel. The U. there has been a dramatic surge in U. EU officials say. The European Commission has 45 days from receipt of a complaint to decide whether to launch investigations. usually lasting five years. referring to the European industry's complaint yesterday.S. The head of a U. Yesterday's complaint starts the clock on the EU procedure for handling such cases.S. a spokesman for Peter Mandelson.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 7 IMPACT INTERNALS – 1NC EXTENSION Green subsidies collapse trade and promote protectionism because they anger the foreign energy market that in turn imposes duties on imports. and their U. the European Biodiesel Board (EBB) said companies in the European Union were going out of business because of unfair U.S. biodiesel.S. "We will look at it very carefully.S. The European industry has long complained that U.and other EU biofuel policies that are inconsistent with WTO rules and provide preferential treatment to European fuel producers.S. "Our industry will aggressively challenge existing EU trade barriers -. vice-president of federal affairs at the National Biodiesel Board. "We will not under any circumstances tolerate unfair trade. Barriers to trade. imports with duties. He said EU biodiesel fuel specifications were discriminatory and inconsistent with WTO rules.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . It came as Gordon Brown unveiled a $750m (pounds 397) bid to break the logjam in the stalled trade talks. does this increase social tensions especially if [wages at] the low end are completely flat. Energy subsidies disrupt market patterns News Times 11/30/06 [“Alternative energy subsidies skew market. warns IMF chief. one of the world's most free trade- oriented countries. we need continuous improvement on the trade front and therefore the breakdown of the Doha round is clearly a problem. It’s the government.” http://www. two of the three highest factors for commercial users in purchasing solar equipment are “Return on Investment and Rebates” and “Tax Credits. he said: "Strong political forces strengthened by rising inequality are gathering to combat the influence of technology and global competition. I think it does. mine". "This necessary but difficult domestic battle is constantly postponed till after the next election . He highlighted the US where he said there was evidence that income inequality was rising. In a recent study by ECONorthwest. In his valedictory briefing before he stands down later this year. andfar too many politicians are pandering to the discontents. Raghuram Rajan. "The question is. whose collapse has been blamed on the protectionist stance taken by the US and continental Europe. today's leaders should focus from spending the dividend to reinvesting for the future.” Lexis] The International Monetary Fund yesterday accused politicians across the world of "pandering" to the growing hostility towards immigration and the rise in protectionism." He also criticised Latin American leaders for adopting "populist" policies such as nationalising the collapse of the world trade talks - foreign-owned energy concessions. "This could not be more serious." He urged political leaders to find a way of reducing poverty and to lessen inequalities of wealth and income that could fuel social tensions. "Europe's leaders need to find the will to take on vested interests in both labour and in the corporate sector. In terms of national advantage - an attitude of me." he said. "For the medium-term health of the world economy." It is understood that Washington is anxious to rekindle negotiations and will use the opportunity of the annual meetings of the IMF and the World Bank to explore how it might do so. said that governments were failing to sustain the benefits of the technological revolution that helped to combat poverty.forestgrovenewstimes. the financial watchdog's chief economist. my. The US blocked a Dubai firm from buying six US ports while France moved to keep the yoghurt giant Danone French." he said. it said "me. "For the good times to continue.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 8 IMPACT INTERNALS – MORE EVIDENCE Subsidizing energy is a form of economic nationalism and collapses global trade talks The Independent 06 [“'Economic nationalism' is damaging us all. Even the UK. He highlighted known as the Doha round .php? story_id=116482619508208700] Subsidies." He said: "The rising tide of economic nationalism [and] the strengthening resistance to immigration are all signals pointing in the same direction.politicians are once again ensuring collective disadvantage.which poverty campaigners have blamed on the refusal of Europe and the US to make cuts in the agricultural subsidies that would benefit farmers in the developing nations.com/opinion/story.” In a recent Daily Journal of Commerce article. especially when pensions and healthcare payments were taken into account. wind energy proponents admit that the government is necessary to build demand and to persuade consumers to purchase renewable energy.but the next election will never come. tax credits and grants have made it very easy for individuals and companies to purchase and install their own alternative energy generators. People don't just look at absolute incomes but at relative incomes and they feel they are being left behind. In what will be seen as a scathing governments were increasingly pursuing an attitude of attack on rich countries. my. has recently become lukewarm over the prospect of thousands more eastern European workers coming to Britain when Bulgaria and Romania join the EU next year. who drive demand for green power." His comments will be seen as an attack on governments in Washington and European capitals that have blocked cross-border takeovers to protect their national champions. mine ." he said. not consumers.

CO2-free coal plants. The organization is funded by a 3 percent sales tax on customers of Portland General Electric. The group spent $53 million of taxpayer money in 2005. universities and R&D companies. third. such as Portland General Electric.and fourth-generation nuclear power plants with improved safety designs. Government aid. not because government officials and lobbyists in Salem or Washington. These technologies should succeed or fail on their own merits. projects. The falling costs of wind and solar energy. for example. The Energy Trust of Oregon.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 9 Companies involved in methane digester Studies on methane digesters tell the same story. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 .C. A number of promising technologies are emerging in both alternative and traditional energies. not the market.8 million subsidizing alternative energy this year. D. inducing consumers to purchase goods that are simply not market-friendly. favor them. have decided they cannot fund these projects on their own in the future. Subsidies and tax breaks provide incentives to adopt alternative energy. Pacific Power & Light and Northwest Natural Gas. and many other developments and innovations are pouring out of laboratories. is the real engine driving the boom in alternative energy. plans to spend $29. improvements in methane digester technology.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . University of Toronto) However. It argues that subsidies policy can play a positive role. World Trade Review.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 10 LINKS Protectionist policies violate the WTO Andrew Green 2006 (Trade rules and climate change subsidies. 2005). Such a policy would involve the reduction of existing subsidies to industries (such as the coal industry). Because of the broad scope and potential for the use of subsidies by both parties and non-parties to the Kyoto Protocol. as will be discussed below. particularly in light of the reluctance of governments to use potentially more effective and efficient tools such as taxes and emissions trading. thispaper examines whether WTO rules promote optimal use of subsidies. University of Toronto) These risks arise from the impact of subsidies on prices and on the production of the subsidized product. However. Subsidies cause market distortion Andrew Green 2006 (Trade rules and climate change subsidies. subsidies for industries and individuals are also emerging as an important tool for governments in the context of climate change. where they lower the marginal costs (either short run or long run) of producers. Subsidies may be harmful. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has created and enforces a range of rules to regulate members’ subsidy policies. It argues that in attempting to hinder protectionist subsidy policies. Such lower prices may reduce or eliminate market access rights of exporting countries to the market of the subsidizing state. The impact of WTO rules on subsidy policies not clearly attributable to addressing market failures is more controversial and raises interesting questions about the interaction between the WTO and domestic political processes. while there is a potentially positive role for subsidies. from an international trade perspective. The members have struggled over time with a desire to curb protectionist policy and at the same time allow scope for legitimate subsidies. leading to their lowering the price for their products. there is also a clear risk that such subsidies will be used to favour domestic production at the expense of imports. Section 3 sets out the WTO rules on subsidies (including the now expired limited exception for environmental subsidies) and discusses how they impact on countries’ ability to implement appropriate or inappropriate climate change policies. and/ or reduce global welfare by distorting resource allocation towards the subsidized industry (Sykes. divert customers in other countries away from the products of non-subsidizing states towards products of the subsidizing state. WTO rules create a serious concern to the extent they constrain subsidies aimed at addressing market failures underlying GHG emissions. WTO rules are intended to constrain members’ ability to adopt such protectionist subsidies. Section 2 discusses potential rationales for subsidy policies from a law and economics perspective and what types of subsidy policies are or are not desirable in addressing climate change. which are a significant source of greenhouse gases. 2003a and Trebilcock and Howse. It may also entail the increased use of subsidies to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases directly such as subsidies for emissions reductions or increased energy efficiency by particular industries. World Trade Review. These subsidy policies may conflict with international trade rules.

effectively The moving communities farther apart. and the entire world was plunged into the "Great Depression" for the rest of the decade. facing only a mild recession. and specialization increases output.html ] When the government of Country "A" puts up trade barriers against the goods of Country "B"." In the 20th century. The protectionist is not against the use of every kind of force." WHAT CAN YOU DO? Silence gives consent. rival governments fought each other to expand their empires and to exploit captive markets. to crush his rival. US President Hoover ignored warning pleas in a petition by 1028 prominent economists and signed the notorious Smoot-Hawley Act. If you agree that free trade is an essential ingredient in maintaining world peace. a period that also saw no major wars.net/resources/lit/free-trade-protectionism. which raised some tariffs to 100% levels. ARMIES OFTEN DO 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. and increased output reduces the cost in toil for the satisfactions men live by. In 1930. fear of challenge. is the only solution. journalist Frank Chodorov made a similar observation: "Society thrives on trade simply because trade makes specialization possible. Will the world again end up in a shooting war as a result of these economically-deranged policies? Can we afford to allow this to happen in the nuclear age? "What generates war is the economic philosophy of nationalism: embargoes. followed by citizen action. protectionist represents the worst in humanity: fear of change. over 25 other governments had retaliated by passing similar laws.a major factor leading to the American Civil War. WHEN GOODS DON'T CROSS BORDERS. The result? World trade came to a grinding halt. the market place is a most humane institution.free-market. But all too often a depressed economy is not the only negative outcome of a trade war . The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war. Yet we again see trade barriers being raised around the world by short-sighted politicians." Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . Widespread public understanding of this issue. . Check on how the issue is being taught in the schools. the real producers may as well be on different planets. The depression in turn led to World War II. "For thousands of years. the government of Country "B" will naturally retaliate by erecting trade barriers against the goods of Country "A". humankind cannot survive its consequences Miller and Elwood 88 – International society for individual liberty [http://www. we suggest that you inform the political leaders in your country of your concern regarding their interference with free trade. after a half century of general free trade (which brought a half-century of peace). trade and foreign exchange controls. when restrictive trade policy (mercantilism) was the rule.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 11 IMPACTS – 1NC EXTENSION Protectionism fosters global war in a nuclear age. the tireless effort of productive men and women has been spent trying to reduce the distance between communities of the world by reducing the costs of commerce and trade. "for a nation to specialize in what it can produce best and then trade with others to acquire goods at costs lower than it would take to produce them at home. . and later the Northern-dominated US government imposed restrictions on Southern cotton exports . THE #1 DANGER TO WORLD PEACE The world enjoyed its greatest economic growth during the relatively free trade period of 1945-1970. Within a year. and that it is important to your future. We also suggest that you write letters to editors in the media and send this pamphlet to them. Send them a copy of this pamphlet. etc. The result? A trade war in which both sides lose. and there should be no consent to the current waves of restrictive trade or capital control legislation being passed. Free trade is too important an issue to leave in the hands of politicians. If mankind is to survive.thus. When trade is cut off entirely. In the late 19th Century." Ludwig von Mises THE SOLUTION: FREE TRADE A century and a half ago French economist and statesman Frederic Bastiat presented the practical case for free trade: "It is always beneficial. even warfare." he said. monetary devaluation. "Over the same span of history. then these primeval fears must be defeated. Hostilities built up until they eventually exploded into World War I. That being so. Discuss this issue with your friends and warn them of the danger of current "protectionist" trends. and the jealous envy of genius. British tariffs provoked the American colonists to revolution. the slothful and incompetent protectionist has endlessly sought to erect barriers in order to prohibit competition . short-sighted politicians throughout Europe again began erecting trade barriers.

in a spasmodic suicidal response.S. to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations. Instead of focusing on the potential 50 per cent increases in world trade a successful Doha round could bring. Ironically. or retreating into protectionism is a false prospectus. adversaries and potential adversaries are then Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . they appear to be going up. escalating it significantly. Protectionist calls from parts of the United States. are almost certain to be released. So is to demonstrate to an insecure and uncertain public that either defending a status quo that cannot endure. "Economic patriotism" across Europe. will lead only to less trade. the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict. Attempts to stop the clock. and to shelter from globalisation.the argument is being run by the hardest hit producers. and higher economic growth and employment -are acting as if they are victims. with country after country blocking cross-border acquisitions. the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts. suppose a starving North Korea (2) launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea. against nation in the 1930s.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 12 IMPACTS – GLOBAL ECONOMY MODULE Protectionism disrupts the global economy The Times 06 [“Business leaders must now make the positive case for globalisation. forces there. once a few nukes are launched. lower inflation and lower interest rates. With even winners thinking like losers -and the popular focus on lost manufacturing. the speed. lost jobs to newcomers moving into their communities . the world trade negotiations are increasingly dominated not by talk of gains but by fears of what countries will lose.” Lexis] Gordon Brown says the world must be given a wake-up call about the dangers of retreating back into protectionism. also send out the wrong message. economic patriotism and anti-immigrant sentiment. instead of barriers coming down. "The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly"] desperate nations take desperate actions. and labour - that would be destroyed by this three-pronged attack from protectionism. is antithetical to both the spirit and the rules of an open single market. heads-in-the-sand protectionism that set nation our first task. As an example. Or suppose a desperate China whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States attacks Taiwan. including U.. darker protectionist and anti-globalisation forces are on the increase. not the opportunity it should be. Today. lower growth and lower employment. But it is not the side-effects or the inevitable strains of Under assault are the very foundations of globalisation that they have put under attack. forgetting the benefits to consumers. Prior to the final History bears out that economic collapse. In addition to immediate responses. globalisation -the free movement of capital. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that. under such extreme stress conditions. And global economic collapse causes nuclear extinction Bearden 00 . E. which would seek to halt necessary change. threatening world growth. The world is being given a wake-up call about the dangers of retreating back into the kind of beggar-thy-neighbour. even globalisation's beneficiaries -the millions who are seeing cuts in consumer goods prices. The rising tide of populism in Latin America and continuing protectionism in Asia are direct assaults on the very idea of globalisation itself. scope and scale of globalisation is at the top of the agenda. when G8 finance ministers meet in St Petersburg. Everywhere.Director of the Association of Distinguished American Scientists and a Fellow Emeritus of the Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study [T. goods and services. indeed our responsibility as economic leaders. lost service jobs off-shored. Just as rising interest rates worldwide and widening interest rate spreads create a more challenging economic environment. implying that globalisation is a threat.

and perhaps most of the biosphere. As the studies showed. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it. with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . at least for many decades. escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 13 compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. the only chance a nation has lo survive at all. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 .

energy and fertilizer prices are hitting record levels. the next couple of years will be critical..NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 14 IMPACTS – FOOD CRISIS MODULE [ ] Protectionism worsens the food crisis by causing prices to reach record levels Financial Post 5/27/08 [“Protectionism is to blame for the food crisis. especially in India and China. But exporters cannot be blamed for the fact that grain. A recent article entitled "Heading for Apocalypse?" suggests the effects of global warming--and its side effects of increasingly severe droughts. more recently. In addition to natural catastrophes such as the Australian drought that has slightly reduced world production recently. Worldwatch Institute's president.kurtsaxon. where one can get the impression that we are benefiting from high international prices and reaping profits while people die of hunger in faraway places. This has also led to corn being diverted away from animal feed and human consumption as well as to a reduction in land areas used to grow wheat and soybeans. Lester Brown.htm] As a result grain prices are the highest on record. floods and storms--could be catastrophic. The good fortune of some does not always bring misfortune to others: Greater wealth cannot explain the explosion in food prices seen in the last two years. This reform would meet both the rise in demand for food and the unpredictable behaviour of Mother Nature. The price of potassium and other fertilizers has been pushed up by increased corn production. ill-advised government policies are largely to blame..com/foods004. However. the dismantling of protectionism. today's crisis cannot be explained by higher demand for food in emerging countries or by speculation.” September/October. This debate is difficult in Quebec and Canada. We hear regularly that worldwide income growth. the new Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . MPH [Douglas S. famine.” Lexis] The world has enormous capacity to produce food to deal with the current food crisis. has caused higher demand along with the resulting price pressure. Contrary to what is often heard. More corn is being grown because of the huge rise in the world's heavily subsidized production of ethanol and other biofuels. Up to a quarter of the land used to grow corn will be devoted to ethanol production in the United States in 2008. disease and the extinction of humanity Winnail 96 – PhD. "No other economic indicator is more politically sensitive that rising food prices. dwindling. a fertilizer found mostly in Saskatchewan and Alberta.. “On the Horizon: Famine. Fertilizers and fuels account for just a small portion of food costs here. poor harvests in 1996 and 1997 could create severe food shortages and push millions over the edge. Is it possible we are only one or two harvests away from a global disaster? Is there any significance to what is happening today? Where is it all leading? What does the future hold? The clear implication is that things will get worse before they Wars. Canada is the world's biggest producer of potassium. A sustainable decline in prices will be possible only with an increase in agricultural supply and its corollary. http://www. The only solution for feeding the planet is to increase agricultural supply and then to let prices fall naturally. Grain demand has tended to rise continuously. Agricultural experts suggest it will take two bumper crops in a row to bring supplies back up to normal. by export restrictions imposed by some less developed countries. The unpredictable shifts in temperature and rainfall will pose an With world food stores increased risk of hunger and famine for many of the world's poor. How do we get there? [ ] Food crisis causes wars. grain production leveling off and a string of bad harvests around the world. The chaotic weather conditions we have been experiencing appear to be related to global warming caused by the release of pollutants into the earth's atmosphere. at a rate that has not varied substantially in the last 10 years. But this potential has been held back by agricultural protectionism in developed economies and. This situation benefits our economy but hurts subsistence agriculture in developing countries.. but not in less developed countries where food is significantly less processed. famine and disease will affect the lives of billions of people! get better. especially for agriculture. writes. Food prices spiraling out of control could trigger not only economic instability but widespread political upheavals"-.even wars. Although famines have occurred at various times in the past.

's studies. all 17 major fishing areas in the world have either reached or exceeded their natural limits. It's troubling because seafood--the world's leading source of animal protein--could be depleted quite rapidly. According to the U. droughts and shrinking grain stores are not the only threats to world food supplies. nine of these areas are in serious decline. In the early 1970s. and the demands of an exploding population? These are pushing the world's resources to its limits! The world has never before faced such an ominous series of potential global crises at the same time! However. If this happens on a global scale. This precarious situation is also without historical precedent! Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . The realization that we may be facing a shortage of food from both oceanic and land-based sources is a troubling one . we will be in deep trouble. In fact.N.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 15 famines will happen during a time of unprecedented global stress--times that have no parallel in recorded history--at a time when the total destruction of humanity would be possible! Is it merely a coincidence that we are seeing a growing menace of famine on a global scale at a time when the world is facing the threat of a resurgence of new and old epidemic diseases. the Peruvian anchovy catch--the largest in the world--collapsed from 12 million tons to 2 million in just three years from overfishing.

49 per litre petroleum equivalent for ethanol.3bn a year in the US. the report argues that the complete removal of farm subsidies. It forecasts that the global welfare costs of trade tariffs and subsidies will reach $100bn-$300bn by 2015. added: "It will require political will to move forward with reforms that improve the governance of agriculture." the World Bank chief added.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 16 IMPACTS – LAUNDRY LIST Subsidies distort free trade and cause deforestation. The World Bank estimates that the overall amount of support for agricultural producers in rich industrialised countries increased from $242bn a year from 1986. entitled Agriculture for Development. "The clearest example is whose [feedstock] price rose by over 60% from 2005 to 2007. But it also admits that few of the biofuel programmes are economically viable and that many pose social risks because of rising food prices and environmental risks through deforestation. The report says full liberalisation in developing countries would increase their share of global agricultural exports to 65% from 54%. Mr Zoellick. influenced to a degree by high energy prices. Production said to have had an upward effect on feedstock prices. which are detrimental to the poorest nations". amounting to around $0. a former US trade representative."Countries must deliver on vital reforms such as cutting distorting subsidies and opening markets.1%. with projected increases of 34% and 27% respectively. coarse grains by 7%. the report argues that future biofuel technology "may rely on dedicated energy crops and timber waste instead of food crops. The report says the World Trade Organisation-sponsored talks "must urgently be concluded." Mr Zoellick said when releasing the report in Washington. could make a higher contribution to energy security. "More than 200 support measures cost around $5. "We need to give agriculture more prominence across the board. about 30% of the US maize harvest could be used for ethanol. according to recent forecasts. Turning to the global trade talks.2005." he said. oilseeds by 15. such as cotton." the report concludes. "We must level the playing field in international trade. The long list of support measures includes consumption incentives such as fuel tax reductions. Lexis] Large biofuel production subsidies and high protective tariffs are proving costly for developing countries such as Brazil which are efficient producers in profitable export markets.5%. The report calls for greater investment in agriculture in developing countries. The report says that domestic producers in both the US and the European Union also receive additional support through 'high import tariffs on ethanol'. For example. but the same projections underscore that this would still account for less than 8% of US gasoline consumption. "Second generation technologies.38-$0. In addition about 6. The report says biofuels represent both an opportunity and a challenge.5bn litres of biodiesel were produced worldwide. of which nearly 90% was produced in Brazil and in the US. such as promising new opportunities for mitigating the threats of climate change and ushering in new markets for agriculture through the production of biofuels. a World Bank reports says.5bn-$7. wheat by 5% and sugar by 2. potentially reducing the pressure on food crop prices". largely because of the US ethanol programme combined with reduced stocks in major exporting countries. of which about 75% was produced in the EU.8%. World Bank agricultural economists forecast that prices." said World Bank president Robert Zoellick. could increase by 20. Last year global production of ethanol was around 40bn litres. most of whom are engaged in agriculture. loan guarantees and direct subsidy payments and mandatory consumption requirements. particularly to eliminate distortions such as US cotton subsidies."World Bank economists predict feedstock prices are likely to remain constrained in the near term. production incentives through tax incentive schemes. with about two-thirds of the costs likely to come from farm tariff and subsidies. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . highlights that biofuel production has also had an upward effect on feedstock prices. tariffs and other barriers to trade could result in real increases in international commodity prices. the report outlines that. economic insecurity and food price inflation Lloyd's List 10/23/07 [World Bank highlights cost of biofuel industry subsidies. "A dynamic agriculture for development agenda can benefit an estimated 900m rural people in the developing world who live on less than $1 a day. and in the case of oilseeds and cotton by more than double this amount. The latest annual world development report for 2008.1998 and to $273bn annually from 2003. Looking ahead. using agricultural biomass." it says.

NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 17 Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 .

From . some of us care for the environmental consequences.” http://www. The Logic of Collective Action. They then use the political process to reap huge benefits while dispersing the costs over 290 million citizens. Here’s how I think about the difference. Wind “farmers” reap more revenue from tax breaks and subsidies than from the sale of their product. She believes we can hasten this process by the government subsidizing the “right” fuels.g. virgin forest is being razed to grow palm oil and soybeans to fuel cars and power stations in Europe and North America.php? id=486] I recently met with a Bozeman writer about my opposition to subsidies for alternative fuels..” “The expansion of palm oil production is one of the leading causes of rainforest destruction in south-east Asia.. This holds true whether in Bozeman. I’m opposed to all commodity subsidies on ethical and environmental grounds. effective units. including those for fossil fuels. But isn’t it reasonable to support subsidies for the “right” kind of energy. If consumers really derive superior value (i. regulating. Isn’t it ironic that western environmentalists who spend Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . But I support federal investments in basic research and projects like the construction of the Hyalite handicapped trail. Here’s an example. In what combination and in what amounts should we seek the things we want? My writer friend is frustrated by our slow transition to a green energy future. no amount of public subsidy or special political favors will make it so. won’t entrepreneurs rush to deliver these products to them? We all care about our energy future. we’re not surprised to learn these “good” subsidies annually transfer hundreds of millions of dollars from customers and taxpayers to a few large companies. Borneo to the Brazilian Amazon. It is one of the most environmentally damaging commodities on the planet. George Will said it well: “The world is divided between those who do and do not understand that activist. Boston. They benefit at the expense of other taxpayers and energy consumers. “The Perils of Energy Subsidies.. we benefit the well off and well organized at the expense of the most vulnerable members of society.” For a primer on how this process works. and synfuels? Of course. or Birmingham. Rarely is this graft challenged. for the same pathological logic applies. Subsidies cause tremendous environmental harm.. Perhaps.” says Simon Counsell. Princeton Ph. e. But if a technology is not economically competitive. Most folks primarily value warm homes in the winter. Here’s the unintended but predictable consequence of European Union mandates for biofuels. subsidizing government is generally a servant of the strong and entrenched against the weak and aspiring. or just for wind..e. I responded.free-eco. Wind farms are enjoying a boom. wind and solar? No.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 18 IMPACTS – SUBSIDIES TURNS ENVIRONMENT Energy subsidies foster more environmental exploitation – they are ethically and environmentally irresponsible Bozeman Daily Chronicle 06 [Pete Geddes.. solar.. director of the UK-based Rainforest Foundation. fast and convenient transportation. and inexpensive energy. Here’s a key point. Alas.org/articleDisplay. Following The Logic of Collective Action. Olson examines how political forces derail the greater good. Am I opposed to all subsidies. When we subsidize things that trade in the market. The New Scientist reports: “The drive for ‘green energy’ in the developed world is having the perverse effect of encouraging the destruction of tropical rainforests. their popularity has more to do with harvesting advantages in the tax code than with their environmental or energy merits. in terms of price and performance) from alternative energy sources. interventionist. His explanation is straightforward: small. I recommend the late Mancur Olson’s book. and ameliorating the negative effects of climate change.D. wealthy. especially not in the Bush administration. well-connected groups easily organize into cohesive. The questions we face involve balancing competing values. They include: human health. natural beauty.

must guide our energy future? How can they forget that the West best exemplifies the environmental harms resulting from the subsidized exploitation of the environment? This is a result of the alliance between big government and big business. rather than the market process. Our choices involve trading off among imperfect alternatives. dams on western rivers) believe that government. understand there are no solutions. All energy production has environmental impacts. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . It’s ethically and environmentally irresponsible to pretend this reality away. only trade-offs..NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 19 their careers fighting the perverse environmental impacts of governmental subsidies (e.g. Are they sure the government will get it right this time? When considering our energy future.

In 1984. Similarly. moretechnologically advanced and efficient. they will continue to use older. Until 1984. India began to open its market to foreign car producers. India demonstrates the follies of protectionism. Although some claim that trade barriers would help the environment. resource-saving technologies. Based on their scaremongering and frankly embarrassing record of false predictions in recent decades. harm both consumers and producers. These could be grown in the cold climates of Finland. who claim that such protections benefit the earth. Poor countries would suffer disproportionately from green trade barriers -. Instead. which produced just one car -. is inherently more sustainable than the regulated economy advocated by eco-doom Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . The Lieberman-Warner bill is endorsed not only by major Greengroups but also by electricity providers and their associated trade unions. especially when supported by moralists. various European trade unionshave applauded calls for punitive trade measures against non-EU competitors. The benefits of trade would be replaced by losses in consumer welfare and environmental degradation. Trade barriers of any kind. belched pollutants. So local companies will have less money to invest in new. Which is why theyare grown in places such as Costa Rica and the Ivory Coast. PROTECTIONISM MAY BE HARMFUL TO ALL. But to do so would be farmore costly than growing them in warm places. which translates into fewer resources available to invest in environmental conservation. Canada. Thus. it is far more moral to support liberalization. big business and organised labor unite. the beneficiaries of trade restrictions are concentrated and tend to be very effective in lobbying national governments to "protect" their business from competition. so have less to invest in new technologies or to save for the future. Lexis] The idea behind such protectionism is to create a "level playing field" -.where European and American producers are not disadvantaged by their self-imposed restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. less trade means less wealth. purchasing cars that are less expensive. Environmental ideologues continue to make dour prognostications about our planet's future. this game would artificially make all players one-legged and one-armed. Consumers and producers spend more to purchase the same goods and services.which was technologically inferior.leading to unnecessary waste of scarce natural and human resources.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 20 IMPACTS – PROTECTIONISM TURNS ENVIRONMENT Protectionism turns case – It disables companies from investing in cleaner technologies which has adverse effects on the environment China Post 2/3/08 [Kendra Okonski and Caroline Boin . tariffs and quotas. This process exploded after the reforms of 1991and millions of Indians have benefited from competition.the Ambassador -. Such demands may suit the protectionist agenda but they have little merit in terms of their practical ability to enable humanity to use scarce natural and human resources in an ever-more sustainable manner. claiming that we all must consume less. cleaner. This effect would be exacerbated by reduced investment from multinational companies. Consider bananas. have fewer children and trade less with each other to address climate change. Moreover. But instead of leveling the playing field. and then exporting them to consumers around the world. Greens. cleaner technologies. and was unaffordable to all but theelite. underpinned by free trade between and within nations. The competitive market process.with adverse effects on both people and the environment. India had one car manufacturer. these claims should not be heeded seriously. Protectionism will mean fewer products from poor countries being sold to industrialized countries. dirtier production methods and thus will use scarce resources less sustainably. Environment program at International Policy Network. But in reality. As a result bananas are less expensive and resources areused more sustainably. They favor the status quo by rewarding inefficient producers and thus delaying the adoption of cleaner. and Russia. including"green" subsidies. they are actually counterproductive. Whereas the beneficiaries of liberalization are widely dispersed. They artificially increase costs. such as environmentalists.

naked or cloaked in green. Protectionism. harms the vast majority of people as well as the environment -. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 .NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 21 mongers.and is best avoided.

fuels.” Lexis] The ethanol boom is coming.fuels across the Americas. In Brazil that switch is more advanced than anywhere in the world and it has already substituted 40 per cent of its gasoline usage. scientists and environmentalists are calling for a "time out" and warning that the headlong rush into massive ethanol production is creating more problems than it is solving. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . But a growing number of economists. and all filling stations offer "alcohol" and "gas" at the pump. Brazil remains the fourth largest producer of carbon emissions in the world due to Clouds of black smoke from the arc of destruction across the deforestation. But the real boom came after the oil crisis of 1973 spurred the military dictatorship to lessen the country's reliance on foreign generals poured public subsidies and incentives into the imports of fossil fuels. Today. believes that Brazil's trail-blazing switch has had some serious side effects. "Some of the cane plantations are the size of European states. The twin threats of climate change and energy security are creating an unprecedented thirst for alternative energy with ethanol leading the way. In its first major acknowledgment over the dangers of climate change. in Sao Paolo. along with deforestation in both the Amazon and Atlantic rainforests. The prospect of a sudden surge in demand for ethanol is causing serious concerns even in Brazil. a leading Brazilian environmentalist and former member of Congress who helped to pass the law mandating a 23 per cent mix of ethanol to be added to all petroleum supplies in the country. Despite its leading role in bio. The sugar industry to produce ethanol. a similar competition for corn between food producers and ethanol distilleries could have disastrous consequences worldwide. Ethanol is nothing new in Brazil. sugar in Brazil.Bush arrives in Brazil to kick-start the creation of an international market for ethanol that could one day rival oil as a global commodity. the world's leading producer. The ethanol industry has been linked with air and water pollution on an epic scale. is a green panacea a clean burning. But there is a darker side to this green revolution which argues for a cautious assessment of how big a role ethanol can play in filling the developed world's fuel tank. The expected creation of an "OPEC for ethanol" replicating the cartel of major oil producers has spurred frenzied investment in bio. sugar cane or beet. While Brazil's tropical climate allows it to source alcohol from its sugar crop. wheat. “Ethanol proves sweet alternative but at a cost. To its advocates. the US has turned to its industrialised corn belt for the raw material to The effect of competition between food and fuel producers for substitute oil. these vast monocultures have replaced important eco-systems. Amazon are visible from space as the most important carbon sink and climate control on the planet is cut and burned. the White House this year committed itself to substituting 20 per cent of the petroleum it uses for ethanol by 2017. the congested streets of Sao Paolo are packed with flex-fuel cars that run off a growing menu of bio and fossil fuel mixtures. with the latter at roughly twice the price by volume. renewable energy source that will see us switch from dwindling oil wells to boundless fields of crops to satisfy our energy needs. That process is set to reach a landmark this week as US President George W. While this has had little impact on the world food economy. Fabio Feldman. ethanol which can be made from corn. There are also mounting calls for a study on the effects on the water supply of the huge quantities of industrial fertilisers used in the plantations. It has been used as fuel since 1925.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 22 IMPACTS – ETHANOL SUBSIDIES BAD [ ] Ethanol subsidies promote deforestation and food price inflation that has disastrous consequences worldwide Canberra Times 07 [Daniel Howden. has seen sugar prices double in the last two years. barley." he said. as well as the wholesale destruction of Brazil's unique savannah land.

The IISD report finds.S. Under optimistic projections.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 23 IMPACTS – ETHANOL SUBSIDIES BAD Subsidies for bio-fuels and ethanol heavily inflate food prices causing famine and food scarcity Runnalls 07 . food policy expert Lester Brown.CEO and president of the International Institute for Sustainable Development [The Globe and Mail. dollars could purchase more than 30 tonnes of equivalent offsets on the European Climate Exchange. that biofuels are an extremely high-cost means for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. if all the ethanol plants that have been approved for the next year are built. Five hundred U. other rural dwellers are not. government subsidies to biofuels have been promoted as a way to simultaneously address concerns related to the environment. Lexis] For example. And if coal-based electricity has been used to power the ethanol plant. According to U. the cost of carbon dioxide reduction approaches infinity. The price of corn has more than doubled.S. U. But the cost-effectiveness of achieving these goals under the current subsidy regime is low. putting ranchers. or nearly 140 tonnes on the Chicago Climate Exchange. The sheer levels of government support for biofuels appear out of proportion to their ability to satisfy domestic transportation fuel requirements.S. the competition among small towns for the attention of the builders of prospective ethanol distillery plants is as spirited as the 19th-century competition for rail lines. ethanol will be eating more than 40 per cent of the entire U. since it is now a competitor to oil rather than food grains. Meanwhile. And that may be a conservative estimate. for example. What happens if we have another African famine or one or two bad crop years in North America? Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . In fact. While corn farmers are happy with this system. grain crop by 2008. energy security and rural development. it costs at least $500 in federal and state subsidies to reduce one metric tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent through the production and use of corn-based ethanol. Current forecasts are that biofuels will account for less than 5 per cent of total global transport fuel use in 2010.S. it would be just as sensible in climate-change terms to use a gallon of normal gas. as little or no carbon dioxide has been reduced. hog farmers and other feed users under enormous pressure.

pdf] The business community also has spoken in favor of a comprehensive government response to the issue. The American mainstream is fast becoming aware of the climate problem. the most important thing is for Europe to engage Americans actively on the climate issue.notre-europe. calling for “a mandatory economy-wide. Whether with each campaign individually. and the world would benefit from a closer alignment of climate policies across the Atlantic. General Electric.35 What EU governments and institutions can do in the forthcoming months in relation to US plans for climate change can only be modest in the context of an electoral campaign. 4/4/’8 [Clinton. including Alcoa. Climate change could now be seen as a common cause for the EU and the USA. the United States. Signatories to the Global Roundtable on Climate Change. This could lead to the creation before the end of 2009 of a transatlantic consensus helping shape a successor treaty to the Kyoto treaty. They should also be governed by the notion that convergence is desirable.Most importantly. or the US policy arena collectively. where import tariffs have been requested by a number of business interest groups. have also expressed a desire for government action on climate change through a statement released in February of 2007. which include CEOs of major international and US-based corporations. Therefore. with the promising trends described above. EU Commission President Barroso said that this issue would only be reviewed in 2010 in the light of international negotiations. rather than an issue that pits both sides of the Atlantic against each other.Europe’s Best Hope for Fighting Climate Change. at this formative stage. public opinion has shifted. with the Sierra Club. EU government should adhere to this discipline. they should not talk unwisely of “border adjustments”47 and tariffs on imported goods from countries without carbon pricing. The opportunity is thus ripe for Europe to engage the United States in climate policy deliberations and for EU discussions to benefit from US plans. and Xerox.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 24 1NC. Rightly so. has commissioned a series of new reports highlighting the economic opportunities that could come from a serious investment in renewable energy. Obama.34 A large majority (59%) favors quick action. Both the EU and the USA should therefore seek jointly to make use of these positive signals for a global climate treaty. Former Advisor on European Affairs for the Belgian Deputy PM . McCain . setting bold long term emissions targets and encouraging cooperation with developing countries. Most importantly. However. while engaging in discussions with all major emitters with an open mind. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . market-driven approach to climate protection. @ Science Po in Paris.33 71% view human activity as a significant cause of climate change. 91% of Americans have heard of the issue. As Europe wrestles with the difficulty of being leader and worries about the impact on its economy. an unprecedented opportunity has arisen to form a transatlantic alliance to lead efforts to fight global warming. Also.eu/uploads/tx_publication/Policypaper34-SBoucher- ClimateChange-en. Ford. the European Union.EUROPE VERSION The EU is holding off on trade barriers because they believe the Us will increase c02 regulations Stephen Boucher.” 30 The members’ list is impressive. as opposed to a form of beauty contest some seem to believe the EU is engaged in with the United States. http://www.Prof.31 The United Steelworkers. There is the possibility to help drive the world towards an international agreement that seriously tackles the issue of global warming. albeit belatedly. and could benefit from learning of Europe’sexperience in tackling the issue. This is true also for the USA. it is crucial that both US and EU policies trend towards harmonization and integration. including by raising taxes. its best hope today is to prepare to join forces with the next US administration. especially for the functioning of carbon markets. Large US corporations have thus formed the United States Climate Action Partnership (US-CAP).

Chinese diplomats have not responded directly. Brewer. which "caused the problem of climate change in the first place.] Issues have arisen about whether provisions in the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act of 2007 are compatible with the WTO plurilateral Government Procurement Agreement (GPA). 14-17). French President Nicolas Sarkozy. http://shop." 1NC EUROPE VERSION Impacts – Protectionism fosters global war and the eruption of nuclear conflict Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . are warning that the sanctions plan could destroy the chances of a post-Kyoto treaty.eu/downfree." Developing nations' allies. Among the climate-trade issues that have emerged to date. to which the US is a signatory (NFTC. 295/June 2008. June 08 [The Trade and Climate Change Joint Agenda CEPS Working Document No. manufacturers. In February. carbon leakage and international competitiveness problems.ceps.policyinnovations. leading many analysts to predict that the EU will also adopt some sort of green tariff system in the next few years. @ Policy Syndicate." and developing countries as "victims.S. U. "We believe this approach could be a blunt and imprecise instrument of fear. meanwhile. that will take us down a dangerous path and adversely impact U. 2007. she wrote. A key issue is whether provisions such as those requiring US government agencies to purchase ‘low greenhouse gas emitting’ vehicles and to take into account energy efficiency standards in their purchasing decisions could violate WTO non-discrimination principles or constitute disguised protectionism. Associate Professor at Georgetown University.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 25 1NC EUROPE VERSION The Aff Creates the Perception that the US is Shifting Towards Voluntary Incentives. 5/2/’8 [Can Green Trade Tariffs Combat Climate Change?. Trade Representative Susan Schwab argues that green trade sanctions would violate World Trade Organization rules.S. and industrial chambers of commerce strongly advocate a similar tariff system. Yu Qingtai. The underlying problem in the terminology of political economy is that there can be ‘free riders’ on international agreements.org/ideas/commentary/data/000051] European Commission President José Manuel Barroso. pp. rather than one of persuasion. but they have noticeably hardened their stand on climate talks. Washington. DC and Associate Research Fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)." must be treated as "culprits. http://www. China's top climate negotiator. Climate Sanctions Ensure All Out Trade War Robert Collier. and consumers. in this case multilateral climate change agreements. said at the UN that rich nations. In a recent letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.php?item_id=1673. one of the most contentious concerns the possible use of offsetting border measures to reduce free rider. Warning of an "all-out trade war" if the sanctions go forward. farmers. Ensuring European Tariffs on the US Thomas L.

” p.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 26 Spicer 96 . it will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which natural fears will be fanned and inflamed. and that is a good step in the direction of world stability. or of attempting to shut out markets that are growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for innovative production. More fundamentally. stability will be at a premium in the years ahead. that in a free trading world there will be an absence of all strife. member of the British Parliament. With nuclear weapons at two a penny. The problem about the second approach is not simply that it won't hold: satellite technology alone will ensure that he consumers will begin to demand those goods that the East is able to provide most cheaply. “The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the West. A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled and unstable place in which suspicion and ultimately envy will possibly erupt into a major war. But to trade is to become interdependent.Economist. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . [Michael. Such a proposition would manifestly be absurd. 121] The choice facing the West today is much the same as that which faced the Soviet bloc after World War II: between meeting head-on the challenge of world trade with the adjustments and the benefits that it will bring. I do not say that the converse will necessarily be true.

there is always a risk that the other will suffer. it is difficult to move the global trade agenda forward when the EU and US pull on opposite strands. however. the global economy. former EU commissioner for trade recently wrote. and international trade EurActive. Not only do bilateral economic relations between these two economic giants make up over 40% of world trade. but their trade relationship also greatly influences political cooperation between the two unions. European news paper. July 26th 2002. As Leon Brittan. and also serves an important signalling effect to the world trading system as a whole.euractiv. The US-EU trade relationship draws wider circles.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 27 1NC EUROPE VERSION US-Eu Trade relations are key to . Indeed.com/en/trade/eu-us-economic-disputes-trade-goods- services/article-116971 The EU-US trade relationship is of great importance in today's global economic system.political relations. EU-US Economic Disputes: There is More to Trade than Goods and Services http://www. If serious strains arise on one side of the relationship. Insert relations impact Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . there is a loose linkage between economic and political cooperation and partnership.

Israel no longer needs U. complicity) is not reversed soon.for whatever reason- the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration. the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing. or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel. Seymour Hersh warns.S. and to work with those in the region who seek to carve out areas of civil society where the state does not intrude." Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. fragile and failed regimes. and whether the great religions of the world can work together. 6/11/2003 (FDCH Congressional Testimony) p.. religious and territorial conflicts. however. prevent terrorism. if not for all out nuclear war. and 75 percent of its energy resources. Analyst.globalresearch. In the words of Mark Gaffney. This is a long term effort.that has a diameter roughly matching the length of the continental United States covers a region that encompasses 75 percent of the world's population. The Greater Middle East is the region of the world where unsettled relationships. they must be part of more comprehensive transatlantic strategies aimed at the modernization and transformation of the Greater Middle East itself. spy secrets. and deadly combinations of technology and terror brew and bubble on top of one vast. US/European cooperation is needed to solve for WMD conflicts in the Middle East.Center for Research on Globalization) http://www. relatively contiguous energy field upon which Western prosperity depends. Middle East conflicts will go global John Steinbach.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 28 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS . ". and stabilize Russia Daniel Hamilton. B.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and.html Meanwhile. at the very least. Transformation of this region is the strategic challenge of our time and a key to winning the campaign against terrorism. whether Israel and its neighbors can live together in peace.. the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations. 2002 (“Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Threat to Peace” . lexis If our efforts in these areas are ultimately to be successful. Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional. Director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations @ Johns Hopkins University.. once unthinkable except as a last resort. whether the oil and gas fields of the Caucasus and Central Asia will become reliable sources of energy." Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . would now be a strong probability. whether the Arab world will meet the challenges of modernization and globalization. Choices made there could determine the shape of the 21st century--whether weapons of mass destruction will be unleashed upon mass populations.S. 60 percent of its GNP.MIDDLE EAST A. and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use. A circle--with its center in Tehran-. We cannot hope to transform this turbulent region into an area of democratic stability and prosperity soon. Such an effort is far more likely to succeed if America and Europe were to pool our energies and resources and pursue it together. whether Russia's borderlands will become stable and secure democracies..S. "Should war break out in the Middle East again. (Since launching its own satellite in 1988. nuclear targeting strategy." and Ezar Weissman. and even the threat of nuclear war.. to dampen the negative trends that are gaining momentum.ca/articles/STE203A. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U. Center for Research on Globalization. if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U. a nuclear escalation. But we can act more successfully together to defend common interests. as the Iraqis did.

Steinberg. Kissinger warned. disease. Porous borders and the extraordinary global flows of goods. we are likely to be far more successful at meeting the new global threats. from terrorism and international crime to environmental damage and disease pose an increasing danger to our wellbeing.an era when major powers competed with one another for influence. Brookings Institution. "Then we will be living in a world very similar to the pre-World War I world" -." US/European cooperation are key to solving a host of global problems – terrorism.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 29 U. lexis Over time. 3/21/2004 (“Transatlantic Wounds Won’t Heal Overnight” – Los Angeles Times) p. OUP Journals Both the United States and Europe face new global threats and opportunities that. in almost every case. people and ideas facilitate the spread of economic opportunity – but also foster the proliferation of technology for weapons of mass destruction.MIDDLE EAST Collapse of US/European relations leads to global war and instability Doyle McManus. a huge conflict. In the place of geopolitics. and nuclear proliferation cannot be solved without Europe James B. Staff Writer for the Los Angeles Times. forged no strong alliances and plunged into "an armaments race and . a new ‘global politics’ is required to address the threats and opportunities that affect us all. than if we try to achieve these goals alone. Weak states threaten our security as much as powerful ones. the consequences could be grave. Non-state actors – from businesses and NGOs to terrorist and money- launderers – play an increasingly influential role. "What if the United States believes that Europe has become irrelevant and is just another player with which we have relations of convenience?" he asked. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 .. /EUROPEAN RELATIONS. can be dealt with far more successfully if we act together. Transnational threats.S. Summer 2003 (“An Elective Partnership: Salvaging Transatlantic Relations” – Survival) p. Ocean and land barriers offer little protection. Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies. If we can work together.. and preserving our freedom and prosperity. the environment. money.

and leadership to be fully assured of its own independence. long-term prosperity. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . Winter 2003/2004 (“Europe’s Leverage” – The Washington Quarterly) p.com Yet. travel. values. and in some places even domestic tranquility. must now be valued in the trillions of dollars. and finance. The United States needs a strong European partner to help promote common interests in Europe and the world beyond. democracy. and John Lis. Chair of the Subcommittee on Europe of the House International Relations Committee and President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Europe still depends on U. investment. with the power to control and influence rarely having a clear locus on one side of the Atlantic or the other. 1993-1998.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 30 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS . creating an interpenetration of influence unrivaled among any other set of major powers. a broad array of relatively common values and institutions of incalculable worth bind the United States and Europe together. Senior Policy Adviser for Transatlantic Relations for the House International Relations Committee and Former Director of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s Defense and Security Committee. economically.S. and militarily. transatlantic economic interdependence is now so much a fact of life that the concept is no longer even questioned. Senior Fellow. Meanwhile. including trade in goods and services. power. the reality is that common interests -. Hunter. At the same time. certainly neither side is able to claim decisive predominance.MIDDLE EAST European cooperation is critical for the US to undertake any foreign policy – it cannot solve global problems or economic stability without cooperation Robert E. the U. Winter 2003-2004 (“Broadening the Transatlantic Relationship” – The Washington Quarterly) http://www. engagement. influence.fostering a more open trading order and a more democratic world as well as combating common threats such as global terrorism and weapons proliferation -.twq. The panoply of economic interaction between the United States and the EU.S. especially those of the European Union. and objectives (the stuff of three world wars in the twentieth century). and European economies. Much of what the United States seeks to do elsewhere in the world will depend on its ability to gain the support and active engagement of European power—and European powers— politically. and Former Ambassador to NATO.S. interests. RAND Corporation. are now so intermingled that both sides would suffer grievous injury if either tried to lessen their level of entanglement with one another significantly. terrorism. US/European relations are key to solve proliferation. Indeed.make transatlantic cooperation as imperative today as it was during the depths of the Cold War. security. cross-ownership. lexis Nothing has happened to lessen the importance of the continent of Europe as the most important landmass—economically and politically—to be kept free of a hegemonic power at odds with U. and free trade Doug Bereuter.

/EUROPEAN RELATIONS. last year was worth just under $400 billion. compared with $30.S. Much is going on that we are doing together that isn't in the headlines: counterterrorism cooperation is now at the center of daily transatlantic business.ten times as much.5 billion in the U. 10/19/2004 (“European Studies Program Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies ‘Changes in Europe and America’ with British Ambassador to the United States David Maning” – Federal New Service) p. and the EU last year was worth $50 billion.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 31 U. and I believe it's essential that we should. as is cooperation on counter-proliferation.K. jobs were supported by EU investment in 2002. First. British Ambassador to the United States. lexis My view is that we have.MIDDLE EAST US/Europe relations are key to preventing terrorism.S. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that $3. free elections in Afghanistan. and maintaining the US economy David Manning. invested $3.S. success in persuading the Libyans to renounce WMD. Two-way trade in goods and services between the EU and U. and in rolling out A. A few statistics for you: The U. proliferation. And we've worked well too on issues that have been making headlines recently. Visible trade between the U. -.Q.3 million U. And we need to remember too that our prosperity is interdependent.S. The trade and financial flows across the Atlantic are of an extraordinary magnitude.2 billion in China and Hong Kong in 2003.S. Khan's networks. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 .

5/6/2002 (“United We’ll Stand: Recasting NATO to Face a Perilous World Together” – The Washington Post) p. support and successors. 2/28/2004 (“Their Rift is in the Past. We must work to lift failed states. much of it between the United States and Europe. Tracking down Osama bin Laden or toppling Saddam Hussein will not be enough. economic and military cooperation.MIDDLE EAST US/European cooperation is needed to transform the Middle East thereby removing systemic causes of terrorism and WMD proliferation Robert Asmus. The challenge of our time is addressing this new threat. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . and they don't stand a chance against their governments.into more equitable and open societies that no longer produce ideologies and people intent upon killing our citizens. It is what German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer has called a "new totalitarian threat" to Western societies: the toxic mix of terrorism. Help them too little. he said. Staff Writer. Los Angeles Times.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 32 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS . Success may require decades of sustained political. Senior Fellow. Acting independently will undermine Middle Eastern reforms – only acting with Europe will strike the right balance Maura Reynolds. from which our enemies draw sanctuary. He said supporting reformers too much can get them branded as foreign lackeys. That balance is easier to strike if the United States cooperates with Europe. we must support a process by which the greater Middle East is transformed from within -. We must dramatically expand our efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. radical Islam and failed states. lexis One diplomat involved in discussions over the broader Middle East democracy initiative said both the Europeans and Americans face a dilemma in how to help reformers change repressive societies. weapons of mass destruction. Ultimately. The problem is more than just terrorism. That threat emanates principally from a geographic area that extends from Israel eastward to Central Asia and includes the Greater Middle East and the Persian Gulf. the diplomat said. Council on Foreign Relations. and the answer must be more than simply a military one. Schroeder Says” – Los Angeles Times) p. lexis The bad news is that America and Europe again face an existential challenge.

America and Europe together represent an array of physical and experiential assets with the capability to make the decisive difference in shaping the political future of the Global Balkans. though limited. And a supranational European Union linked to America would be less suspect in the region as a returning colonialist bent on consolidating or regaining its special economic interests. regional political and economic reform—can be solved by one power alone. and prosperous Middle East depends on the United States and Europe working together in the region. the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs Winter 2003/2004 (“Bound to Cooperate? Transatlantic Policy in the Middle East” – The Washington Quarterly) p. but it can contribute to a more pragmatic and hopefully constructive approach toward a region that is likely to affect global stability for some time to come. the Arab-Israeli conflict. US/European cooperation is the only way to resolve threats from the Greater Middle East region Zbigniew Brzezinski. George Washington University and a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . has the potential capability in the political. Iraq. Only Europe. Although it will need the help of leading East Asian states like Japan and China--and Japan will provide some. proliferation. Building cooperation on areas such as those identified above to promote a transatlantic agenda will not entirely narrow the transatlantic divide nor avoid future crises. None of the major problems in the region today—terrorism. ebscohost Ultimately. material assistance and some peacekeeping forces--neither is likely at this stage to become heavily engaged. Professor of Political Science and International Affairs. military and economic realms to pursue jointly with America the task of engaging the various Eurasian peoples--on a differentiated and flexible basis--in the promotion of regional stability and of progressively widening trans-Eurasian cooperation.MIDDLE EAST Actively cultivating relations is needed to solve the major problems of WMD terrorism and reform in the Middle East – Iraq proves European support is needed Daila Dassa Kaye. successful joint American-European effort to preserve peace in Europe and then end Europe's division. The question is whether Europe--largely preoccupied with the shaping of its own unity--will have the will and the generosity to become truly engaged with America in a joint effort that will dwarf in complexity and scale the earlier. A stable.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 33 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS . lexis The example of Iraq demonstrates the need for material and political support from European allies to address the shared challenges emanating from the Middle East adequately. America can look to only one genuine partner in coping with the Global Balkans: Europe. increasingly organized as the European Union and militarily integrated through NATO. Winter 2003/2004 (“Hegemonic Quicksand” – National Interest) p. Europeans and Americans cannot afford to be complacent and to expect that a variety of common threats emanating from the Middle East will inherently produce transatlantic cooperation. Former National Security Adviser to the President. democratic.

It is politically unstable and militarily weak. no truly viable solution in the area will be possible unless the United States and the EU increasingly act in common. backing of the Shah. the most volatile and dangerous region of the world--with the explosive potential to plunge the world into chaos--will be the crucial swathe of Eurasia between Europe and the Far East. we might term this crucial subregion of Eurasia the new "Global Balkans.S. while pervasive in some Muslim countries. At the outset. But the European Union has the economic resources and financial means to make the critical difference to the region's long-run stability. Former National Security Adviser to the President. and through a geopolitical rather than a theological prism. It can prevail by using its military might and temporarily prompt reluctant European accommodation."(n1) It is here that America could slide into a collision with the world of Islam while American-European policy differences could even cause the Atlantic Alliance to come unhinged. Former National Security Adviser to the President. Arab animus stimulated by U. ebscohost FOR THE next several decades.MIDDLE EAST The Greater Middle East region is the greatest threat to world order – instability there risks collapsing US hegemony and splitting the Atlantic Alliance Zbigniew Brzezinski. Winter 2003/2004 (“Hegemonic Quicksand” – National Interest) p. Heavily inhabited by Muslims.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 34 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS . There’s no solution to the Greater Middle East crisis without US/European cooperation Zbigniew Brzezinski. it is essential to recognize that the ferment within the Muslim world must be viewed primarily in a regional rather than a global perspective. support for Israel or Pakistani feelings that the United States has been partial to India-- than from a generalized religious bias. originates more from specific political grievances--such as Iranian nationalist resentment over the U.S. America has the power and the will to disregard Europe's views. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . ebscohost In the short run. The world of Islam is disunited. and likely to remain so for some time. Winter 2003/2004 (“Hegemonic Quicksand” – National Interest) p. both politically and religiously. Hostility toward the United States. The two eventualities together could then put the prevailing American global hegemony at risk. Thus.

especially given the presence in Iran's immediate neighborhood of three overt and one covert nuclear powers.S. US/European cooperation is key to stabilizing Iran and the rest of the energy-exporting countries of the region Zbigniew Brzezinski. That will not happen as long as the United States seeks to isolate Iran and is insensitive to Iran's security concerns. A promising start in this regard has been made by the European initiative on the complex issue of the Iranian nuclear program. Europe and East Asia--strategic domination over the area. even if cloaked by cooperative arrangements. instead of something enforced by America. but with limited success. It may be seeking WMD and is suspected of terrorist links. The United States has sought to isolate Iran internationally. Winter 2003/2004 (“Hegemonic Quicksand” – National Interest) p.S. their political processes arbitrary and their statehood vulnerable. Winter 2003/2004 (“Hegemonic Quicksand” – National Interest) p. the states of this zone--from Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan all the way down to Saudi Arabia-- are almost entirely exporters. American strategic interests would be better served if America were to follow Europe's lead. the region's geographic center. The entire energy-exporting region would be more stable if Iran. Iran has a cooperative relationship with Russia. Their systems are fragile. Former National Security Adviser to the President. Iraq faces a prolonged period of stabilization. Europe has long urged the United States to adopt that approach. but its antagonistic posture toward America--reciprocated by restrictive U. Several of the key exporting states--notably Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates--are weak and politically debilitated. an issue that should not be addressed in a manner reminiscent of the earlier U. Just to the north. of the energy that is extracted from their ground.MIDDLE EAST US/European cooperation in the Middle East is key to stabilize oil producing nations which are key to the economy and hegemony Zbigniew Brzezinski. They have by far the world's largest reserves of oil and natural gas. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . Iran. ebscohost Active strategic partnership between the United States and the European Union would also make it more likely that Iran could eventually be transformed from a regional ogre into a regional stabilizer. American-European cooperation in promoting a stable and democratic Iraq and in advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace--in effect. Another major energy producer. exaggerations of the alleged Iraqi WMD threat. Former National Security Adviser to the President. were reintegrated into the global community and its society resumed its march to modernization. From the standpoint of American interests. while its socioeconomic dilemmas have been made more acute by a demographic explosion that has increased its population to 70-odd million. Since reliable access to reasonably priced energy is vitally important to the world's three economically most dynamic regions--North America. efforts on behalf of a Middle Eastern peace. It has maintained a relatively normal relationship with Europe.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 35 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS . but not major consumers. in the southern Caucasus and Central Asia. ebscohost More broadly. On this issue. but otherwise either wary or hostile relations with all of its neighbors. has a regime hostile to the United States and opposes U. Its internal development has suffered accordingly. Iran and the Caspian Basin. a "regional roadmap"--would create more favorable political preconditions for addressing the unsatisfactory strategic equation that prevails in the oil- and natural-gas-producing areas of the Persian Gulf. would be a globally decisive hegemonic asset. trade legislation--has made it difficult for European-Iranian and Iranian-Japanese economic relations to truly prosper. More effective would be an approach in which the Iranian social elite sees the country's isolation as self-imposed and thus counterproductive. the current geopolitical state of affairs in the world's principal energy-rich zone leaves much to be desired. reconstruction and rehabilitation. Currently. the newly independent energy-exporting states are still in the early stages of political consolidation.S. Unlike energy-rich Russia.

9/7/2002 (United Press International) p. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . then we may see mass death and genocide on a global scale that will make the deaths of World War II pale in comparison. lexis Despite their differences. Together. These neocolonial wars will result in mass deaths. EU and U. leaders know that a breakdown in relations between the two sides would be disastrous for the international economy and global stability.accounting for half the planet's wealth and forming the cornerstone of the world's most powerful military alliance. and energy resources that they will undermine the global economy and its ability to support the earth's 6 to 8 billion people. B. 1998 (The Coming Age of Scarcity) p. and even regional nuclear wars. Europe Correspondent for United Press International. the United States. and Japan and others will fight neocolonial wars to force these countries to remain within this collapsing global economy. 56 Most critics would argue.amounting to over $1 billion a day -. NATO.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 36 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS . However.ECONOMY A. University of Colorado. that instead of allowing underdeveloped countries to withdraw from the global economy and undermine the economies of the developed world. Economic collapse causes nuclear wars Chris Lewis. Europe. This would be the worst-case scenario for the collapse of global civilization.S. probably correctly. these neocolonial wars. Europe and America have the biggest trade and investment relationship in the world -. If First World countries choose military confrontation and political repression to maintain the global economy. US/European relations are key to the global economy Gareth Harding. fought to maintain the developed nations' economic and political hegemony. will cause the final collapse of our global industrial civilization. biological. suffering. These wars will so damage the complex economic and trading networks and squander material. Professor.

ebscohost Any reassessment of the transatlantic alliance must start with an important but often overlooked premise: the United States and the EU are still the twin turbines of the global economy. Conversely. These transatlantic investments have proved very profitable.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 37 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS . Profits earned by U.S. During that time. German Marshall Fund’s Transatlantic Center.000 Americans. business leaders say that the EU's 450 million affluent consumers still form the largest pool of purchasing power in the world.5 trillion a year and provides jobs for some 12 million workers. and it is far and away the biggest foreign source of American jobs: the German industrial giant Siemens alone employs some 70. American Council on Germany. Thus. Europe provides 75 percent of all investment in the United States. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . American business invests 60 percent more in eastern Europe than in China: $16. predict that half of their global revenues will come from Europe in 2005. corporate America saw its investment inflows and profits from France surge to the highest levels in nearly a decade: $2. Over the past eight years. Americans invested twice as much in the Netherlands as in Mexico and ten times as much as in China. Europeans invested more in Texas than Americans did in Japan. investments in Europe jumped by 30 percent to $87 billion. President. Despite the billions of dollars already invested on both sides. such as Microsoft and Intel. and Former Executive Director.S. They also say that economic self-interest should be enough to persuade both Democrats and Republicans in the United States to want to protect the Atlantic partnership--all the more so because the combined Economic power of the United States and Europe would give them enormous leverage to deal with major global challenges.S.ECONOMY The US/European economic partnership forms the core of the global economy William Drozdiak. January/February 2005 (“The North Atlantic Drift” – Foreign Affairs) p. while the media reported that Americans were pouring Bordeaux wine down the drain to protest Paris' position on the war in Iraq. Commerce Department. affiliates in Europe soared to a record $77 billion.6 billion against $10. Together. they account for more than half of trade and investment flows in the world.7 billion.-European economic relationship is not yet realized.3 billion.S. according to the latest data from the U. Large U. U. In 2003. respectively. technology firms.4 billion and $l.S. And today. Their business with each other exceeds $2.S. the full potential of the U. and U.

these should not deter the United States and the EU from working together toward a more open global trading system. that system should aim to make it easier for developing countries to grow economically through trade. traditionally a domestic policy field. biotechnology. Unfortunately. we may be able to reduce some of the barriers for U. and intellectual property rights. enhanced trade in services and agricultural products. and European companies doing business overseas. and EU regulations can be identified and addressed early in the regulatory process. European financial institutions doing business in the United States have experienced substantial difficulties in complying with new U. As the two largest economic actors in the world. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 .S. and John Lis.7 Dan Hamilton.TRADE A. Although serious tensions in the transatlantic trade relationship still exist in areas such as agricultural and steel production subsidies. Better consultation. US/European cooperation is key to a more open and stable global trading system Doug Bereuter. Winter 2003-2004 (“Broadening the Transatlantic Relationship” – The Washington Quarterly) http://www.com The United States and the EU have been the driving forces behind the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) 2001 Doha Round.S. U. This would help competitive businesses in Europe and North America gain access to international markets while saving consumers money by facilitating imports of competitively priced products.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 38 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS . both legislatures could help facilitate the ability of our companies to operate in each other’s markets. the collapse of the September 2003 Cancun WTO ministerial meeting has set back this effort.twq.S. and that will require each to act conscientiously on the legitimate concerns of developing countries in exchange for the reductions in tariffs and increased market access that we demand. For example. chemical companies are concerned about the possible effect that proposed EU regulations may have on their ability to do business in Europe. regulations. investment in Europe exceeding $3 trillion and European investment in the United States on a similar scale. Chair of the Subcommittee on Europe of the House International Relations Committee and President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. is becoming a transatlantic concern.S. If potential differences between U. which is aimed at issues such as market access for developing countries. the United States and the EU enact regulations that alternatively become the de facto starting point for regulators elsewhere in the world. notes that regulatory policy. since Congress passed the Sarbanes- Oxley financial reform legislation in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom debacles. By working together when cooperation is in our mutual interest. and export subsidies. and coordination is needed between the Congress and the European Parliament on regulatory legislation. Likewise. In addition. especially by providing reasonable market access in key areas such as agriculture and textiles.S. The EU and United States must work with the developing countries to get the Doha Round back on track. Senior Policy Adviser for Transatlantic Relations for the House International Relations Committee and Former Director of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s Defense and Security Committee. director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University. With U. cooperation.

and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce. into the WTO is so important.TRADE B. our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. whether the cause is environmental. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. The truth is that nations join together in groups tike the WTO not just to further their own prosperity. In a way. labor or paranoia about global government. such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell. most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists. 12/1/99. But they're not. lexis Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. (That's why bringing China. but also to forestall conflict with other nations. They're special-interest activists.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 39 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS . they have a major disincentive to wage war. the father of the nuclear disarmament movement. p. The global trading system is key to prevent nuclear war Copley News Service.As long as nations are trading peacefully. and their economies are built on exports to other countries. 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. the threat of hostility diminishes. a budding superpower. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity. Actually. both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 .

TERRORISM A. Summer 2003 (“Croesus and Caesar” – The National Interest) p. Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and Member of the Board of Directors. and Pakistan's cooperation may be as important as Russia's. the United States will need cooperation and the shared intelligence of many other countries. For that. University of California-Los Angeles and Project Director of the University of California-Los Angeles-Carnegie Study on Globalization. means and opportunity to commit a nuclear attack. at least in the short run. Terrorism will inevitably go nuclear Graham Allison. and Andrei Kokoshin. but who among us trusts luck to protect us in the future? Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . We have been lucky so far. Harvard University. particularly those of an enlarged European Union. Professor of Government and Former Director of the Belfer Center. terrorism may even spread. 34 Then there is the continuing threat of terrorism. Fall 2002 (“The New Containment” – the National Interest) p. The mystery before us is not how a nuclear terrorist attack could possibly occur. several could potentially obtain nuclear means. Professor of Political Science. NTI. Neither the technical revolution in military affairs that has occurred in the United States nor the growing imperial reach of America's conventional forces can vanquish terrorism. but rather why no terrorist group has yet combined motive. and hundreds of opportunities exist for a group with means and motive to make the United States or Russia a victim of nuclear terrorism. B.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 40 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS . lexis In sum: even a conservative estimate must conclude that dozens of terrorist groups have sufficient motive to use a nuclear weapon. International cooperation between the United States and Europe is essential to win the long bout against terrorism. There are no superpowers in the war against terrorism-every nation can be a military theater where battles may be won. International cooperation with Europe is the main tool in preventing terrorism – other tools won’t be enough Richard Rosecrance. This threat will not disappear now that the war with Iraq is over.

1987 (Terrorism and Global Security) p. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . With a bilateral treaty between Israel and Egypt already several years old. How would the United States react to the situation in the Middle East? What would be the Soviet response? It is certainly conceivable that a chain reaction of interstate nuclear conflict could ensue. Before long. Only such a paradigm would allow us a proper framework for absorbing the vision of near-total obliteration and the outer limits of human destructiveness.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 41 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS . only the interests of the Palestinians-as defined by the PLO-seem to have been left out. Israel and her Arab state neighbors finally stand ready to conclude a comprehensive. Of course.TERRORISM C. the consequences of nuclear war require an entirely new paradigm of death. one that would ultimately involve the superpowers or even every nuclear weapon state on the planet. consider the following scenario: Early in the 1980s. and all countries in the area have suffered unprecedented destruction. whereupon the Lebanese government and its allies retaliate against Israel. exactly. would this mean? Whether the terms of assessment be statistical or human. Such war could involve the entire spectrum of nuclear conflict possibilities. What. Purdue University. conflict has escalated to nuclear forms. That causes global nuclear war Louis Rene Beres. the entire region is ablaze. In response to the public mode. Public grief in Israel over the many thousand dead and maimed is matched only by the outcry for revenge. such as scenario is fraught with the makings of even wider destruction. ranging from a nuclear attack upon a nonnuclear state to systemwide nuclear war. Any nuclear war would have effectively permanent and irreversible consequences. Terrorism Expert and Professor. On the eye of the proposed signing of the peace agreement. it would entomb the spirit of the entire species in a planetary casket strewn with shorn bodies and imbecile imaginations. multilateral peace settlement. the government of Israel initiates selected strikes against terrorist strongholds in Lebanon. Whatever the actual extent of injuries and fatalities. How might such far-reaching consequences of nuclear terrorism come about? Perhaps the most likely way would involve a terrorist nuclear assault against a state by terrorists “hosted” in another state. half of a dozen crude nuclear explosives in the one-kiloton range detonate in as many as Israeli cities. For example. 50-51 Nuclear terrorism could even spark full-scale nuclear war between states.

April 2003 (“Why We Need Europe” – The American Prospect) p. and as dangerous as nuclear war Daniel Hamilton. to undermine American security by further poisoning relations with capable allies in a time of unprecedented national peril. The Muslim diaspora communities into which terrorist cells can invisibly blend remain the likeliest staging grounds for future al-Qaeda attacks on the United States. Efforts to protect the U. the United States is not the world's only superpower. for example. American forces. Europe remains a frontline region in the war against terrorism just as it was in the war against communism. for the sake of a frisson. while deadly. New York University School of Law. A bioterrorist attack in Europe or North America is more likely and could be as consequential as a nuclear attack. can hardly be conducted in isolation from key allies whose economies and information networks are so intertwined with ours. We cannot afford. lexis It is unlikely that a successful effort to strengthen homeland security can be conducted in isolation from one's allies. Their capacities to respond effectively to today's greatest security threats easily rival those of the United States. or managing airports and train stations in the age of globalization involves a delicate balance of identifying and intercepting weapons and terrorists without excessively hindering trade. Bioterrorism in particular is a first-order strategic threat to the Euro-Atlantic community. despite his pose as a no-nonsense realist. In other words. homeland against cyberattack. The U. lexis That this assumption is fallacious is the very least that might be said. despite the prevailing cliche. In our new security environment. arresting scores of suspected terrorists. security. But let it pass. Europeans and Americans alike are woefully ill- prepared for such challenges. each side of the Atlantic is at greater risk of attack. Kagan has apparently failed to realize the degree to which the contours of American national security have been redrawn since 9-11. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . Director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations @ Johns Hopkins University. the European police have been acting in a perfectly Hobbesian manner. True. Kagan announces that "the United States can 'go it alone. National-security strategy must now operate in a domain where soldiering and policing have become of coequal importance. it has become very clear that controlling borders. travel and tourism upon which European and American prosperity increasingly depends. If such an attack involved contagious disease.S. This profound change helps us understand the erroneous premise of Bush's foreign policy. organized and financed in Europe. European leaders can sometimes be hypocritical and foolishly condescending. The war on transnational terrorism depends essentially on information gathering and policing. They can perform essential tasks of monitoring. As daily press reports also reveal. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. is simply a "mild" portent of what may be to come. disruption and apprehension for which our own unrivaled military machine is patently inadequate. quick timeframe.S. operating ports.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 42 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS . Unless there is systematic trans-European and trans-Atlantic coordination in the area of preparedness.S.'" This is apparently the thinking (if you can call it that) behind the administration's mindlessly denigrating remarks about Europe. may be a primary target for Al-Qaeda. The home front and the foreign front have now been disconcertingly blurred. it could threaten the American homeland itself in a matter of hours. Professor of Law. Europeans' linguistic skills and cultural knowledge alone ensure that they can make indispensable contributions to U. and American interests. Dismissing the "platitude" that the United States cannot protect itself without European help. infiltration. but we know it has also planned major operations in Europe. The war on terrorism depends on skills that only US/European cooperation can produce Stephen Holmes. A terrorist WMD attack on Europe would immediately affect American civilians. and in these respects the Europeans are anything but security pygmies. but requires a different set of national and international responses. In other words. The September 11 attacks were partly planned. The SARS epidemic. 6/11/2003 (FDCH Congressional Testimony) p.TERRORISM Transatlantic cooperation is essential to prevent bioterrorism attacks that are highly probable. legal migration.

Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies. for example. global environmental problems can only be addressed through effective global action. In the end.ENVIRONMENT A. help to bring about the coming into force of the Kyoto Protocol. policy decisions should have a large “insurance” bias toward protection of biodiversity – and therefore especially toward functional groups in which there is little or no redundancy. But enhanced US-European cooperation is an essential precondition for the broader global efforts to succeed. Summer 2003 (“An Elective Partnership: Salvaging Transatlantic Relations” – Survival) p. but it will have marginal benefits if the United States stays outside. Conversely. May 1998 (“Rivets and Redundancy” – BioScience) p. continued US- European disputes can magnify international disagreements.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 43 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS . Humanity is utterly dependent on services delivered by ecosystems (Daily 1997). Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . as each side seeks to line up supporters in both the developing and developed world. Professor of Population Studies. Considering the uncertainties and complexities in the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem services. OUP Journals Yet. Brookings Institution. Stanford University. European efforts. Steinberg. US/European relations are critical to saving the environment James B. B. The essential message of both the redundancy and rivet-popper hypotheses is that we force species and populations (Hughes et al. Such a policy would lead to loss of resilience. it does not follow that where there is significant redundancy in a functional group we can afford to lose some of the species. 1997) to extinction at our own peril. Environmental collapse risks extinction Paul Ehrlich. lexis But just because some functional groups consist of single species that warrant special attention. and Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. may. the objective realities of environmental risk inevitably will force both the United States and Europe to work more closely together – the main question is whether this will be sooner rather than later.

S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.LEADERSHIP A. B. 2003 (The Next American Century edited by Jeffrey T. the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -. Research Analyst at the RAND Institute. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . they are both home to the world's most successful democracies. and the rule of law. must be Washington's highest priority. enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers. First. and the nexus of global intellectual capital as well as technological innovation. global stability. but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. Leadership prevents global nuclear war and is key to global stability Zalmay Khalilzad. therefore. How the U. the locomotive of the world's economy. Counselor. lexis Under the third option. this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. and low-level conflicts. On balance. such as nuclear proliferation. and Professor of American Foreign Policy. It is the springboard for U. U. Johns Hopkins University.S. free markets. Spring 1995 (“Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War” – Washington Quarterly) p.democracy. Bergner) p. Finally. and the base of US leadership Zbigniew Brzezinski.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 44 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS . Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself. threats of regional hegemony by renegade states. U. 69 The transatlantic alliance is America's most important global relationship. Just as important. global involvement.S. Center for Strategic and International Studies. Second. 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. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival. including a global nuclear exchange. enabling America to play the decisive role of arbiter in Eurasia-the world's central arena of power-and it creates a coalition that is globally dominant in all the key di- mensions of power and influence.-European relationship is managed. such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems. US/European relations are essential to US power projection.S. America and Europe together serve as the axis of global stability.

preponderance of war fighting and the European preponderance of stabilization and reconstruction.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 45 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS .LEADERSHIP European cooperation is the only way to maintain domestic support for leadership and solve global problems Ivo Daalder. the United States will find it increasingly difficult to deal with rogue states or international crises. Despite Europe’s internal weaknesses and divisions. forces tied up in South Korea. and James M. insisting on a division of labour that assigns Washington the main international security role to the exclusion of others is unlikely to be popular among its allies. Winter 2003/2004 (“European Military Reform for a Global Partnership” – The Washington Quarterly) p. With U. Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies. As long as Europe lacks credible military capabilities. international legitimacy of action and a commitment by other nations to share the costs will be a political prerequisite for gaining public support. Such a posture is also unlikely to be popular at home. This is not only in the case of so-called humanitarian interventions. The methods of warfare used in Afghanistan and Iraq hold great promise for the future. Professor of Strategic Studies and International Relations and Director of the Clingendael Center for Strategic Studies in the Netherlands. The Europeans must accept the reality that the use of hard power could be unavoidable and must learn from the United States on this score. In recent years.S. but also when it involves the defence of such vital national interests as the world’s supply of crude oil. the Balkans. undermining the credibility of U. In either case. no part of the world offers the United States a better prospect for becoming a strong partner in taking on global challenges and opportunities. coercive diplomacy. Armed force will become a more usable instrument of foreign policy and could reduce Europe's reluctance to use it. The unilateralism implied by assigning primary responsibility for global security and stability to the United States without support from or regard for the perspective of regional allies and other countries is hardly consistent with the desire. Brookings Institution. Professor of Political Science. it lacks the capacity to deal with many of the critical global challenges – ranging from weapons proliferation and terrorism to environmental degradation and the rapid spread of infectious disease – without support from allies. however.S. Spring 2001 (“Putting Europe First” – Survival) p. For the time being. repeatedly emphasised by the incoming team. and Afghanistan. Iraq. foreign policy. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . lexis Washington must develop a vision of a strategic partnership between the United States and the EU and acknowledge that a Europe with stronger forces can influence U. economic and political power. the risk of imperialistic overreach is one of many powerful incentives for such a partnership. There are also fundamental political problems with such an approach. to exercise American power ‘without arrogance and to pursue its interests without hectoring and bluster’.S. there is no other option but to strive for a temporary division of labor where each of side of the Atlantic specializes in the military operations suited to its political culture. it has become very clear that the American public will support the use of US military forces overseas only if other countries share the burden. Goldgeiger. US/European partnership is need to prevent imperial overstretch from undermining the credibility of US leadership and deal with international crises Rob de Wijk.S. Ingenta Although America today enjoys unrivalled military. For the United States. a stronger partnership must be built on the U. At a time when the United States is already regarded by much of the world as an overbearing ‘hyperpower’. George Washington University.

brookings." the thinking goes. How. Moreover. Daalder and James M. constructive -. global warming. Brookings Institution) http://www. rancor. commiseration. Senior Fellows in Foreign Policy Studies. the United States must be reminded of the best aspects of its past. lies precisely in maintaining mutually supportive relations and avoiding the drift that over time can turn into destructive rivalry.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 46 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS . One of the first of these lessons -.and long-term costs. Washington seems to view Europe as being somewhere between its deputy sheriff and its cleaning lady. and derogatory paternalism. In this context the United States needs Europe -.way.and not just for its intelligence networks. or police.LEADERSHIP US/European relations are key to avoid a power struggle and threats to US leadership Ivo H. Europe funds. Europe is the best protection that the United States has against its inner evils: its isolationist narcissism. even when their contribution is not strictly required. will Americans achieve idealism without illusion. Senior Adviser. the Intitut Francais des Relations Internationales and Professor. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . US/Europe relations are key to checking US isolationism – it’s the best way to shore up internationalism Dominique Moisi. poverty—can be dealt with only if the major powers cooperate. and classical notions of territory and boundary have become a thing of the past. ultimately could lead to competition for power and global leadership. the drifting apart of erstwhile allies has both short. the un feeds. "hard" and "soft" power are increasingly intertwined. To remain truly internationalist in a positive. the inevitable costs suggest that wise policy would work now to avoid it. Brookings Institution.a particularly pertinent one for American administrators in Iraq -. The problem with this vision is that it does not fit today's geopolitical realities. Lindsay. The value of seeking cooperation from America’s most important partners.and republican -. The clear-cut definition of military force has disappeared. sophisticated judicial systems.edu/views/papers/daalder/20030814. especially between the United States and Europe. But the United States still badly needs Europe -.is that no power should ever define what is good for others without those people being involved. lexis It is all too easy for Washington to view Europe with a mixture of indifference. Many of the most important global challenges—terrorism. humanitarian efforts. November-December 2003 (Foreign Affairs) p.pdf Nevertheless. College of Europe in Warsaw. Even if America could win such a competition. realism without cynicism? Learning from past European empires is also vital to the success of the American imperial enterprise today. its ignorance of the way others feel and think. "America fights. otherwise. interdependent world. Summer 2003 (“Power and Cooperation: An American Foreign Policy for the Age of Global Politics” – Agenda for the Nation. In our complex.although not for the reasons it thinks.

S. Spring 2004 (“Multilateralism: Behind European Views” – The Washington Quarterly) http://www. Even while the United States is at war with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. If this dynamic continues unabated. Professor of International Relations. and it bodes ill for all kinds of multilateralism.S. a huge majority in the U." no matter which party controls the White House and Congress. the University of Kiel and Member of the Council of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.pdf The current transatlantic rift must be prevented from gaining any momentum that will exacerbate the situation. and look for unilateral ways or for "coalitions of the willing.MULTILATERALISM Failure to reverse transatlantic disputes risks the collapse of all forms of multilateralism and international order – the US will lashout in response to European constraints Joachim Krause. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . Congress. and public opinion all hold the view today that that there are major security problems that need to be resolved.twq.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 47 US/EUROPEAN RELATIONS . the U. disregard international law.S. administration. continue to use international organizations such as the Security Council and international law to check alleged U. the more Washington will circumvent international organizations. A certain cycle appears increasingly underway. The more that European governments.com/04spring/docs/04spring_krause. hyperpower. and the existing Western liberal order risks eroding as rapidly as the international order of the nineteenth century did in the two decades preceding World War I. particularly France and Germany. the Atlantic Alliance as well as the UN could be damaged beyond repair. preferably through international institutions but unilaterally if a multilateral approach cannot address these problems.

Consumers in the importing nation have to pay more for that widget–when it could have been produced and imported from another country at a lower cost. by pursuing protectionist policies. that is. Moreover. but it was not to be. This was accomplished at great expense to British taxpayers and despite the efforts of many smugglers to avoid the tariffs. such barriers may seem to be advantageous measures that save jobs. whether it was imposed by the Germans or by his own government. however. policies that exclude foreign products only hurt the global economy and all who participate in it. jobs were protected or even “created” in industries in which England was less efficient. in 1939. These restrictions undoubtedly benefit local producers but are an inefficient use of money for everyone else. On the contrary. One would expect an outpouring of gratitude from the British for this kindness from their German neighbors. Moving workers from where they produce more to where they produce less is a recipe for government-imposed poverty. Indeed economically speaking. Adolph Hitler generously provided this same service to the British with the German navy and its U-boats. in which it had a comparative advantage. however. In either case. At first glance. But that meant that workers were no longer available to work in industries where England was more efficient. Yet. our own government does to us in peacetime what enemy governments do to us in time of war. the Germans provided this service at no expense to the British taxpayers. During the Great Depression of the 1930s England raised its tariffs to extremely high levels and used its navy to restrict the flow of goods produced elsewhere from entering.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 48 PROTECTIONISM BAD Protectionism kills the global economy – empirical examples Walter Block 1998 (Necessity of Free trade. The British consumer paid dearly for the blockade of his shores. this was an act of war by an implacable enemy–not the generous act of a friendly nation. Department of Economics and Finance University of Central Arkansas) Mutual Free Trade Protectionist measures give domestic producers an artificial advantage over their foreign counterparts. Then. what Germany was doing to Britain was merely what the British government had been doing to its own people only a few weeks earlier. All costs were paid by the German people. In truth. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . did not the prohibition of imports protect British jobs? Things that otherwise could have been imported now had to be produced domestically–even though it was more costly to do so. Yes.

but many people (economists included) appear to assume that a different set of economic rules operates on the international scene. historically the champion of the free market. Producers oppose consumers. while most persons would readily agree that such a system is demonstrably superior in principle. Government Publication) The Dangers of Protectionism The most serious threat to the world economy--and to our domestic economy--is the swelling tide of protectionism. No one in this room would consider that trade barriers among the 50 States would be anything but a disaster. Protectionism is like a disease--not only pernicious but contagious.' they say. and suppose that Virginia (defying the constitutional prohibition against internal tariffs) managed to impose a special levy on all tobacco entering the state. Clearly. over and over again. When individuals. Of course. for example. even in the absence of retaliation. I should feel the need to make a plea for a free and open trading system.' "Fair trade' is not defined. unnecessary licensing. A favored group or industry may initially benefit from a quota. Their arguments. It is disheartening but not surprising that protectionism's advocates are found in all nations. By "protectionism. are not really actions taken by one country against another country. I often find them advocating policies that would produce the opposite result. I include tariffs. By this same logic--or lack of logic--they assume that with impunity we can introduce protectionist measures at our international borders without hurting all parties concerned--ourselves more than others. When it appears. and industries that compete with imports oppose industries that export. are founded on the same fallacies. it spreads and leaves a trail of economic disability. but that does not validate their cause. and always have been. "but it must be fair trade. Protectionist measures invite a spiral of retaliation. they are actions that benefit one domestic group at the expense of other groups in the same country. subsidies. They foster inefficient uses of scarce resources and raise the cost of living in the country introducing the protection. quotas. and neither eloquence nor vehemence will alter the fundamental fact that protectionism is inevitably self-defeating. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . but implicitly it means trade in which we win. but even greater additional costs are borne by the majority of the population. voluntary export restraints. People who would never condone protectionism at home somehow accept that it should be practiced internationally. and. "We believe in free trade. suppose that the State of Virginia decided that North Carolina tobacco was making excessive inroads in the Virginia market. But. To illustrate this point with a hypothetical example. industries. Protectionist measures. in whatever language they may be phrased. they often rationalize a course of action that has.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 49 PROTECTIONISM BAD Protectionism creates a vicious cycle of retaliation and ensure economic collapse US Department of State 1985 (Protectionism: A Threat to Our Prosperity. proven to be a failure: protectionism. total economic activity--and our prosperity --would be reduced. Instead. health and safety standards. North Carolina would retaliate against products from Virginia. or even whole sectors perceive their economic interests to be threatened. and all other measures that distort trade. and trade-distorting measures in general. It may seem strange that in the United States.' I mean any measure that gives a domestic producer an artificial advantage over foreign producers.

"Ultimately. Left unchecked. wheat and corn have caused many critics to call for protectionist policies that could stifle global trade. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . when a political leader announces a new protectionist measure. John Rutledge 2007 (PROTECTIONISM . the United Nations reported. appeal to political leaders for relief. speaking at the U. I believe that rising protectionism.. But he noted that the world's consumption level is greater than the amount of food produced and called the situation unsustainable. akin to the blackouts caused by failures of an electricity network. Economists agree that they inhibit trade and disproportionately penalize poorer nations. The unintended consequences of protectionism would be harmful for people living in developed countries. whose fortunes have been temporarily or permanently reduced.THE REAL THREAT TO GROWTH. including the current administration. It is time for wealthier nations to rethink old-fashioned program of agricultural subsidies. our task is to ensure that the virtuous cycle goes on and its benefits extend as broadly as possible -. U. as it did in the 1970's. if government officials turn toward protectionist policies it will only make the situation worse and potentially escalate security concerns." Ban said in a statement. He urged wealthy nations to rethink subsidy programs. bring nations into conflict. as well as multinational corporations and financial institutions. chief is warning countries to resist protectionism. and social instability are rooted in the turbulence caused by rapid economic change.N. as well as those who are simply afraid of change. "The situation is unsustainable. Ban said that despite the current food crisis in poor countries. China Daily august 3) Today. STABILITY. Although we cannot entirely eliminate calls for protectionism. crowds cheer." Protectionism causes trade wars Dr. . will get us out of the hole we're in. More trade." Ban said. creating uncertainty in the lives of many people. Conference on Trade and Development in Ghana. Those. said that global trade has resulted in two decades of economic prosperity. contributing to the current emergency. "Grain stocks are at their lowest in 30 years. "International grain markets must remain open and functioning normally. this process can lead to global trade war as country after country erects non-market barriers to the smooth flow of trade. April 21) The U. Ultimately.N. in which the global economy stops growing. saying it will exacerbate the global food crisis resulting in increased threats to security. nationalism. they would be a tragedy for the world's three billion poor people. there are things we can do to retard its growth and mitigate its harmful effects. Rampant protectionism could also breed social and political instability and. We can choose a better course." Recent protests and riots resulting from the surging costs of basic foods including rice. Rapid economic change raises average incomes but it creates new industries and destroys others. not less.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 50 PROTECTIONISM BAD Protectionism turns food crisis UPI 2008 (Protectionism could worsen food crisis. Dr John Rutledge is a leading economist who has advised several presidents. ultimately. Ban acknowledged that at the same time leaders around the world have to support the countries that have been bypassed in the global market.most especially to those who have so far missed out. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.. Political instability would put all the gains of the past quarter century at risk.N. these mounting frictions can produce system failure. political leaders who promise to stop or reverse change will gain power over leaders who counsel openness.

As a result bananas are less expensive and resources areused more sustainably. have fewer children and trade less with each other to address climate change. Protectionism will mean fewer products from poor countries being sold to industrialized countries. and was unaffordable to all but theelite. PROTECTIONISM HARMS CONSUMERS AND THE ENVIRONMENT) Although some claim that trade barriers would help the environment. These could be grown in the cold climates of Finland. they will continue to use older. Moreover. and then exporting them to consumers around the world. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . moretechnologically advanced and efficient.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 51 PROTECTIONISM BAD Protectionism turns case – it harms the environment by rewarding inefficient policies and delays the adoption of cleaner technologies – it also impoverishes the vast majority of people – India proves Turkish Daily News 2008 (Februrary 5. which produced just one car the Ambassador which was technologically inferior. The competitive market process. Environmental ideologues continue to make dour prognostications about our planet's future. India demonstrates the follies of protectionism. Which is why theyare grown in places such as Costa Rica and the Ivory Coast. In 1984. less trade means less wealth. resource-savingtechnologies. harms the vastmajority of people as well as the environment and is best avoided. is inherently more sustainable than the regulated economy advocated by eco-doom mongers. India had one car manufacturer. Such demands may suit the protectionist agenda but they have little merit in terms of their practical abilityto enable humanity to use scarce natural and human resources in an ever-more sustainable manner. cleaner. they are actually counterproductive. which translates into fewerresources available to invest in environmental conservation. India began to open its market to foreign car producers.dirtier production methods and thus will use scarce resources less sustainably. Until 1984. But to do so would be farmore costly than growing them in warm places. Poor countries would suffer disproportionately from green trade barriers with adverse effects on both people andthe environment. these claims should not be heededseriously. purchasing cars that are less expensive. Instead. Canada. belched pollutants. naked or cloaked in green. claiming that we all must consume less. Solocal companies will have less money to invest in new. This process exploded after the reforms of 1991and millions of Indians have benefited from competition. This effect would be exacerbated byreduced investment from multinational companies. Protectionism. Based on theirscaremongering and frankly embarrassing record of false predictions in recent decades. Consider bananas. underpinned by free trade between and within nations. cleaner technologies. and Russia. They favorthe status quo by rewarding inefficient producers and thus delaying the adoption of cleaner.

harm both consumers and producers. since history shows that people care more about the environment the richer they are. Consumers and producers spend more to purchase thesame goods and services. the best way to improve the world's environment is to help poor countries grow rich. Protectionism turns case – hurts the environment – empirically proven – free trade solves GABRIEL STEIN 2007(Chief International Economist. big business and organised labor unite.(A SYMPOSIUM OF VIEWS)) Insisting on imposing environmental standards as a condition for trade will have one of two effects. The benefits of trade wouldbe replaced by losses in consumer welfare and environmental degradation. Will environmentalism become the new protectionism? Twenty-three experts weigh in. so have less to invest in new technologies or to save for the future.leading to unnecessary waste of scarce natural and human resources. Greens.where European and Americanproducers are not disadvantaged by their self-imposed restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. In this case the efforts will be unsuccessful and the political consequences harmful. but at the cost of condemning billions of people in emerging economies to continued poverty. But that would be self-defeating. various European trade unionshave applauded calls for punitive trade measures against non-EU competitors. Trade barriers of any kind. Similarly. Thus. But in reality. especially when supported by moralists. Whereas the beneficiaries of liberalization are widely dispersed. tariffs and quotas. Either it will create substantial tension with emerging economies. who rightly claim that today's advanced economies ignored the environment when they grew rich. including"green" subsidies. it is far more moral to support liberalization. An easy way to do that is to practice free trade. Feb 3) The idea behind such protectionism is to create a "level playing field" -. Or else the efforts will be successful. Lombard Street Research. the beneficiaries of trade restrictions areconcentrated and tend to be very effective in lobbying national governments to "protect" their business fromcompetition.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 52 PROTECTIONISM BAD Protectionism turns case – artificially stimulates one player creating unequal opportunities paving the way for environmental degradation China Post 2008 (PROTECTIONISM MAY BE HARMFUL TO ALL. this game would artificially make all players one-legged and one-armed. such as environmentalists. Ultimately. But instead of leveling the playing field. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . who claim that such protections benefit the earth. The Lieberman-Warner bill is endorsed not only by major Greengroups but also by electricity providers and their associated trade unions. They artificially increase costs.

Goldman Sachs International. and a rapid. so too are the methods and tactics employed by those who prefer market intervention to competition. BROCK III 2007(Former U.(A SYMPOSIUM OF VIEWS)) Moreover. Why should countries that are made poorer by protectionism be more ready to improve their environmental standards? There is a more positive strategy. Trade pays. Chinese economic growth will only become sustainable if environmental standards are raised. the forces of protectionism were being hard pressed. politicians are well aware of their environmental problems. it is likely that global environmental standards will not be raised by protectionist behavior. in part because most Americans have realized that in many cases the affected firm's competitive weakness was largely self-imposed. and the potential consequences enormous. demands for egregious acts of protectionism have been faced with a slow but increasing reluctance in Washington. The potential for error is large. even dramatic. Yet just as the demands and "justifications" for protectionism seem endless. a slow but steady improvement in more open markets. The same applies to technologies that clean up an already polluted environment. Economies should enhance trade in environmental technologies. Trade Representative and Secretary of Labor. growth in world trade In sum. Environmentalism to the rescue! [Continued] The task for our economic and trade leadership is to find a way to craft approaches which satisfy the public demand for environmental progress. especially in countries that face environmental problems. Trade limitations on one side incite retaliations on the other. Economies supplying these technologies benefit from higher growth and those buying them benefit from an improved environment. and that will require global as well as bilateral agreements. without allowing those agreements to become a subterfuge for protectionism. Will environmentalism become the new protectionism? Twenty-three experts weigh in. As a result trade becomes more expensive and the price level increases. What will happen? There are good reasons to believe that the latter strategy has at least a fair chance.(A SYMPOSIUM OF VIEWS)) Over the past few decades. There are firms in the United States and Europe that could help China achieve this aim. Will environmentalism become the new protectionism? Twenty-three experts weigh in.S. Even in China. The result has been a growing reliance on a rules based world trading system. Sophisticated machinery that allows sustainable production without polluting the environment should be in high demand. Protectionism has been on the decline – only free trade solves WILLIAM E. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . thus the need for new and more acceptable arguments to justify governmental intervention.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 53 PROTECTIONISM BAD Protectionism causes retaliation – free trade solves JIM O'NEILL 2007 (Head of Global Economic Research.

unanticipated increases in steel prices wiped out $2 million in profits. Congress tried to protect Americans by enacting huge tariff increases. then reduced supplies and higher prices for imported steel allow domestic steel producers to sell more steel and raise their prices. firms raise their incomes. such as the producers of stainless steel kitchenware. The freedom to choose our specialization and to exchange with whomever we wish is the only way to guarantee prosperity. While the measures designed to protect selected U. Rexworks. are facing rising prices. and their sales and prices and incomes fall. We have gone through this before. These harmful effects extend far beyond the direct purchasers of the protected products. specialization and exchange encourage people to engage in those activities for which they are the most productive.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 54 PROTECTIONISM BAD Protectionism create economic instability – it outweighs any potential benefits.in the name of "protecting" those firms whose owners and employees are enriched at everyone else's expense.S. when this occurs. The reduced sales of foreign steel decrease the number of American dollars foreign countries receive. their demand for American exports must fall. Trade protection stifles this process. Such intervention served only to lengthen and worsen the depression. The benefit for the protected firms and industries. so that total output falls. then. Consumers who buy protected products must pay higher prices and face a reduced range of choices. In free markets. say. the losses incurred by those who are harmed by the protective measures will be greater than the gains of those who are helped. Because foreigners have fewer dollars.S. in fact. Current proposals are inviting another Great Depression. they reduce the incomes of American firms and individuals that serve foreign markets. In June 1930. during the early stages of the Great Depression. And. Unfortunately. American exporters find that there is less foreign demand for their products. Meanwhile the steel producers are reaping huge gains. is what has recently happened. a small industrial firm in Milwaukee. found that even though it had an excellent year in production and sales. we begin the long trek down the road to the general impoverishment of our society -. Firms that purchase steel. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . imported steel. Only free trade solves Gene Smiley 1989 (“Protectionism Threatens U. Prosperity” He is an associate professor of economics @ Marquette university) If the government imposes quotas or tariffs on. That. comes at the expense of consumers in general and firms that export.

Neither could it safeguard environmental resources. Current agricultural policies cause major distortions of world food production and trade. James M. environmental quality should also improve. Only government regulation in the public interest can force businesses to internalize social costs. Environmentalists have more to fear from protectionism. Thus. even in times of recession. a free-market think tank) The Folly of Government Regulation Even though growth coincides with environmental improvement. according to this argument. The task of ecological central planning is no easier than economic central planning. Agricultural subsidies in the United States. Sheehan is director of international policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. hence. Many environmentalists consider the system of capitalism and private enterprise inherently responsible for environmental externalities. Central planning failed largely because it could not efficiently distribute resources. for example. while preventing the types that are not. James Sheehan 2004 (Globalized Free Trade Will Protect Global Resources. without the profit motive of the market. This fundamental economic reality does not change simply because goods and services are crossing borders. however. some of the worst environmental degradation in the world occurred in the former Soviet Bloc. By fostering inefficient land use. James M. James Sheehan 2004 (Globalized Free Trade Will Protect Global Resources. a free-market think tank) Environmentalists need not fear that expansion of trade will produce growth in pollution. Socialist countries. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . Federal mismanagement also encourages farmers to overplant while discouraging crop rotation. any human activity with environmental impacts must be politically controlled. Sheehan is director of international policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. there is little incentive for political owners of a resource to conserve for the future in order to maximize returns. By scaling back interventionist government policies. Industrial countries encourage agricultural production with price supports and other subsidies totaling $200 billion per year. The market-failure argument leads inexorably to central planning. The same free-market institutions which generate economic gains also generate environmental gains. Government is entrusted to effectively foster only the types of economic growth which are environmentally friendly. If market failure was truly the cause of pollution. Data from sample market and socialist economies shows that market economies become more resource-efficient with economic growth. and scientific data necessary to make such determinations. depleting soils and exacerbating pest eradication.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 55 PROTECTIONISM BAD Protectionism hurts the environment – free trade solves. On the contrary. there is a strong anti-market bias to environmentalist arguments. are responsible for intense chemical pesticide and fertilizer use on farmlands. US subsidies and land set-aside programs contribute to soil erosion and loss of wetlands and forests. are generally more resource intensive. technological. they reduce income and. To the extent that protective tariffs and subsidies restrict and distort trade. To the extent that expanded trade is generating economic growth. while developing countries discourage agricultural production through tax and trade policies. Without a profit motive. trade liberalization would have significant environmental benefits. Protectionist structures turns case – it causes environmental degradation – empirically proven. "market failure" is often blamed for the existence of pollution itself. and such regulation must be extended to trade. Yet no government has the capability of assimilating the vast amounts of economic. we would expect the absence of markets in the centrally-planned economies of Eastern Europe would have been environmentally beneficial. the demand for environmental quality.

Those economies that benefit from globalisation will be those that take the long-term view and provide stability in the business environment. with little likelihood of a quick resolution. And the sweeping victory by the Democrats in the US Congress has fanned fears of rising economic nationalism in the US. The capitalists are not blind to the consequences of their actions but these measures would be deemed necessary to protect national economies against their rivals At present. 2006) (SINGAPORE) Protectionism is increasingly viewed as a major threat to corporate growth. the impact on economic growth of a rise in protectionism could be severe . According to EIU forecasts.often through disguised protectionism . could probably bring about deep-rooted protectionist measures in most major economies . and increased protectionism risks putting the brakes on that growth. This allows businesses to invest and plan ahead with greater confidence. An almighty economic crisis. lower growth and. however. whilst trying to create the most favourable conditions . as the pace of job losses and industrial closures increases in the USA. is that it brings the prospect of retaliation and closes down areas of the world market to them. The report comes in the wake of recent bad news on the free trade front. UK Trade Minister responsible for UK Trade & Investment. there is little chance of the advanced capitalist countries going fully down a protectionist road. Protectionism kills growth and causes trade wars Business Times 2006 (“Execs see protectionism as rising threat: EIU study. Yet. The capitalist classes are aware that this could lead to a depressing effect on world economic growth . Europe and other parts of the world.a relatively modest backlash against globalisation could shave nearly a full percentage point off annual world GDP growth during the period 2011-2020. a global study has found. The Doha trade talks of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) have stalled.' Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . According to a new study by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) - part of the Economist Group which publishes The Economist . World trade has been one of the principal engines of global economic growth over recent decades. the demand for protectionism to safeguard jobs could find a bigger echo in the workers' movement. lower employment and more poverty. 'Protectionism leads to less trade. the UK government's international business development agency. was commissioned by UK Trade & Investment. Developed markets seem increasingly willing to stop foreign takeovers of key firms. writer for the socialist weekly) THE BIG danger associated with imposing protectionist measures for any capitalist class.again as happened in the 1930s.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 56 PROTECTIONISM BAD Protectionism causes retaliatory measures The Socialist 2006 (“World Economy: Trade Wars and Protectionism” Ken Smith. the capitalists generally prefer to avoid greater protectionism in the global economy. as well as a slow down in world economic growth.as happened in the 1930s. Whilst there are tensions between different sections of the capitalist classes about how far to advance globalisation and free trade. The survey. therefore. Backlash can cut world GDP growth by one percentage point” November 24. which also outlines some of the strategies that companies are using to deal with the problems caused by protectionism.for their own indigenous industries.' said Ian McCartney. Workers cannot safeguard their future through adopting the type of protectionist measures advocated from time to time by certain sections of the capitalist class.business executives around the world believe that protectionism is on the rise in both developed and emerging markets.

These lobbying activities. directly aimed at the source of the problem. Economists now argue. other countries will retaliate. China. an inefficient way of correcting for the market failure. and India will wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock. Harpers Magazine) We cannot simply outpace the competition – nor can we simply keep them out. This is the gut instinct of the least enlightened members of the American labor movement. that protection would be an inappropriate way to correct for most market failures. if wages do not adjust quickly enough when demand for an industry's product falls. The most vocal critics of the Bush Administration’s trade policies are frankly protectionist: don’t sign the free-trade agreement with Mexico. “Protectionism. autoworkers losing out to foreign competition. Because the United States is the world’s leading exporter.S. should be in the labor market. We must also worry about war. One clear cost of protection is that the country imposing it forces its consumers to forgo cheap imports. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . Economists did fall into this trap until the fifties. Protection would be. Closing our doors to goods from Russia. Mead 1992 (Walter. For example. Many economists also believe that even if protection were appropriate in theory. it would be "captured" in practice by special interests who would misuse it to pursue their own interests instead of letting it be used for the national interest. if any. They are unproductive because they produce profit or income for those who lobby without creating valuable output for the rest of society. and it underlies the rhetoric of America Founders on the right. at best. Senior Fellow @ WP institute. But another important cost of protection may well be the lobbying costs incurred by those seeking protection. now extensively studied by economists. build a wall along the Rio Grande instead. instead. the appropriate government intervention. US jobs and economic prospects depend on the continued willingness of other countries to receive our exports. are variously described as rent-seeking or directly unproductive profit-seeking activities. as was the case with U. But the protectionist option is an illusion. Protectionism collapses the world economy and causes chaotic wars and proliferation.”) One may well think that any market failure could be a reason for protection.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 57 PROTECTIONISM BAD Protectionism is an ineffective way to correct recessions Bhagwati 1988 (Jagdish Bhagwati is the Arthur Lehman Professor of Economics and a professor of political science at Columbia University. We can be certain that if we slam our doors shut. Keep foreign goods out and bring back the fifties.

By diffusing economic decisionmaking as broadly as possible.S. a libertarian public policy think tank.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 58 PROTECTIONISM BAD Protectionism is unjust Daniel Griswold 2006 (Free Trade Promotes Human Rights. As [economist] Frederic Bastiat wrote in his 1849 essay. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . usually a broad cross section of consumers. whether the person I'm trading with lives across town or across the ocean. There is no compelling moral reason why a small group of politicians should decide. free trade reduces the power of people in high places—always fallible and subject to temptation and abuse of power—to inflict damage on society. Foreign Policy Undermines Trade. Free trade meets the most elementary test of justice. and gives the spoils to a small group of producers whose only claim to the money is that they would be worse off under open competition. on the sole basis of where things are produced. what goods and services an individual can buy with his earnings. It is a violation of my right to property for the government to forbid me to exchange what I produce for something produced by a fellow human being. To deprive him of this option when he has committed no act contrary to public order and good morals. is to legitimize an act of plunder and to violate the law of justice. Protectionism is a form of stealing. Two: Free Trade Restrains the Power of the State Free trade is morally superior to protectionism because it places trust in what [economic philosopher] Adam Smith called "the natural system of liberty" rather than in a man-centered system of centralized industrial policy. Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. Daniel T. He is coeditor of Economic Casualties: How U. a violation of the Eighth Commandment and other prohibitions against theft. It takes from one group of people. Growth. giving to each person sovereign control over that which is his own. And by doing so it allows citizens to fulfill their creative and productive potential. and solely to satisfy the convenience of another citizen. "Protectionism and Communism": Every citizen who has produced or acquired a product should have the option of applying it immediately to his own use or of transferring it to whoever on the face of the earth agrees to give him in exchange the object of his desires. and Liberty (1999) and the author of numerous editorials and scholarly papers on issues pertaining to trade and immigration) One: Free Trade Respects Individual Dignity and Sovereignty A man or woman engaged in honest work has a basic right to enjoy the fruits of his or her labor.

social and economic development. protectionist practices and non-tariff barriers. remained urgent. quotas and unilateral measures that were intended to safeguard markets and limit free trade. In order to ensure that development was sustainable and contributed to human. the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) was told this morning. in the guise of environmental. said the representative of Brazil. Press Release) Trade protectionism disguised as environmental and labour laws should be eliminated by industrialized countries.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 59 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONISM BAD Environmental protectionism violates the WTO GA 1998 (TRADE PROTECTIONISM DISGUISED AS ENVIRONMENTAL AND LABOUR LAW SHOULD BE ELIMINATED. technical and labour standards. However. said the representative of Bangladesh. the representative of Indonesia. The elimination of trade-distorting policies. Products of least developed countries very often faced problems of access in the industrial markets due to those policies. Access to markets and the reductions of subsidies must have priority for future deliberations and decisions of the WTO. the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Bretton Woods institutions remained an imperative in that regard. as it considered macroeconomic policy questions. making them much more vulnerable to certain external factors that were beyond their control. on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China. Preferential access on its own was unlikely to achieve the effective integration of least developed countries into the world trading system. export expansion should not come at the expense of social and environmental protection. There was an excessive array of trade tariffs. Many countries invoked environmental protection and labour rights as a pretext to control and limit trade. globalization also exposed developing countries to new and enormous risks. Close cooperation among the United Nations. Speaking on the topic of globalization. SECOND COMMITTEE TOLD. said the representative of the European Union. on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR). Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . said the phenomenon had triggered a range of opportunities for development and advanced economies had already reaped significant benefits.

Two nations who differ with each other become reciprocally dependent. but by endorsing trade protection. and credit markets. "The policy implication of our finding is that further international cooperation in reducing barriers to both trade and capital flows can promote a more peaceful world. war. Also important. Why? It's bad for the bottom line to shoot your customers or your suppliers. economic freedom gives ordinary people a large stake in peace. for if one has an interest in buying. Professors Polachek and Seiglie conclude that. the lower is the likelihood of war between America and those countries with which it has investment relationships. and other disruptions of the everyday commercial relationships that support prosperity.a retreat from open trade . they actually work against the long-run prospects for peace that they so fervently desire. Polachek and Seiglie find that openness to trade is much more effective at encouraging peace than is democracy per se." Likewise for foreign investment. This prosperity is threatened during wartime. the freedom of ordinary people to trade internationally." If Mr. Want world peace? Support free trade) These activities employ workers here at home and raise their wages. but is broader than. and peace.are 14 times more likely to be involved in military conflicts than are countries whose people enjoy significant economic freedom (that is. openness to foreign commerce. And that's just what the data show. or even to tolerate. Mountains of empirical evidence show that protectionism is economically destructive. countries with scores of 8 or higher). Similarly. That's why the observation that any two democracies are quite unlikely to go to war against each other might reflect the consequences of capitalism more than democracy. and other features broadly consistent with capitalism. He then examines military conflicts from 1816 through 2000. or the more that Americans invest abroad. and other factors that encourage the allocation of resources by markets rather than by government officials. product. Democratic institutions are heavily concentrated in countries that also have strong protections for private property rights. harm to these foreigners. the peace-promoting effects of economic freedom intensify. Gartzke discovered that. he and co-author Carlos Seiglie of Rutgers University review the massive amount of research on trade. War almost always gives government more control over resources and imposes the burdens of higher taxes. Plenty of empirical evidence confirms the wisdom of Montesquieu's insight: Trade does indeed promote peace. The facts also show that protectionism is inconsistent with a desire for peace . In his most recent paper on the topic. the other has an interest in selling.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 60 FREE TRADE GOOD Free trade solves war – credible studies prove Boudreaux 2006 (November 20. "When measures of both economic freedom and democracy are included in a statistical study. His findings are powerful: Countries that rank lowest on an economic-freedom index . Boudreaux is chairman of the economics department at George Mason University. and thus their union is founded on their mutual necessities. By promoting prosperity. The greater the amounts that foreigners invest in the United States. an economist at the State University of New York at Binghamton. economic freedom is about 50 times more effective than democracy in diminishing violent conflict. the easy ability of entrepreneurs to start new businesses. the lightness of regulations on labor. Professor Gartzke ranks countries on an economic-freedom index from 1 to 10." Columbia University political scientist Erik Gartzke reaches a similar but more general conclusion: Peace is fostered by economic freedom. Baron de Montesquieu observed that "Peace is the natural effect of trade. has researched the relationship between trade and peace. ready access to sound money. Montesquieu is correct that trade promotes peace.a desire admirably expressed by many Democrats during the recent campaigns. Donald J. so the more you trade with foreigners the less likely you are to seek. Senators-elect Sherrod Brown (D) of Ohio and Jim Webb (D) of Virginia probably don't realize it. When commerce reaches across political borders." These findings make sense. During the past 30 years. These scholars argue that the so-called democratic peace is really the capitalist peace. Back in 1748. with 1 being very unfree and 10 being very free. then protectionism .with scores of 2 or less . the findings of Polachek and Gartzke improve our understanding of the long-recognized reluctance of democratic nations to wage war against one another.raises the chances of war. It includes also low and transparent rates of taxation. higher inflation. Economic freedom certainly includes. Solomon Polachek. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . They find that "the overwhelming evidence indicates that trade reduces conflict.

During the 1930s the industrialized nations waged trade wars against each other. choking off global trade and deepening and prolonging the global economic depression. Richard Cobden called free trade "that advance which is calculated to knit nations more together in the bonds of peace by means of commercial intercourse. He is coeditor of Economic Casualties: How U. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . In fact. As nations become more integrated through expanding markets. the threat of major international wars has receded. Growth. the twin trends of globalization and democratization have produced their own "peace dividend": since 1987 real spending on armaments throughout the world has dropped by more than one- third." Free trade does not guarantee peace. America's postwar policy of encouraging free trade through multilateral trade agreements was aimed at promoting peace as much as prosperity.S. a libertarian public policy think tank. In recent years. but it does strengthen peace by raising the cost of war to governments and citizens. They raised tariffs and imposed quotas in order to protect domestic industry. however. they have more to lose should trade be disrupted. Daniel T. Since the end of the Cold War. was that other nations raised their barriers even further. virtually every armed conflict in the world is not between nations but within nations. Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. today. Foreign Policy Undermines Trade.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 61 FREE TRADE GOOD Free trade ensures peace Daniel Griswold 2006 (Free Trade Promotes Human Rights. Those dark economic times contributed to the conflict that became World War II. The result. and Liberty (1999) and the author of numerous editorials and scholarly papers on issues pertaining to trade and immigration) Six: Free Trade Fosters Peace In an 1845 speech in the British House of Commons.

while the poor are left to suffer the consequences of U.S. by James Gwartney and Robert Lawson. Free trade limits the power of the state and enhances the freedom. inland locations. policies that were enacted in the name of helping the very people they victimize. It promotes virtuous and responsible personal behavior. It promotes peace among nations.S. By dispersing economic power more widely. opportunity. Revoking China's normal trade status. Political rulers have the power to protect their pampered lifestyles. When all of the arguments are weighed. Poor people themselves understand that a free economy serves their interests. have been the least open to trade and foreign investment. it should become clear that a policy of free trade is moral as well as efficient. It helps the poor to feed and care for themselves and creates a better future for their children. The most recent Economic Freedom of the World study. free trade and free markets undercut the ability of elites in less-developed countries to pillage a nation's resources at the expense of its poor. on less than $1 per day—has fallen since 1978 by 200 million. a libertarian public policy think tank. the World Bank estimates that the number of Chinese citizens living in absolute poverty—that is. For which of these virtues should we reject free trade? Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . Growth. and Liberty (1999) and the author of numerous editorials and scholarly papers on issues pertaining to trade and immigration) Seven: Free Trade Feeds and Clothes the Poor Free trade and free markets empower poor people by giving them greater opportunity to create wealth and support their families.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 62 FREE TRADE GOOD Free trade solves poverty and empowers people Daniel Griswold 2006 (Free Trade Promotes Human Rights. Foreign Policy Undermines Trade. It opens the door for ideas and evangelism.S. And that trade-related growth lifts the lot of the poor. sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. In contrast. Nations open to trade tend to be more prosperous. By the millions. You can be sure that the communist leaders in Cuba and the ruling junta in Burma will continue to enjoy their fine. catered meals and chauffeur-driven cars while the millions of poor people they oppress are made even more miserable by U. It brings people together in "communities of work" that cross borders and cultures. For all those reasons. even if many of their self-appointed intellectual advocates in the West do not. trade sanctions fall heaviest on the poor of the target nation. and independence of the people they try to control. they seek to leave closed and centrally controlled economies for those that are more open and less controlled. and self-responsibility of the individual. would set back one of the most successful anti-poverty programs in the history of mankind. those regions of the world where poverty has been the most intractable. Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. It undermines the authority of dictators by expanding the freedom. found that the nations that were most open economically from 1980 through 1998 grew nearly five times faster than those that were most closed. autonomy. trade and investment sanctions. among all its other negative consequences. just as cities along coastlines and navigable rivers tend to be wealthier than those in more remote. He is coeditor of Economic Casualties: How U. Proof can be found in the immigration patterns of poor people throughout the world. To cite the most dramatic example of this. Daniel T.

but in good time. Free trade may deliver the goods and boost efficiency. the sovereignty of the individual. A government that relies on international trade is much less likely to engage in war and gross human rights violations as they could disrupt trade and thereby threaten the national economy." Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . trade threatens such regimes by creating an empowered and financially successful class of citizens who are in a much better position to challenge a tyrannical government than a nation of impoverished serfs would be.] Bush joined the moral debate. In truth. Foreign Policy Undermines Trade. industry? Does it create or destroy jobs? But behind the statistics and anecdotes lie moral assumptions about human nature. called the doctrine of free trade "a secularist faith . President [George W. and the role of government in a free society. and not always smoothly. telling his audience: "Open trade is not just an economic opportunity. and Liberty (1999) and the author of numerous editorials and scholarly papers on issues pertaining to trade and immigration) The United States trades freely with some nations that have dismal records on human rights issues. compares American trade with China with appeasement of the Soviet Union.U. When we negotiate for open markets. it is a moral imperative.S. U. not always immediately.. In a speech in May before the Council of the Americas. Reform Party presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. And when we promote open trade. Trade creates jobs for the unemployed. former head of the Family Research Council and another failed aspirant to the White House. Some religious conservatives portray free trade as a tool of the devil. anti-capitalist protesters answered with a loud no.. trade policy is almost always debated in terms of economic utility: Does free trade raise or lower incomes? Does it help or hurt U. condemning free trade as a tool of the rich that exploits the poor and undermines democracy. we are promoting political freedom. Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute." Gary Bauer. but is it morally superior to protectionism? At the Summit of the Americas meeting in Quebec in April [2001]. Liberals and religious conservatives object to this practice because they say it provides encouragement and support to regimes that violate human rights. but because it is morally good. a libertarian public policy think tank. Growth.S. He is coeditor of Economic Casualties: How U. The United States should continue to trade with tyrannical regimes not because it is efficient or morally acceptable. in his 1998 book The Great Betrayal. Daniel T.S. Free trade is one of the most effective ways to empower the oppressed and threaten their oppressors. Societies that open to commerce across their borders will open to democracy within their borders.S. born of rebellion against church and crown. we are providing new hope for the world's poor.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 63 FREE TRADE GOOD Free trade solves poverty and corrupt regimes Daniel Griswold 2006 (Free Trade Promotes Human Rights.

which was moving from primarily an agricultural economy to an industrial state. In the first half of the 19th-century Britain.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 64 UNIQUNESS: PROTECTIONISM NOW Protectionism now Robert Barro 2004 (Journal of Policy Modeling. which often leads to some kinds of protectionism and subsidy. but there’s some gesture about trying to maintain the potential for re-instituting these tariffs if it turns out that they don’t like what’s going on with." Land owners feared that if these laws were repealed and imports freely allowed. eliminate them. The only real difference that I could see is that the managers were polite and the union people tended to use a lot of colorful obscenities. Instead it seems that each policy is driven by the interest of a particular group. the Conservative Sir Robert Peel. had long opposed repeal of the Corn Laws. Protectionist pressures are growing particularly in the U. particularly by the WTO to do the right thing on the steel tariffs and to apparently. But workers in the factories and mines of industrial Britain suffered greatly as inflation and shortages pushed up prices. I don’t see an overarching commitment to free trade in this administration. we have to applaud the fact that they did agree to eliminate them. In Ireland in the 1840s. Of course. The world sadly does not learn from history. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . protected its agriculture from cheap imports from North America through "The Corn Laws. His decision split his own party.S. the luckier ones managed to escape to North America. Subsequent to that were the infamous steel tariffs. he relented and forced the repeal through Parliament. but all from the steel sector. the administration has been forced. which relates more to this session. “Protectionism won’t solve crisis”) A renewed attempt should be made to revive the Doha round of trade negotiations although this may already be too late. Early on in the administration this showed up in agricultural subsidies and protection of timber imports from Canada. May 14. reluctantly. quote un-quote. So. dumping. Many died. is about protectionism. I think this was driven by a doubtful political calculus. The British prime minister at the time. I wrote a column in Business Week criticizing protectionism in the form of the steel tariffs. Protectionism on the rise Japan Times 2008 (Hugh Cortazzi. Interestingly. “Current Protectionism and the Benefits of Free Trade” Department of Economics @ Harvard University) The other part that I see as a problem. their income would be greatly reduced. I got quite a bit of harsh criticism. potato crops failed and Ireland faced famine. protecting an industry which has been protected for at least 30 years. but in the face of the threat of social unrest and hunger. the criticism was equally enthusiastic from managers and labor union people in the steel union industry. and the this year’s election politics.

NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 65

UNIQUNESS: PROTECTIONISM NOW

We’re on the brink – with the US in midst of a recession, there is a growing tendency to
become protectionist
Xinhua 2008 (January 25, Gordon Brown warns against protectionism)

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned on Friday against protectionism, which tend to
find its place in part of Europe and other countries amid an uncertain global economy.
"We have to be less protectionist," Brown told a panel discussion at the World Economic
Forum, which kicked off here on Wednesday. The annual gathering of world political and
business leader was clouded this year by increasing concern about the prospect of an
economic slowdown of the global economy as economists feared the U. S. economy, troubled
by the financial turmoil, is heading for recession. In face of worldwide difficulties, there is a
danger of resorting to protectionism among some countries. "I think there is a danger. I see it in
parts of Europe where people resort to protectionism," Brown said, without identifying the
countries he was referring to. Britain, a traditional supporter of free trade within the European
Union (EU), has been in spat with France over French President Nicolas Sarkozy's call for
flexibility from Europe in sticking to free market principles. "We must be champions of free
trade," Brown said.

Northwestern University Debate Society
National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 66

UNIQUENESS—SUBSIDIES LOW

Subsidies for alternative energy are on the decline
The International Herald Tribune 2008 (June 2, Matt Daily, “Alternative Energy on Edge in
the US”)

Anxiety is setting in among companies specializing in solar and wind power, and the investors
that are backing them, as U.S. lawmakers delay the extension of tax credits deemed critical for
the burgeoning renewable energy industry. After several failed attempts by Congress to
prolong alternative energy subsidies that are set to expire at the end of this year,
companies are bracing for the worst by cutting jobs and trying to increase their sales in
Europe, where generous government incentives are more certain. ''It certainly is affecting
business,'' said Mike Splinter, chief executive of Applied Materials, a maker of solar
equipment. ''It's a major issue for the solar industry,'' Splinter said. ''We've seen hundreds of
cities and many states start to adopt their own rules, and we can't pass even the simplest,
smallest of incentives.'' The alternative energy industry still relies heavily on subsidies to make
prices of renewable power competitive with electricity generated from coal and natural gas.
Several attempts to extend the tax credits have failed in recent months as lawmakers argue
over how to pay for them. In February, the House of Representatives approved an extension
by taking away billions of dollars in tax credits from big oil companies, but the measure was
opposed by the Senate. The latest bill includes about $20 billion of incentives that extend for
one year the federal tax credit for companies that produce electricity from wind, and extend it
for three years for power generated from biomass, geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas and
solid waste. Businesses and homeowners would also be able to offset 30 percent of the cost of
solar or fuel-cell equipment purchased before 2014 with a one-time tax credit. The measure
passed in the House last month, but the White House threatened to veto it. Democrats have
said election-year pressures and soaring gasoline prices will eventually lead to an extension of
the subsidies. But that confidence is not shared by the industry. Akeena Solar, a maker of
solar power systems, recently cut 8 percent of its work force and warned of weaker demand
this year, in part because of a pullback in large-scale projects that would not be completed by
the end of the year.

Energy subsidies have been on a sharp decline
Olivier Appert 2002 (Director, Office for Long-Term Co-operation and Policy Analysis
International Energy Agency. Reforming Energy Subsidies)

The overall size of energy subsidies has fallen sharply since the 1980s, mainly
due to economic reform in the former communist bloc. Subsidies dropped by more
than half in the five years to 1996 according to the World Bank (see Figure 2). A 1999 IEA
study, which examined eight of the largest non-OECD countries covering almost 60 per
cent of total non-OECD energy demand, put the total value of energy subsidies in those
countries at around $95 billion in 1998. End-use prices were found to be about one-fifth
below market levels in those countries.

Northwestern University Debate Society
National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 SENIORS
[FILE NAME] 67

ENERGY SUBSIDIES BAD

Energy subsidies turn case – they hurt the poor and doesn’t help the people it attempts to
– multiple barriers.
Olivier Appert 2002 (Director, Office for Long-Term Co-operation and Policy Analysis
International Energy Agency. Reforming Energy Subsidies)

In reality, however, these subsidies often benefit mainly the energy companies, equipment
suppliers and the better-off households, especially in the towns and cities, and, in some cases,
may not even reach the poor at all. As a result, many energy-subsidy programmes intended to
boost poor households’ purchasing power or rural communities’ access to modern energy
through lower prices can, paradoxically, leave the poor worse off, since the costs are shared by
the entire population including the poor. There are three main reasons for this: The poorest
households may be unable to afford even subsidized energy or may have no physical access to
it, for example when a rural community is not connected to the electricity grid. Even if the poor are
able to benefit from an energy subsidy, the financial value to them may be small since their
consumption is generally modest. Higher income households tend to benefit much more in
nominal terms since they consume more of the subsidized fuel. Consumption subsidies that
involve the imposition of caps on prices below market levels may lead to a need for rationing (see
Box 1). Middle and higher income households tend to get hold of the bulk of subsidized energy in
countries where it is rationed, through petty corruption and favouritism. Price caps, where they
have led to big differences in prices with neighbouring countries, have also encouraged
smuggling in some parts of Africa and Asia. Subsidies can hurt the interests of poor people in
other ways too. In practice, energy subsidies often go to large capital-intensive projects, such as
hydroelectric dams, at the expense of local, small-scale labour-intensive alternatives, such as
biomass burners. The construction of dams usually involves displacing communities, although the
improved availability of electric power and water for irrigation can bring important social benefits
as well. Subsidies to large-scale thermal power plants, oil refineries and gas-processing plants
affect poor households close to those facilities most, since they are usually less able to move to
avoid local pollution and safety risks.

Northwestern University Debate Society
National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 68 *AFF ANSWERS* Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 .

although coal-related technologies still receive the largest share.4 billion in fiscal 2007. says EIA. a finding that played into the hands of a Tennessee senator who requested the report. who said it indicates that too many subsidies are being handed out. which includes emerging wave and tidal Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . mostly because of the expiration of the alternative fuels production tax credit.Inside Energy with Federal Lands [Jason.Subsidies have doubled and are on the rise Fordney 4/14/08 . particularly to the high-growth wind energy industry.6 billion in federal subsidies in 2007." The increasing subsidies for renewables coincided with a decline in subsidies for natural gas and petroleum-related concerns.” Lexis] Energy industries received $16." The increasing subsidies for renewable energy coincided with a decline in support for natural gas and petroleum-related concerns. Other coal-related subsidies have declined by 1% since 1999.4 billion in fiscal year 2007. with $16. would have reduced from 2 cents/kWh to 1 cent/kWh the tax credit. titled "Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007. Within these subsidies. Out of the overall $16."Subsidies for renewable energy sources increased from 17% of total subsidies in 1999 to 29% last year. [ ] Overall energy subsidies are high and rising Global Power Report 4/17/08 [“Federal incentives for energy sector have doubled to more than $16 bil. according to the report. noting that the "changes in the distribution of subsidies by fuel type between 1999 and 2007 reflect a redirection of priorities. mostly because of recent legislation like the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.6 billion in subsidies going out in fiscal 2007 in a trend that has marked steady increases in subsidies for renewable energy concerns. which include tax relief. although it would have extended the duration of the credit for all "emerging technologies" from one year to two. EIA said. says the study. the report says. the Energy Information Administration said in a report released last week. according to the report. The report said such subsidies are likely to increase. small irrigation power. Alexander ? unlike many legislators a staunch foe of wind development ? introduced an amendment to the federal housing stimulus package last week that would have halved the production tax credit for wind energy and bring the incentive to the same level as other fuel types such as biomass. the federal government reduced the tax liability of energy companies by $10. twice as much as they received eight years earlier. $6. The increase is spread widely across energy sectors. and support of electricity concerns. while subsidies for natural gas and petroleum declined. the federal government reduced the tax liability of energy companies by $10. "Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007. Broken down by fuel type. more than triple the level of tax breaks handed out in 1999. The tax credit was applied to "unconventional" gas projects in 1999. EIA said in the report. including subsidies and tax breaks. and wind and tidal facilities.” Lexis] Annual federal incentives for the energy sector have doubled in the last decade. more than triple the level of tax breaks handed out in 1999. Federal subsidies range from direct expenditures to tax relief.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 69 SUBSIDIES NON-UNIQUE [ ] Non-unique .6 billion devoted to energy concerns total. Hydroelectric power. direct expenditures and research funding. with many intended for renewables. EIA said. research and development funding. and refined coal technologies were the prime recipient last year. in 2007 wind received $734 million in subsidies and tax breaks out of the approximate $1 billion set aside for renewables. “Federal subsidies for energy double. which was rejected. totaled $8. The increase is largely attributable to wind and other forms of renewable energy. Republican of Tennessee. a new federal report says. EIA said. EIA said. The subsidies.2 billion in 1999. His amendment. In addition to these subsidies. the report says.7 billion was devoted to electricity production.

and refined coal technologies were the prime recipient last year.CEO and president of the International Institute for Sustainable Development [The Globe and Mail. mostly due to the expiration of the alternative fuels production tax credit. biomass $36 million. everyone wants in on this act. the price at the pump Many of these subsidies are being of a gallon of gasoline in the U. In mid-February.5- billion and $7.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 70 power.) a year. The tax credit was applied to "unconventional" natural gas projects in 1999. The report estimates there are more than 200 individual subsidies for biofuels in the United States. This is compared to study results for "refined coal" technology.and output is increasing at double-digit rates of growth. but "changes in the distribution of subsidies by fuel type between 1999 and 2007 reflect a redirection of priorities. the report says. Lexis] the International Institute for Sustainable Development's Global A recent report by Subsidies Initiative estimates that subsidies to biofuels are between $5. which received the largest subsidy in fiscal 2007 at $2. EIA said. while subsidies for natural gas and petroleum declined. The IISD report estimates that the subsidy content of a gallon of E-85 .3 billion and natural gas $227 million. the report says. Midwest was $2. And these are not just federal subsidies. $14 million for solar and landfill gas $8 million.2 billion and standard coal $854 million.the almost pure blend of ethanol that "flex fuel" cars are designed to run on . Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . SUBSIDIES NON-UNIQUE Subsidies are already high – policymakers are pilling them on Runnalls 07 . piled on top of one another without policy-makers having a clear idea of their potential impact on the environment and the economy. The increase in energy subsidies is spread widely across all sectors of the energy industry. Those figures are expected to grow significantly if current policies remain in place. The nuclear industry received $1.S. Other coal-related subsidies have declined by 1% since 1999.at roughly $1.3-billion (U.S.26. because the bulk of biofuel subsidies are tied to output ." Subsidies for renewable energy sources increased from 17% of total subsidies in 1999 to 29% last year. received $174 million.

mostly due to the expiration of the alternative fuels production tax credit.” Lexis] Where renewables are concerned. Which leaves out not just Amyris but others working on better green fuels. Thanks to years of lobbying by ethanol and biodiesel producers. such as nuclear. said the report commissioned by Senator Lamar Alexander. "Policies should not discourage new There technologies. Memo to Feds: Make subsidies available to the whole field of biofuel innovation. which has a new plant making renewable diesel--not classed as biodiesel--from animal fat." says Louis Burke. are legitimate arguments about whether subsidies are needed at all." says Henrik Erametsa. while startup LS9 Inc. report finds. there has been a steady increase since FY- 99 in subsidies. State and federal rules create hurdles for both approaches.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 71 SUBSIDIES NON-UNIQUE [ ] Big subsidies are already in place and are inevitable Business Week 07 [“ETHANOL IS NOT THE ONLY GREEN IN TOWN.R. Subsidies for renewable energy sources increased from 17% of total subsidies in FY-99 to 29% in FY-07 while subsidies for natural gas and petroleum declined. An aide to Alexander on Wednesday said the senator plans to use the EIA report to support an amendment he has introduced that would cut the incentive rate for wind energy in a new House bill (H. 3221). Alexander has maintained that wind developments get too large a share of federal subsidies compared to other energy sources. A number of states mandate that ethanol or biodiesel be blended with oil-based fuels. The laws also narrowly define biodiesel in terms of a specific process. president of the U. incentives are almost inevitable.C.S. Republican-Tennessee. a relative of ethanol. shutting out innovations and improvements. manager of alternative energy and programs at ConocoPhillips. mimics an ingredient in gasoline. So the subsidies need to be smarter.R. those two fuels get the big breaks.E. [ ] Subsidies are increasing F. energy production has hardly changed. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . DuPont and BP PLC have a joint venture to make bio-butanol. "We need a level playing field for all the processes. subsidiary of Finland's Neste Oil. 4/14/08 [“Despite big hike in federal subsidies. but with the White House and Congress rushing to promote alternatives to fossil fuels. and Congress has locked in tax subsidies of 51 cents per gallon of ethanol and $1 per gallon of biodiesel.” Lexis] But not with the current mix of energy subsidies. said the report.

Further escalation of such relationships will likely damage current trade flows exponentially as a trade war potential looms. It is playing a role in domestic politics in China as well. is in the fact that it seems the situation may be spiraling out of the hands of both countries as policy makers gear up for political counterpunches. even leading up to the strategic economic dialogue that took place last month." The statements don’t come as a surprise as rhetoric has been less than encouraging from both sides in recent months. and that is Chinese officials may ultimately have to revalue in order to shift the focus.dailyfx.” June 6. or come up with further concessions to appease US politicians. “Treasury Secretary Paulson Hints At Growing Protectionism.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 72 PROTECTIONISM NON-UNIQUE [ ] Protectionism is growing in the US.Currency Analyst [Richard. http://www.protectionism isn’t’ a growing force only in the United States. One thing is for certain.com/story/dailyfx_reports/top_fx_market_movers/Treasury_Secretary_Paulson_H ints_At_1181165164777. According to Paulson ‘we who believe in open economies are swimming against a strong protectionist tide these days….Paulson agrees Lee 07 . The significance of this. however. US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson suggested that protectionism is growing in both nations of the US and China. notably current legislation on currency intervention by the US. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 .html] In a speech to the Heritage Foundation in Washington today.

the oil trade is linked to the trade in other goods. Great Britain. "Free trade has done to the us what Hitler and imperial Japan could not do during the war. and oil across the seas. Indonesia.globalexchange.Yet about 60 percent of international trade today is of the intra industry variety-another 30% in raw materials. and Taiwan-only Germany has pursued free trade through much of its history. as well as the regression in America's standard of living.” http://www. Mayalasia. production costs would also decline thanks to declining energy prices. Not only would the environment benefit.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 73 AT: – PROTECTIONISM [ ] Free Trade destroys global resources. oil spills from tankers and platforms.. Korea. Indeed. Global energy prices would fall generating massive growth around the world. "Competitive protectionism is a proven idea with a lot of success. Free trade is historically a relatively new idea with a lot of failure. In the process two million tons slip into the marine environment from routine tanker operations like tanks cleaning. "Of the countries US.org/campaigns/ftaa/883. and creates higher energy prices.. The goal is to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. Taiwan. Australia and to some extent Canada who adopted freer trade have suffered a drop in real earnings in spite of rising productivity-. emitting millions of tons of nitrogen oxides.. Germany. Turning a blind eye on the upcoming Kyoto Protocol and continuing unilateral compromises in the Doha Free Trade agreement.. if foreign investment is reciprocal and anti-dumping is enforced. Korea. materials. won't admit that the true culprit to environment degradation.* (Batra)." Batra said. while risking higher global rates of economic contagion (Asian Contagion. The Myth of Free Trade..what Batra calls agrification syndrome. India. France. collapses the global economy... in his book. global oil demand would plummet. Trade in energy intensity industries reaches far above that of GNP of America and most nations. creates pollution and damages the environment Robinson 03 – Global Exchange [Lindsey. in spite of their rising productivity. Mexico. In contrast. "If intra industry trade were eliminated and countries manufactured and produced from their own raw materials.. Canada. Batra claims together they represent 90 percent of global commerce.The cost of transporting trade worldwide equals most countries GNPs. Being green doesn't sell as pollution taxes on domestic trans nationals would further put them at a disadvantage in global markets and governments don't want to inhibit world trade." said Batra. yet have no rational economic justification behind them. corporate profits and growth. Wasteful investment from intra industry trade and raw materials trade are crippling world economies in many ways. Japan. Russia and Argentina debt default). and keep American foreign manufacturing connected Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . growing national debt.) air freight fuel consumption almost tripled in just two decades from 1970-1990. Batra contends that every successful country in the postwar period: Japan. international economist. Ravi Batra . excluding Germany have become world leaders in trade thanks to competitive protectionism. “The Myth of Free Trade." said Dr. where Americans continue to loose manufacturing jobs and are suffering declining wages. Since world trade has soared faster than economic activity. Australia. During GATT's history. loss in manufacturing jobs. According to Global Outlook 2000 every year about 3. Hong Kong.(indeed. "By far international trade comes out as the worst villain in the destruction of the environment. and record trade deficits is due to international free trade. Singapore.html] The Bush administration seems unwilling to see the white elephant in its White House living room. There would be no need to transport so many goods. trade is a bigger polluter than industrialization-in spite of fuel efficiency. Bush and Co. free trade increases pollution. and Thailand. and international vulnerability to economic shocks like the OPEC crisis of 1973 or 1979. Destroying the world's resources unnecessarily. US.Few people realize that international trade is the worst polluter among all economist activities. Today's joint ventures and regional trade agreements represent a move towards a fairer protectionist free trade agreement. and continues to rise. Italy.000 million tons of crude oil or petroleum products are shipped around the globe. Americas demise began with our commitment to free trade beginning in 1973." said Batra. All others except for India and Mexico became affluent by adopting competitive protectionism over the first two centuries of development." he said..

Indeed. In fact. and the exporting of foreign investment.e.. "If your wages fall sharply while you're working harder and becoming more efficient. raw materials and consumers. manufacturing. currency exchange. When multinationals make more money off of hedging derivatives (i.. indexing stocks. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . and commodities)." he said. interest rates. the system is faulty.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 74 to foreign markets. technology. cross ownership of subsidiaries or securitizing debt than on products and services. US productivity has been reaped by foreign labor and the multinationals. seriously disrupting and distorting our economy. Everyone is linked by globalization in today's international casino economy. price transfer. Batra argues free trade liberalization has caused real falling wages. swaps. cyber money laundering has become such a potential threat as to cause global stock market and international banking financial crises. declining living standards." said Batra. not productivity that has been the real cause of falling wages in industry. bonds. jobs and capital abroad creating domestic recessions and deflation. "It is free trade. the system is broke.

But public enterprises. explicitly allowed patenting of imported inventions. the US strictly regulated foreign investment in banking. its industrial tariff rate. In the 19th century.3 per cent a year). The US has publicly financed the highest share of research and development in the world. since the 1980s the "Bad Samaritan" rich countries have imposed upon developing countries policies that are almost the exact these countries condemning tariffs. compared with the "bad old days" of protectionism and regulation in the 1960s and the 1970s (see table). Japan and Korea severely restricted foreign investment in manufacturing. didn't the developing countries already try protectionism and miserably fail? That is a common myth. market tools are necessary for economic development Chang 07 . and the US shifted to protectionism after the Anglo-American War of 1812. Finland officially classified all firms with more than 20 per cent foreign ownership as "dangerous enterprises".users of tariffs. Many of them also actively used government subsidies and public enterprises to promote new industries.often against the advice of the then richer countries. was the highest in the world. and remained so until the The US may have invented the theory of infant industry Second World War. including Britain. just as children need to be nurtured before they can compete in high-productivity jobs. most of today's rich countries restricted foreign investment. and logging. and other help while they master advanced technologies and build effective organisations. industries in developing countries should be sheltered from superior foreign producers before they "grow up". However. Hamilton's programme was in many ways a copy of Robert Walpole's enormously successful 1721 industrial development programme. While (exceptionally) practising free trade. but most of today's rich countries deployed tariff protection for extended periods in order to promote their infant industries. where neo-liberal reforms have been implemented most thoroughly. regulation of foreign to the same conclusion. In fact. over time people saw sense in Hamilton's argument. And that's despite the dramatic growth acceleration in the two giants. Growth has failed particularly badly in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. whose portrait adorns the $10 bill. and other policies that help their producers accumulate productive capabilities. permissive intellectual property laws.1 per cent per year.6 per cent a year during 1960-80. When they needed to protect their nascent producers. has one of the largest public enterprise sectors in the world. Public enterprises were also crucial in France. But. In the "bad old days". Norway. Austria. This argument is known as the infant industry argument. regulation of foreign investment. but the practice had existed long before. but the truth of the matter is that these countries have grown significantly more slowly in the "brave new world" of neo-liberal policies. By the 1830s.Alexander Hamilton. The Independent. Singapore. Despite this history. The US refused to protect foreigners' copyrights until 1891.the supposed birthplace of free trade. which had propelled Britain into its economic supremacy. and Taiwan. producing around 30 per cent of the national income. the father of economics. France. which have partially liberalised their economies but refuse to fully embrace neo-liberalism. and permissive intellectual property rights is like them "kicking away the ladder" with which they climbed to the top . shipping. Between the 1930s and the 1980s. In sub-Saharan Africa. per capita income grew at 1. Initially few Americans were convinced by Hamilton's argument. protection. They need to be given protection. and the US. had already advised Americans against artificially developing manufacturing industries. Adam Smith. Germany mass-produced counterfeit "made in England" goods in the 19th century. investment. the Netherlands and Switzerland refused to protect patents until the early 20th century. In the 19th century. What is little known is that it was first theorised by none other than the first finance minister (treasury secretary) of the United States . Japan and many European countries have given numerous subsidies to strategic industries.Professor of economics at the University of Cambridge [Ha-Joon. mining. but since then the region has seen a fall in living standards (by 0. at 40-50 per cent. opposite of what they used in the past. it has been growing at a paltry 0. In the "brave new world". subsidies.” Lexis] However.5 per cent. subsidies. based on high (among world's highest) tariffs and subsidies. Britain . the reader may wonder. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . The first big success story was. per capita income in Latin America grew at an impressive 3. most countries. despite its free- market image. Finland.and most successful . China and India.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 75 AT:– ECONOMY [ ] Protectionism is more than necessary for infant industries like the alternative energy market to grow. “Protectionism: The truth is on a $10 bill. Britain and the US may have been the most ardent . Both the history of rich countries and the recent records of developing countries point Economic development requires tariffs. surprisingly. After all.

NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 76 [ ] Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 .

Those lobbies spend millions of dollars a year to persuade their governments to hold food prices up and food supplies down. and methods of farming. they arbitrarily assert that mankind has crossed some fateful threshold. Prices of agricultural products have been falling for over 100 years.org/testimony/ct-ps720. Catastrophists argue that the bright past does not imply a bright future. But the earth is capable of feeding many more people than are now alive. July 20. The late Roger Revelle of Harvard University (whom Gore claims as a mentor) estimated that Africa. pesticides. http://cato. The average inflation-adjusted price of those products. the decline of the Russian fishing industry during the dissolution of the Soviet Union. annual world food production has outpaced the increase in population. And that assumes no change in technology--a groundless assumption. That good news is due largely to technological advances (the "green revolution") that have provided better seeds. Testimony on The International Population Stabilization and Reproductive Health Act (S. if the price of seafood rises. to be sure.While Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute and the noted butterfly expert Paul Ehrlich predict higher food prices and increasing scarcity. fell by more than 74 percent between 1950 and 1990. indexed to wages.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 77 AT: – FOOD CRISIS [ ] Multiple studies and indicators prove long-term food availability Richman 95 . Imagine what the world would be like today if the fertile farmland of the former Soviet Union or China or India had been in productive private hands operating in free markets for the past several decades. according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the U. or the "tragedy of the commons" associated with the lack of property rights in the oceans and lakes. and Latin America alone. simply by using water more efficiently. 1029). per capita production and per-acre yields are at all-time highs. Since 1948.html] Food is abundant. fertilizers. India has been come a net food exporter and agricultural production in China has boomed. such as the shift in diet from meat to fish. They apparently don't expect help from nature. The most telling indication of the trend in food production is the presence of a farm lobby in every industrial capital. The only obstacles to agricultural progress are the impediments created by governments. Today. Since permitting market incentives in agriculture. food is becoming cheaper and more plentiful. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . Thus. They never consider the myriad other possibilities. could feed 35 to 40 billion people--seven to eight times the current world population. Asia. they announce that the seas are nearing exhaustion.S. Department of Agriculture. Those who annually predict imminent famine (while urging readers to subscribe to next year's publications) seize on any change as evidence that man's alleged strain on the biosphere is finally beginning to show.Senior Editor at the CATO Institute [Sheldon.

Food security is really about politics and power. Kenya has experienced about 15 famines since 1979.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 78 AT: – FOOD CRISIS [ ] Famine is caused by issues of politics and power and is not limited to only production Wyk 01 [Jo-Ansie wan. Per capita food production dropped by 12 per cent between 1980 and 1990. Rwanda. Africa remains the only continent where per capita income. Famine is one of the most severe illustrations of food insecurity. A brief review of past famines and food insecurities in Africa indicates the degree of risk to which states are exposed. Nigeria. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . One of the unfolding emergencies in Africa is the growing imbalance between food and people. famines have occurred in the Democratic Food security entails Republic of the Congo. Ethiopia has experienced about ten major famines in its history. improving a developing nation's access to cheaper food from comparatively advantaged exporting countries. and more than 220 million people in Africa live below the poverty line. They were often the driving force for many international political events. Resources and food have figured persistently throughout history in the relations between states. It is generally more efficient and cheaper for a developing state to import food than to produce it. Eritrea and Sahel. African concern with food security began in ancient times. Since the 1960s. which underlies much of the current trade relations between developed and developing countries. New Zealand International Review] The issue of food security is not just an issue of food alone. FOOD FOR THOUGHT? The politics of food. food production and industrial production have declined since the 1980s. Ethiopia. They were the primary motives for the European colonisation of most of Africa. resources and development in Africa. This form of security also requires that richer countries lower their tariffs on all goods from developing countries so that these developing countries can earn some foreign currency.

We can eliminate intra industry trade altogether without much effect on planetary production.Adjunct Associate Professor of International Economics at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy [Jonathan M. Energy use would plummet..” Encyclopedia of Earth. All things being equal.” http://www. “Trade and the environment..org/campaigns/ftaa/883. May 18] Trade can impact domestic as well as international policy. oceans would be safer from oil and chemical spills. weakening the autonomy of nations to define their own environmental and social policies.globalexchange. “The Myth of Free Trade. in which nations reduce environmental and social standards in order to gain competitive advantage. oil prices would tumble. Faced with the prospect of their industries suffering a competitive disadvantage when compared with companies located in low-standard nations. producers located in nations enforcing strict process standards will suffer a competitive disadvantage compared with producers located in member states enforcing less strict standards. In principal. Global trade can be cut by at least 75%with out much harm to overall output- benefiting the environment tremendously. Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958 . this may result in increased sales. Concerns have arisen of a “race to the bottom”. the atmosphere would be safer. market share and profitability for those producers located in low-standard nations. some nations may choose not to elevate environmental standards or may even relax current standards. [ ] Free trade causes governments to relax environmental standards in order to compete on the market Harris 07.NHSI 2008 SENIORS [FILE NAME] 79 AT: “PROTECTIONISM TURNS CASE” [ ] Protectionism doesn’t turn case – Global trade could collapse and the environment would benefit tremendously Robinson 03 – Global Exchange [Lindsey.html] "Migration of factories to mineral rich areas can trim international trade by as much as 25% without reducing global living standards." said Batra.